socialpirate

I can see people in North Dakota all smug looking at this map!

bethlehems:

hexproof:

bethlehems:

stfuconservatives:

colorlines:

McMillan may not make gubernatorial material, but let’s hope his 15 minutes of fame will prompt whoever wins to take affordable housing seriously. Here’s a map from ColorLines’ infographic designer-extraordinaire Hatty Lee. Share it, too, when you’re Facebooking McMillan’s awesome debate rants. (via The Rent is Too Damn High! Really, Though, Jimmy’s Got a Point - COLORLINES)

In other words, “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” and “anyone can get a job at McDonald’s” are not viable solutions to our nation’s poverty problem.

A few years ago, a Libertarian tried to explain to me why he joined a Facebook group called “Abolish the Minimum Wage”. He was like, “Businesses will be able to hire more employees and lower their prices.” I said, “Who cares if none of those employees can afford rent?” He tried to give me the “free market trumps all” argument: “well, no one would work for a quarter an hour, the business would have to pay what someone would work for.”

But when you’re poor and desperate, low wages are better than no wages. If every part-time job only paid 25 cents an hour - or two dollars an hour, or four - then everyone who worked part time would have to accept that or not have a job at all.

The minimum wage should be the state’s established living wage. Period.

I absolutely agree that the minimum wage should be the state’s established living wage, because largely, it’s the only way that housing, public or not, might be less fucked up. And, y’all know how I feel about housing (home ownership is good, mixed-income is even better).

BUT, merely stating that the living wage should be the rule doesn’t account for the disruptions that would occur in the small, locally-owned business sphere. Economics is not my thing, but this living wage calculator is pretty sweet. If a local take-out place (I say take-out so that we can eliminate the possibility of a tip wage) does an okay business and keeps neighborhood residents employed (at minimum wage), sweet. Jobs are cool, even minimum wage ones, right? But, there’s the possibility that the living wage might tip the business over the edge, especially if sales aren’t breaking even. Then, the storefront’s empty, somebody’s defaulted on their loan or gone bankrupt, and more than a few people are likely out of jobs.

I bring this up because in many poor, inner-city neighborhoods, there aren’t many big box employers and there is a chance that a small business might not be able to afford to pay a living wage. Working locally is something that should be maximized: It cuts down on commuting costs (especially if you’re living in sprawl and absolutely require a car to get to and from your job), for one, and keeps money in the community. 

I’m all for big box stores paying the living wage (or more!) without any question whatsoever. But, enforcing this on the local, micro level will require a little more attention than simply “pay your employees more.” Economics is not my thing, which is why there are no numbers in this post, but it’s important to remember that not all employers are the same, just as not all employees are the same.

i know this is a little controversial and maybe i’m totally off the mark here but……

i feel like a lot of opposition to big box stores comes down to aesthetics. its similar to how everyone totally hates wal mart and will fight tooth and nail against them but they just looooove target.

i’m not really sentimental about the economics of small business. there’s nothing inherent about local businesses that prevent them from being just as exploitative as a non-local business. if anything, the problem of poverty wages might even be more common among local business. wouldn’t the efficiencies and economies of scale big business seem to be an open up more opportunities for higher wages just because of the greater revenue and profit that could be reclaimed by labor?

why should i prefer mr. local carry out who pays their employees minimum wage instead of mr. faceless multinational corporation who pays their employees slightly above minimum wage with some benefits? other than aesthetics, or the dubious notion that it keeps “money in the community” (what exactly does that mean?) i can’t really think of any good economic reasons.

i don’t mean to dismiss completely these other concerns. the world wouldn’t be a better place if every store was a chain, but i don’t know if it would necessarily mean a worse outcome for retail workers.

Yeah, this is the point I was trying to make—big box retailers can afford to pay living wages more so than small businesses, so if they ARE in a low-income community and are in fact HIRING from that community (and are, in fact, paying a living wage), their presence isn’t so terrible.