John Varanese explains the minimum wage to us

I also don't believe everyone is entitled to own a home.

I hate to derail, but this is shocking to me. Could you please tell me, Andrew, which are the people who are not entitled to own a home?
I'm not saying we just give everyone a house out of good will, but shouldn't everyone be entitled to the opportunity to own a house? Because if not, then I need to check the list, I may have been given a house in error. Maybe it's something the bank checks when you go in for a mortgage?

Also, semi-related, as we throw the term "slacker" around, how exactly do we identify that person? Is there a uniform? Maybe it's a hairstyle or some certain way they walk? How do we distinguish a slacker from someone with a substandard education or maybe just fewer opportunities? Maybe "slacker" is like art and we only know it when we see it? I can personally attest that I have both over and under estimated employees in the hiring process based on slippery judgments like this. So if there is a guide book for how to identity a "slacker" I would appreciate a copy. It would solve at least 60% of my HR problems. Maybe Varanese has it and is holding out on us?


Like Adriel points out above, this issue is so dense and complex that speaking in universal terms (and we circle back to Mr. Varanese's statements) just seems ignorant and superior. There is too much nuance to just cast about in generalities. Maybe Varanese was misquoted, but those statements seem to be full thoughts in and of themselves to me. I am totally open to Varanese having the opportunity to back peddle his way out of them if he likes, but going on what was reported, I think they are poorly made. (I've been misquoted in the press before and it sucks)

Finally, Adriel, the joy (?) of Free Market Capitalism is that you can raise the minimum wage to whatever you want, or even do away with it altogether, the market will adjust. That's what it is supposed to do. You want to pay everyone $20/hr, that's fine, but the price of Milk will adjust accordingly and you'll soon have $9 gallons of milk. Ultimately, it's the consumers that drive the market. If we all stop buying milk because it's too expensive, then you can erect a monument to the dairy business. Same for wages, if you want to pay me $1/hr for me to work my butt off, I'm going to look for the guy who is willing to pay me $2. The minimum is there to try and make sure that the abuse has a reasonable limit. With a minimum wage, the least you can pay someone is (should be) enough to keep them in food and a place to live (some of which apparently don't deserve such, I am now told...) The current minimum no longer meets that goal.

Woo boy.

Also, semi-related, as we throw the term "slacker" around, how exactly do we identify that person? Is there a uniform? Maybe it's a hairstyle or some certain way they walk? How do we distinguish a slacker from someone with a substandard education or maybe just fewer opportunities? Maybe "slacker" is like art and we only know it when we see it? I can personally attest that I have both over and under estimated employees in the hiring process based on slippery judgments like this. So if there is a guide book for how to identity a "slacker" I would appreciate a copy. It would solve at least 60% of my HR problems. Maybe Varanese has it and is holding out on us?

One possible group that might be considered as slackers are the ones who just work a gig long enough to to scratch together some "beer money". That's what we called it back in the day anyway.

I'm not sure how you can identify them ahead of time. They do a could job of looking normal when they are out of "beer money" and want more. There's a better than good chance there's a bunch of these guys who are in and out the restaurant labor market as I have known several over the years. I'm sure you'd realize what you had within a month of hiring one though.

Why would anyone be offended by John Varanese not respecting someone like that? And why would it help anyone to force businesses to pay them more?

Like Adriel points out above, this issue is so dense and complex that speaking in universal terms (and we circle back to Mr. Varanese's statements) just seems ignorant and superior.

Yeah. I think we suffer from some bumper stickerism with this stuff. It seems easy to say "living wage" and not define what that is. It also seems easy to say "get a better job" and not say how.

Finally, Adriel, the joy (?) of Free Market Capitalism is that you can raise the minimum wage to whatever you want, or even do away with it altogether, the market will adjust. That's what it is supposed to do. You want to pay everyone $20/hr, that's fine, but the price of Milk will adjust accordingly and you'll soon have $9 gallons of milk. Ultimately, it's the consumers that drive the market. If we all stop buying milk because it's too expensive, then you can erect a monument to the dairy business. Same for wages, if you want to pay me $1/hr for me to work my butt off, I'm going to look for the guy who is willing to pay me $2. The minimum is there to try and make sure that the abuse has a reasonable limit. With a minimum wage, the least you can pay someone is (should be) enough to keep them in food and a place to live (some of which apparently don't deserve such, I am now told...) The current minimum no longer meets that goal.

I can see that. Just not sure the state setting a mandatory minimum wages makes it a "free market" anymore. Also if what you say is true (which I don't doubt) then don't we need extremely educated economists and detailed studies to see what this fine line is? Who develops these numbers?

Dear friends and colleagues,

I have been very disappointed to see certain comments from recent interviews taken out of context, thus creating negative commentary from those who didn’t hear the original conversations. One quote specifically when I was speaking to WFPL about my life and how I came to open up my restaurant was not reported correctly.

After the formal interview was complete, the reporter and I were speculating on how a person might come to be paid minimum wage later in life. A variety of reasons were discussed, from things beyond a person’s control like the shortcomings of our government, to things within a person’s control like motivation and drive. Certainly, I do not think all people without means are unmotivated. I understand the setbacks a person can face as my family and I grew up with financial challenges.

In every interview I’ve conducted, I stated that I support a wage increase. Repeatedly, I’ve said that I believe it should be at the national level, and that it should not be a drastic increase. My goal was to present alternate solutions to this problem and it’s a shame that these solutions were not presented in the media. In my opinion, the minimum wage should be something that is reviewed yearly and increased gradually based on the consumer price index. We should not ignore this issue for 10 years and then suddenly increase the minimum wage by 30%. It is detrimental to my business and many other local businesses. Plus, the Kentucky Restaurant Association’s legal counsel has advised me that it is not within the power of Louisville Metro Council to pass this ordinance.

I believe that every person who works should be paid a fair, living wage. In my restaurant, I pay all hourly employees more than the current minimum wage — all but three part time hostesses make over $10 per hour. They are all skilled professionals whose expertise I value. Without them, I could not run the business I have built.

I appreciate all of the discussion surrounding this issue, and I’m grateful to be able to participate in the democratic process that our country affords us. Thank you for letting me clarify my position.

Like Adriel points out above, this issue is so dense and complex that speaking in universal terms (and we circle back to Mr. Varanese's statements) just seems ignorant and superior.

Yeah. I think we suffer from some bumper stickerism with this stuff. It seems easy to say "living wage" and not define what that is. It also seems easy to say "get a better job" and not say how.

Finally, Adriel, the joy (?) of Free Market Capitalism is that you can raise the minimum wage to whatever you want, or even do away with it altogether, the market will adjust. That's what it is supposed to do. You want to pay everyone $20/hr, that's fine, but the price of Milk will adjust accordingly and you'll soon have $9 gallons of milk. Ultimately, it's the consumers that drive the market. If we all stop buying milk because it's too expensive, then you can erect a monument to the dairy business. Same for wages, if you want to pay me $1/hr for me to work my butt off, I'm going to look for the guy who is willing to pay me $2. The minimum is there to try and make sure that the abuse has a reasonable limit. With a minimum wage, the least you can pay someone is (should be) enough to keep them in food and a place to live (some of which apparently don't deserve such, I am now told...) The current minimum no longer meets that goal.

I can see that. Just not sure the state setting a mandatory minimum wages makes it a "free market" anymore. Also if what you say is true (which I don't doubt) then don't we need extremely educated economists and detailed studies to see what this fine line is? Who develops these numbers?

I believe the current ~$10 number is roughly the adjusted figure based on the consumer pricing index. Meaning to have the same buying power you did when the minimum wage was established, it would have to be $10 an hour now.

To me, $10 an hour seems about right. That is only $20k per year pre-tax. Barely enough to afford a cheap apartment and bills in 2014. Its true some people are complacent and unmotivated to move up in the food chain, but at least if they are willing to work a solid job, we should pay them enough to not need government assistance IMHO.

The above reply had been forwarded from John Varanese through my Hot bytes account

Crow. It's what's for dinner.


I'll take pass though.

From John Varanese:


Dear friends and colleagues,
I have been very disappointed to see certain comments from recent interviews taken out of context, thus creating negative commentary from those who didn’t hear the original conversations. One quote specifically when I was speaking to WFPL about my life and how I came to open up my restaurant was not reported correctly.
After the formal interview was complete, the reporter and I were speculating on how a person might come to be paid minimum wage later in life. A variety of reasons were discussed, from things beyond a person’s control like the shortcomings of our government, to things within a person’s control like motivation and drive. Certainly, I do not think all people without means are unmotivated. I understand the setbacks a person can face as my family and I grew up with financial challenges.
In every interview I’ve conducted, I stated that I support a wage increase. Repeatedly, I’ve said that I believe it should be at the national level, and that it should not be a drastic increase. My goal was to present alternate solutions to this problem and it’s a shame that these solutions were not presented in the media. In my opinion, the minimum wage should be something that is reviewed yearly and increased gradually based on the consumer price index. We should not ignore this issue for 10 years and then suddenly increase the minimum wage by 30%. It is detrimental to my business and many other local businesses. Plus, the Kentucky Restaurant Association’s legal counsel has advised me that it is not within the power of Louisville Metro Council to pass this ordinance.
I believe that every person who works should be paid a fair, living wage. In my restaurant, I pay all hourly employees more than the current minimum wage — all but three part time hostesses make over $10 per hour. They are all skilled professionals whose expertise I value. Without them, I could not run the business I have built.
I appreciate all of the discussion surrounding this issue, and I’m grateful to be able to participate in the democratic process that our country affords us. Thank you for letting me clarify my position.


Sincerely,

John Varanese

[Robin Garr]

Thanks, David, for posting this here and in the other discussion.

Please assure John that he is more than welcome to post here on his own behalf, as well, either logging in via Facebook or, if he prefers, contacting me to have registration set up for him.

I also don't believe everyone is entitled to own a home.

I hate to derail, but this is shocking to me. Could you please tell me, Andrew, which are the people who are not entitled to own a home?
I'm not saying we just give everyone a house out of good will, but shouldn't everyone be entitled to the opportunity to own a house? Because if not, then I need to check the list, I may have been given a house in error. Maybe it's something the bank checks when you go in for a mortgage?

Of course everyone should have the opportunity to own a home. When I say entitled I mean just that. I don't believe we should raise the minimum wage to the point that everyone can own a home. It's called the American Dream not the American Guarantee.

I believe the current ~$10 number is roughly the adjusted figure based on the consumer pricing index. Meaning to have the same buying power you did when the minimum wage was established, it would have to be $10 an hour now.

To me, $10 an hour seems about right. That is only $20k per year pre-tax. Barely enough to afford a cheap apartment and bills in 2014. Its true some people are complacent and unmotivated to move up in the food chain, but at least if they are willing to work a solid job, we should pay them enough to not need government assistance IMHO.

The job losses due to cut backs in staff will keep those unmotivated out of a job anyway. Combine that with the city being unattractive to outside business moving here and you may even see some leave the city. Along with the increase in goods and services I think I'd rather they stay on government assistance. Assistance is supposed to be temporary until you can improve your position. If people were going to milk the system they were going to do that no matter the minimum wage.

Minimum wage in this country was created almost a century ago to solve the problem of poverty. Why do we still have poverty? What about minimum wage has failed?

Holy mother of God how many times must I post in the same forum that wages have not kept pace with inflation for 40 years now? Which is why poverty is actually GROWING in this country and the US has the highest wealth gap in the world.

Its not politics, its simple math. Had minimum wage kept pace with inflation it would be three times what it presently is.

[Robin Garr]

Its not politics, its simple math. Had minimum wage kept pace with inflation it would be three times what it presently is.

Yes. This. And once we inquire into exactly why these lines have diverged, things get even more interesting.

Holy mother of God how many times must I post in the same forum that wages have not kept pace with inflation for 40 years now? Which is why poverty is actually GROWING in this country and the US has the highest wealth gap in the world.

Its not politics, its simple math. Had minimum wage kept pace with inflation it would be three times what it presently is.

The simple math I just did does not agree with your math. In 1974, 40 years ago, the minimum wage was $1.60. Plugging that number into not just one, but two inflation calculators, just to be safe, tells me that adjusted for inflation that would a buying power of $7.66 in 2014 dollars. In 1938 minimum wage was $.25, that's $4.19 in today's dollars. Just an interesting tid-bit, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 2.6% of the workforce currently makes minimum wage, half of which are under the age of 24. BTW, In 1979 that number was 7.9% so things are actually getting better for low earning workers.

As for poverty over the past 40 years, just glancing a some census numbers it looks like it has consistently hovered between 12 and 15% of the population with the highest being in 1982 at 15.2% although I have don't data for the past couple of years.

My point is that the facts don't seem to support the narrative that the poor keep getting poorer and are multiplying exponentially. It's also worth nothing that according to the LB data, I lived below the poverty line in the mid 90s and I can tell you I had a more comfortable lifestyle than the Vanderbilts did however many years ago. I had electricity, modern plumbing, air conditioning, and the ability to travel by air on occasion. I had a cell phone (in the 90s!), computer, car, a life expectancy of 80 some years. I took road trips to the beach or mountains on a whim. I had a refrigerator full of all the beer and booze a guy could drink. I could afford to go to nightclubs and eat at decent restaurants from time to time and had something to eat all the time. I had a TV, VCR, several pairs of shoes, cable TV, movies, CDs, a Walkman or three...a machine to wash my two closet full of clothes. Who had any of that stuff 100+ years ago? I personally know minimum wagers now, today, within 100 feet of me as I type this at work that have and do all of these things. Poverty? Just because someone else has more or better?

I get it...there are people who are really suffering out there, but they aren't all poor. I know some 1%ers that are suffering some unimaginable financial/emotional hardships due to medical bills/issues. If you have $500,000 in medical bills and counting and a loved one is dying you've got real problems, regardless of your zip code.

Greg, regarding the current poverty rate, it is highly misleading. When discussing the "official" poverty rate, generally the federal poverty rate is the baseline. Please understand that this poverty rate was formulated in the mid-60's and was calculated on the basis that food costs consumed roughly 1/3 of a family's budget. Today, those costs account for roughly 1/7 of a typical budget. Yet, the current poverty rate is still pegged to roughly food costs times three, when it should be multiplied by a factor of seven. Therefore, even what is considered the official poverty rate bears scant resemblance to the real cost of living. My citation for this is "Measuring Poverty in the United States," National Center for Children in Poverty, April 2009.