Not so. There have been many times when I worked part time, but I put in some 40+ hour weeks because school/college was out, and I wanted to pick up more cash. The number of hours does not dictate the rate of pay deserved. The complexity of the job, the required skill sets, and the level of responsibility is what should determine your pay rate.
While I agree not all jobs are equal, there shouldn't be a single job where the minimum wage (at full time hours) isn't a living wage. If you want to work part-time and the company allows it, then that is fine. But the hourly rate should be living wage (i.e., if $13/hour is living wage if you work full time, then that's what you have to be paid).
Because those jobs do not merit a 'survival' rate.
According to YOU. You cannot employ people, expecting them to work for you, if they will not be able to support themself on the pay.
Lets better define survival rate. To me that means a rate at which a person working a 40 hour week, can support a wife and two kids in a modest apartment, attending public school, and living a frugal but not paycheck to paycheck life.
I'm using a single person for survival rate, since that is what matters most. I'll agree then that those unskilled jobs shouldn't be paying people for that levelof support...people CHOOSE to get married; they CHOOSE to have children. I'm talking about bare minimum for an individual.
Now that amount is going to vary from area to area, but do you really think a person should make the kind of money that takes by doing something like frying hamburgers at McDonald. You may be able to support yourself by frying hamburgers, but thats not a job you should be able to support a family with. Now if you move up the McDolnalds ladder a bit, maybe become Assistant Manager, thats a different story.
See above. I'm saying living wage should be based on a single individual.
There are also lots of people who are free during the day who want to pick up some extra money. When I worked in a grocery store the school aged people worked nights, weekends, and school holidays. The people who wanted to pick up some extra money (to suppliment the living wage their spouse was making) worked during the day - when their kids were in school and their spouses were at work.
When my brother and I were in school, my mother worked as a school aide during the lunch hours. My father worked a 40+ hour a week job, and was paid a living wage, but our family could use more money for luxuries. So my mother worked during the hours her kids were in school. Even if she worked 40 hours a week as a lunch aide, there was not way she could have supported the family on her own, and for the work a lunch aid performed, she was paid accordingly.
Just because people have the time and don't necessarily NEED the money doesn't mean that a company should exploit them by paying them less, though. If it costs $15/hour for a single person to live (at 40 hours a week), then that's what the pay rate should be. $15/hour, even if you are only part time.
Again, see my answer above. There are plenty of people who will work all sorts of hours of the day who are not looking to live on what they take home.
And again, companies shouldn't exploit that, as it adversely affects those who are looking to live on what they take home. The marketplace should NOT be designed for those looking to supplement their income to purchase luxury items. MAYBE if EVERYONE in the country were employed and making a living wage I'd agree. But there are too many people out of work for that to be considered.
To a point you are correct. But there is cost reduction and there is cost reduction. Improvements in process and procedures (which is what I do) can drive increased productivity, especially when coupled with new products and materials. But yes, cutting costs by cutting wages or labor can lead to a downward death spiral.
I wasn't referring to improvements in processes, though. UI was referring to reductions in workforce to reduce payroll to make the bottom line look better....or eliminating processes for the same reason.
Many people can only work part time, or only want to work part time.
That's fine. But that doesn't mean you can exploit those who need to work full time.
Jobs should pay what the job merits. Not all jobs merit a wage that a person working 40 hours a week can support a family on.
As I said above, I'm looking at it for an individual's living wage, since marriage and family ARE choices.
If you set the minimum pay rate for all jobs equal to that amount, you are going to see a vast reduction in the number of part time jobs available.
Well if the only reason people have them is to supplement their income to purchase luxury items then I'm fine with that.
You do realize that the profit margin on items sold in a grocery store, once all costs (including wages) are factored in is on the order of 1 to 2 percent. Grocery stores are one of the most cutthroat and tightly controlled from a cost standpoint industries out there.
I was using that as an example. And I'd disagree. Groceries in metropolitan areas are much more expensive than in rural areas...even when they come form the same source. Whether that's a result of the grocery store or the supplier doesn't matter much when looking at what the consumer ultimately pays.
