Calmdownnow
Well-Known Member
It's not enough for people. They want to be the Greeter that requires no real prior training, can be done by anyone with basic training, and want to live where they want, and support their families.
So should the 20yr kid living with 4 other people make x, while 35yr living in a house with 2 kids, doing the same exact job make 4x more because he has greater expenses? If not, the second guy cries "I'm starving..." while the 20yr old says "I'm saving for an xbox...".
This is why the premise of a 'living wage for all' doesn't fit. Everyone doesn't live the same life. And then you get into deciding what kind of life should they be able to afford? Does that mean I can expect them to take lynx buses, or should they be able to afford a car? What is the acceptable commute time? etc etc etc.
The labor market is self-correcting when we ensure people are mobile and empowered. The employers get to squeeze labor when labor is desperate and locked in.
Maybe "profit sharing" is the answer. Profit sharing works for investors who get their dividends based on profit; profit sharing works for senior executives who get their stock options or bonuses based on profit. Lower level execs get their "raise" based on turnover, but the people at the bottom of the pyramid need a union negotiation, or minimum wage legislation to see any movement in their income. If profit share is good for the top of the pyramid, it should be good for those at the base. And good for the economic health of the company as everyone is incentivised.