Put a little asterisk after that number, a lot of employees who earn tips can be paid even less.
That’s truly inhumane. Even when I was a server - not America - I was paid the same wage as a line cook of similar experience.
They don’t make less just because they’re paid less by their employer. The minimum wage of how much they actually make is the same.
And as a result, servers in the US make a lot more than line cooks of similar experience. That wage gap is a source of frustration for cooks.
And as a result, servers in the US make a lot more than line cooks of similar experience.
That’s heavily variable on where you work. High end restaurants with more expensive menu items and generous tippers pay better than the Sunday Service Waffle House crowd.
And different restaurants tip out differently. More egalitarian venues tend to pool tips, so line cooks get a slice of the tip out at the end of the day.
More egalitarian venues tend to pool tips, so line cooks get a slice of the tip out at the end of the day.
Federal minimum wage law requires that if front of house tips are pooled to be distributed to kitchen staff (who aren’t traditionally tipped), then front of house must first be paid at least minimum wage pre-tip. So that kind of restaurant, while becoming more popular, isn’t exactly the type of restaurant in the discussion when we talk about servers being paid less than minimum wage before tips.
Sure. All staff must be paid a minimum wage under the federal guidelines. The catch is that tipped income goes to meet that wage obligation, which means they have to get paid to the minimum first under law.
But (a) wage theft in the US is rampant, with tipped workers routinely being underpaid or shorted by non-compliant management. And (b) even under the guidelines, min wage is a pittance. You can’t survive on $7.25/hr in a normal 40 hr work week.
So even if employers are compliant (which they’re often not), you’re talking about people trying to live on $14k/year in a country where apartments rents bottom out at the $6-8k/year range in the slums and even the meagerest grocery bills easily run into $4-5k/year range in the wake of inflation. Nevermind utilities, transport, health care, clothing, etc.
Utterly unsustainable.
…IN… AMERICA.
do you people really forget about the other 200 nations?
I mean it’s NPR: an American public radio news outfit.
Why the fuck would they be concerned with the minimum wage in Tanzania?
Strike that, that’s actually precisely something NPR would probably cover lol.
So put it in the post that it’s only for that country? Lol
American exceptionalism at its best!
No
I don’t ask for articles about German politics to specifically say it’s about Germany, usually the German gives that away.
Your inability to pick up on context clues does not entitle you to compensation by everyone else.
New to Lemmy. Mb. Where can I find international politics?
If you’re going to be pedantic, at least be correct. America is an entire continent, with over 30 countries. You’re referring only to the United States of America, a single country.
True dat!
We need to stop looking at minimum wage as a set number across the country, It creates a wage disparity for the working class. A livable wage in Alabama would not be a livable wage in California, a livable wage in California would be an insane wage in a place like Alabama.
The minimum wage needs to be directly tied with median housing costs either at the state level or at the county level. The wage needs to be set where housing would only comprise of a max of 30% of income. So at 30% if the median rent is $2000 per month, the livable wage in that area would be set at about $6700 a month, or about $42 an hour. This would help control housing costs as well as keep wages livable.
Oof. Rent is easily there in my city. And the minimum wage is… Umm… Not.
That’s why the 2 should be connected
I don’t know if tying it to something that’s inflated above core inflation is a good idea. I think the better approach is to reduce the cost of housing.
It should reduce that artificial inflation
I’m not sure how it would do that.
Under pressure from employers. If their labor costs are directly tied to the cost of housing there would be pressure to keep housing costs low. In turn still keeping wages livable
Minimum wage in California is $16. Berkeley it is $18.67
No where near a livable wage
The median required minimum livable wage in California for a single person with no children, according to MIT living wage calculator is $27.32
Even if it does get increased to $18, it’s not livable.
Suppose that happens. What’s stopping the landlords from just raising their rents then? Can the government control housing costs? Is it even possible in a “free” economy?
The government wouldn’t need to control housing. Landlords would be under pressure from other companies to keep housing low so their wage costs remain as low as possible.
Regardless, nobody can live on 7.25
I acknowledge that, but people keep quitting a specific number and specific numbers don’t work across the nation. Because of varied COL. Minimum wage should be tied to a major COL item like housing
