E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA solid majority of Americans support President Obama’s proposal in his most recent State of the Union to increase the minimum wage.
Some 71 percent of those surveyed said they supported raising the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour from $7.25, while 27 percent opposed it, according to a Gallup Poll released Wednesday.
The results attest to the popularity of Obama’s plan, wrote Gallup’s Lydia Saad in the poll’s release.
“Raising the federal minimum wage is typically a crowd pleaser when it comes to policy prescriptions, and Obama’s proposal…is not an exception,” she wrote. “The 71 percent vs. 27 percent balance of U.S. public opinion in favor of passing it is convincing…”
The numbers seem overwhelming, but support for increasing the minimum wage has actually been higher, reaching as high as 83 percent in 2005.
“Americans’ support for boosting the minimum wage may be a bit dampened by continued high unemployment, and could reflect public awareness of critics’ argument that raising the minimum wage causes employers to cut back on workers,” Saad wrote.
There was a large ideological split in the poll with 91 percent of Democrats supporting a wage increase, compared to 50 percent of Republicans.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other Republicans have said they oppose raising the minimum wage because they believe the hike would cut into job growth.
“Listen, when people are asking the question ‘Where are the jobs?’ why would we want to make it harder for small employers to hire people?” Boehner told reporters in February. “I’ve got 11 brothers and sisters on every rung of the economic ladder. I know about this issue as much as anybody in this town.”
Boehner also voted against the 2006 bill to raise the minimum wage to its current level of $7.25 from $5.15.
Some Democrats, meanwhile, say Obama’s proposal doesn’t go far enough.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., proposed a bill Tuesday to set the minimum wage at $10.10 over three years and then index future increases to inflation. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called on Republican House leadership Thursday to act on the legislation.
Obama’s proposal is also slightly lower than his pledge as President-elect in 2008 to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011, according to his team’s transition website.
The poll took place among 1,028 American adults between March 2 and March 3, 2013, and has a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.
Leave a Comment:
WHAT?
Why can't the lazy parasites run their household on an annual budget of $15,080 per year?
Everyone in this country deserves a living wage for an honest days work!
Instead of tax-payers having to supplement their incomes with food stamps and other assistance!
NO!!!
You listen Otis, you successfully deceived the voters with this bull@!$%# in 2010!
Where ARE the JOBS you promised Mr.Weeper???
Isn't it about time for you to deliver on your promise?
i
Doh...time has run out for my post #1.1 - here is it again:
Why people want to work for low wage jobs that have not allowed the employees to earn enough to cover their bare minimum of life? The scrooges have always wanted to keep more profits for themselves, never wanting to pay more to employees. So what's the incentive for the poor to work there? The government has to step in to make sure those scrooges (employers) will pay enough to give the employees enough incentives to stay on their jobs.
.
So the market is not perfect. There is injustice by the scrooges (employers). When the poor are paid a bit more, these minimum wage workers are happier, thus boosting productivity. But some scrooges don't understand that logic.
Feisty --Can't raise the minumum wage , that might cut into the company bottom line , I mean those execs have to be able to have their o so little pay hikes.
Old Man,
You are SOOO right! Much better to let the tax payers pick up the slack while the CEO's rake in record profits and bonuses!
What small business is going to have the income to pay for these increased wages? Why would he even be thinking about raising minimum wage. People right now can't even find a job that pays $7.25 a hour, what do you think will happen if it goes up to $9 a hour. He needs to first look at getting people back to work before trying to get them more money for a job they don't have. President Obama is just getting ridiculous now.
Strong support continues for minimum wage (hike)
A no-brainer IMO.
America should be about bringing EVERYONE up... not just the wealthiest few.
btw didn't some business dude just say that it should be even higher than the (gasp) $9.00/hr proposed by the President?
In the market place, the profit-driven employers don't want to pay more. So if the poor can't make enough to pay their bare minimal expenses, they don't want to work and would rather stay on welfare. So the government should kick the butts of these employers (scrooges).
Yah Fiesty , people don't seem to think those o so little executive pay hikes cut into a companys bottom line there by lowering the pay out on stocks hurting EVERY stock holder.seems strange they get a raise then people get laid off , couldn't be any corolatoin.
Hope I said that right.
Don't forget, oh so Feisty one, that $15K is gross wages, so their net income is much lower than that. If we are to pull up those beneath us, we must as a nation fight hard for more equality and if that means that the food service industry and the retail industry(these are the primary minimum wage scum bags)has to "plan for it in their budget"(paraphrasing Speaker Boehner's comments about WH stopping its tours) then they best get crackin'!
This is the right thing to do!
Raising the minimum wage ends up being a zero sum gain and ends up depressing the earning power of the middle class. It also ends up costing low skilled workers their jobs. First, companies will raise prices to offset the added costs (do you honestly think it will come out of profits). Of course the worker has more money, but he/she still can't afford to live because things cost more. All we did was increase inflation. The dollar menu became the $1.19 value menu. In the end, everyone who has a job not tied to inflation suffers.
There is also the fact that for nearly every minimum wage job, we have automation that can do the same task. At some point, automation becomes cheaper and the company will fire the employees and go with automation. The higher minimum wage gets, the more likely that will happen.
How many kids under the age are unemployed because we no longer have many entry level positions? We want them to get job experience, but we are losing those jobs.
Good. I hope this vote goes along the same lines as the VAWA vote . . . (ie, "violating" the so-called Hastert rule)
Go ahead, ReThiglicans, vote against 70+% of your constituents . . . then all the Dem's and just enough ReThuglicans will pass this bill, and Progressives will do even better in 2014! It will be fun watching the Thugs try & explain to their working-class constituents why they think 47% of working voters should continue to live in poverty.
.
FORWARD - 2014! :-)
Bob-2711464
poor, poor Bob will have fewer people on food stamps to bitch about if that happens.
Haven't you heard - businesses will fold, airplanes will fall out of the sky, airport lines will be 20 hours long, 20 trillions jobs will be lost, and every country in the world will rush our shores and we will be powerless to stop them. Who needs sequester cuts to bring about the end of the world when a simple pay increase apparently brings it on faster and better.
There is also the fact that for nearly every minimum wage job, we have automation that can do the same task : Automation cannot clean the tables at McDonalds. Automation cannot change the sheets and make the bed in a hotel. Automation cannot clean the bathrooms at Walmart. The minimum wage jobs are overwhelmingly in the service industries.
You know what, PutAmericaFirst, you should really practice what your screen name preaches. Secondly, I and many more people are more than willing to pay a quarter more for the cheeseburger at McD's if it means that I am helping my fellow human being to actually feel like a human being by getting a living wage.
Really Bob? People can't even find a job paying the current min. wage? Gee, don't quote me on the figure, but didn't we add in something like 150k jobs in the last month or so?
Steeler Fan,
A to the MEN for that!
If people feel there is fairness...they are more productive. Some conservatives don't understand this obvious logic, this common sense. They always argue..oh..no...our 'job creators' can't afford too much cost.
What these conservatives are really thinking is to raise more campaign funds from these 'job creators.'
Bob, is it that people can't find jobs that pay the current minimum wage or is it that people don't want jobs that pay the current minimum wage?
Hey, I am a fan of Steeler's but, Miss Feisty, give me credit where credit is due!! LOL I want my A to the Men! :)
7.25 per hour @ 40 hours is $290.00 before taxes, Take away taxes, SSI, Medicare, State Tax (some not) will get you around 251.00, Then go buy things you need, Milk 4.59 gallon, Bread 1.79, Ground Meat 6.00, Lettuce Head 2.09, Tomato 1.00 each, Toilet Paper 4.00, Dish Soap 1.59, Washing Powder 6.50, Lights Divided by 4 =52.00 per week, Phone divided by 4 = 15.00, Gas for a week 45.00, Water divided by 4 = 6.50, Lucky Charms or what ever 4.89, Chicken (hole) 4.25, Pork Chops 6.75, Salad Dressing 2.89, This alone is 179.37 out of 251.00 and I didn't add Car Ins, Car payment, Trash pick up, and any other items that need to be paid, As you can see why we are making our own people in this country poor! Min wage needs to go up, A person can hardly if they can make it! Please take Notice republicans and tell me how you could make it?
blackcatwhitecat:
That's so far from the truth black cat! There will be MORE people on food stamps!!!!
Companies refuse to take a hit in their profits. They're used to a certain amount and they don't want to let go of it. So, instead of taking any additional money out of their pockets, they simply raise the prices on their products and pass the cost on to the consumer. The gap between cost of living and how much people actually make has been around for a long time and has only grown thanks to credit cards and junk filling the gap like a bandaid. In addition to that, Americans are very, very used to cheap prices. We have some of the cheapest prices around for goods. They raise the minimum wage so people can afford stuff at the current prices, but then prices go up because of minimum wage, sustaining that gap.
I appreciate your list, but after rent, most people on min. wage can barely afford a case of Top Ramen!
Like I said Bob, those of us that care about our fellow human being are willing to pay .25 cents more for the cheeseburger at McD's just so we know that our fellow human being, our fellow American citizen, is making a living wage, and actually feels like a human being and not a dog.
I have a company with 18 employees and it makes no difference to me because very few people make minimum wage, and the same goes for most businesses.
The people who do make it are normally teenagers where the unemployment rate among African Americans is close to 40% so those are the people who will be hurt.
Alaska, I left out rent to see how many would catch that because if you divided that by 4 there is not much room for food!
Well, I forgot that the minimum wage went from $5.15 to $7.25 in 2006. OK, how many more jobs would we have today if the minimum was$5.15 and how many more people would be working? Anyone have the answer to this? BTW, how many people would actually want to work at $5.15 versus $9.00. So, it would seem to me more people would want to work. Isn't that what you could call taking personal responsibility?
OH CRAP!
When will I learn to make sure I have my glasses on before commenting! lol
Sorry darling! ;o)
If you are dividing by four then are you doing so based on four roommates living together, because even in a family of four, chances are that the two children(hypothetical scenario, of course) are not working, so it's just the parents. Even if both parents are working and making min wage, it is nearly impossible to get by. I am single and I make just under $40K and I have trouble getting by.
Feisty: Not to worry, my sweet!! Oh, I just scrolled up to see who all has commented, and Steeler Fan isn't even here! Oh, my!
hey, bcwc (blackcatwhitecat): You Shameless Cat...putting us women's body on display (your avatar), treating us as objects, not full humans, You Shameless Cat. Why don't you put a naked cat on display?
Have a good day, Minimum Wage Cat!
Steeler ... Resto workers have a different and lower minimum wage all care of Mr 999 who managed to keep his staff off the last salary hike when he headed to restaurant lobby.
Pigums ... my avatar is a reflection of the beauties who post here. BTW, you need to show up at the cyber bar on Fridays.
blackcatwhitecat...you shameless Kitty Pig....why don't you use a naked cat as your avatar? Don't sabotage our sterling human image.
Oregon Minimum Wage: $8.95 Oregon Unemployment: 8.5% (9th highest)
Wyoming Minimum Wage: $5.15 Wyoming Unemployment: 4.9% (4th lowest)
An increased minimum wage does NOT help people get jobs! It HURTS people trying to GET a job!!!
But then again the greedy will take advantage of this and jack prices up and the poor are still in the same spot, When I was a kid there was so many factory jobs where people could make good wages and have a life, Now all the factory's are gone and so has the wages! We need these jobs back here! Republicans are you reading this? Stop saying NO and Stop the madness and let's put America back to work!
Raise minimum wage will only bring people up to par in some areas with the costs associated with increased prices over the last few years. You go to the supermarket and buy toilet tissue. Is it as wide as just 5 years ago? No it isn't. The price is the same but the quantity is trimmed just a little. Look at those frozen dinners. They are not much more than a snack at the price of a full meal just a few years ago. The manufacutrers arent going to be able to cut much more and still have people thinking they're getting their money's worth. With an increased minimum wage we can stop the nonsense of reducing sizes instead of increasing prices. We will see people making more and thus paying more in income tax. Stores who have difficulty will simply raise their prices a little in order to meet their expenses,,, oh right., they are doing that aready without a pay hike for employees. When the bottom feeders get more so do the people above them. Wouldn't you like to make more money?
If someone who once had a good job, that paid well, and is now over seas, has to work for minimum wage why bother. The minimum wage job won't pay the bills for necessities let alone luxuries they were used to. Maybe if we have some good paying jobs as well as those minimum wage jobs that will bring people above the poverty level we'll all be better off. Commerce will benefit, the tax coffers will fill up faster and have more in them thereby helping pay off the deficit. It all works together.
Alaska, No it is by 4 weeks on one person working, even if two was working with 2 children it is still the same and no extra money would be left for the family!
If you look at the number 5.2% of hourly workers make minimum wage and 1/2 of those are in the service industry where they also receive tips, so this really makes no difference to people over 25 as so few make that wage.
I think the heads of families making this is miniscule as they make more money living off the government.
As usual for Pigotry and Feisty the answer is simple. Too bad real life doesn't resemble the simple world they love to believe in. I'm not opposed to raising the minimum wage, but we should do so with our eyes wide open and not with our liberal blinders on.
First, raising the minimum wage will depress job growth in low income jobs.
Second, raising the minimum wage will have an inflationary effect on all wages. Remember that we are largely satisfied with our wages for two reasons: one our income allows us to meet our basic expenses and have some left over, second we are happy with our wages in relation to those around us. If we raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.00, the the people making $10 or $11 will be less satisfied with their wages and there will be pressure to move the entire scale upward. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but we should be aware its happening.
There's also the issue that $7.25 buys more in Smallville, Kansas than in NYC. Should the minimum wage be indexed to the cost of living? If Smallville gets $9.00, should NYC get $12?
Small businesses are the ones that will be most effected by an increase in the minimum wage and it is there that the greatest job-depressive effects will be felt.
I don't disagree with the notion, Feisty and Pigotry, that people should be able to meet basic expenses with just one job. I think the problem you would have is getting more than 2 people to agree on what constitutes "basic expenses". Is it just housing and food? Housing, food, utilities? Housing, food, college, minimum entertainment needs? One person's extravagance is another person's basic need.
I feel that they have made american's nothing more than mall workers and shoppers! But then they say sales are down, when you pay min wage you get min sales! You can't spend what you don't have! Those credit card bill also come due and if people pay the min, the thing never get's paid off!
Call me an out-of-touch elitist white guy (and maybe that is true) but I do not quite understand all the fuss - on both sides - about the minimum wage. Is another buck seventy five an hour going to really improve someone's standard of living, on one hand, and on the other, is it going to really impact a company's earnings to a significant degree?
A question, and I ask this out of admitted ignorance, who actually makes minimum wage, other than teenagers?
I read n article the other day tha stated that it would be agreat thing if the minimum wage went up even just one dollar. They projected that if the minimum wage went up one dollar that the recipients would increase their spending to $2800 dollars for the year. And that if the increase went to the proposed increase of $1.75 that the increase would be double that.
Typical Americans. They get a pay increase of $2080 (work hours in a work year x $1 = 14%) and they raise their standard of living by 35%. Get a pay raise of $1.75 (24%) and they raise their standard of living by 39%. Of course this report supporting increasing the minimum wage didn't take into account that the higher wages would also entail higher taxes so when the net pay is translated into increased spending the effective increase (by percentage) in standard of living is even greater.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with people inproving their position in life. What I have a problem with is the fact that the governments concept of deficit spending has extended to the common people and then the people wonder why they aren't getting ahead.
But of course there are always those social programs to bail out those "in need" because they mismanage their money.
Let me see if I understand this, conservatives are against paying someone a fair wage.
Then they want to
cuteliminate all forms of government assistance (food stamps, WIC, Head Start etc).And on top of that, they want to elimate the EIC...
What is supposed to happen to these people?
Will you only be happy when they are starving in the streets?
Yes, Mark, a buck seventy five is alot of money to people who are only now making $7.25 an hour. For them, it is the difference between not having enough to eat to actually having enough to eat. The minimum wage workers are primarily in the food service industry, the hotelier industry and the retail industry.
No, Feisty, they will only be happy when they are dying in the streets! Nothing boils my butter more than this issue!
Talk about the wheels on the bus going 'round and 'round. Raise taxes and regulation, suddenly the minimum wages are much further behind, so you have to raise wages. After the wages are raised, Raise taxes again, and the prices of everything will rise making the minimum wages too little again, so we raise the minimum wage again. . . . . . .
I call it the circle! Get Paid, Pay Bills, Buy Food, Broke and round and round we go, if it will stop, no one knows!
Mark,
Raising the minimum wage also raises the wages above. And regarding who makes it? Not everyone moves up the pay scale ladder at the same rate.
In all of the chatter above, I saw this yesterday and it really hit home about how wealth in this country is distributed. Take a minute, view it, and try and absorb the fact that we are actually a nation of very POOR people . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
Feisty and Old Man: I know sarcasm when I read it, but if was not for AG's post my blood would of boiled.
BCWC: Waiters and waitress do not earn minimum wage in the U. S. Most Canadian tourist leave very small tips.
p.s. Feisty I usually love your post.
Feisty,
As a fiscal conservative I am very much in favor of paying a fair wage. I want educated, motivated, productive people working for me.
I own a travel agency and I need my people to know how to use computers, understand math, etc. I also want to keep my employees for as long as possible because the cost of hiring new people is huge.
I pay my people salary plus commission, and this might be hard for you to understand but the more I pay my people the more I make because that means they sold more creating more profits. Wages mean nothing to me it is productivity that matters.
Feisty, Alaska. They don't care about the poor and they will let them die! It is a sad state we are in and it's seems that greed has no end in sight! The 1% have nothing to worry about, they know where there next meal is coming from! I can't wait till 2014 and rid us of this non-caring bunch of yahoo republicans, You know their not called the Party of Stupid for nothing!
Mine too!
huh?
Train Man,
Sadly you're right...
now your blaming your drunk typing on your eyesight...perhaps you can start with an AA meeting. next you'll blame your stupidity on Republicans
This is just more smoke and mirrors. While the left mocks the right for keeping wages 'down' here we have the left wanting everyone making 25 an hour regardless. who's gonna pay for it? the Rich? the French? China?
probably teenagers and maybe the elderly looking to fill time...for the most part..sure there is probably a handful out there making min wage as a living. Also its not like we also live in the Golden Age of prosperity. Job market is still extremely competitive, unemployment is still up and i doubt we're creating enough jobs to fill the incoming demand let alone the unemployed demand (at nearly 8%, still).
The Party of Stupid was not my word's, It was the words of one of their own, Bobby Jindal! He is no different than what is up there now, just like the Tea Party Republicans!
Yea, well if they don't, there won't be anyone left to buy their products. I guess that doesn't make sense to you, but to the people in the real world, it most definitely does. The US is still by far and wide, the largest consumer nation on the planet.
"they oppose raising the minimum wage because they believe the hike would cut into job growth."
What job growth? You mean the job growth you were suppose to create two years ago and never did?
Maybe if you had passed the President's Jobs Bill. Economists said it would have created TWO MILLION jobs by now. But NO, you blocked the Jobs Bill. So tell me Republicans. where are the jobs?
i also have to agree that 1.75 increase an hour would/could potentially change someones standard of living...
That is the problem SJC, i dont think republicans are against raising min wage despite what the moron lefties in here spout, its the economy. Can it support more Neo-Keynesian style approach? Besides, Peloski said Unemployment was the bestest Stimuli
Life always seems so simple to a Liberal - Just give people more money, and everything will be fine.
Never mind that economists say that this will cause unemployment to INCREASE at a time of very high unemployment, and prices for everything will go up, thus making everyone ELSE poorer. It will also lower the number of young teens that get that critical first job that helps lead to the 'ladder of success'.
I guess it's true - "Ignorance is Bliss".
Yea, so just screw everyone. You got yours so everyone else can just f--k off and die, right? People got to frikkin' live. This may give some the hope to better themselves. I know that's a foreign word to you because the welfare of anyone else beside yourself is unthinkable.
Fair enough, AlaskaGirl. It is hard to imagine that slim a margin making any real difference.
For perspective, I pay my housekeeper $15.00 an hour.
Hi Layton,
I don't see wealth distribution the same as actual wealth. Though one would have to be blind not to recognize poverty in America I have seen too much of the rest of the world to consider the US a poor country. I realize this is a rather simplistic answer, and I apologize - running out of time.
Well, I pay mine $20.00 an hour...
You get what you pay for! lol
Let me tell you what burns me more than anything, You have these bible thumping republicans who don't care about the poor, Have they ever read the bible? Jesus feed the poor and he loved doing this because it was a blessing! So why do the republicans hide behind the bible, but fail to follow it! Please tell me that and why....
Shhh Train Man!
We are witnessing compassionate conservatism hard at work here... *snark off*
The motto for the today's GNOP is I got mine... FU!
SJC-1437429 "So tell me Republicans. where are the jobs?"
Glad you asked - In the first 2 years under Obama, when the Democrats controlled ALL of Congress and the Presidency, we LOST 4,033,000 net jobs.
In the last 2 years with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives, we GAINED 3,735,000 net jobs.
lol
Source - Official Government Bureau of Labor Statistics (bls.gov)
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL:
We all know you don't have a housekeeper... actually, maybe you do. People on unemployment benefits and Food stamps are finding a GREAT way to use taxpayers dollars now-a-days!
One of America's Finest Dole Collectors says:
Just how much should you earn for flipping burgers, bagging groceries, or scanning items (no mathematical skills needed) in a cash register? Give me a break! These are menial labor jobs not needing more than a 5th grade education.
And don't tell me that a lot of educated people have had to take these menial jobs to get by. Those that have had to are only doing it in the short term - well, probably 4 more years until we get rid of the Socialist-Tyrant-in-Chief. But basically, they aren't making careers out of these menial jobs. Minimum wage jobs are for the young and old with nothing better to do. If you are such an idiot to make minimum wage a career and get married and/or have kids on minimum wage, you should be charged with neglect!
Again, the loser takers in our society just can't seem to get it through their mind-numbingly stupid brains that business will just pass this on to the consumer! No business owner is stupid enough to pay one of these menial labor jobs at $9.00 in addition to all the increased taxes.
Unfortunately, people on the dole seem to think the dole will keep on flowing - like its working so well in Greece and Europe.
Feisty, LOL, I'm in total agreement with you!
Assume much, DO you little Boob?
Save your pompous right wing bull@!$%# for someone who might actually believe it, little man!
ModelTrainMan
dolts of a feather they say.
Save your Proletariat ranting for the next Occutard Protest slug
Another one of America's Finest Dole Collectors says:
Why don't these people do something to bring themselves up??!! If you are earning minimum wage, you should be doing something to get a little farther than that in life - lmao! I mean, just how many normal people intend to live off of minimum wage?
Again, I'm excluding people doing this as a stop gap!
I think the people for this should give up all the money they earn (if they do earn anything) over $9.00 and hour to the career minimum wage earners. Come on, or all you all mouth and no action? You don't really give a crap - you really don't, or you'd be giving your money away!
Almost an hour later and NOT a ONE of you right wing slugs can answer a simple question!
Why am I not surprised?
Oh sorry Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL I didn't know we were playing Skewed Liberal Rules. So you and ModelTrainMan can make fun of Conservatives and call them "bible thumping republicans who don't care about the poor," but when I call you out you say: "Assume much, Do you little boob?" Seriously stop with the hypocrisy!!!
Feisty, next time tell me we are playing President Obama rules, where we lie and tear down other people, but when somebody sticks up to you you call it "disrespectful, illogical, and stupid," so we're all on the same page. Thanks.
I'm out of here, will be posting later! Have a great evening and make it great one for someone else!
Caesar, you should get out among your subjects more....
It's not just teens and elderly; who's manning the fast-food joints during the day when the kids are in school? Been in a WalMart lately? How many of those are teens or elderly? How about mini-marts, how many teens do you see working the graveyard shift? The fact of the matter is if 'teens' were the only ones holding these jobs, their unemployment rate would be near-zero.
It's bad enough that a full-time minimum-wage job will barely let you scrape by at best, to add insult to injury these same employers make it a habit to underemploy the ones they have, carefully keeping them below 'full-time' status so they don't have to pay unemployment taxes.
If raising the minimum wage means a few cents more tacked onto some prices, so be it. So the McD franchise isn't quite so attractive now, you might have to keep the BMW one more year. But until opponents to this quit worshipping their God of Mammon and remember that the underclass aren't serfs, they might have to just suck it up like their employees...
Little Bobby said he was busy "schooling" you and the other libs in a comment above, so I went a looking and he quoted something about Oregon's min. wage and their U.I number, then he quotes Wyoming's minimum wage at $5.15 and what their U.I. number is, thus trying to draw a conclusion that lower wages means lower unemployment. I would have to say that school was not one of Bobby's strong suits. He doesn't seem to be aware that the current Federal minimum wage is $7.25 hour which means no state can pay their workers less than that amount per hour. Or, could be he is just a liar, but my bet is that he is both.
At $9.00 per hour, the inflation adjusted wage is still $1.50 less than it was in 1969 ($10.50adjusted).
Apple, meet orange.
There are too many variables to make the straight up comparison as you are attempting here...chief among them being population. Wyoming is #50 out of all 50 states in terms of total population according to the 2010 Census while Oregon is #27 at almost 8 times the population.
...and if minimum wage directly correlates to unemployment rate could you explain to me how the 3 states with lower unemployment rates than Wyoming all have a higher minimum wage than Wyoming?
North Dakota: Minimum Wage = $7.25, Unemployment Rate = 3.2%
Nebraska: Minimum Wage = $7.25, Unemployment Rate = 3.8%
South Dakota: Minimum Wage = $7.25, Unemployment Rate = 4.3%
Heck, Vermont checks in with the same current unemployment rate as Wyoming at 4.9% but with a minimum wage of $8.60. Can you explain that?
Once again the absolute ignorance of the libloons ("Dusty Deadhead, Oh Hell, I Make Noise" and "Pig-at-Trough") is on display for all to see. Before you put your (I"m sure very large) mouths in motion try and engage your mind with a little information.
Many union labor contracts in the organizations that you love to mistakenly malign have clauses in them that ties their rate of pay to the minimum wage. New guy hires in at minimum wage the structure bumps up by an equivalent amount for all at different levels thereby raising labor costs across the board for the company. If it's an industry that makes a popular product the additional labor costs for the relatively new employee, the person that made their 90 days, the five year guy, the foreman, et. al, are.....yeah.....once again passed along to the consumer. It's not a matter of raising the wages for the bottom rung......it's up the whole ladder.
In non-union shops what do you tell the guy that's been there for six months doing a good, worthy job, and who has received earned raises, that the guy that walked in the door this morning for his first day of (unproven) work (ability) is now making what the six month guy has worked hard to get? The ladder applies there also.
As I said, hard (and unusual) it may be for you, try and learn at least a little on a topic before you open your pie holes.
To all you libloons commenting here: A mind is a terrible thing to waste.......and you've made this a trash dump.
Model Train Man said:
I know, get a better job!! Go to school!! Learn something, do something, better YOURSELF!! Geez, do you really need your a s s wiped forever?
Again, you aren't supposed to be living/making a career out of minimum wage. And you certainly shouldn't be getting married and having kids on it (and you shouldn't probably have a car or need pork chops, lucky charms, salad dressing either). If you are doing these things, there is absolutely no hope for someone that stupid!! You will fail at life period.
AlaskaGirl-759554 you serious?
FACT: Georgia, Wyoming, and Arkansas have lower minimum wage than the Federal
Minimum wage
[Caesar, you should get out among your subjects more....]
He has...just not past the curb in front of his house...he's a big boy now!
But SHHHH...don't anger him...he'll just call you a douchebag, throw an internet threat your way, complain about "commies, fascists, and limp-wristed libbies" under his bed, then go home crying. It's what he does...it's who he is.
...caesar angry...
...CAESAR SMASH!!!
Alaska girl,
The restaurant industry (places that have tips) have a different and much lower minimum wage.
The federal minimum cash wage for tipped employees is $2.13 per hour.
Another great example, Bob...if Wyoming and Georgia have the exact same minimum wage at $5.15 then how come Georgia's unemployment rate is 8.7% while Wyoming's is 4.9%?
After all, you are making the conclusion that minimum wage has a direct effect on unemployment rates.
Mickey, NY: I believe you're talking about Feisty. (Every day is that day of the mouth for Feisty)
My subjects LMAO..yeah, thats King Hussein's job...I haven't been the Principate in 2000 years. But you're right and I further went on to say the economy isnt Polished and Pristine (still high unemployment and the demand for incoming workers not being met), hence the competitive job market. Talk to Lazer King Hussein, after all he said that was his Focus on the Economy...Guess he has a wide dispersing beam, or he's like a dog and is distracted by squirrels.
Hey Bob, Monkey follows me around..he got beat up pretty bad yesterday so he waits till much later in the day (what 7 in NY right now eh?) to come from the shadows where he has his low info libtard audience to peddle his 'ass handings' to me. He's a fvcking joke and a pawn right CHess boy?
I have an even better idea. Why don't you get a clue. Not everyone has the means to go to school to better themselves. Just because you may have been lucky enough to doesn't mean everyone else does. The world doesn't revolve around you.
Damn you, Mickey! You made me snort!!
Da Noid:
I posted the Georgia, Wyoming and Arkansas comment purely for Alaskagirls benefit.
See what you posted in #1.30 above...my question stands.
thats cuz you're a fatty two by four....PIG
See Bob, Alaska Mooseknuckle (low info moron) found Monkey funny...Its been a rough week for the Noo yawker. dont think its going to get easier for the sewer rat either.
Pound that liquid courage my friend
Yes, Ed, I see that. I don't believe the cash tipped min. wage applies to the kitchen staff of the restaurant or the folks who just bus the tables, but I'm not positive on that. I would imagine it does if all employees share in the tips? Not real sure on that, but if they didn't then it is safe to say that the kitchen staff would be entitled to the Fed min. wage, while the food servers are getting the low wage plus their tips.
Hey Pizza Boy! I'm gonna let Mickey come along and wipe the floor with your ass. You can't even stay up with him on any level, but hey, you keep trying and we'll keep laughing! Mooseknuckle! HA!
[He's a fvcking joke and a pawn right CHess boy?]
Gee, would you look at that...I seem to have struck that nerve...AGAIN.
Take it easy, Commodus...you'll stroke out before you know what hit you.
Now get back to work...you know, that "infrastructure" job you have screwing your boss by cheating on your timecard.
Oh, and as an aside, best look up on Wiki about time zones...you know, those imaginary lines that divide the earth into various...TIME ZONES...
More lib excuses! Sorry, everyone has the chance to go to school or learn. Hell, even the illegals can go to our schools on the cheap. So instead of making excuses for people, I expect them to do their best at making their lives better and more prosperous. Your thinking is why we have inner cities of Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and others in the toilet for decades upon decades!
The liberal montra is to continually beat people down by convincing them that they aren't smart enough, brave enough, resiliant enough, or worth enough to attain success on their own. You libs LOVE having people dependent on you and needing you. I guess it's all you have in life. Sad, very sad!
It's too bad you expect so little of people. It's too bad you don't believe in people. Shame on you and the others like you!
A lot of us believe in people and their abilities and desires to make their lives better. That is what we support and strive for. We want a better and productive society, not pathetic excuses for why someone "can't" do something!!
[thats cuz you're a fatty two by four....PIG]
Sheesh, take it easy my little cowardly piñata...you seem to get off picking on the women here...you taking lessons from Spanky...err...Morgs? You two are the camel toes of FR...quite the "mixed bag", you two are...
Rage on, my little multi-reggie...rage on!
First of all I never said there was a direct correlation between unemployment and minimum wage I was merely using the highest and the lowest in terms of minimum wage rate.
Second:
Don't you realize it's a percentage (8.5% to 4.9%) not statistic based on population size haha?
Third: What I've been trying to say all along is that a raise in minimum rate will not decrease the unemployment rate and it will raise prices, not helping anybody.
Hopeful, Thank god I didn't get off here yet! Who said I was talking about myself? Where, when or how did you get this information on me or the normal lies and name calling that the righty's love to do! When people get where they don't care for others, The human race is done! Do you understand that? It is not all for one and one it's all mine! Please don't address me again with your garbage and your a waste of my time! Good Day!!
ModelTrainMan,
Do you buy your groceries at a convenience store or what? I live in Alaska where the food prices are higher than most other places in the US. I don't pay as much as you apparently do for food.
So, it wasn't you, sir, who said this...?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, thanks for the clue...as if I wasn't aware of that. No, sir, the point I was attempting to make is that your comparison was not taking into account potential other factors...one of them being population...but thanks for the tip, anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Getting back to your original statement in #1.30 above, sir, you seem pretty intent on telling us that a raise in the minimum wage would not be neutral to the unemployment situation and that it would, in fact, be detrimental to the situation.
Here you go "caesar"...compliments of your new BFF David Walker:
Look, Commodus! You're famous! Now take that bag David handed you...you know, the one with your ass in it, and GTFH...it's almost quittin' time, Fred Flintstone!
ModelTrainMan, typical lib response! If you really cared about people, you'd build them up, and have expectations of them. Not settle on them living a life of poverty!
And, Free Speech. I can address you if I feel like it. And I won't say something moronic like "I'm done". Because I know you will read this, but probably not respond as you don't want me to know you read it. Amazing when you lefties don't actually have a response but you just rant and mumble.
The problem isn't minimum wage, the problem is the Federal Reserve printing trillions of fiat bills thus devaluing our currency. It is a hidden tax.
Hey Monkey end of September ;o)
you can fly under the radar, or you can take the KimmyH approach and lie and say i threaten to mow down libtard communists with my automatic
You mob mentality libs are funny...and before you mock me for 'ripping my boss off', take a look into the mirror next time you post in the middle of the day..Remember, your bossing around PHD's to get this big project done and cant retire...Fvcking liar...enjoy your Furlough Chessboy...
Hopeful, I said Good Day and I mean Good Day!! What part of that do you not understand!
Roy Wilson
Inertia is not just a principle in physics, Roy. That was just a continuation of the jobs that were being lost from the Bush years.
With no help at all from the obstructing GOPTP.
Sure lets buy some more Votes with another Stupid Idea..... All raising the Minimum Wages does is Increase Cost & Reduce the Number of Workers..... But then again we Tax Payers have no objection to support people while they sit on their A--es.....
Time to debunk most of the arguments being used by opponents of a minimum wage increase.
The first point of conventional wisdom among Conservatives is that increases in the minimum wages don't increase earnings for the workers because employers fire them or cut back their hours. That's been thoroughly debunked by empirical studies;
http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf
Next is the claim that increasing wages will only create explosive inflation...nope on that one as well;
http://backtofullemployment.org/2013/01/18/minimum-wage-hikes-do-not-cause-inflation/
yes and Oblamo is perpetual motion on the subject. still nearly at 8% unemployment and probably higher but lets not worry about the sleight of hand. So Yeah Bush sucked and if you think King Hussein is better, I have Yuma beachfront property for you...
Laura, That was prices of things I purchased last week, There is 3 pounds of ground beef at around that price, But milk prices are about the same everywhere, +.20 here and -.20 there! Bread is whole wheat, not white! So I don't know where you get that these prices are high? That is about Avg here in the lower 48. But my point is not what I can afford, it's was to show how far a buck goes when on min wage, that show's it does not go far and most cannot buy what I have listed! If you notice I did not add rent to that so go figure that in and really see what hell this would do as far as one with a family trying to feed them! It would not happen at 7.25 per hour....
Caesar...
As I said, there was no help from the obstructionist GOP/TP.
Good Day to you too.
If I'm "lucky", I can pay my own way to whatever type of schooling I choose, and for however long I choose to go.. Or, my parents/family will pay my way.
If I'm not "lucky", I can get financial aid. Work Study. Loans. I can go to school part-time. I can go to Community College instead of State or Private schools. Or instead of college, I can go to trade school. Get a Certification. Take training courses of some type....
Can everyone afford to get a PhD? No. Can damn near anyone manage to do something to improve their lot if they give it even a little bit of effort? Yes.
Modeltrainman: Don't listen to Laura, she's lying, unless she lives somewhere like Anchorage where the prices are a bit lower than most other areas of Alaska, and she shops the big box stores like costco. I can tell you right now that a loaf of name brand whole wheat bread where I live costs me about $5.00. 80/20 ground beef is currently $4.59 per pound. A head of Romaine lettuce is currently priced at $2.69 per head, the crap that is iceberg lettuce is only a few cents cheaper. I pay $1.79 for one cucumber. I pay $3.49 per pound for tomatoes. Those are a few examples of the prices I pay in a nationally known grocery store here in Alaska.
Thank You Alaska, Wow your bread is high, I found ground beef here the other day at 1.89 per pound, it is around 2.39 per pound most of the time, I purchase at most items at a national chain but there is times where the local guys run great prices on things! But thanks again for the info!
Fiesty is all about the 1.50 raise in min. wage. That means MSNBC will have to pay her more to put her crap out everyday!
It is not only the minimum wage that is pitiful, the median wages are pitiful in some states, the median wage in Texas for example (because that is where we are told all the great jobs are going) is $11.20 an hour I made more than that and benefits in 1982 in a grocery chain store. I made more than the present 7.25 an hour minimum wage in 1976 in that same store and at that point I was only working part time. That is the sad truth, so if higher wages mean higher prices, and lower wages mean lower prices, do they have 30 yearold prices in Texas to go along with those 30 year old wages. Of course it should be pointed out that I was a union employee at the grocery store, you know those evil organizations that just exist to suck the members dry. The truth is that Union dues are the best investment I ever made. BTW I got out of the Grocery business shortly after 1982 and jumped whole heartedly into the industry I have basically been in ever since, because I did not feel I was making enough money to start a family, I joined another union and again my dues were the best investment I ever made. I have always paid plenty of taxes (twice the percentage as Mitt Romney), I have always had insurance to cover my family's health-care costs, and I have a nice retirement fund so I will not be depend solely on SS in my old age, I have never needed food stamps, or had any kind of government help with the single exception that I did cash three unemployment checks in 1991. Claiming that people making decent money will hurt the economy makes the same sense as saying that fire extinguishers will cause fires.
Minimum wage rises so, too, will prices for goods & services. It's a zero sum game.
Anything less than $9. hr. is slave labor, lets reset the Teapublicons salaries to $7.25 hr. and see how it works for them ???
Definition of greedy: Someone who thinks wealth is an economic liberty but $9.00 is too much for a minimum hourly wage.
When they increase the non-tipped, they normally increase the tipped employees as well. In my state, the minimum wage has been increasing yearly. The rate for tipped employees is $4.76 per hour.
How about college grads? Same story. If you need experience for entry level jobs, where do you get it? Thin air? Maybe spending thousands of dollars, out of pocket, to attend an internship would do it.. except how do you pay for living expenses while doing so? If you're expected to focus on your internship as if it's a full-time job, you don't have time to work somewhere else. And what about those student loans, if you're not lucky enough to have well-to-do parents?
There are so many variables to consider when you think of "success".
First of all, you have to define what "better" and "productive" means, because I can guarantee it won't mean the same thing for everyone. For example, what if someone is happy with a wage that pays the bills instead of a life of increasing consumption? Do they have to aspire for more? There are folks that work to live (survivalists) and those that live to work (business owners and/or workaholics). While it's great to try to encourage others, please consider that some only want enough to live somewhat comfortably with a sense of security.
Secondly, what about those who struggle with a disability or persistent mental illness? Or those born and raised an abusive and impoverished environment? ________________— <- insert social issue here. Will they share the same opportunity as the rest of us? Probably not, no matter how you slice it. Sure, some can achieve great things in life despite such hardships. There's nothing wrong with encouragement, but reality can get in the way of certain aspirations. Even the healthiest and well-meaning of people can suddenly and unexpectedly fail.
The reality is that there is no such thing as equal opportunity. This is a hard pill to swallow, but for those that realize this sooner than later, it allows for people to meet goals and expectations that are within reason. A "can do" attitude only works to the extent that is reasonable for any specific individual and what they actually wish to achieve.
The minimum wage issue is complex. Personal accountability, cost of living, and of course, the survival of small businesses are all factors.
You want to see wages go up in a hurry, pass a law that says no house rep or senator can be paid more than the median income and benefits of the state they represent. Hoo boy let them tell you how they earn, and are worth $174,000 a year, Cadillac health benefits, and a full retirement after only working 16 weeks a year for five years. I want to join up for their deal, they have got a deal that makes the best union contracts ever negotiated look damn shabby. I would just love to tell a senator or house member from Texas they are going to be paid $11.20 an hour because that is the median income of the people you are supposed to be representing. Think about that when they talk that poor-mouth BS, and what we can no longer afford.
This is an absolute disaster for job growth. We as Americans are falling victim to someone who's determined to destroy our country with misconception, lies and whatever it takes to wreck the economy and destroy the future.
Employers will not accept an increase in the minimum wage without a layoff of many employees that quite frankly, they can no longer afford.
I just love all of the self-entitled, liberal bullsh!t being spewed on here about how corporate America is keeping the little man down.
Puuhleeease...
If you don't like the way you get treated (read paid) as an employee, then go start your own goddamned company. I swear to god, some god, any god, that you liberals are the most miserable, pathetic, whiny group of vermin slithering on the face of the earth.
Every time you hear the word company you immediately think of Enron, when the fact is that the backbone of our economy, and the largest employer in the U.S., is small business, but guess what? Over half of small businesses fail within the first five years as it is, so how the hell are they supposed to keep being forced to pay people more and more?
And aside from that, what you really need to do is gain some perspective here. Do you really think that to a company the size of Walmart a few billion in profit is too much? All it would take is a couple of down years and they'd blow through that in a heart beat. And as for what CEO's make, get over it, losers. You're just pissed off and jealous that you don't make that kind of cheese because I can guarantee that none of you would turn it down if it were offered to you. Which makes you a . . . say it with me . . . a hypocrite!
Again, if you don't like what you're being paid or you don't like the working conditions or you don't like your management team, then go start your own friggin' business, which is exactly what I did two years ago. I make a little less but I'm a helluva lot happier. Besides, I'd love to see how excited you are with this increase in minimum wage when you're the one actually paying it.
As I always say, if you want to annoy a liberal just work, succeed and be happy. Oh what a concept...
Of course, the alternative is you can sit by your keyboard hitting refresh every 30-seconds like Fisty does so she can post first, and remove all doubt that you really are a first-class loser.
Why is it Liberals only extol the virtue of polls when they support their position? When polls and elections repeatedly opposed the recognition of gay marriage the Liberals vilified them. They are hypocrites who only want their own way and have no respect for the right of others to prefer another path.
Even when they do support increasing the minimum wage , they are pikers. Why not mandate $25 an hour , not a measly $9 per hour. That way everyone would make about $50K per year. That way poverty would be banished from the country.
After that , in the spirit of quantitative easing , i.e., printing money as the Fed in doing , we could send out to every household in the country a box with $1,000,000 in it so that everyone could be a millionaire. This way we could eliminate all envy of those who have made more money than we have because everyone would have money. Result : nirvana.
Raising the minimum wage should get so complicated?
WOW...
but when corporate CEOs used taxpayers' bailout money to pay themselves millions of bonuses after they had caused the recession in the first place...I haven't heard from some of the rwnjs here crying about 'unfairness'?
Amazing how many have no idea how a business or economy works and believes you can just arbitrarily raise a wage and even if the worker does not supply that value you still believe the worker is "entitled" to that higher wage. They are not. A worker is worth in wages how much value he/she supplies to the company. Supply a company with $20 in value per hour they will pay you $20 per hour.
But you don't understand that. You believe that raising to $9 will have no negative effects. Well if it is that easy to raise a wage and not hurt the worker then why stop there? Maybe we should make $12 an hour the minimum wage. Or $15. Or even $20. I have a better idea why don't we just raise it to $50 an hour and that will guarantee everyone makes $100,000 a year - right?
Doesn't that sound intelligent? It isn't. Minimum wage creates unemployment. The people you actually intend to HELP with minimum wage are actually the ones hurt the most. They will be the ones who will now be unemployed. Or companies will reduce benefits, like vacation time, to pay the higher wage. Or will simply not give raises for the next two years until the value of the worker "catches up" to the wage.
You see those who support minimum wage are the very people who do not understand business or economics at all. If you want to help the worker in this category let's help them by offering tax subsidized training, classes, skills, etc. TEACH them to become more valuable and increased wages will follow. Try to force a company to pay a worker more than they are worth accomplishes one thing - making that worker unemployed.
Obama, the good cop.
http://www.dropshots.com/GCaplan#date/2013-02-19/21:26:16
Pigotry
I'm all for increased wages for the bottom tier employees at large, multinational corporations. There is simply no excuse for a successful and extremely profitable company to shortchange it's workforce, including lower-mid management levels.
Small and newly started businesses, however, could have problems with a mandatory raise in minimum wage. Often, new business owners have to sacrifice their own well-being in an effort to just get off the ground, so to speak. Having to pay a group of newly hired employees any more than the owners can handle could help collapse the business before it has a chance. There's a risk inherent in any business start up, and indeed most new businesses fail, but that added financial pressure is problematic. Wages can be increased as the business gradually expands (if it makes it that far).
It is important to consider the cost of living in whatever region such an increase would take place.
Well hell pro business how do you explaine CEO's getting big bonus checks and huge salaries even as the business fails and goes bankrupt, or has to be bailed out with taxpayers money, what value do they provide to justify that pay? Thier value to the company has nothing to do with their pay. Some of these people make hundreds of times what the "plant floor" people make are you proposeing that this one guy provides as much value to the company as 100 hundred producing the product that brings in the income combined. Their pay has nothing to do with their value to the company.
ProBusiness
Supply a company with $20 in value per hour they will pay you $20 per hour? Bullsh!t. The real statement is "Supply a company with $20 in value per hour and they will pay you whatever wage they can get by with... somewhere BELOW $20 an hour." If you had a clue about business, you would know that. It is FUNDAMENTAL to many business leaders that they maximize profit wherever possible... and the easiest place to do so? At the low wage end of things.
If I create a business and I have jobs available at the low end, I DO look at value and pay 90% of the perceived value. I pay 90% because 1) I'm usually targeting 10% ROI, and 2) I want to get the best people I can in whatever job I'm looking to hire in. And guess what? I have NEVER calculated a job anywhere near below minimum wage.
Minimum wage is a good number to set. It's a number many businesses appreciate having and knowing. When many businesses are created, they create jobs that are an expense load (i.e. what profit is calculated for taking the trash out or other janitorial services). They take that expense load and then calculate their business around it... and by the time your fold in $1 dollar more per hour, it's imperceivable to the business while an absolute thrill for the wage earner.
Don't be such a harda$$ on the low end workers. Businesses need these workers. They need them to remain viable and they need them to remain focused on their business and not on a second job.
Lighten up!
Louie Bee "Roy Wilson Glad you asked - In the first 2 years under Obama, when the Democrats controlled ALL of Congress and the Presidency, we LOST 4,033,000 net jobs....Inertia is not just a principle in physics, Roy. That was just a continuation of the jobs that were being lost from the Bush years. In the last 2 years with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives, we GAINED 3,735,000 net jobs....With no help at all from the obstructing GOPTP."
Which only proves that you not only have an excuse for why Obama was such a failure when he controlled everything, but an excuse AGAINST why things have gotten better since the Republicans put some brakes on Obama's anti-growth/jobs policies.
The effect of raising the minimum wage to $9 for a full time worker comes out to an extra $280 a month after 7.65% SS & Medicare taxes for the worker. This hardly seems like a solution to poverty.
For a small business with 10 minimum wage workers on the other hand, the burden is significant. The business owner's cash obligation is the full amount of the wage increase ($1.75/hour per worker) plus his portion of the SS and Medicare tax. The amount a business owner pays for workers compensation insurance, unemployment insurance (tax) and liability insurance is often tied to total payroll expense as well. The marginal annual obligation for the small business owner with 10 employees for an increase to $9/hour is about $45,000.
These are not evil corporations, these are mom and pop small business owners. The minimum wage actually helps corporations because it limits competition by small business owners.
Feisty, Your ignorance and your separation from the middle class is showing again. The majority of people earning minimum wage are not trying to run a household. Raising the minimum wage simply causes businesses to reduce hiring and to raise prices on products; it lowers the relative standard of living for those making more than minimum wage (the vast majority of the population), causes inflation, and gives unions the ammunition to increase their already bloated salaries, thus perpetuating the cycle.
There was a quote about Hugo Chavez the day he died which essentially said that his legacy was that of one who tried to help the poor, but died having actually made them worse. That will be the legacy of most of these social programs, including minimum wage.
ProBusiness said himself...
So, what you're also saying is that these CEO's of mega-corporations making $100 million in annual salary/benefits, aside from that always valuable "golden parachute" in their contracts, are compensated this generously because that's the "value" they bring to the company? I can guarantee you these guys/ladies have their subordinates doing all the "work", while they sit at their oak desks, sipping their lattes/scotches, overlooking the masses from their office windows, while they wait for their tee time.
And since everyone seems to be saying that the vast majority of business leaders and job creators are "small business" owners, let's go there! A business employs, say, 10 people of varying pay grades. Most likely, all of these employees' salaries are based on the "market" for similar jobs in the region (not based on their actual value to the company). Say, the company ends up making a million dollars a year in pure profit (after salaries, expenses, utilities, etc.). In your opinion, is it okay for this business leader/owner to claim that profit for himself, even though it far exceeds the "value" of his position in the company?
I think this is the crux of the whole argument here. It's that the movers/shakers in the business world are allowed to play by one set of rules when computing "fair" compensation, but their employees are somehow locked into compensations based on the laws of the land and the fictitious "market", no matter how profitable the company is. And this is allowed to happen, even though it's through the hard work of the employees that the company is so profitable in the first place.
People keep making this minimum wage issue about large corporations and their CEOs. I'm wondering how many of these corporations actually employ minimum wage workers. Look at the companies in the DJIA:
3M, Alcoa, American Express, AT&T Bank of America, Boeing, etc. I'm fairly certain that the majority of these companys' work forces are not on minimum wage. Minimum wage laws primarily affect small businesses. Bringing up the salaries of corporate CEOs is a straw man argument.
People, let's stop throwing around Econ 101 terms here and get serious. There is NOT a shred of evidence that points to a moderate raise in the minimum wage having a negative effect on unemployment. Does it go against freshman-level economic theory? Yes. But that's what the studies say. So if you're against minimum wage, be honest and come out as being against the poor or against President Obama, but don't masquerade your opposition to a higher minimum wage as a genuine concern that it might lead to an increase in unemployment, because empirical proof does not favor that scenario.
The fact that ProBusiness believes the minimum-wage-kills-jobs myth should raise serious questions about his credibility.
Bob, might it be that Wyoming has a lower unemployment rate than Oregon because pretty much all states the size of Wyoming (and in that region of the country) tend to have lower unemployment rates than the rest, regardless of minimum-wage laws? Minimum wage in Luxembourg is about $11/hr, and their unemployment rate is 5.1%. There are many important factors going into employment rate, minimum wage not being one of them. Also, Wyoming's de facto minimum wage is the federal minimum wage. You could have just as easily compared Washington (highest minimum wage in the country, unemployment rate 7.5%) with Jersey (federal minimum, 9.5% unemployment), but it would have also been meaningless.
“Listen, when people are asking the question ‘Where are the jobs?’ why would we want to make it harder for small employers to hire people?” Boehner told reporters in February. “I’ve got 11 brothers and sisters on every rung of the economic ladder. I know about this issue as much as anybody in this town.”
I have to wonder just what Boehner thinks , along with all the rest of the republicans think , our wages should be ? Just how much profit does it take to pay workers who make the products that make the millions for big business ? HAve to wonder also...just how many products would be sold if the wages of this country are dropped say to that of other gonvernment controled wage countries ? And for this guy to talk about jobs when not one jobs bill has been created that did not have huge cuts in taxes for their wealthy freinds and themselves.
Dingle...since ProBusiness hasn't gotten around to (or won't) answering me, maybe you could shed some light on it.
If a company, no matter the size, has profits that could, and most likely should, be shared with those rank and file employees who are directly responsible for those profits (by producing high quality product/service in an efficient manner), is it okay for the business owner or head executive to hoard those profits for himself as part of his compensation? Legally, of course, it could be said that it's his/her business, so he should be allowed to claim any profits as his own. I'm saying morally, since the right-wingers seem to be all hung up on the apparent lack of moral structure in the world today.
We would have no need for the government to set minimum wage laws if companies did the morally correct thing and pay their employees according to their corporate profits instead of the least amount that the "market" says.
LMarc and Devils Advocate:
You ask me if a business pays a person their value then how come CEO's make so much? Is it their "value"? You want the short answer? The answer is "Yes".
How can I say that? Because the businesses DO pay CEO's high salaries. You see a business looks to increase their size and profit and they will pay a CEO a high salary (say $20 million) IF they believe this person will bring MORE than $20 million in return. It is called "business".
Now do the businesses sometimes make mistakes with CEO's? Of course. Just like they make mistakes with employees they invested money and time with and didn't work out. But that is not the question. The question is whether a business pays a worker based on their "value" and the answer is "yes".
So then LMarc talks about how companies pay a worker LESS than their value. That is wrong. A worker makes what their value is (unless they don't pursue). For example: Say a worker is worth $10 an hour but is being paid minimum wage. They believe they are worth more so they go to a competitor and THAT competitor will pay a higher wage (IF the worker is worth it). So the original company understands to KEEP the good workers they must pay the "value" otherwise the employee will leave. We ALL do this. I suspect most in this forum have changed jobs at least once or twice and probably because they were offered more money. THAT is how business works. And if a person is not making their "value" it is because they are not looking.
I successful businessman told me years ago "You are only as valuable as your next best alternative" meaning there is not a "minimum" someone deserves and you must make yourself valuable to the marketplace. Learn a new skill. Offer to help others in your company. Ask your supervisor for new training opportunities in other areas. ANYBODY can increase their value 10% in just one year with sacrifice and motivation. But when I hear someone say "I deserve to make more" I tell them if that is the case find another employer that is willing to pay that. If they tell me they can't find another job making more I tell them "then you are being paid what you are worth".
Devils: Sorry if I am actually WORKING and cannot stay on a forum thread constantly. But I DID just answer your question.
Andres: You say there is not a "shred of evidence" that minimum wage creates unemployment then you have never taken an economics class. It states this, and PROVES this, in EVERY economics textbook in the country.
I have been teaching college economics for over a decade and have about 40 economics textbooks (from the classes I took and the textbooks supplied by universities) and EVERY one states that minimum wage creates unemployment.
I suggest you take an economics class before you spew nonsense you have no justification or knowledge in.
Minimum wage creates unemployment - period. Now, if your argument is that the unemployment it causes is minimal versus the benefits received by those who get the higher wage then THAT would be a valid argument and is one I could potentially get on board with to some extent. But to state a higher wage above market wage has NO effect on current employment that simply makes you look silly and unintelligent.
Okay, so you are saying, ProBusiness, that it is morally acceptable to pay the "market" salary rather than reward your employees for exceeding every expectation and creating possibly record profits for their employer? Because that's what's called "BUSINESS"??
Okay....answer me this, if you could take just a moment from your busy day. Are you in favor of a living wage? And if so, what would that living wage be for an entry-level job in your town, if you had your way? Or, if you legally could get away with it, would you pay your employees anything at all? What if, through collusion (which happens all the time in business these days), all businesses in your region agree not to offer increased wages to "steal" your workers from you. Indulge me, ProBusiness....I am well aware this is purely hypothetical, but it's the mentality of business owners I'm trying to point out here.
Devil's Advocate - It is abundantly clear from reading your posts that you are not a business owner, but you are a typical liberal who believes they should be given something they haven't earned.
Let me explain the CEO concept to you since you can't seem to grasp it: A CEO is tasked with providing leadership and vision to a company, and helping to develop their culture. These are not always tangible things that can be absolutely quantified in the short-term.
However, if the CEO is respected within that company as a great leader who cares about his or her employees and shareholders and executes on their vision, and the employees enjoy working there due to the positive culture, and the end-result is that the company grows from $100 million annually to $350 million annually, and they increase their workforce by 70%, is that CEO worth $20 million.
If you say yes then you finally get it. If you say no then you're an idiot and you need to go consult with your unicorn.
Stop asking for something for nothing. Nobody owes you a damn thing.
You demonize business owners because you have no idea what it's like to own a business. You know that little restaurant you like to take your family to on the weekends? I guarantee you those business owners are busting their asses providing a service you want, jobs for your community, taking on a huge risk, and doing so for less money than you may think. For the ones who are smart enough and who worked hard enough to enjoy a little success, they have earned that success and have done so at great risk.
And don't bring up corporate CEOs again because they're not relevant to this conversation.
Hmmm...Carryingconcealed....(from your name, I could have deduced you were a conservative). And slinging names at me really does sound a little childish, but I forgive you. It's what you cons do when you feel your backs are against the wall, like with the common sense gun control laws that are about to be imposed.
The same question I pose to you as I did ProBusiness....if you, as a small business owner, could legally get away with it, would you pay your employees the least amount you could get away with, no matter how profitable your business was, if there were no pesky, job-killing minimum wage laws to contend with? It's a simple question that points to the very heart of how Big Business is perceived today.
Just "yes" or "no"!
ProBusiness
First, that is a lie. Most economic texts do not say that a minimum wage increase creates unemployment.
Second, I pity your students. No closed-minded ideologue like yourself should ever be allowed in a classroom.
DingleBerry....same question goes to you. Would you pay your employees the barest minimum if you could get away with it? No minimum wage laws to contend with. Would you take the profits for yourself and pay your employees the very least that you could get away with?
See? No mention of CEO's.....you happy?
ProBusiness:
You clearly don't know the difference between theory and evidence. Theory does not constitute evidence —let alone in the world of economics— and your suggesting that tells me that, no matter how many economics textbooks you've read in your life, you're behind regarding empirical studies.
In theory, minimum wage should create unemployment, I never denied that (n fact, I acknowledged that), but that doesn't disprove the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence corroborating the theory:
www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
There is my justification and knowledge.
Is
As an instructor, it's your responsibility to be in the know, to keep your facts and statistics up do date, regardless of how strongly they contradict your political biases. I choose to believe you weren't aware of the fact that there were studies thoroughly questioning the claim that minimum wage creates unemployment, which bad as it may sound for someone in your profession, is a hell of a lot better than believing that you willingly dismiss studies and statistics.
And I beg you to read every single one of the thirty pages of the study I cited before you call me unintelligent or uninformed. Pot, meet kettle.
For those of you who didn't call me uninformed, I'll give you the brief summary of the study, drawn from the "Conclusion" section:
Economists have conducted hundreds of studies of the employment impact of the minimum wage.
Summarizing those studies is a daunting task, but two recent meta-studies analyzing the research
conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers.
The most likely reason for this outcome is that the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative
to most firms' overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers. In the traditional discussion of the minimum wage, economists have focused on how these costs affect employment outcomes, but employers have many other channels of adjustment. Employers can reduce hours, non-wage benefits, or training. Employers can also shift the composition toward higher skilled workers, cut pay to more highly paid workers, take action to increase worker productivity (from reorganizing production to increasing training), increase prices to consumers, or simply accept a smaller profit margin. Workers may also respond to the higher wage by working harder on the job. But, probably the most important channel of adjustment is through reductions in labor turnover, which yield significant cost savings to employers.
Devil's Advocate:
Okay, here are the answers to your questions:
1) You reward employees with a job and a wage that pays them for their time. If you think about it a wage is simply the value a worker is willing to give up their leisure time. A wage is also a value a business puts on buying a person's time. A business is not willing to pay a wage higher than the value of the worker.
2) So you ask me about "living wage". There is no such thing. A wage is as noted in #1 which is what I would be willing to SELL my time and what an employer is willing to BUY my time. If I "could get away with it" I would do exactly what is being done today - which is paying for a person's value.
If your argument was valid then EVERYBODY would be making minimum wage. I will assume you are not making minimum wage so I will ask you why? It is because you believe your value was higher than minimum wage and so did your employer. If THEY didn't see the value then you looked elsewhere and found a company that would. This confirms my points above that continue to be disputed but cannot be disproven. A person earns their value.
BTW, you mention "collusion" which does not occur and even if it did it is illegal. Very strict laws on that. But supermarkets do not collude with Walmart which does not collude with Advance Auto Parts which does not collude with Best Buy. A person applies for a job and tells the potential employer why they believe they will bring added value to the business. If the person will add value equal to the wage (which includes opportunity cost) they will be hired. If not then they don't.
I want to add one more point: There seems to be this misguided logic by liberals such as yourself that want to imply (if not directly state) that I want companies to stay rich and entry-level workers to stay "poor". That is totally untrue. I simply understand business. I understand economics. I understand the effects of "feel good" laws intended to help but actually hurt.
I want the entry-level workers to add value to themselves and have the opportunity to one day run the department, division, or company. And raising minimum wage expecting that to HELP the entry-level worker actually makes it worse.
Go back to your first job and think about it. Mine was working at a large supermarket in Florida (okay, it was Publix Supermarkets). My first day I remember vividly. I didn't know what to do. Making minimum wage and overwhelmed. What was I expected to do? What was behind the "big black doors" going into the back storage area. Where were the bags kept? How do I punch the timeclock? All these things overwhelming. But 3 months later when new people were hired I was the one showing them where everything was. I asked management for more responsibility. Let me help fill the shelves. I want to learn how to place orders. I want to learn how to run the register. Within 1 year I was making 50 cents over minimum wage.
People don't (or shouldn't) stay at minimum wage (or, rather, an entry-level wage). But what if a high minimum wage kept me from GETTING that first job? Where would I have had the opportunity to start working and learning skills of responsibility and work ethic? We have an unemployment rate of about 40% in the black teenage community. Racism? Of course not. These are the low skilled workers trying to find a way OUT of a lower income scenario. These are the ones that NEED their first job but the minimum wage keeps that from happening.
I have solutions to this problem but no need to go into details of my ideas. You have trouble just understanding the concept of minimum wage damage so understanding the solutions would be difficult as well. But understand I am wanting to HELP these people and not hurt them. I want them to have the opportunity of getting their first job. Learning new skills. Taking on additional responsibilities to one day they are the manager of that store or fast food restaurant. But you CAN'T get there if you CAN'T get your first job.
The question that should be asked is how do we get these workers to add value to themselves? Not how much we can "squeeze" an employer. THAT should not be the goal. The goal should be how do we get these workers to become more valuable so the employers will be HAPPY to pay them more?
I see entry-level workers constantly that cannot even make change without a register telling them the change. Workers that are so used to texting and Twitter they can't put a grammatical sentence together if their lives depended on it. Workers that say "if I got paid more I would work harder" - shouldn't it be the other way around? Workers that have disdain for the business owners rather than saying "I am going to learn all I can so one day I can own a business of my own".
The problem is too many think like you that business owners are the enemy. No, they are the catalyst. THEY are what grow the economy. They WANT to make money and if a person gives them $10 an hour in value (including opportunity cost) they will GLADLY pay $10 an hour. But ask a business owner to be forced to pay someone $10 an hour that is only worth $8 and they will decline.
Minimum wage creates unemployment. That is indisputable. The question we must ask is not how do we force businesses to pay a wage higher than a person's value - the question should be how do we increase a person's value so they can make a higher wage.
Dong: It is in EVERY textbook in the country that minimum wage (above market wage) creates unemployment. I can show you in EVERY textbook. How can you dispute textbooks and the authors with decades of experience and PhD's in the subject matter?
Somehow you were graced with the almighty knowledge that disputes EVERY textbook and textbook author in the country?
And almost every economist would tell you that $9/hour is a below market wage rate.
But you knew that didn't you ...... you were just being intellectually dishonest.
Andres: Thanks for the study and I will definitely read it. Don't have time know but I will read.
However, we KNOW that raising minimum wage above market wage creates unemployment otherwise we would simply raise it to $20 or $20 an hour. At that rate even you would have to admit it would create unemployment. So, okay, lets lower to $15 or even $12. Not as noticeable but still clearly creates unemployment but simply not as much. So supply and demand is occurring and you find a study which (I am assuming since I haven't read it yet) will state examples where minimum wage was increased and unemployment didn't increase. But that doesn't substantiate because it is never Ceteris Paribus (or "all other things being equal").
There can certainly be individual cases where minor changes were unnoticeable but that could be for a variety of reasons including economic growth occurring at the same time. Does that mean raising the unemployment rate did NOT create unemployment? No, it actually may have because NOT increasing it at the very time would have created MORE jobs.
The fact that raising minimum wage hinders job growth is not only a proven concept but affects every business who hires entry-level workers.
But, again, we are getting distracted from what the question should be. You are asking if forcing employers to pay more actually affects hiring decisions. It certainly does but that should NOT be the question - the question should be HOW do we offer the additional training and education to the entry-level worker to INCREASE their value in the marketplace. I don't want people to get a raise only when minimum wage goes up. What can we do to increase their VALUE so in several years they are making the "living wage" that is being so talked about?
Devil's Advocate-784471
Funny that you just blasted someone else for being childish...
Anyway, I would pay my employees what they were worth and as much as I needed to in order to keep the good ones working for me. I'm not sure what else you're trying to get at. What's your point?
Don: $9 is below market wage? Where do you get such nonsensical information? A person will be offered "market wage". If that wage is below $9 an hour then $9 an hour cannot be below market wage - can it?
But, and I can't say this enough, liberals are looking at this problem from the wrong direction. You keep saying businesses "can afford" to pay a worker more than they are worth - but they don't. We need to be asking how to help the lower income INCREASE their value!! Let's teach them how to make change without the register!! Let's teach them how to write a grammatically correct sentence!! Let's teach them how to use Microsoft Office!!
Increase their value is the BEST way to get them to a "living wage" as everyone seems to mention.
Pick your own poison - Higher minium wage = higher costs of goods and fewer jobs
Most would prefer that the cost of goods be lower for consumers - therefore making our money go farther
Minimum wage increases - so do the goods on the shelf at your grocery store, Walmart, Lowes, JCP etc.
A vicious cycle - and in reality - where's the gain
Devils Advocate: Please understand I am not trying to be confrontational but rather trying to stay focused on the debate. And although I don't like being asked a question to justify a position I do have a question.
This is not intended to be a trick question at all but simply trying to steer the debate into what it should be which is how do we increase the VALUE of the low value workers to where they are WORTH more in wages rather than trying to force a business to pay higher than market wages with the argument "they can afford it".
I am assuming you do not make minimum wage so if that is the case if your theory was true, and businesses do not pay wages based on value but rather "what they can get away with", then why are you personally not making minimum wage right now? Why am I not making minimum wage?
According to your logic a business does not pay a person on their value and if it wasn't for minimum wage businesses would not pay us anything. But that is not true. I am paid well by my employers (I actually have two jobs: A Sr. Financial Analyst full-time position and a part-time faculty position at a local college teaching Economics) but that seems to go against your theory.
So why do you and I make above minimum wage when, according to you, businesses don't pay a wage based on the VALUE of the worker and if it wasn't for minimum wage no business would pay anybody a minimum wage?
Yes, ProBusiness, you're right that there must necessarily be a point at which the negative effects of minimum wage outweigh the positive ones —otherwise, we could just set it to $100 or more— and we don't even need studies to know that the theory is right in that regard, but I think we can agree that the meta-studies say incremental increases like the one proposed don't meaningfully affect the economy in a negative way and don't have a discernible effect on employment. One aspirin a day, say doctors. That doesn't mean that one-hundred aspirins are better than zero aspirin.
Also, I'm sorry if I've questioned your ability to teach objectively before. I've always been a centrist Democrat, but I had many very conservative professors/instructors in my life and not once did I doubt their ability to teach objectively just because it was clear that they were conservative. My intermediate Microeconomics professor was probably the best instructor I've had in my entire life, and he may well agree with the stuff you post on here 85% of the time (that doesn't mean I don't disagree with you still, but, clearly, questions as to your ability to teach are out of place here).
PB, if you would please school me in Economics 101, oh great sage!
I guarantee there is little written in those text books (apparently you've read every last one of them) about the morality behind the logic, when it comes to employee compensation, because there is no good explanation why an employer would not reward exemplary performance of its workforce that directly results in large increases in profits BY SHARING THOSE PROFITS WITH THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM!
And, that should be everyone on staff, because there is also no valid reason why an employer should not fire any employees who are NOT performing up to the level of their pay grade. That said, there should only be employees who are performing at or above expectations.
I think, from what I gather from your posts, that "good business" and morality do not mix well. It's this "I don't give a tinker's damn about the workforce or society" thinking that corporate America has adopted that has driven our need for two things that the conservatives abhor - the minimum wage laws for those who work, and unemployment payments for those who can't find work.
As I've said MANY times in the past...it's all in the hands of Big Business and in the hands of the entrepreneurs who have the funds to start their own businesses as to whether this economy can rebound or not....it's not up to Obama!
Those who could help with this, should help with this. It's the moral thing to do to help your country!
PB....it's me again (raising my hand).
You said...
I do not make a minimum wage, no, BUT, since most companies base their current compensation structure from top to bottom on some fictitious thing called the "market", and that current "market" is based on the minimum wage, doesn't it stand to reason that if minimum wage was either reduced or eliminated altogether, that the whole pay grade structure would fall in relation to what the "market" wage should be for any entry-level position in the company?
Apparently, the minimum wage is too high, or else all of the big business types wouldn't be all up in arms over such a small (overdue) increase in it. Therefore, it stands to reason that, if the min. wage laws were somehow overturned, that it would not only affect the entry-level employee, but all hourly and even salaried employees....ALL compensation would plummet. Am I on the right track here?
If a state minimum wage is under the federal minimum wage, then the state wage applies only to a very small number of people (for instance, people actually employed by the state or entities of the state). Comparing WY vs. GA is pointless because of the small number of people being paid the state minimum.
It all sounds great, but it's just like printing more $$ causes inflation. If you supported the bailouts, you supported the notion that companies bottom lines were in the red and they were about to fail. The only way to fund such a thing is in price hikes and layoffs.
When Uncle Sam adds enough costs to the operating costs of a business, they'll start looking for more ways to outsource the jobs to stay afloat. As it is, current new administrative actions have made it more appealing than ever to keep a skeleton crew of 49 on US soil & outsource the rest to avoid US payroll taxes.
I'd love to see minimum wage be higher. I'd also love to see people see minimum wage rates as an incentive to better themselves too. I spent countless hours teaching myself high tech skills and keeping up with current technology to get from being a fry cook to an administrator of hundreds of Linux servers. Just keep minimum wage women & minorities in mind the next time you push for something that's going to cost those "evil CEOs" more $$ when they cannot afford to give raises or hire more people. It's all about the bottom line. Without even counting health insurance, rent, electricity, etc, a company of 50 @ $9/hr is $450/hour out of their pocket. Not everyone can sustain that in a roller coaster market.
It is a "solution" to poverty? No. But, an additional $3,360/yr is nothing to sneeze at. It can make a real difference in a family's life.
Andres: I appreciate the comments. I think both sides get "energetic" and sometimes resorts to negative comments (I have been known to do that as well from time to time but honestly trying to stay more on topic). But I still think there is a fundamental problem with trying to approach this from a "big business abuses their employees" direction rather than a limitation on the entry-level worker value.
I firmly believe minimum wage creates unemployment. Now we might find a slight increase in minimum wage creates such a minor difference it is not as noticeable but ask any business who hires entry-level workers if INCREASING their costs of labor (which are usually the highest cost of business) does not affect their hiring decisions and I think very few will say there is not effect. I just can't get to that point. We might find it just marginally different if the change was minor enough but I still think we are approaching from the wrong direction. Rather than trying to find the "sweet spot" where we can have the businesses absorb the higher wage with minimal effect we should be looking at the problem from the value of the entry-level worker.
There was an article just today (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/8/bloomberg-lauds-education-80-graduates-cant-read/) that states 80% of NY graduates cannot read. Regardless of the extent of the article I would hope most agree that our educational system is poor at best. As I have stated before we have kids graduating that can't write a grammatically correct sentence, cannot make change without a cash register, and have limited motivation and work ethic. Not all mind you - but too many. And THOSE are the ones destined to make minimum wage.
I would rather see us working to improve the VALUE of these workers. We can have internship programs where a company might pay them $5 or $6 an hour to get the experience and we use tax subsidies to pay the difference. I would rather my tax dollars (say $3 an hour - the difference between $6 an hour earned and, say, $9) go to training rather than paying $250 a week or more for "unemployment". Or if unemployed 90 days or more have a tax sponsored training program of which a weekly amount (no longer called "unemployment" but called something like "training stipend") is paid while they learn.
Just throwing money to unemployed is not fixing the problem but delaying its affect. Whether minimum wage creates drastic (or minimal) unemployment should not be the question. How do we make our entry-level workers more valuable to where employers will be GLAD to pay more should be the goal.
Devils Advocate: I have no idea what your latest points were and since I am trying to stay on topic on how best to FIX the problem, rather than point fingers and make comments, I will just disregard your latest comments.
One other point: With the addition of regulations and ObamaCare (for example) and now talk of minimum wage increasing will NOT create more jobs and assume all agree with that. The question seems to be will it cause unemployment. Again, that should not be the question and increasing the value of the worker should be but how can a higher wage cause unemployment?
Because now the added wage cost of the worker, plus applicable taxes such as SS/Medicare/etc., plus Health Care costs, plus loss of efficiency due to vacation/sick time/etc. will lead businesses to more efficient ways. For example: I saw this article a couple months ago and showed to my economics classes as well (http://www.techhive.com/article/2017215/robot-chef-churns-out-400-burgers-an-hour-wont-join-a-union.html) of a robot "burger flipper". Many first time jobs are at a neighborhood McDonalds or equivalent but as wages get higher it pushes businesses AWAY from entry-level workers and into technology.
So as minimum wage increases it incentivizes businesses to actually consider REDUCING the number of entry-level workers and replacing them with technology. Please don't misunderstand me: I am not opening a debate on whether technology is "good" or not but just showing how as the cost of wages are forced up the ones who suffer the most are the entry-level workers that can either be done without or can be replaced (in this case with technology).
See, from what I'm hearing from those supposedly well-versed in business economics, it's the poor business owners that are being forced by the big-bad Obama-monster to do this, to pay for that, to follow such-and-such regulations. Doesn't the government know that all this extra cost to run a business will ultimately get passed on to the consumer through inflated prices? I mean, the poor rich business owner shouldn't need to pay for starting up their soon-to-be-wildly profitable business, should they?
These folks are soooo put-upon....doesn't the government know they're just trying to employ as many as they can (it need not worry that they pay them next to nothing while their business turns a record profit, thus making the business owners even more rich). They are doing society a favor! Shouldn't that mean they can benefit financially from what may appear to some to be legalized slavery?
I see it as nothing but hypocritical when I see the conservatives here preaching that we've lost our morals, our ethics, our love for the country that is America, but they never want to practice what they preach! What I see from most of them is not pro-America, but anti-America. The employers steal from their employees, steal their pay, their benefits, yet when the government attempts to call them on it, they cry and moan that the government is stealing from them. It's like a vicious circle, and the trouble is, all this government intervention would go away if the business owners would do right by the public they get rich off of and by being stewards of their communities instead of just doing what they need to to make the owners and upper management rich!
Devils Advocate: I wish you would look at from the side of the business owner. You apparently have so much disdain for success and wealth that you believe business owners are simply "greedy" and it is your job to take as much as you can from them.
There is an old saying "When you borrow from Peter to pay Paul a politician will get the support of Paul". But trying to justify forcefully taking a business owners profit and incentive to make a profit should not be the goal. Leave business profit out of the equation. It is irrelevant. The business owner is trying to decide if hiring another person makes sense or not. What is the deciding factor? Whether this employee will cost less than the additional revenue this employee will bring in. Period. THAT is the goal of a business owner.
Let's keep the hatred of business owners out of the equation and look at what the goal is. The goal is you want entry-level workers to make more. I agree. In fact I will go out on a limb and say 100% of the people in this thread agree that we want the entry-level person to make more.
The question is "how". Forcing business owners to pay more simply disincentivizes their desire to hire more workers and, is my firm opinion, actually causes them to hire less. But the goal should not be punishment of the business owners. The goal should be increasing the value of the worker. And that is a good and reasonable function of government.
I am a "limited" government person myself but THAT would be a government program I could support. TRAIN these entry-level workers. Teach them how to be more valuable. Teach them to be efficient. Teach them motivation and work ethic. Do those things and every one of these workers will be making the "living wage" you so firmly desire. And I agree.
But give a man a fish he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime.
Is the minimum wage issue not the issue of discussion here, ProBusiness? Or, is it more the fact that you look at it as adversely affecting a business's bottom line (a.k.a. profits that add to the business owners' personal bank accounts), and the rest of the 99.999% of America who are employees instead of employers be damned!
There is no good explanation that you can give me, other than theoretical conjecture, that can convince me that when a business increases its profits year-over-year, and forecasts that it would do so into the near future, that it is totally acceptable and ethical to NOT pass that increase in profits through, in part, to the rank-and-file on your payrolls who were DIRECTLY responsible for those profits! Big Business's montra is "today's excellence is tomorrow's standard", yet they won't reward you for raising your own performance to meet that standard.
"What have you done for me lately?"....that's what your boss tells you as he is cutting your pay.
Maybe that's why you won't answer me, because there is no argument for your stance. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Such arguments are common and they are all wrong.
They ignore a little thing called the supply/demand curve. As they increase prices, no matter what the reason, companies sell fewer products. If a company has to pay their employees more, due, say, to an increase in the minimum wage, then the increase in price that they can pass on to their consumers is limited by how many fewer products they sell at that new, higher price. In general, no product is sooo essential that a company can pass on 100% of increased costs by increasing prices. Instead, the company eats some of that increase with a reduction in profit and the consumer eats some of that increase by paying more for the same product.
Really, you need to learn more about economics or stop spouting off about things you don't understand!
Devil's Advocate: Yes or no is not appropriate for your question. The answer is that I would pay my employees what they're worth. If they are making a positive difference in my business I'm going to do what I need to do to keep them, within reason. If they're not making a positive difference then they're going to be paid accordingly, and probably not be working for me very long.
The problem with you liberals is that you believe your very existence is justification for someone else taking care of your lazy ass your entire life. You contribute nothing to society and are, in fact, a scourge...
Devils Advocate: Once again your disdain and hatred towards the successful are getting in the way of discussing a solution to the problem.
Trying to force a business to pay a higher than market wage just because you think its unfair that they make a profit is not addressing the problem. That is why we STILL have a problem.
Because increasing minimum wage does nothing but cause business owners to make a decision of whether to let a person go, cut benefits, and/or delay investment or expansion. None of those options help the business OR society.
I don't see why you are having difficulty staying on topic as to a solution. Minimum wage is NOT a solution. It actually creates more of a problem.
But I don't want to beat a dead horse. I say raising minimum wage increases unemployment and you disagree. But it still doesn't solve the problem of WHY we have those making minimum wage. It is because their value is at the minimum wage value. Why can't we all agree that the best solution is to find a way to make the entry-level or low-value worker more valuable? Many of us have done that throughout our lifetime whether it was on the job training, extra classes at night, etc.
Let's actually try to HELP the people who are low-value and find ways to increase their value. That will help the employee, the employer, AND society because more will be produced since it can be done more efficiently. Increasing minimum wage does not help the employer, society, or (in my opinion) even the employee. So why would we do something that, at best, still hurts society AND the employer and, at worst, the employee as well? Why don't we help all three??
Your last reply kinda put it all in a nutshell...
Pot calling the kettle black!!
Irrelevant?? Irrelevant??? Oh, of course it is....to you....you already have more money than God if you're some business owners.
I agree, though, about the training, but disagree on who should pay for it. If the business owner benefits, then the business owner pays for the training....case closed on that one!
Devil: You just don't like business making a profit. But that is not the issue. Socialism is not the issue (or IS that the issue with you?). We are talking about minimum wage.
And you can't "case closed" when you haven't made an argument for or against a point. All you said was basically you want to take the business profits and pay for training. No, doesn't work that way. A business CAN make an investment in training if they believe it is in their benefit. But that is not what you are discussing.
So let's simply take a look at the scenario today. I think (or hope?) you will agree that businesses are currently NOT spending the money on training/etc. So that means it is not in their best interest right now.
So I ask the question (AGAIN!!) what can we do to make the entry-level worker enticing to the current business owner? They are not paying for training now so that will not occur (unless by force and that would not benefit society). So then it IS to society's benefit to pay for training. What is the alternative? 99 weeks of unemployment and constant requests to "extend benefits". No, if I am going to give someone $250 a week (for example) for unemployment benefits then I want that money doing something to HELP them get a job. THAT is the money that should be used for training, internship programs, education assistance, etc.
If we want to help the entry-level worker then let's HELP the entry-level worker!! Let's help them become more valuable then multiple companies will gladly hire them and at a wage ABOVE minimum wage. But the current "raise the minimum wage" argument does nothing to help the entry-level worker in the long run. Even when passed it barely benefits the entry-level worker (at least the ones that don't get fired) but only forces the conversation AGAIN a year or two later because they have not increased their value and STILL making minimum wage.
I would like to see a maximum bonus amount tied to the average wage of employees with all of these companies.The board and executives are looting companies and the minor shareholders can't do a thing about it,beyond selling their shares.This Nations power structure is following the views of Marie Antoinette with possibly heading for the same result.Let them eat cake!
Andres T(he)M(oron) - So you consider a 25% increase in the minimum wage is "moderate?" To which union/government agency do you belong with hopes that you'll also be able to confiscate a 25% increase because of the minimum wage increase to keep your relative wage level?
Listoire: You are opening a Pandora's Box with that type of discussion.
What a CEO makes is irrelevant to what others make. Limit what a CEO can make and those CEO's with any real skills simply go overseas and work for a company in Singapore, Brazil, or in Europe. So what do you have left? CEO's that are NOT skilled. So company sales drop, profits drop, employment needed drops, and so on.
Even though it is bigger numbers think of it this way: What if we limited paying teachers to $15,000 a year. The good ones will leave and do something else and all you have left are the "bad" ones. Same with CEO's. We WANT companies to grow.
And the idea of "let them eat cake" is hogwash. A company that plunders the profits and does not pay the employees their "value" will find the same thing occurring as noted above - all the good employees will leave. And the company will ultimately collapse.
We must not start discussing pay restrictions because if a person cannot legally be paid their value then they will leave and go somewhere where they can. That hurts the economy, society, AND the workers.
ProBusiness
Helping the entry-level worker get off the ground is a noble goal. However, in any given company, there are only so many opportunities to advance. My question to you is this: Since there are bottlenecks on the way up the corporate ladder, how realistic is to subsidize training for them all? A better trained workforce will increase their value, but in doing so, wouldn't that create unintended consequences? A scenario like this: a percentage of the workforce is now overqualified for "low" end work yet are unable to move forward. Instead of keeping these workers around, a company decides to advance a select few as positions gradually vacate at higher tiers, and figures that it makes more financial sense to let the rest go and hire a new team to replace them. Doing so may cost the company time and productivity (both = $$$, of course) in the short term, but it would make sense for the long term (after all, it's all about vision!). I don't argue with you - I agree that business is all about profit (or at least, it should be). There's a limit to what a company can value an employee without eating into the bottom line. Since those closer to the top provide more value, they should be considered priority for pay raises. The visionaries are more valuable than the replaceable laborer, according to your value system. No liberal ideals here - I'm being as objective as possible.
Objectivity also leads me to this conclusion: If there was no minimum wage, there is no anchor to discern the value of an employee. Why would it be wrong to hire someone at say, $5.00 an hour, because that is what I value their work at? Since a wage would be determined by the market, would not most companies want to maximize profits by cutting down on costs of least valuable workers? After all, it's just business. There would be no reason to pay more than your competitor, since new hires are unproven and lack the "vision" of those at the top. The risk would be too great to the bottom line. Removing the minimum wage would be great for business, don't you think? Cost of living is a bunch of bunk, right?
I find your statement, "then multiple companies will gladly hire them at a wage ABOVE minimum" to be void of business sense, particularly when you believe the minimum wage is worthless and only serves to create unemployment.
Even those who would "benefit" from an increase in the minimum wage would pay more for a hamburger at McDonald's. All an increase in minimum wage is is a temporary fix until the cost of goods sold catches up with the increased cost of labor. That is called INFLATION. The only thing it accomplishes is DECREASING the value of peoples savings and retirement plans. The increase in wages will not come out of the pockets of the CEOs It will come out of the same pockets as those receiving it.
Think about it. It is just a political ploy, little more.
Calvin: A person will earn what their value is.
If I am making $5 an hour but will give an employer $10 an hour in value then another company will snap me up. So the first company MUST pay the going value wage in order to retain the good help. There is no justification from an economic theory standpoint OR from a business standpoint to try and pay someone less than their value because if they are worth more someone else will hire and "steal" them.
And I think you misunderstood my comments on training. What I am saying is if a person has a value of $6.50 an hour but minimum wage won't allow that person to be hired since the minimum wage is higher then my suggestion is rather than trying to force a business to pay a higher wage (which they won't) let's spend our tax dollars TRAINING the low-skilled worker. That will increase their value and if they have, say, $9 of value THAT will be what companies will offer them.
I DO believe the minimum wage is worthless and believe society AND the employee would be better off without a minimum wage. Because, afterall, all the minimum wage does is create unemployment for those with less than a minimum wage value. These kids (and some adults) now can't even find a job and hurts their moral and leads some into crime. I would rather they work for what their value is (say $6 an hour) and we the taxpayers can subsidize those who truly need more. But allowing them to work and learn new skills is better than just sending them an unemployment check.
We WANT people working and THAT should be the goal.
If there is no minimum wage, what is the anchor for determining value? It's ironic that that you reference minimum wage in this statement:
Do you not see a contradiction here?
The going value wage of entry level employees is influenced by the minimum wage, as you just suggested. If there is no minimum wage, the value of an employee would change at the lowest levels on the corporate ladder. You keep citing that a person earns what their value is, but without a bottom, that value drops - guaranteed (and NOT due to performance standards, by the way). You believe that competition would drive earnings of said laborers and that they would be "snatched' up by other companies willing to pay more. Perhaps, but the range of pay will be narrow for any given position. Company A may hire for $5.50/hr but Company B values a similar low-end position at 5.60/hr. This increase from $5 to $10, the example you cite, is ludicrous. While some suggest that corporations "collude" with each other, which is BS, they DO know what their competitor offers, on average. In any given region, whether it be retail, distribution, food service, and so on, entry level wages are set within a constrained range - usually within $1. THIS WOULD STAY THE SAME, ONLY THE RANGE WOULD DROP SIGNIFICANTLY!
Business will follow the bottom line. Make no mistake: Axe minimum wage = opportunity to increase profits. The "visionaries" will see to that.
A person will earn what their value is.NO, a person will earn what corporate determines that their value should be in order to maximize profit. End of discussion. An employer who now "values" a worker at $8.95/hr will find itself suddenly "adjusting" them to fit the new, and more cost effective "value"! What the market will value an employee at is what is convenient for business. Perhaps they will pay just enough to encourage their workers to purchase goods from them, that is all.Who decides who truly needs more? And, you did not address the scenario I offered. I understood what you said perfectly well, but there are consequences associated with it. How do you address them?
I made $8 an hour at my first job out of High School, and that was in food service, over 30 years ago!I don't pay any of my hourly employees less than $10 an hour.
@CalvinOR
"Anchor?" How is the value determined for the vast number of skilled and semi-skilled (everyone but non-skilled) workers? The forces in the labor market, that's how.
No, it's what the market will bear. "Corporate" can't control what skill sets are in demand in an entire economy. If you have a skill set without a big supply of people who can perform that skill set, the wage will be higher. If you have a skill set that more available people can do, the wage will be lower. This is how value is determined for non-minimum wage employees. If "corporate" can't find the IT professional who knows the programming language/database of the shiny new multi-million dollar ERP (accounting, manufacturing, payroll, HR, etc...) system they just bought because a whole lot of other "corporates" bought that same shiny new ERP, they're going to have to offer at least the same amount, if not more, than all other "corporates" to fill the position. "Corporate" will ultimately decide what they will pay (and they will always keep profit in mind, that's why they're called "businesses" and not "charities"), but if they offer below what the market value is, that position won't get filled, and that shiny new ERP will either collect dust or just not function the way they want it to until they fill the position.
Minimum wage is an artificial wage floor, everyone else has to deal with the labor market to determine their "value." Unskilled labor will always be a commodity, and all the states have set the minimum wage to a point below which it is illegal to hire anyone. It's not "corporate" that's setting minimum wage. It seems awfully misguided to lash out at corporate for something they would do if minimum wage didn't exist, because that's hypothetical. Take your frustration out on the states, they're the ones who determine this artificial wage floor.
Pro business is wrong about just about everything he says.
The reason why he doesn't like minimum wage laws is because it transfers wealth back from the super rich to everyone else (it's been going the other way for the last 30-40 years)
It doesn't cause unemployment either. The minimum wage reached it's highest (In 1968 dollars) in 1968 and the unemployment rate was 4%, basically full employment.
As far as what's in text books, it's always the prevailing economic orthodoxy, which since the late 1970's has been "free-market" economics.
These text books present the ideas of neo-liberal (free-market) economists who believe, against the evidence of history, that no limits or regulations should be put on "markets" (which, in the real world means rich people, big investors, etc)
These same economists that couldn't see an $8 trillion housing bubble building back in 2006-2007!
The minimum wage is already way too high. That's why jobs are going to Asia. At least that is working well for the big companies and their shareholders (like ME). I've made a bundle in the market. I don't care for Obama that much but as long as I'm making money, where's the beef.
I love capitalism.
@Jax A
For those currently working at minimum wage - if you remove it, the "market" will determine their value even lower for purposes of cutting costs. Skill sets? We aren't talking about candidates with specific and specialized skill sets that have 10 years of experience in a field under their belt. Just your average Joe worker. The "non-skilled" or "not sufficiently skilled". (What about the disabled, by the way?) If the market will bear between $5-6 for entry level positions, how skilled will you have to be to earn a living wage? Yes, I'm aware that the argument is "you aren't supposed to make a living on those wages." So how do you pay the bills trying to start out and work your way up, developing the needed experience to advance? Catch-22.
The idea to subsidize training for workers, as ProBusiness advocates, has issues. First of all, how do you determine who should be assisted? If there is no minimum wage and starting wages fall (and indeed they would), everyone would seek help so they can "advance" in income. Train too many and you run into the scenario that I described in #1.172. Bottlenecks.
Attempting to sell the idea that "you're worth your value", in my opinion, is more idealistic than anything a "loony liberal" could come up with. It sounds good on paper, but it completely disregards the reality of a profit driven culture. As you so succinctly stated, corporate is not a charity, nor is it your friend or family (though some will claim they are). It operates on the ultimate goal of making more green. The easiest way to shed cost is to do so at the bottom/mid tier - only to claim that if they work hard enough, they will make by. Carrot on a stick. Removing the minimum wage would move that carrot further away. Income disparity is already a sad state of affairs in this country.
Be mindful that those that work at the so called bottom - those that do it well, work their asses off, and even take on additional responsibilities aren't always "valued" at an appropriate level. Minimum wage or not, that won't change. Again, employers will still hire within a range for any given position, determined largely by region and competitors - and of course, trying to get the most out of an employee for the least amount of cost. This utopian concept of being worth what you offer also ignores the old adage that it's not always what you know, but WHO you know that opens the door to opportunity. This is all too true in the age of social networking.
Calvin: Clearly you have never taken an economics course nor ever have run a business. A business will pay a worker up to their value. They won't pay less because this worker, having a higher value, will take a job with a company that WILL pay their value. And if there is a mandated minimum wage then any worker who has a value LESS than the minimum wage will not be able to find a job. It is really an easy logic to understand and don't see why you cannot understand?
Arch: I love how you say I am "wrong" but after confirming I am simply repeating what EVERY economics textbook in in the country states you somehow try to explain that somehow these economics professionals DON'T understand economics but YOU have this uncanny knowledge that nobody else has?
Mark Twain said it best when he said "It is better to keep your mouth shut at the risk of looking like a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". You should heed that advice.
ProBusiness
Clearly you assume too much. But my personal business is none of yours.
At a mandated minimum wage, no one is valued less than that amount. That's a good thing. It serves as a basis of comparison. It's the bottom of a measuring stick. The debate over whether to raise the minimum wage or not is a healthy one. Pros and cons to each side.
The debate over whether it should exist at all is unfortunate. Who are you to value someone less than a meager wage? You want people to consider your "ProBusiness" side of an argument, however, you provide an overly simplified analysis of how the world works. You want to employ someone below the federal minimum wage? How in the hell are they supposed to live whilst attempting to gain the skills and experience necessary to advance? There is 0 consideration on your part for the cost of living in any given region of this country. You don't consider those who may not be able to so quickly advance due to health concerns. Your logic, while it is "easy" to understand, lacks nuance. Not everyone shares the same opportunity!
You still haven't addressed the concerns regarding subsidizing training. Please read and reply accordingly.
This is the biggest issue/difference we have:
Do you not realize that the value will fall within a CONSTRAINED range for any given position? There are limitations to the amount of money a business will be willing to pay! YES, company Y may decide to pay more than X and Z, however, the difference won't be significant for lower tier jobs. If an applicant has the most skills and experience necessary for a position, a company might hire for $.50 more an hour than the rest of the schmoes. Is that enough? You certainly won't see someone being hired, AS PER YOUR OWN EXAMPLE, for $10 an hour instead of $5 for a similar job. That's crazy. Values will be largely predetermined.
@CalvinOR
That might be what others were discussing, but I wasn't, and I'm not. The minimum wage, like I said, is an artificial wage floor to guard against that "over-lowering" the market might produce. However, for absolutely everyone else who isn't a minimum-wage worker, we have to deal with what the labor market dishes out. We WANT people to deal with what the labor market dishes out and not relying on that artificial wage floor. Our society and economy will ALWAYS be better with MORE people dealing with what the labor market dishes out than a lot of people trying to be "living" on minimum wage.
Just like $5-6$/hr isn't a living wage, neither is $7.25, and neither is $9/hr, and in fact, neither is $10/hr. This is why this whole argument of "oooh, skill-less people need a living wage" doesn't hold water, because a real "living wage" will always be quite a distance above minimum wage.
This is why we encourage people to go to vocational school and/or college after high school, so that they can get these skill sets. We'd never be able, as an economy, nor as a country or society, to support everyone coming out of high school and just handing a "liveable wage" to people for showing up for non-skilled work. Nor would we want to. We would have a society of lazy takers who'd rather live in a less-than optimal quality of living than a productive society or economy. Think of Greece, only worse.
The way ALL of us self-sustaining adults did. We all (and by all, I mean, by far, MOST of us) came out of college as green as green can be. Most of us were in debt from school loans and credit cards, and we took jobs that paid very little, hopefully in what our college degree/vocational training was suited for. Then we got experience, then we either got promoted or moved on to companies that would pay us more for the experiences we gained from this very green starting point. This is how most non-skilled people are expected to start out in order to get the skills/experience. We don't, nor should we want to, subsidize people's "living" until they gain the experience to be making $45k or $50k/yr.
Most state universities allow you to get tuition for free or substantially reduced if you're on unemployment. There's no such "determination" in that case. Those on unemployment would seek that free training from universities as long as their unemployment was in place. Sure, some universities might have to triage people behind the paying students, but it's not like there's any kind of triage going on within the unemployed for that free tuition.
Also, some companies will offer tuition assistance to certain employees, but the person have to have a job in order to take advantage of that benefit. My second job out of college offered that and I took advantage of that to take courses towards my masters.
There are ways to get training, that many of us were able to find. Plenty of people will find excuses as to why they couldn't find these ways and "everyone else" was magically and unfairly able to. Raising the minimum wage to a point people still can't "live off of" won't address this lack of motivation (or excuse making), nor any real problems caused by a weak economy.
Again, I was never talking about getting rid of the minimum wage, I've just been saying that it, and even a few dollars above it, aren't, and probably never will be a "living wage." The goal has to be to get off of it, not rely on it to "live on." Income disparity has always been a "sad state of affairs" in our country, and in fact, was worse in 1928. The disparity goes up and down with our economy. When the economy sucks, the disparity actually isn't as bad as when the economy's good.
Any Econ 101 textbook will tell you the PROS and CONS of all economic models in Chapter 1. And the CON against a capitalistic economy has always been the uneven distribution of wealth. Until people can prove an economic model (not a governing model, which all the whiners here confuse with an economic model all the time) to be better than capitalism, then I'd suggest those people move to North Korea or Cuba or a country that "redistributes" wealth oh so successfully. If people can find a country that does capitlism better than we do (people talk about Germany all the time) then again, I'd suggest moving to those countries, too.
As far as "who you know", well yeah, nepotism and other things do come in to play, but no economic model is safe from nepotism/favoritism. No economic model in existence will make life fair. Neither will raising the minimum wage when so many businesses are already struggling to stay afloat in such a bad economy.
@CalvinOR
The same way everyone else does! People without skills have to sacrifice all kinds of things like expensive housing, cars, clothing, getting married and having kids, etc... until they have those skills in order to get a job to afford the nicer apartment/house, car, clothing, family, etc... Why is this tricky? We DON'T WANT the government to force companies to pay people $30k/yr (barely scraping by in many parts of the country and still NOT ENOUGH TO "LIVE ON" in bigger cities) for pulling groceries across a scanner or flipping burgers to subsidize people while waiting (or just hoping in many cases) that they will advance their skill sets. We can't afford it economically, nor would we want it as a society.
You're wrong here. I'm sure ProBusiness, and all of us who understand economics, realizes that the labor markets of each region are very in-tune with their respective costs of living. An Oracle DBA, engineer, professor, etc... in NYC will always have a higher wage than their counterparts in East Overshoe, AnyState. And you're wrong with regards to minimum wage, too. Minimum wages vary by state and do take their respective states' costs into account.
No economic model "understands nuance." No economic model takes everyone's life situation into account. To say "our profit-driven economy is mean because it doesn't take all these things into account" is pretty silly because life will never be fair no matter which economic model you live under. At least in this country, with its economic and governing models, the opportunities exist. Whether people take advantage of all the different kinds of opportunities is neither a weakness nor a strength of the model, but a weakness or strength of human nature.
@Jax A
Thank you for your considerable reply.
I'll start here:
Ok. It seems the conversation took a turn when ProB. argued that a minimum wage shouldn't exist. Since that is not necessarily your position, I will forgo debating on that point.
I actually think that one can make it on minimum wage, depending on whereabouts (State, rural vs. metro, public transportation options, etc) and number of hours offered. This assumes, of course, that the employee is in relatively good health and is single. That last factor should be emphasized - personal accountability. If you are living on minimum wage, you should probably avoid marriage and kids - unless you have other means of establishing financial security.
Unfortunately, higher education guarantees nothing in terms of developing skill sets that are appropriate to the job market in today's service economy. There is now a saturation of graduates with relatively useless degrees. Older generations still push the idea that their children and grandchildren should attend college because a degree, any degree, is a ticket to success. This is no longer the case, especially as the costs of attending institutions have risen sharply. Something else to consider: more entry level jobs are requiring degrees in their respective field. Due to saturation and competition (particularly from foreign students), employers want experience beyond what you would typically think is reasonable for a graduate just starting out. Times have changed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to be considered independent to qualify for unemployment? The FAFSA declares that you are still dependent on your parents if you're under the age of 23, unless that has changed. A majority of students begin within a year or two after high school. Perhaps it depends on the state.
In any case, school is not an option for everyone (nor should it be). Internships aren't always a viable option either, due to the fact that few will offer financial assistance. For a large majority of internships that I've ever found, YOU pay to work. You'd better have some parents with deep pockets, because we're talking thousands of dollars.
We have a mixed economic system. This has been true for a long time now. Those who would prefer a pure, free market economy should have realized this and left generations ago. I say this firmly with tongue-in-cheek, of course. I do not suggest that those who lean toward certain economic models should leave the country. I WOULD suggest that one have a basic understanding of modern history if they are to advocate one way or another, but that's it. Debate is the centerpiece of our democratic republic.
And this is important to note, particularly for people like ProBusiness, who firmly believe that the value someone provides would always be reflected in compensation received. That's not how people work.. that's not how business works.. that's not how the world works. It's far too idealistic.
As far as raising the minimum wage goes, please see my post 1.123, where I addressed the potential negative impact to small businesses. Rather than being mired in political ideology (see a majority of posters), I attempt to view issues from multiple angles. I believe that a minimum wage should exist, however, whether or not we should raise it is complex.
Perhaps not everyone aspires for a life of increasing consumption, as I have already elaborated on. Someone who just wants to work to live should at least be provided a means to do so. Not everyone dreams of climbing a corporate ladder or owning their own business - just as we as human beings do not all share the same personality traits. Simple living can serve as an end. For those people, living modestly is important. Personal accountability is essential. A living wage is crucial. The existence of a minimum wage, a bottom, at least allows an individual to work with a sense of security. Be careful in labeling others as "lazy" just because they don't share your interests. Be especially mindful of those who have health concerns that may impair their ability to help themselves.
I agree that the minimum wage should be raised especially these massive corporations who pay their employees next to nothing so they can forever feed that insatiable beast call profits. In Washington State we have an over 9 dollars and hour minimum wage and it has not hurt business at all. People who give their lives to a company deserve to at least make a livable wage. Anyone who is against that simply isn't christian.
There have been useless college degrees ever since we've had college, and NOTHING in life has ever been guaranteed. This hasn't changed. What IS almost certain is that your quality of life is going to be a lot worse if you don't get any kind of degree or vocational training.
There are more students in ALL disciplines, not just the useless ones. The difference is, today students are coming out more in debt. All the more reason kids have to be guided to take marketable and practical degrees. If kids think degrees like Underwater Basket-Weaving and Ancient Asian Lesbian Unicorn Studies are going to land them work, raising the minimum wage certainly isn't going to help them, or anyone, making such ridiculous academic choices.
Kids not having experience coming out of college and having to compete with experienced people is nothing new. The "experience is required but nobody will hire me without experience" dilemna is something all previous generations had to deal with, this generation isn't unique. And what I find interesting about people complaining about foreign students is that even with more foreign students in our economy, STEM jobs (science, tech, engineering and math) are sitting vacant in our country. These are good paying jobs, too, but we just don't have enough qualified people to fill them, even in this terrible economy.
http://stemwire.org/2012/10/03/supply-demand-mismatch-leaves-stem-jobs-unfilled/
The whole "jobs require experience and our kids can't compete against so many foreigners" are empty and invalid excuses. Kids fresh out of college/training have always had to deal with lack of real-world experience, and will always have to.
Not to sound argumentative, but ProBusiness is right, and it's you who are the one being idealistic. What he's saying is right on a macroeconomic level. Yes, some people might have a rich father or mother with lots of connections, or rich ancestors with a lucrative family business and they can land a cushy job where they work very little with little experience and lacking any really valuable skill sets while comparative geniuses work much harder and make less, but those will be exceptions, not the norm. You KEEP wanting to disqualify his macroeconomic truths based on all the exceptions you can think of.
This is where we'll never agree. No one is ever owed a job, nor a "living." We WANT a society where people have to pursue it. A minimum wage job doesn't provide a "living."
There are myriad "livings" in our economy. The minimum wage isn't a "simple living," it's NO "living." You can't live off the minimum wage, nor the minimum wage + $1/hr nor the minimum wage + $2/hr nor the minimum wage + $3/hr. It's not even close to providing anyone a living.
I'm afraid you're not grasping this. Minimum wage provides "no security" and "no living" whatsoever. The only "security" (if you want to call it that) it provides is that the number that is already way too low to live off of, won't go any lower.
This has no bearing on minimum wage discussions, there are always exceptions based upon health concerns, at all wage levels, in all economic models, etc...
Calvin: You have spent a great degree of effort to disagree with me but let me make one straightforward comment: You and I want the same thing.
You and I BOTH want people to make more money. The difference is you believe it appropriate to ask an employer to pay a worker more than they are worth. I ask that we simply try to increase the value of the worker so the employer will WANT to pay them more.
And I say it once again: Minimum Wage laws are what has caused the rapid growth in low-skilled unemployment. When you mandate a minimum wage you are forcing a business to decide between paying a worker more than they are worth (which an employer will NOT do) OR just deciding to do without that worker.
Additionally the vast majority of minimum wage workers are those who do not need a "living wage". They include those working part-time while going to high school who does not have any "living expenses" (rent, food, etc.) and whose parents might actually be wealthy. Why can't these workers work for, say, $6.50 or $7.00 an hour?
While going to college I was a manager at a large supermarket chain in the south and many of our minimum wage workers were elderly who had pensions and income elsewhere. So why work for minimum wage? Not for the money. They simply wanted to stay active, come in contact with people on a daily basis, and feel "energized" doing something and not sitting at home. What if we could hire two or three more of these workers if they were willing to work for, say, $6.50 or $7.00 an hour?
And there IS a way we can help those in need. If a person cannot find a job that pays more than, say, $6.50 an hour why can't they apply for assistance like Food Stamps, etc.? They tell the governmental agency that they are supporting a family of, say, 4 and can't find a higher paying job. This governmental agency can "subsidize" this worker an additional, say, $200 a week BUT in exchange for the additional money they must attend a class that meets twice a week to learn computer skills, remedial math/english classes, learn how to count money, etc. We certainly CAN identify the small number of people who ACTUALLY support a family and do not have additional wealth or income. Let's focus and help those who REALLY need help and not students, retirees (with sufficient other income/wealth), etc.
Minimum Wage causes unemployment. It is stated in every textbook in the country AND has been proven empirically on many occasions. The way to grow this economy, and a person's value, is to have as many people working as possible (called labor-participation) and as they work they learn new skills. As they learn new skills they increase their value. As they increase their value their wages will increase.
Let's focus on fixing the PROBLEM of the low-skilled worker which is their low skill value to where they are not even worth the mandated minimum wage. Let's get people working, subsidize those who REALLY need help (while at the same time give these low-skilled workers training so they are no longer "low-skilled"), and grow this economy and THEN a minimum wage won't even be needed.
@Jax A
Haha. I don't remember those options being offered when I was in school. But in all seriousness, raising the minimum wage won't help anyone who incurred substantial debt in college. We are in agreement that there are a select few fields that have any chance of yielding decent returns. The problem is, again, that parents are pushing their kids out the door and into school without a realistic perspective. A college degree of any kind used to be more valuable than it is now. Studies have confirmed this. All the while, universities are always happy to take in more students - and why wouldn't they? Just another sucker.
I would argue that are so called "higher education" system needs reform. But that's a different topic.
Perhaps not, but IT HAS been worse over the past several years. And since there are more graduates, there is more competition for the few jobs out there. I will also add that there are an increasing number of fields that are upping the credentials needed just to land jobs at an entry level. The dilemma is not new, no, but the current generation has a tougher go at it.
You don't need to have a rich family with connections, per se - you only need connections. The job search is all about social networking these days, if you want to advance. It's not enough to have skills and experience. Ideally, those who possess the knowledge and know-how will be valued over the next candidate (value = worth). The problem is that a certain amount of brown nosing is also required. If you want to get to the top, be prepared to kiss a lot of bottom. Politics and social dynamics get in the way of those profound macroeconomic truths.
That is correct, people aren't owed a job. That's not what I'm saying. Those that pursue work at the minimum level should be able to get by living a minimalist lifestyle, if that is their prerogative. Whether or not that is possible, or SHOULD be possible, is what we disagree with. It's hard to imagine in a society that encourages consumption and ever increasing growth, but some people refuse the life-as-an-assembly-line philosophy. We don't all choose to live the same way.
@ProBusiness
I have never demanded, or even asked, an employer to pay me any specific amount at all. If you're smart, you won't. It's always "negotiable". Many employers list a range of income and determine if you have enough experience to justify paying a few pennies more. The employee has no say in this process - not for low wage work. If you believe that the lack of a minimum wage will change this, I believe you to be mistaken.
It's funny because I myself recently had an interview over the phone - I asked the employer what the expected wage range was for the position I was applying for. $10-11/hr. Not bad. They then proceeded to ask me what the minimum wage was in my area and how I felt about it.. There is no good reason to ask such a question unless they are probing people to find out if they can get by paying prospective employees less in the future for the same position.
I must say I'm somewhat surprised at your response, advocating for assistance programs like Food Stamps. Some believe that such entitlement programs should be abolished because they do nothing but promote, wait for it - unemployment and a lazy, good-for-nothing attitude. Certainly not of the bootstrap mentality. And why should we help subsidize training for poor folks with families? Personal accountability! They made the ill-advised decision to have kids on a minimal income so they must suffer the consequences, right?
We are going around in circles now. If you axe the minimum wage, you cut the bottom out from not just retirees and high school students, but those who do their best to live on what little they can. If you start at the bottom, and can't pay simple living expenses, then you certainly won't be able to gain the skills and experience necessary to "advance", if indeed that's the goal.
Subsidizing training for those "in need" is subjective. If you subsidize a few, others will claim they need help to. You open a Pandora's box.
Dean Baker is a co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research
Raising the Minimum Wage Is Cheap and Easy
By Dean Baker
Posted: 07/23/2012 4:23 pm
There are some policies that are pretty much no-brainers. We all agree that the Food and Drug Administration should keep dangerous drugs off the market. We all agree that the government should provide police and fire protection. And, we pretty much all agree that workers should be able to count on at least some minimal pay for a day's work.
The minimum wage is non-controversial. The vast majority of people across the political spectrum support the minimum wage. In fact, one of the big accomplishments of the Gingrich Congress in 1996 was a 22 percent increase in the minimum wage. The only real issue is how high it should be. There are good reasons for believing that the minimum wage should be considerably higher than it is today.
At the current rate of $7.25 an hour, a full-time year-round worker would have gross pay of less than $15,000 a year. This is less than half of what the average Fortune 500 CEO makes in a day. It would be hard enough for a single person to survive on this income, imagine trying to support a child or even two on this money. And, close to 40 percent of the workers who would be benefited by a minimum wage increase have kids.
The counter-argument against raising the minimum wage is that it would actually hurt the people we are trying to help by reducing employment. There is little basis for this claim. The impact of the minimum wage on employment is one of the most heavily researched topics in economics.
Most recent research finds that it has no impact on employment. Even the research that finds job loss shows that the effect is small, suggesting that a 20 percent increase in the minimum wage may reduce employment of young people by around 2 to 3 percent…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/raising-the-minimum-wage_b_1696177.html
Pro-business:
Arch: I love how you say I am "wrong" but after confirming I am simply repeating what EVERY economics textbook in in the country states you somehow try to explain that somehow these economics professionals DON'T understand economics but YOU have this uncanny knowledge that nobody else has?
Pro-business:
If you would have read economic text books in the 1960's or before they would have said something completely different. That was back when Keynesian (demand side) economics was dominant among politicians and policy makers (and in text books) and we had lots of good paying jobs and a growing middle class instead of a high unemployment and a shrinking middle class we do now with the "Free-market" philosophy you mindlessly repeat.
I was around back then so I can speak from experience. It was typical then for only one person to work in the family and have enough money for house, food, car, vacation etc.
Now we have two work slaves in most families at least one of which sometimes have to work more than one job just to make ends meet. That's why the growth in Day Care which was almost non-existant before the 1970's.
We're all very impressed with the economic education you probably got from an online class from a community college but spare us the phony, authoritative tone.
And by the way, did you see the $8 trillion housing bubble back in 2006-2007?
I would bet not and the economists you think so highly of didn't either.
Here's some who did see it and warned about it: Economist Dean Baker
Dean Baker is a co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research
Raising the Minimum Wage Is Cheap and Easy
By Dean Baker
Posted: 07/23/2012 4:23 pm
There are some policies that are pretty much no-brainers. We all agree that the Food and Drug Administration should keep dangerous drugs off the market. We all agree that the government should provide police and fire protection. And, we pretty much all agree that workers should be able to count on at least some minimal pay for a day's work.
The minimum wage is non-controversial. The vast majority of people across the political spectrum support the minimum wage. In fact, one of the big accomplishments of the Gingrich Congress in 1996 was a 22 percent increase in the minimum wage. The only real issue is how high it should be. There are good reasons for believing that the minimum wage should be considerably higher than it is today.
At the current rate of $7.25 an hour, a full-time year-round worker would have gross pay of less than $15,000 a year. This is less than half of what the average Fortune 500 CEO makes in a day. It would be hard enough for a single person to survive on this income, imagine trying to support a child or even two on this money. And, close to 40 percent of the workers who would be benefited by a minimum wage increase have kids.
The counter-argument against raising the minimum wage is that it would actually hurt the people we are trying to help by reducing employment. There is little basis for this claim. The impact of the minimum wage on employment is one of the most heavily researched topics in economics.
Most recent research finds that it has no impact on employment. Even the research that finds job loss shows that the effect is small, suggesting that a 20 percent increase in the minimum wage may reduce employment of young people by around 2 to 3 percent…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/raising-the-minimum-wage_b_1696177.html
Well damn, Arch....sounds like there are some studies out there that kinda disprove all those text books that ProBusiness says he's read....imagine that? And, it must have made sense to him, as he hasn't responded.
Thanks for finding the logical argument made by someone even ProBusiness can respect.
Pay more so people want to work.
sounds good boss hog! how much you gonna pay me?
With your special skills, you're going to have to pay US!
hey, that's not fair!
stop fighting ... U 2
time to beat swords into plowshares...
@Pig,
Pay more so people want to work.
May I expound upon that?
Pay people MORE so that MORE people want to work!
Bali....but these so called 'Job Creators' have moved their a$$-et (asset) to the Cayman and Bermuda islands and have moved jobs to other countries. There are not enough jobs there.
.
so do you see a$$ in their a$$ets (assets).
You raise the minimum wage everything else also goes up bottom line they are still on welfare and haven't gained a thing, except now they may have to pay taxes. You want to make more $$ find one of Obama's shovel ready jobs LOL
No, No, NO! More than likely many people would no longer be approved for cash assistance on the welfare program, and in all likelihood their food stamp allocation would go down. There are income guidelines, you know!
I agree, AlaskaGirl, it's a good take (#2.8). It's one of the reasons that Reagan supported expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). When people work, then they gather more work experience, earn more, then get off such government tax credit.
But the picture is too complex, the nation is too large. But the overall picture is that higher wages tend to boost productivity, lower reliance on government welfare programs, raise government tax revenue, promote career growth of the poor and the young on entry level jobs. Many young people work on minimum wages too ... but higher wages can help them to move up the social economic ladder, help them gain in work experience and pay college education.
Alaska Girl and Pigotry,
Do either of you work for the Department of Public Assistance or are your opinions just stabs in the dark?
I think that the minimum wage needs to be adjusted. It needs to be split in two.
There should be a minimum wage that follows the prevailing federal floor while the other should follow with market demand. However, although the market would dictate this wage level, this position must be full time and offer fringe benefits.
By splitting the two, it will allow businesses more flexibility. Positions where there's room to grow will likely follow the market-dictated wage rate and hire full-time employees. These would be entry-level positions designed for new hires to be able to prove themselves and move up.
The other side however is to fill temporary and seasonal needs. This position is not one with a lot, or any conceivable room for growth and does not offer benefits. It simply offers a federally mandated minimum pay at whatever amount of time the employer needs the worker for...it however doesn't require that the worker be offered benefits.
Thoughts?
I guess the taxpayers will have to pay for the increased cost of food stamps and welfare support, since the cost of living WILL go up. Military 24% of the budget, Welfare 12% of the budget. Pretty pathetic Welfare cost will eventually exceed the cost of the Military
If you want to see a society with low wages look at Mexico. Wages are so low a large portion of society has no problem being criminals.
It sounds great but in reality it will just raise the cost of living and even though the minum wage is higher we will be paying more for goods and srevices. Thats why peope who work in fast food in place like NY get paid more than minimum wage now because of the cost of living. Look at California they pay higher wages but have the higest gas prices in the country. To be honest with as many people out of work now is probaly not the b est time to make the few that are hiring have to pay more.
Well Pigy, Alaska and Wake why don't we just raise the minimum wage to $60.00 an hour. The people with a fixed retirement income will love ya for that, as the cost of living will soar beyond infinity. Apparently you all studied Liberalism Math 101
Why don't YOU lay off the hysterics?
It's an ugly emotion!
Just sayin...
Raising the minimum wage is a hidden tax. The more an individual earns the more they contribute.
Who are the majority of individuals working for minimum wage? Who honestly decides to work at a minimum wage job and think I am going to stay in this position forever? Now if you rasie the minimum wage to 9 whatever, do you have to pay the people more who were previously making 9 dollars an hour?
Do you honestly not think that companies are going to make the consumers pay more to offset the costs? Good luck finding a dollar menu at fast food places and watching prices continue to rise at the grocery stores.
Bottom line is this, this will hurt people who are on fixed incomes, like SS or even people on unemployment. They will still get the same money, but their money doesn't go as far.
Feisty so $60.00 isn't enough to entice a worker to work?
@ vikant:
Fiesty and others like it (because I'm really not sure if it is actually a person) clearly doesn't have a coherent response for your very valid question vikant! The idiots fogged by their socialist-liberalism didn't think of that - oops, the poor old people will be starving and freezing to death at their hands!!
LOL! Talk about walking into one. LiL Michelle just got knocked out cold.
How about we invest in our children's education so we can build a strong, well trained and efficient workforce so most of them won't have to worry about what the hell the minimum wage is? Oh wait, that would be moving the country forward and doing something positive for other people. Sorry, my bad.
Laura-numbers: Alaska Girl and Pigotry,
Do either of you work for the Department of Public Assistance or are your opinions just stabs in the dark?
Laura, I spent three years working as an Adult Advocate in a Domestic Violence shelter, so I do know what I am talking about when it comes to the public assistance program as I had to often help women in the shelter with their application process and review the income guidelines as well as the guidelines one on public assistance one must follow when they get a wage increase, and I often went with them to their interview so that I could better help them understand. Yeah, some might say, "yeah, if they disclose the wage increase". They have to re-qualify for the assistance.
Hey, Laura-313822 (#2.10)
No Pigotry just ... loves to dance in the dark ... accompanied by music Gaga, ooh, la, la
Lil Michelle,
I'll pay you $2.13 per hour + tips. You may find it hard to live on that, unless the tips are tucked into your g-string
There comes a time when it is not. Retirement, it is a time to make room for the younger ones. Our nations economic state also helped on a moral level.
AlaskaGirl,
Just how long ago was it that you spent an entire three years assisting these people? The guidelines for Public Assistance change on a regular basis. If the minimum wage goes up, prices will go up, PA benefits will go up.
The people receiving these benefits have to regularly be reapproved. This is nothing new.
"Some 71 percent of those surveyed said they supported raising the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour from $7.25, while 27 percent opposed it, according to a Gallup Poll released Wednesday"
Surprisingly those 27%ers who oppose it, are the ones who could use it...THE RED STATES!!!
An illiterate mind is something else, aint it?
Your Red State politicians are stepping on your nuts folks...they could care less, they earn big bucks while you folks dont. How about that for a wake up call?
Well, keep drinking that moonshine and burning up in the trailer...we tried
" it is a time to make room for the younger ones" Well in that case Exito lets make the minimum wage $5,000 an hour and watch the Seniors starve then we can close down the Senior centers, since we won't be needing them anymore. Apparently you don't really know what Morals really are
So, tell me, Laura, do you currently work for Public Assistance? To answer your question as to how long ago, it has been just about four years since my last day working at the DV shelter.
$60.00 an hour is not enough? Try getting a CEO to work for such a patry wage!
I don't get the piggies and the redheads of this world... they want more for nothing.. and expect those of us that do have jobs to pay for those that won't work... minimum wage jobs were never designed to support a family. Those jobs were usually for under 21's to get hanging out money.
If you depend on McDonalds to support you and your family... maybe you should rethink your financial situation. Maybe you shouldn't have had those three kids you couldn't have supported in the first place.
I'm sorry... I'm already paying 41% of my paycheck thanks to BHO... and now you expect me to pay more?!?!
Red head and the pig... why don't you two get jobs and volunteer to pay more out of YOUR check... I'm done supporting you poor life choices and bad life decisions. It's time for all you 47%er to start depending on your own selves...
Our $7.25 minimum wage is less than half the minimum wage in Australia. We should pay people enough to live off of, and $7.25 an hour is not enough. I think we should double it to $14.50 and index it to the CPI-W. I am a republican and I think everyone should make a livable wage.
Well, my little Nazi friend, I have heard Somolia is lovely this time of year!
You might want to try it out, prior to spreading your hateful seeds! ;o)
Poor little thing, actually believes it's superior to the rest...
Pay more so people can pay more in taxes and pay more for goods and services as prices rise in response to the hike. More obtuse thinking from the rightys!
Republicons want you to starve, eat dog food and live like Pigs in the streets, that's what $7.25 Hr. does, great life !!!
Pro Freedom,
An average waitress in Washington state makes $9.15 an hour plus tips, but a meal at I-HOP or Denny's is the same price as in Arizona where the average waitress is paid $2.13 an hour plus tips....What is the difference, and why aren't restaurants in Washington state raising prices or going broke ?
seaskip - If you don't like living on $7.25/hour, then get off your lazy ass and go get the skills to land a job paying $37.25/hour. See how easy that is, whiner?
I have no college and some prior military and I make over $150K every year. It isn't rocket science but there is a catch . . . you have to actually have some initiative and be willing to work your ass off so that when those opportunities present themselves you're prepared to take advantage of them. (I know that terrifies you liberals but give it a shot.)
And Fisty: Regarding you smart-ass comment to Sadden American, I can assure you that when you look at the tangible value, wealth and job creation that Conservatives create for this country in general, and the economy specifically, relative to what liberals with their me-me, gimme gimme gimme attitudes create, we most certainly are vastly superior to you.
And since you also think that deranged monkeys humping their own gender justifies homosexuality, let's apply the animal kingdom as a metaphor to this as well, shall we?
Conservatives = Host (Givers) Liberals = Parasite (Takers)
Okay, school's out now...
Terry - Australia's minimum wage is a little more complicated than that. For example, at age 16 that minimum wage is cut in half, and you grade into the full minimum wage (the rate you are referring to) over the next several years. Taking this into account, their minimum wage is actually lower than that of the US for the age group where it most often applies.
With regards to your plan for doubling the minimum wage, all you are going to accomplish is to dramatically increase the unemployment rate of America's youth. And if you can't get a job when you are young, then how are you supposed to gain the skills and experience necessary to get better, higher paying jobs as you get older? Which brings us back to Australia's increasing minimum wage...
And finally, with regards to "livable" wages - no one has any inherent "right" to any wage whatsoever. If everyone in the world was guaranteed a livable wage, why would anyone work? And what then could anyone do with their wage, if there was no food/water/house/etc. to spend it on (because these things are created by working, not by minimum wage laws)? You have a right to the pursuit of happiness in this country, not to happiness itself.
Ellis - This tells me one thing: Arizona has too many waiters and waitresses, which pushes down the salary (basic supply and demand of labor), and Washington doesn't have enough. For if there were a shortage of waiters and waitresses in Arizona, restaurants would be forced to pay a higher salary in order to attract the labor needed to run the restaurant. Sure enough, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Arizona has the 5th highest concentration of waiting jobs in the country, at nearly 21 per 1000 total jobs. Washington, on the other hand, has one of the lowest.
By the way, IHOP prices, along with prices of other restaurant chains, do vary by state. And the minimum hourly wage for a tipped employee in Arizona is $4.80 according to the Department of Labor. In fact, the average hourly wage (including tips) of waiters and waitresses in Arizona is $10/hour, compared to $14/hour in Washington - not nearly as dramatic as you had illustrated. Maybe try to cut back on the misinformation next time.
Pigotry "Pay more so people want to work."
Work harder/smarter so you deserve more pay.
Despite the poor job market prospects under Obama, there are many people getting raises even today - the ones that 'deserve' them by making themselves more valuable to their employers.
There is one big difference between those who 'climb the ladder of success' and those that 'cling to the bottom of the ladder' - ATTITUDE.
Of course, the exception is the Liberal's dream - a Union shop, where everyone is supposed to get the same pay - whether they work hard or hardly work.
What an ignorant comment. Are you suggesting there is a segment of the population that is so endeared to its government handout that it won't work? How else does it survive without working?
"viknat
You raise the minimum wage everything else also goes up bottom line they are still on welfare and haven't gained a thing, except now they may have to pay taxes. You want to make more $$ find one of Obama's shovel ready jobs LOL"
Have I missed something somewhere...wages have not gone up but prices have in most areas....profits for big companies have also gone up..along with huge CEO benefit packages...but wages for those that actually work has not. The number of layoffs has come down a bit..but not all that much....and in some places would not be surprised if wages paid had not come down. Wages for those in congress have not come down..they even voted to hold off on their own pay increase till later thinking I am sure that a possible fuss might be made if they did that while cutting every thing else.
Alaska Girl.....
You are correct. But a trained Monkey could do those jobs.
How much should we pay trained monkeys?
When will the trained monkey come to the realization that his job sucks and needs to do something about it, other than complain that it isn't paying enough to live. Shall we continue to increase the amount that trained monkeys are paid to do jobs that any trained monkey could do?
Simple answer, you don't....at some point the trained monkey has to want something more than a job that other trained monkeys could do just as well.
Obama needs more tax revenue. Isn't that incentive enough to want to work?
Your statement simply proves that gov't handouts are entirely too leniant if you can make more than $7.50/hr sitting on your butt all day.
Why are there so few jobs right now? Part of the reason is that there is not as much demand for product because so many people are out of work.
It is an economic "catch-22". There aren't so many jobs because there is no demand. There isn't much demand because so many are out of work. There aren't so many jobs because...
Now, let us say that the minimum wage is increased. People working at minimum wage jobs would suddenly have a little more income. With that extra income, they could actually buy more goods and services. That would generate more demand and could actually spur more hiring in the economy.
From an article in the New Yorker published Feb 13, 2013:
A second important and (largely) undisputed finding is that there is no obvious link between the minimum wage and the unemployment rate. During the nineteen sixties, when the minimum wage was raised sharply, unemployment rates were sharply lower than they were in the nineteen eighties, when the real value of the minimum wage fell dramatically. If you look across the states, some of which set a minimum wage above the federal minimum, you can't see any sign of higher rates leading to higher unemployment. In Nevada, where the national minimum of $7.25 an hour applies, the jobless rate is 10.2 per cent. In Vermont, where the minimum wage is $8.60 an hour, the unemployment rate is 5.1 per cent. What these figures tell us is that other factors, such as the overall state of the economy and how local industries are doing, matter a lot more for employment than the level of the minimum wage does.
Even in academic studies that do show higher minimum wages having a negative impact on employment, the effect is generally a small one, and it is usually confined to teen-agers and unskilled workers.
When P.O.T.U.S. Nixon introduced the wage freeze for wage earners all of the lackeys of the rich,and most of the rich,of course ,were pleased and were in agreement,but later on he sugested that it made sense to also have a price freeze to help the economy.That was when the political structure decided that a break-in of the Democratic Party offices was shocking and he would have to resign or be impeached. He resigned of course.
Oh, fer chrissake... you gotta change your tinfoil, dude!
No, Nixon was going to be impeached because he acted in a manner so egregious for a POTUS that even his own party could not stomach or condone it!
Yet another attempt to rewrite history in favor of Republicans! Will it never end?
If a small business owner can't figure out how to pay his employees a living wage, he's probably going out of business anyway.
Ursula you figure out the difference between Ron Paul and Rand Paul yet? It doesn't take that much research haha. I guess it is pretty hard for liberals to do research so I should probably give you a break. Like the fact that minimum wage was never intended to be "living wages" but just a start to better wages. Also, small businesses are already struggling, this is going to add to their struggle causing them to layoff more employees.
You've clearly never operated a small business. usually they don't even make a living wage in their first five years of operation and a lot of the time they end up in debt.
Bob, you are an @!$%#! Everyone here was having an honest to goodness discussion/debate about this issue and you have to go and muck it up! What's wrong, haven't met your bashing quota yet today?! Geez!
AlaskaGirl-759554:
I did bring up the issue after the Paul comment so please go reread my comment. After that please go back to Fiesty's comment... I am schooling the liberals on a little fact and logic up there.
FO.
AlaskaGirl-759554:
Great comeback/comment! Try again tomorrow.
Bob, I give you a "Hooray" for trying, but Liberals, Facts and Logic don't go together on the same page!
I have great credentials as a card carrying liberal. I also own a small business. The minimum wage in my state has increased three or four times in three or four years. This goes for tipped employees too. In our case, we cut out many positions altogether. Not because we're evil money grubbers, but because we couldn't afford to stay in business if we didn't. There are arguments for and against raising the minimum wage, but there's NO questions that employers will both raise prices and cut back on unskilled labor.
When I got my first minimum wage job, I KNEW I'd never stay at that job or that rate. It used to be you trained for a better position or went to school for career training. Minimum wage, imo, was NEVER meant to be a "living wage", but a wage teens earned when they were first entering the workforce. Now many teens can't even find work at all.
Bill from Oregon
... but apparently Republicans and mindless tiresome repetition do.
@ 1devon
Agreed, one of the first things taught in economics is how creating a floor or a ceiling on something typically generates an artificial shortage, or an over-abundance.
In the case of a minimum wage, or rent control, the mid and long-run effect is to reduce the supply of minimum wage jobs and quality housing.
I personally think that the concept of minimum wage needs to be split.
There needs to be 2 separate types.
This way, noncommittal employers could opt for the standard minimum wage position for seasonal and other on-demand, at-will kinds of work. And the second type could be useful for entry-level positions with room for upward mobility.
Exactly right!!! So why increase the minimum wage when people already can't find jobs? Makes no sense.
Bill from Oregon:
Bill you know, you live in Oregon! Oregon is just as bad as the East Coast!!! Also, if you look at Oregons minimum wage, ($8.95) which is second highest in the nation and then look at their unemployment rate (8.5) it gives clear PROOF that increased minimum wage doesn't help people find jobs!
Here, please allow me to correct this for you Bob!
DumbFux! lol
Please Feisty, the hypocrisy must stop! You're drooling over facts about Oregon's Unemployment rate and their minimum wage and the facts are scaring you.
So, the majority of the 1000 polled indicated we should increase the minimum wage. This may be the same group who said raise the taxes on someone else, not me.
For you libs looking for continued hand-outs, give a thought to getting a better (or initial) degree. Amazing how it works wonders with finding a higher paying job.
Little Boob,
I would ask if you own a mirror, however, it's a well known fact that people who sleep upside down in a closet and have an allergy to garlic, don't!
You have *cough* schooled NO ONE, little man!
Time to take another testosterone shot before you run out of false bravado, little buddy!
Appearently you haven't seen my other post so I'll repost it for your benefit:
"Oh sorry Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL I didn't know we were playing Skewed Liberal Rules. So you and ModelTrainMan can make fun of Conservatives and call them "bible thumping republicans who don't care about the poor," but when I call you out you say: "Assume much, Do you little boob?" Seriously stop with the hypocrisy!!!
Feisty, next time tell me we are playing President Obama rules, where we lie and tear down other people, but when somebody sticks up to you you call it "disrespectful, illogical, and stupid," so we're all on the same page. Thanks."
Minimum wage in 1969 was $10.50 adjusted for inflation. Unemployment was 3.5%.
No need little puter, we recognize those who believe they are a legend... shame for you it's only in your own mind! ;o)
Keep on drooling little buddy, I haven't laughed this hard in ages...
*popcorn*?
I'm fascinated at the amount of heartburn you harbor... 4 more for 44 and there is NOTHING you can do about it! LMFAO
Tell us how it feels to be on the losing end of where this country is headed?
Ursula - It's pretty obvious that you aren't a business owner. How long have you been on the government or union trough?
Well, yes, but it has nothing to do with minimum wage!
My first job was as a paperboy. How many paper boys did you see even before newspapers started to succumb to the Internet? No, what you saw was men delivering papers because there were no other jobs!
My son just graduated from college with a degree in software engineering. He can't find a job. Why? Because no company will hire him when they can hire someone with 10-15 years experience for the same amount of money because there are no other jobs! And yet, what do we hear? Well, companies need unlimited H1B visas because there are no qualified American workers in the software field.
BULLCRAP!
There are no qualified American workers in the software field that will work for starvation wages! Now, if you sponsor someone for an H1B visa and they must work for you at the rate you determine or be deported if they don't work for those same starvation wages...
Sorry, you're the one spouting BULLCRAP, here. I work in the IT world, and my company has had a DBA position open for more than a year now. There are also some front end/middle tier/mobile languages (.NET, Java, iOS/Android, etc...) that have been vacant for months, too. And our company isn't offering "starvation wages", the DBA position is for six digits, and the other languages range from $65k - $90k. This is not unique to just my company. You see positions like these, for wages like these, all over job posting sites across the country. We do have good paying STEM (sceience, tech, engineering, math) jobs going unfilled in this country. That is absolutely true.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/21/the-state-of-stem-and-jobs
It's a brand new world out there, folks. People who've been working their entire lives have been downsized and new people are entering the work force all the time.
"A rising tide lifts all boats."
Just raise the minimum wage and acknowledge that people deserve to be able to put food on the table.
And every time minimum wage goes up, inflation increases. Within a year, that 'increase' would be eaten up by rising costs for the products that are produced by minim wage earners, as well as everyone else, effectively decreasing the wages of professionals and skilled craftsmen and women.
Think about it - when minimum wage was &1.60, back in the 1960's, a loaf of bread cost a nickle or so, hamburger meat was about $.30 per pound when it was on sale, gas was $.20 a gallon. Today, with minimum wage at $7.25, a loaf of bread is $3.00, hamburger meat is about $5.00 per pound, and gas is around $4.00 per gallon.
All an increase in minimum wage does is devalue the American dollar even more.
Ahhh, but that old adage has been rewritten lately.
Rather a "rising tide that lifts all boats", this is "a leak in the rich man's yacht that lowers the waterline a few inches"! And when status is all based on just how far above the waterline each yacht sits...
Yup, it's John Kerry's yacht that he docks in other states to save on taxes.
Oh, the irony.
Molly43,Good comments.
Offer a decent wage and people won't ask the question "why work when I make more on welfare?" Just makes sense doesn't it.
Are you serious? How many people left the welfare roles last time the minimum wage was increased? If they have that kind of an attitude, they should receive neither.
Because the last Min Wage increase was still less than they make on welfare.
If you have your facts and figures all lined up the answer is clear. Lower welfare.
Better you should ask how many people willingly entered the welfare roles when the last recession hit?
9 million people left the role of gainfully employed in 12 months:
September 2008 – 432,000 jobs lost
October 2008 – 489,000 jobs lost
November 2008 – 803,000 jobs lost
December 2008 – 661,000 jobs lost
January 2009 – 818,000 jobs lost
February 2009 – 724,000 jobs lost
March 2009 – 799,000 jobs lost
April 2009 – 692,000 jobs lost
May 2009 – 361,000 jobs lost
June 2009 – 482,000 jobs lost
July 2009 – 339,000 jobs lost
August 2009 – 231,000 jobs lost
September 2009 – 199,000 jobs lost
Most of those ended up on the welfare roles. I find your attitude offensive!
Sorry. Let me correct that...
7 million lost their jobs during the last recession hit.
I've asked Feisty and now Pigotry, I have two workers, both have family's I can afford to pay them what I pay them now, plush insurance. If I have to give them a raise I will have to fire one, one is a female, one is a male both have families. I give bonuses when I can, they both know what I make after business expenses. You tell me which one am I going to fire. I can't raise prices and loss customers. Remember, this is per hour, 8 hours a day, 40 a week, 80 every 2 weeks. You do the math. I have a small business, my workers make minimum wage, for school. I don't make much, family, I will have to cut down on what i can do for these kids. One out of every two will have to go until I can make ends meet, good Idea.
bubba --- I don't know where you live but that 9.00 p/h is still lesss than our minimum wage and the small businesses here are doing fine .
Take a cut in your pay or ask Romney to do your dirty work.
There's no reason why they aren't making over 9 dollars in the first place. Seriously. But, if you're serious about wanting to keep both, I'll be willing to bet that you can afford to do it with more efficient scheduling.
Get rid of that new car sitting in your driveway. Just joking. In all seriousness, If I were you I would be re-analyzing your budget to see where you can cut some costs without losing customers. Most people, if they just spend a little more time with their budget can usually cut or trim some costs. The other option would be to drop each of the employee's hours by 4 or 5 hours per week, and you take on the extra hours yourself.
This is what many small business owners have done and will do. Now you have those employees making LESS than they were before, because they're losing hours. It's easy when you've never had to make a business run on a tight budget to spout off about how small business owners should be able to absorb any increases thrown at them or they don't know what they're doing. The fact is many small businesses WILL cut hours, cut benefits or go under. It's just fact. Especially in an economy that has not yet recovered.
My goodness AlaskaGirl! I truly wish you would find another name because you are quite an embarassment to the State.
How in the world would it benefit minimum wage earners if the owner cuts their hours and works the extra hours themselves?
Remember when Tony Knowles raised the minimum wage 26.55% overnight? One of his minions actually told me that it was good for everyone because everyone else's wages would follow. 13 years later that still hasn't happened.
Just kidding or not, those of us who work as many jobs and as many hours as it takes to get ahead have EVERY right to have a new car sitting in our driveways! I'm now wondering if you are the weazel that broke into my car in my driveway last month! You appear to have that entitlement mentality.
No, sweetie, Sarah Palin was an embarrassment to the state, as are you. I was just making a joke, moron, and furthermore, no honey, I would imagine the cess pool area you live in is why your car was broken into. What? Did you leave the rack of beer in the car again! What is it with Conservative mentality that they think they are the only people in this country who work? You guys really need to get some new material.
You appear to have that entitlement mentality.
You
appearDO have the Bitch mentality. As I told your boyfriend, Bob, FO.Yes, I noticed what you said to Bob. It really decreases your credibility when you resort to such comments and name calling.
Clearly you aren't the weazel that broke into my car. Apparently you only travel in the cess pool neighborhoods. If you will look at the records, Sarah wasn't quite the embarassment you would like to think. What did you do with the extra $1200.00 she gave you for energy assistance?
Oh, the $1200.00 political stunt that just so happened to coincide with her recent nomination as the VP running mate in the 2008 election? Do you also mean the political stunt that she used to try and distract the public from seeing that she is as dumb as a box of rocks? Wow, you seem to be quite smitten with Sister Sarah. What's up with that? Oh, don't bother to answer because in about five seconds I will activate the ignore feature and never again will I have to read your elitist rants.
I would wager that this "box of rocks" has done far better than you have.
What Feisty and the other liberal "knee jerkers" don't realize is how much this will hurt young people in high school or college. I don't know of a single person supporting a family or a household that makes $7.25 an hour so let's not pretend this will help the "poor". This will eliminate jobs and push a lot of full time positions down to part time. It's also another "feel good" piece of legislation that won't have any real benefits just fool ignorant people into believing Obama is "looking out for you".
lukewarm -- maybe you should look over your shoulder or open your eyes . I know of seveeral famlies with both parents working min. wage and at lease one of the parent holding down two of those jobs just to survive.
pukeswarm.........
Obviously you haven't been out in the real world. Please come out of your closet.
Lukewarm,
I think the issue here is that you don't know anyone making minimum wage, so you've demonized and belittled those who do.
old man -- how would you characterize the wage earners in these families with respect to education, marketable skills and English language proficiency?
billybob --- At lease one person in those familys had a good paying job before the lay-offs . ALL of them are white ,at least some advanced ed. maybe not PhD's and spoke English better than some on here.
Is not the whole concept of a minimum wage merely an attempt to try and make some failue who only puts forth minimum effort look somewhat successful ?
old man -- just curious why you pointed to their color rather than their marketable skills.
billybob ---- I think your refrence to them speaking Engish is answer enough.
lukewarm,Just because you don't personally know of anybody who supports a family on minimum wage does not make it so.There are a lot of people making minimum wage who work two and three part time jobs to support their families.I think it's well past the time to raise the minimum wage and I voted Republican.People make more spend more which is an economy booster.
Just how large was the pool for this survey? Were they all people working for minimum wage?
1028 Americans! Hardly a majority. Why would such a small poll have any "margin of error"? Are they unable to calculate that high?
I trust from your posts that your job is menial in nature.
Menial because I have the ability to count to 1028? If I had surveyed such a small number of people, my margin of error would be zero!
Sure, I have a menial job, it's only government finance.
The margin of error in a poll is related to the size sampled. The larger the sample size, the lower the margin of error.
I believe you owe an apology to Alaska gal ... scoot.
I owe her nothing, although she seems to be one of those entitlement freaks.
If I asked 1028 people the same question and could not count those 1028 responses without error, I certainly wouldn't have the results published in a news article. Anyone who could not do this without error deserves no more than miminum wage.
Oh please do point me to a poll that does not have a margin of error. Maybe with your counting skills you could put, let's say, Rasmussen out of business? Do yourself a favor and read up on margin of error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
Sampling such a small amount of people, most likely in the same geographical area results in a meaningless survey unless the survey results are only concerning that small geographic area. Stating that MOST Americans agree with this is ridiculous and I believe Rasmussen would agree.
For polling firms, this is not a small sample size.
You diminish your argument further by assuming that the poll was taken in the same geographical area. If Gallup is asked for a national survey, that is what they supply. If you go to Gallup the poll will list the methodology used. You are drowning here girl.
I am at this point convinced that you agreed with Rasmussen this recent November.
You are drowning here girl.
Oh, if it were only true.
Hey, bcwc, thanks for the backup! Laura appears to be one of those uppity people, so I know she don't live in my neck of the state. It's odd because Alaska is the least uppity in people! Might be an outsider. Love the new avatar!
So Alaska ... single are ya?
Laura doesn't know anything about statistics either.
it doesnt matter, the minimum wage should be raised quite a bit. that would mean less people om food stamps. and that tax money could go elsewhere. Let us make a living where we dont have to be put in a position where we dont make it from paycheck to paycheck.
Yes, for some people I appear to be "uppity".
I'm too "uppity" to have allowed my self to wallow in minimum wage. I'm too "uppity" to resort to name calling and telling people to "FO" and I'm too "uppity" to make statements such as "she don't live in my neck of the state."
Making the effort to learn the basics of the English language is one very good step to moving up from minimum wage.
HaHa! Yes, I knew if anyone would fall for my purposeful misuse of the English language it would be the uppity bitch. Thank you for proving once again that you not only appear to be uppity, but you ARE uppity. You should really seek medical attention to pull the stick out of your ass. Darling, you should stop assuming that just because I tend to use "saucy" language it must mean that I make minimum wage. You really should not judge people based on such things, it only further showcases your ignorance and tight-ass bitchiness. Hey, now, I hope you enjoy the rest of your day!
I guess it's just my "uppityness" that causes me to judge people who can't comment without swearing and name-calling.
AlaskaGirl,
I was going to ask you to meet me at Gambardella's and I would buy your lunch. Due to your "saucy" language, perhaps Denny's would be a better idea.
but but but if you pay the sheep/minions that much money, HOW will the rich be able to afford needed, collectable things like baseball cards for $2 mil? i mean, realllllllllllllly.
That would be entirely their own business. If they earn enough to collect $2 mil baseball cards, that' their right.
Good job of exploiting the unintentional movements of a cute baby.
@ Laura-numbers: My God, you are one uppity bitch. I find it hard that you don't annoy yourself. I bet you are the belle of the ball! (I'm sure you of all people will know this is sarcasm, or do you lack the ability to see that as well?)
So you don't believe people have the right to spend their own money however they see fit?
If the minimum wage has been growing at the same rate that corporate executive pay has been since the 80s, minimum wage would be nearly $30/hour!
Minimum wage earners don't kill jobs. Corporate greed does!
There is an ongoing redistribution of wealth in this country... The top 10% has grown from owning half the country to owning two-thirds of it in just thirty years! In the same time frame the bottom 50% has gone from owning 15% down to below 10%! Somehow that doesn't look like 'poor people taking the rich people's money' to me...
I hope romney gets minimum wage at his new job. must of been a terrible hardship for him being unemployed like the rest of the ordinary American people.
p.s. i wonder if he filed his amended return for the $225,000 he was entitled to so he could brag about an effective tax rate of 9.6%.
Depraw, we know how many dollars Romney paid in taxes. Did you pay that much? So you want him to pay more so you can pay less?
Just gotta hate those rich folks who are educated and pay 90% of the taxes in this country.
hjack.
Romney never did show his 2009 tax returns, the one that gave amnesty to tax cheats.. I wonder why.
His "2009 tax returns gave amnesty to tax cheats"???? Forget to take your meds?
hijack..................
$88,000 federal
$17,000 state
Sure are a lot of jealous liberals on this site. If you want to make a lot of money you have to be willing to put in the effort, you have to be willing to sacrifice, you have to be willing to study and educate yourself and you have to be willing to look at liberals as the leeches they are. I don't see any of you liberals angry over the money Michael Moore makes or George Soros or all the liberals in Hollywood. In fact, not a peep from you leftists when Geitner got caught cheating on his taxes or when we all found out how much Obama wasted on Solyndra. Nope, you guys are souless and clueless.
pukeswarm.........
Michael Moore and Mr Soros are also willing to pay more in taxes. They are grateful for what they earn. Both have said they feel fortunate to be able to pay higher taxes because that means they made a ton of money.
p.s. grow up. grow some balls. then try to grow a brain.
@luke,
If you want to make a lot of money you have to be willing...
...to look at liberals as the leeches they are.
That attitude worked out real well for Mitt Romney, huh?
lukewarm --- I have worked for a lot of magor const. co.s over the years, both pro labor and anti-labor , would you care to quess which had the most loyal AND honest employees. Read that as Rep.. and Dem. companys.
Depraw, you know they are willing to pay taxes how?
Take it from some one who used to work for min wage, Raising it is not the answer it will add to the problem! Do you really think some one flipping burgers at micky D's deserves $9+ an hr, NO!!! Minimum wage is meant to be a starting point not something to raise a family of 4 on! If that burger flipper wants more money then they can either work themselves up the ladder at micky D's or learn to be a chef and work for a fine dinning place or be a personal chef and guess what they will be making way more then min wage at that point! It all comes down to the drive of the person, not everyone can be a millionaire nor should the govt take from those who strive to achieve and be more , just to subsidize the lazy and unmotivated that would rather take a hand out from the govt.
Of the 20 states that have a min wage higher then the fed requirement 16 have unemployment rates of over 20%
hijack.............
watch another channel besides fux "the national enquirer" news channel and you might learn something.
depraw, it is a fact that I could never learn anything from you.
lukewarm,You sound like a couple of business owners that I know.Their businesses,one failed and one is failing due to their not paying a fair wage to their employees.These two scrooges have a big turnover of employees due to their stinginess so they go what they paid for and deserve to go down.
Don't give in to the liberals rich vs poor this will get me votes plan
Nearly 87 percent of the wage earners who benefitted from the 40 percent increase in the federal minimum wage between 2007 and 2009 were not poor—56 percent lived in households with an income more than two times the poverty threshold, and one-third lived in households with an income more than three times the poverty level
But why look at facts when you can make poor people mad at the rich and vote Democrat. What a joke
Regardless whether its right or wrong to up minimum wage (it was disastrous for restaurants in town last time when done at a state level), suspect heavy participation of liberal and minimum wage earners driving up the percentage of those in favor of raising it in these polls.
I love how liberals think that raising the minimum wage is going to fix anything.
Lets take Feisty's example.
She claims that minimum skill / motivation / knowledge workers should make more than $7.25 per hour.
So lets say that we go with what King Barack wants to do and raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour. That now brings the annual salary of the minimum skill / motivation / knowledge worker (lets use a fry technician at McDonalds for this exercise) up to $20,800/year.
Now if McDonalds is forced to pay $10/hour to the fry technician what do you think is going to happen?
For those of you in Rio Linda I will break this down for you.
1. They are going to have hire higher quality workers for their lower end positions to justify paying the higher wages. In turn this is going to shrink the pool of ptential employees and open up even less opportunities to low skill workers. This will in turn keep the unemployement rate higher than it needs to be.
2. This will force the employer (again McDonalds in our excercise) to pay the next levels of employees more money per hour. So now the burger flipper will go from making $10 /hour to $13/hour. Because of this employers are going to hire less employees. Why you, as a liberal, may ask? Because unlike the federal government Ronald McDonald cant just print more money or take it from people (raise taxes). They only have a certain amount of money from which they can pay their bills. While the owner of the McDonalds is an "evil, rich" person he or she still needs to see a return on their investment. So they are going to have to hire less employees. Again, for those of you in Rio Linda, this will..... wait for it.... keep unemployment high. (there is a trend here no?)
3. The owner of McDonald's, to be able to pay his or her employees these new increased wages, has to get the additional revenue from somewhere. Now, again, I know that liberals believe that the "evil" owner should never make ANY money, but here in the land of reality, the owner is in business to make a profit. I know liberals believe that companies exist only to offer healthcare and slaries, but again here in the real world companies are, ultimately, created to make a profit. This being said, the owner of McDonald;s must now raise the prices on the hamburgers that you buy. So instead of paying 1.50 for a hamburger, now the consumer must pay $2.00. Guess what happens now? Less people can afford to buy a hamburger so less people go to McDonalds. So, now, since the owner has less revenue coming in he or she is forced to let go of some more employees. And guess what my liberal friends? That leads to unemployment staying higher. Have you noticed the trend yet? Good job! If not....keep trying...you can do it!
Now all that said, its awesome that the fry technician is making $10/hour. But now the super awesome fry technician that got hired at $10/hour was let go. Why? No.... not because the owner is an evil rich person, but because to keep the fry technician and the burger flipper and pay them a combined $23 an hour is not feasible.
I love lazy Larry who sucked $35K in FEMA assistance from the evil gubment chimes in!
You pay back that loan yet Larry?
Didn't have any problem running to those you despise most when you needed help, did ya?
You can thank MY tax dollars for saving your sorry ass when YOU needed it!
Still waiting why you have 2 Newsvine account? Care to explain?
i always enjoy being mislabeled as a liberal. is it easier just to put people in boxes, lar?
try using common sense economic solutions next time. greed is greed. too much profit is not good for the bigger picture.
I guess all of you that are so anti minimum wage think that store owners currently have people just standing around doing nothing because they make so little right? How about a dose of reality into your complaints. Store owners cut hours down to the bare minimum that is needed to keep their stores in business and keep the customers happy. Do you really think McDonald's is going to cut their work force so customers are forced to wait 10 minutes for their hamburger? That a repair shop is going to lay off workers so their customers cant get their item fixed in a timely manner? If there is a business that has extra people just standing around because there isn't work to be done then it is one that will be out of business real soon. Corporate america has already figured out the bare minimum need to keep the doors open. The idea that they will lay people of is counter productive to say the least. Also for those quoting how few people make minimum wage I ask how many are making 25 cents above it because they have gotten a 10 cent raise the last 2 years?
It's $10.00 an hour in San Francisco and San Jose and nobody, not even the business owners are complaining because they aren't losing money.People fail to realize that wages and the employers contribution to their employees Social Security and Medicare are tax write offs.In California $10.00 an hour is nothing compared to the cost of living.
First of all I support this increase. Because like the rest of the 71% I don't pay anyone a wage. It's easy to be free with other peoples money. Why don't we just have a "maximum" wage and use the difference of higher paid people to offset the pay to make everyone get the same pay. We can call it redistribution of wealth, since nobody gets a good job on their own.
When I started work, minimum wage was $2.10, a McDonalds burger was 19 cents. Gas was never over $.50 a gallon. 1972. So I've been there and done that more than once.
Raising minimum wage, provided you keep your job, gives only a slight reprieve until the prices catch back up. And they will catch back up.
More people work for small business than for companies with high paid CEO's. When small businesses fold, when main street stores shutter, jobs vanish, probably forever. Those are the folk who can't handle the forced increase. Raising minimum wage, at the same time ACA goes into effect, will reduce jobs. There's not really any question.
But, when the economy is thriving, and there are more jobs than workers, wages go up. Was a time when workers were so scarce where I lived that fast food franchises were paying well over minimum wage, offering benefits, and even providing tuition assistance to retain workers. No gov't mandate, just good business.
1972 gas was $.23 a gallon. It went up to $.50 under Carter then doubled under reagan to $1.00 a gallon. Clinton kept the price of gas steady. when he left office it was $1.09 a gallon. Under bush it went as high as $4.52 a gallon. When bush left office it was $3.00 a gallon only because the economy was in a recession. And we all know what the price of a gallon is now.
Momspy,small businesses that can't afford the increase in the minimum wage shouldn't be in business.Their employees wages are write offs.Why is it that people don't see this? More write offs more money in the small business coffers.
More than 71% of the population are under-educated and ignorant; they, like Zerobama, don't understand economics. The balance, save for a few, work for the fed.gov, directly or indirectly. Everybody knows how smart they are.
The best way to change low level pay scales is for no one to accept those positions. Wages will go up accordingly. Whenever the fed.gov messes with the free market, the negatives that result are four times as bad as the original problem.
Want to lower gas prices? If everyone stops buying, they go done. The consumers have the power; they're part of the above 71% who don't understand how to use it. Fed.gov public education, you have to love it. ©2013
To Feisty and other posters who failed basic math: When the minimum wage goes up, the cost of every service and product produced by that increase goes up. The business will pass it right along to the customer, and the minimum wage worker will end up spending the increase on the same items he/she buys but will pay more. Net gain= ZERO. Not everyone is meant to live a middle class or better lifestyle. You get out of life what you put into it. Less intelligent and the lazy will always be at the bottom where they belong. You can't fix stupid with handouts. Look at Haiti and Detroit as textbook examples of the failure of welfare. Maybe the long term solution is to reduce the number of poor working these jobs via forced sterilization? If poor uneducated losers were forced to stop breeding, so many problems would be solved.
Raising the minimum wage accomplishes NOTHING positive, and at best decrease available jobs.
sAyITLiKeItIs: Your explanation assumes that whatever a business charges for a product, customers will still buy it. So if a business wants to make more profit they can just double the price, they don't need a minimum wage increase to do it. Of course they don't because supply and demand still operates.
Of course, once you get into your "they deserve to be poor rant" it's clear that your not focused on economics but on expressing your cultural beliefs.
What is often forgotten is then the adjustment in pay needed for the experienced workers. I really think minimum wage should be regional. I have a store in Illinois that in that city you can buy a really decent home for $80,000. I work full time for an employer and havent received any money from my two retail stores in 9 months for myself. I employ 2 full time and 2 part time. I will have to cut hours to meet the $10 minimum wage for the part timers and possibly eliminate their positions or raise prices, though since sales are down not sure that that will benefit anyone either. The economy stinks right now for any small business and generalizing that all that own businesses are raking in the dough is ridiculous. I seriously think of closing it all up and let everyone find something else, though hard to do in some areas of the country. Not necessarily a good situation for either the employees or myself. In the factory I am employed, to raise minimum to $10 for no experience means that that employer will have to raise the wages for their good employees too which stops any profit from coming back into the business. Usually the war crys are from people that havent ever owned a business and had to pay into social security for their employees or carry workman's comp insurance and pay unemployment insurance which people always seem to forget in these arguments. I thought I was doing good by helping people work, but in these instances, it just doesn't pay anymore.
Really nothing on the big dinner last night or the budget ---- Administration and Media will do anything not to mention it unless it is a domes day scare.
guns, min. wage, golf etc... anything but a freakn budget or debt reduction plan.
All businesses owned by Republicans should close for three years and let the Obamanites learn where the money comes from and how things work... what fun it would be!
tool.
@sAy,
All businesses owned by Republicans should close for three years...
...what fun it would be!
Sure. Fun for the folks that lose their jobs, as well as the business owners who lose their profits.
Didn't they already do that by moving jobs and factories to China?
It appears that 71% of the population still doesn't know basic economics - nor even possess a modicum of common sense.
First the common sense lacking in advocates of this dictatorial policy: if raising people's wages by X amount by passing a law were beneficial, then the value of X is irrelevant. All we have to do is pass a law to raise everyone's wages to a million dollars per year, and all our problems are solved! Why not raise it to a couple billion. Oh what the heck, let's raise it to 16.1 trillion - we'd even be able to wipe out the deficit! If advocates respond by claiming that such big raises won't work but little ones will, then they have conceded that they don't work at all, and they're really just counting on intimidation to silence their opposition.
Now the basic economics. Forcing a wage to be raised by passing a law artificially raises the costs of the business that must pay that wage. That cost increase causes any one or more of the following bad things: immediately bankrupt businesses that were on the verge of it already; drive slightly better businesses to the edge; cause businesses to raise their prices; cause businesses to decrease production; cause businesses to curtail hiring; cause businesses to fire people; cause businesses to not hire people whose labor isn't worth the minimum wage; cause businesses to fire people whose labor isn't worth the minimum wage; cause businesses to move operations offshore where the workers they need are less expensive - there are probably dozens of other effects I haven't mentioned. One of the most important bad effects is that which we cannot see ... because it never came into existence due to any of the preceding bad effects. Not seen will be the products/services not invented/produced/sold because the capital required to do that has been forcibly siphoned away from the businesses that would've done that.
There can be _no— long term benefit to a minimum wage. The only possible long-term effects of the minimum wage are bad ones. Are you the recipient of a minimum wage hike? What good does it do you when your new money buys less than it did before?
I'm with you
Finally some common sense. Why should a person whose skills
are not sufficient to earn $9/hour be denied the opportunity to have a job?
This is terribly unfair to the low skilled worker, the folks our president
pretends to be looking after.
You notion of pricing and profit is quaint and woefully ignorant.
Price is not based on cost. It is based on market forces. The difference between price and cost is known as profit.
Some good are available well below cost, e.g. mobile phones or gaming consoles. Other goods are sold well above cost, such as bottled water and software. You honestly think that raising the cost of labor at a bottled water plant will increase the cost of bottled water? It's ridiculous. All it will do is increase demand (because people will have more money to spend) and decrease profits (because the huge gap between price and cost is slightly reduced). If there any layoffs to be done, they would have been done already, because corporations do not hire extra employees just for the heck of it. They hire exactly the people they need and not a single person more.
Corporate profits are higher today than they have been in decades, while employee wages have been completely level (after adjustments for inflation). Your one-sided allegiance to the business end of the equation is ignorant and harmful. Thanks.
Anither Ridiculous IDEA, from a pitiful Administration.
The survey can be put where the sun don't shine
I guess the taxpayers will have to pay for the increased cost of food stamps and welfare support, since the cost of living WILL go up. Military 24% of the budget, Welfare 12% of the budget. Pretty pathetic Welfare cost will eventually exceed the cost of the Military
does your welfare figure include the welfare to Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Agriculture?
Not sure what welfare you are referring to. If its tax breaks, I at least get something for my money.