2012/03/04: There's an argument you see around sometimes about Henry Ford's decision to pay his workers those famed $5 a day wages. It was that he realised that he should pay his workers sufficiently large sums to that they could afford the products they were making. In this manner he could expand the market for his products.
It should be obvious that this story doesn't work: Boeing would most certainly be in trouble if they had to pay their workers sufficient to afford a new jetliner. It's also obviously true that you want every other employer to be paying their workers sufficient that they can afford your products: but that's very much not the same as claiming that Ford should pay his workers so that they can afford Fords.
So, if creating that blue collar middle class that could afford the cars wasn't why Ford brought in his $5 a day wages, what was the reason?
Actually, it was the turnover of his staff.
The National Low-Income Housing Coalition has released a new report with a startling fact: According to Vox, "There is no state in the union where a full-time, minimum-wage worker can afford to rent a one-bedroom apartment for less than 30 percent of his paycheck (which is a standard measure of housing affordability)." Vox has a
My fellow Patheos blogger Will Duquette has a great essay on his blog about the USCCB's efforts on behalf of raising the minimum wage. In A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats--Or Does It?, Will argues against using the Big Hammer to fix social problems--attempting to fix "the system" rather than helping individuals. I
Sharing economy" companies like Uber shift risk from corporations to workers, weaken labor protections, and drive down wages.
Well this is both embarrassing and deeply telling. In what appears to have been a gesture of goodwill gone haywire, McDonald's recently teamed up with Visa to create a financial planning site for its low-pay ...