jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (421 posts)

Let's raise the minimum wage to $45 an hour!

  1. Barefootfae profile image59
    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago

    Once again there is a call to raise the minimum wage.
    Now....common sense and a little education will tell you that when you raise the minimum wage, prices go up to compensate. Also, you stand the chance of having a nice little spike in unemployment from the smaller businesses that can no longer afford to pay some of their help.
    Why 9 dollars? Why not 45? You are going to do the same amount of damage and the people you claim to be helping will be in the same position.

    1. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Better yet, let's try raising a family on $9 an hour without needing any assistance.  Once you've done that, we can talk about whether a 'minimum' wage is a 'living' wage.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It has nothing to do with whether or not minimum wage is a living wage.

        It has everything to do with the fact that minimum wage increases cause more unemployment and inflation.

        1. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Minimum wage may cause inflation.  It may cause unemployment.  Certainly those things are far more important than a mother being able to feed her children without asking for state assistance - which the majority of folks who don't agree with raising minimum wage also fight against.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Not may. It does. It's just a fact.

            Say you have a business, with 300 people nationwide making minimum wage. Your profit margins are low, you simply can't afford to pay them more.

            Now, the government forces you to raise your payroll costs by 24%. What can you do?

            1 - Layoffs.
            2 - Raise prices.
            3- Go bankrupt.

            We can't force every job to pay enough to support anyone in any circumstance. That kind of bleeding heart approach ends up shooting yourself in your foot, with the best intentions in the world.

            You might help that mother, but you're also going to cause 100 other mothers to lose their job.

        2. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And, Jaxson, it does indeed have to do with whether or not minimum wage is a living wage.  Minimum wage MIGHT support a single person working full-time, IF that person is frugal, and can somehow plan for an emergency.  What do you think we should do for parents actually trying to support children on that kind of pay?

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            We can't force every job to pay enough to support a large family. It's simply not possible.

            It's also contrary to the principles of freedom and ownership.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image84
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              a.k.a. "I don't care if millions of my fellow Americans starve and can't afford to keep their children alive as long as I get to feel superior doing less work for 5x the salary!"

              And if you claim that a CEO works harder than a Walmart unloader/stocker, then you're clearly insane.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Nope, not a.k.a.

                It's simply truth. If you tried to force every job to pay enough for a family of 4 to live comfortably, you would end up with many many many fewer jobs.

                It's stupid to think that every job should pay that much. It completely ignores scarcity, it invalidates skill, education, experience, and it is mathematically impossible.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Skill only matters in heavy industry and games, education only matters in academia, experience doesn't mean anything anywhere if the task can be taught.

                  1. bBerean profile image60
                    bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Based on this assessment, would it be safe to assume you have never been responsible for assembling or managing a business workforce?   Please be honest, (kids doing weeding or hiring a plumber does not count).

                  2. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    ...

                2. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Funny how in the past jobs managed to do exactly that!

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Just go look at the math John. Where is the money going to come from?

                    Family of 4, how much do they need a year to get by? What should the minimum wage be so that not a single family slips through the cracks?

                3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If you are going to raise minimum wage to $45.00 an hour, then you should make  SEX  i l l e g a l... unless the single person, same sex (who want to adopt) partners or hetrosexual partners have an income of 100K a year. Pure and simple. Lets do it!  Mistakes, after all, would be way too costly for everyone concerned.
                  (Of course, the rate of homosexuality would probably go up in this case,
                  but that is the growing trend, anyway...)
                  Right?

        3. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Inflation is the key.  The problem is the entire money system. It does not matter if you make 100 dollars an hour as a minimum wage, if a loaf of bread is 1000 dollars.  The worlds financial system has created a ponzi scheme with taxes and interest. To keep that floating they have to print more and more money.

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

            big_smile

        4. LucidDreams profile image81
          LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Jaxon
          It has everything to do with whether people can live on minimum wage or not. That is why it was created!

    2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The minimum wage in Canada is $10 an hour. Our society and our businesses are doing fine with that. What a sarcastic post this is.

      1. LiamBean profile image90
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Logic, reason, and math, most especially math, are all lost on the right.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
          Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And also, in Australia they raise minimum wage when the cost of living goes up. It's currently $16 Australian.

          1. 60
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Most people who earn minimum wage are young, unskilled workers. How are they doing in Australia?

            In June, Australia's unemployment rate for workers age 15 to 19 was 16.5%.

            Pardon me for trolling repair lady.

            1. LucidDreams profile image81
              LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That is incorrect, many people now days have been forced to take whatever job possible. Most of these left tend to be minimum wage. This is in part because of supply and demand. Business owners can ask for more and pay less because of the demand for jobs. Does this make it right? If you cannot afford to own a business and pay competitive wages, then get a job like everyone else and shut down your so called business.

              1. LucidDreams profile image81
                LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                By the way, good luck finding a job that pays over minimum wage......even if you are not a teen!

          2. Barefootfae profile image59
            Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Now why do you suppose they keep having too raise it?????
            Ah yes...the cost of living goes up.
            Why do you suppose that is?

            1. tammybarnette profile image59
              tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              In 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act brought the minimum wage to America; the initial minimum pay rate was 25 cents per hour.

              • Before 2007, there had not been a minimum wage boost in 10 years; the AFL-CIO notes that during those 10 years, Congress gave itself nine pay increases.

              • States with minimum wages higher than the current federal requirements include California ($8 per hour), Connecticut ($7.65), Illinois ($8), Massachusetts ($8), Michigan ($7.40), New Hampshire ($7.73), New Mexico ($7.50), Oregon ($8.15), Rhode Island ($7.40), Vermont ($7.85) and Washington State ($8.27); Washington D.C.'s minimum hourly wage is $8.25.

              • The U.S. city with the highest minimum wage is Santa Fe, N.M., at $9.92 per hour.

              • The minimum wage in recent years - $3.10 (1980), $4.25 (1991), $5.15 (1997).



              Just curious Fae, would you work for 25cents an hour?

              1. Barefootfae profile image59
                Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Not today but I have worked for 1.25 an hour.
                You really don't see the link between raising the minimum and the cost of living going up?
                C'mon.  Please tell me you don't believe it does not affect the prices of goods we buy. That's just not possible or logical.

                1. tammybarnette profile image59
                  tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes it does Fae, but it is not the only cost driver, and I know you know this is true as well. Remember when that drought hit a few years back and the cost of tomatoes sky rocketed! There are many cost drivers...the problem is that min sat unchanged for a decade and we are trying to play catch-up, also the reason so many live below the poverty lina and need assistance...You see this coorelation?

                  1. Barefootfae profile image59
                    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sure Tammy. That does not alter the fact this a carrot being put out by Barack. It's not going to alter anyone's lifestyle enough to be worth it.
                    Plus it takes your mind off the drones right?

                2. LucidDreams profile image81
                  LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The calculations of inflationary pricing go way beyond raising minimum wage. At 7.50 per hour x 40 hrs is 300.00 per week befor taxes. At 9.00 per hour, it brings the average worker 360.00. That is an extra 240.00 per month which may pay a months worth of groceries or a light bill. Yeah, it makes a difference to those people. To say otherwise and and say it's a carrot put out by Barack is immature and un-educated.

                  1. Barefootfae profile image59
                    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Please.........
                    Santa Clause knows what he is doing.
                    If you think otherwise you are the one with the maturity issue. Not a 56 year old.

    3. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If a business raises its prices to compensate for a higher minimum wage, why would it then need to lay off staff? The whole point of raising its prices is to cover the higher cost.

      And if wages (and therefore prices) do go up, then the effect is to transfer some wealth from those who can afford to pay higher prices, to those who are doing a job that pays minimum wage. That's a real example of "trickle down" economics. The GOP should love it.

      1. tammybarnette profile image59
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        smile

    4. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think they should raise the minimum wage until a loaf of bread is 3,000.00 dollars, small businesses fold and poor people are starving to death and rioting in the streets. That way, they can provide a savior and buy up the carnage for pennies on a dollar.

      1. tammybarnette profile image59
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Only if we destroy our dollar value, which is a different discussion...but can sure happen if we don't pay down our debt and get our fiscal house in order.

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I am all for "cleaning house".  Like auditing the fed and then putting them behind bars in no particular order.

          1. tammybarnette profile image59
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If they just had to follow GAAP standards like everyone else then we could see a much clearer picture, and pin point fraud and abuse.

    5. 82
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm certainly not rich, but I pay more in taxes now.  Didn't your paycheck decrease in January?  Maybe that extra income can be used to pay the government.  Isn't that a win-win for the POTUS?

    6. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah,  Obama just did that to get young people on his side for sure.
      I've heard it mentioned several times how "brilliant" Obama is,  but I refute that and say he's cunning, yes, and is a master at manipulation and distraction,  but I don't count that as brilliance at all;  more like foolishness.

      1. tammybarnette profile image59
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly, that's why that evil Obama wants to raise min wage, to indoctrinate the young roll

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yep.  To get them on his side,  to make it look like he's on their side.
          Because he knows (like has been pointed out in this thread) that now is not the time for that to be feasible or make much difference if any.    The small companies need to get a boost before they can afford to hire anybody, and Obama's tax increases have already hit a lot of people's paychecks who are making a lot more than minimum wage;  his promise that his policies won't add to the deficit are false and/or misleading  and indeed he now has the average worker paying for those.    He's simply taking some of your money off the top and then shuffling the rest of it around however he wants.
          Just like he threatens the elderly and disabled with the propoganda lie that Social Security will go insolvent if the lawmakers don't do what he says.
          He is subtle when he wants to be.   Poor misguided man who wants to be king.    Even some Republicans keep buying into the lie.

        2. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          God forbid young people make a living wage, the evil is mindblowing tongue

          1. Barefootfae profile image59
            Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You do know that the minimum wage was never originally meant to be a "living wage"? That you could raise a family on?
            Hence the term minimum?

            1. tammybarnette profile image59
              tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hence the idea of "achievement" when one gets raises to match their newly obtained skills.

              1. Barefootfae profile image59
                Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yaeh.......

                1. tammybarnette profile image59
                  tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Did we just agree, say it isn't so smile

                  1. Barefootfae profile image59
                    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey we have agreed before....you remember that?
                    I spent years getting to a certain point career wise and I have had to change paths for family reasons and don't quite earn as much but still above minimum. I still believe people can achieve.

    7. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Wages have miniscule effects on prices, most mass produced goods are made overseas, most restaurants etc. pay their wages with tips and in food production wages make up a tiny percentage of cost, barely 1 or 2 percent increases in some items.

      On the other hand it's a stimulating boost to the economy and it means fewer people needing welfare to get by.

      I am currently in Australia, minimum wage is $15.50 an hour and the Australian dollar is stronger than the American dollar. The Australian economy is one of the strongest in the world, the predictions of doom and gloom never happened and won't in the US either, they have no basis in fact.

      1. Barefootfae profile image59
        Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes all the Socialists think it's a wonderful idea.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          There is the socialist word thrown around, it's the equivalent of lazy liberals labeling conservatives racist, it shows you don't actually have a factual argument or any foundation in economics.

          Did you know Australia's economy is so powerful it never even had a recession during the global crisis? with $15.50 as a minimum, I think that comes to about $17.50 American minimum wage. We can discuss facts or what you imagine will happen, the experimental data is already there.

          1. Barefootfae profile image59
            Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You are a Socialist and you love the concept.
            Voila.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Even assuming this were true it means what? Do you want to discuss the facts or do you realize you can't compete on those and just want to throw labels around? Because you have offered no answer to the facts.

              1. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                She doesn't need facts, you're a socialist remember?

                You want to bring all business owners to their knees and make it so they don't make any profit at all.

                Don't you know that anyone who isn't rich is a welfare leech?

                It's all good though, we have no idea how businesses work. *sigh*

                1. Barefootfae profile image59
                  Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I will give you this Cody, You're consistent.

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So you admit that conservatives are wrong about minimum wage?

          2. Barefootfae profile image59
            Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Hey, if a skilled laborer is already making 17.50 what happens to him?
            What about when his employer can't afford to offset his pay so he is no longer making sub-par wages?

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              He continues to make the same amount of money, nothing happens to him. Simple.

              1. Barefootfae profile image59
                Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So now suddenly the kid flipping burgers earns more than I do?
                After years of work to achieve a goal that's fair Josak?

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
                  Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  When minimum wage went up in NYS everyone got a raise. Therefore, you would make more too.

                  1. Barefootfae profile image59
                    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What if who I am working for can't afford to give me a raise from 17 an hour to 35 an hour or even 25 an hour?
                    Do you goofs ever consider these things or do all of you just live in this dream world?

                2. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Should this imaginary scenario of a kid flipping burgers making more money than you actually occur, then you could start flipping burgers if you want to make more money.

                  I mean, I hear this kind of thing from conservatives all the time.  If you want to improve yourself, be willing to do the work.

                  1. Barefootfae profile image59
                    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok....I have been in a technical industry and you are telling me I would improve myself working at Mcdonalds.
                    Get in the real world kittykat.

    8. dspallino profile image59
      dspallinoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm completely fine with this. Better than the $21.72 rate at which Obama countered with saying that it should be $9/hr.

  2. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    I was about to post a thread about this.

    It's kind of weird... ever since the 50's, the unemployment rate for 16-19 year olds has gone up from 8% to 25%. I wonder why?

    1. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In some states, small business do not have to pay their employees minimum wage there is a minimum wage that must be paid to them, but it's often FAR LOWER than what is mandated elsewhere).  Servers in restaurants also don't have to be paid minimum wage.

      I'd say that 16-19 year olds who are not working these days are either finishing high school, or quite possibly have parents paying for a college education for them and don't necessarily need a job.  Not everyone has to work to support their household as a teenager like many of us did.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Servers actually do have to be paid minimum wage, if their total compensation isn't that high. Having customers pay part of their salary directly doesn't change the fact that increasing their wage increases the business's costs.

        I know some businesses in some states are exempt, but that is irrelevant. The fact is that unemployment among inexperienced teens has gone from 8-25%. Do you think that could have anything to do with the fact that we have made it illegal to hire inexperienced workers for lower than $X/hr?

        And unemployment rates only count those who are looking for work. If a teen isn't looking, they aren't counted. It's hard for teens to find jobs, because we tell businesses they have to pay teens with no education, skills, or experience, as much as they might pay someone who has 5 years of experience.

        1. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Not all servers have to be paid minimum wage.  Again, it depends on the size/revenue of the business.  Michigan minimum cash wage for a tipped employee is $2.65.  That's up from $2.52 the last time I waited tables - which was in the late 90's.  And that's if their tipped compensation if $20 or more per DAY.  So, a server here could work a 12 hour shift and make a whopping $51.80.  The biggest concern is the business's revenue?  What about the money that person spent in gas to get to work, for childcare while they were there, for the appropriate uniform?

          Regarding forcing someone to pay inexperienced workers a certain amount of money?  There are businesses who won't pay EVEN minimum wage for a worker with a college degree and many years experience.  That's the business, not the government.

          Where you and I might run into trouble in this discussion is that I don't give a fig what it costs a business to pay their employees a fair wage.  If you can't adequately compensate employees, you shouldn't hire any.  Do it yourself if the business is that important to you.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Ok, that's all I need to know. You don't understand how business operate. You don't understand the benefit of hiring workers at low wage compared to not hiring any workers. You don't care about the outcomes, you only care about the 'fairness'.

            Reminds me of Obama, before he was elected, saying he would rather hurt the economy to make it more 'fair', than to do what is best for the economy.

            1. 0
              Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, I know that income equality is a horrible thing to think about or endorse.    I understand how businesses operate.  I just don't necessarily agree that all business operate in ways that are beneficial - either to the economy or the workers they hire.  Tell me - how is it more beneficial to the economy for a business to hire low wage workers rather than not hiring any.  In the long run, those low wage workers will wind up needing assistance from the state - and we all know what people think of THOSE loafers.  Especially the ones who are so ignorant and uneducated as to only be able to find a job that pays minimum wage.  Oh, wait.  That's right.  There are folks out there collecting food stamps who have college degrees and years of experience.  But, their job pays them less than a fair wage.

              Equality.  Fairness.  What a couple of outdated and irrelevant concepts.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You really can't see how some workers, no matter the wage, is better than no workers?

                Economic health is all about velocity of money. How often money is spent, changes hands. The more people working, the more people are spending money. The more people are spending money, the more demand. The more demand, the more products and services are created to fill demand. The more products and services are created, the more jobs come with it.

                Like I said... just like Obama. You would rather hurt the economy to make it 'fair', than to help the economy.

                And like I said, you just don't understand if you think jobs aren't any better than no jobs.

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Don't know that anyone has ever compared me to Obama.  Oh, well.  There's a first time for everything.

                  Nope.  I guess we're at an impasse.  While I understand what you're saying - you don't understand what I'm saying.  If you did, you wouldn't compare me to our current president.

                  It's been fun talking to you, anyway. 

                  smile

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, I completely understand what you are saying, which is why I am comparing you to Obama, because he has similar feelings. 'Fair' is more important than results. Better to be 'fair' and hurt the economy(thus hurting Americans), than to be 'unfair' and help the economy(thus helping Americans).

              2. Barefootfae profile image59
                Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Let me take a run at this.........

                Here's a poor struggling single mother. She is making minimum wage.
                Now she finds out that wage will be increased and she has hope.
                She is being lied to....here's why.

                Her wages and all other minimum wages go up.
                Now prices have to go up as well for employers and business owners to adjust.
                Now she is right back where she cannot afford things because that's how economy works.
                Fair or not....THAT WILL HAPPEN ALWAYS.

                Do we understand now. It's not mean people here it is economics.

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you for that simple lesson and the condescending tone in which it was delivered.

                  1. Barefootfae profile image59
                    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Well I didn't mean for there to be a tone . I am trying to show you why although it seems "nice", it is in fact an empty gesture.

                  2. Barefootfae profile image59
                    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Let's say you make 5 dollars an hour and a loaf of bread is a dollar.
                    They raise wages to 6 dollars an hour and you go to the store and now your loaf of bread is two dollars.
                    You gained nothing. It's not increasing the wage that's needed. It's access to better jobs with a getter wage.

          2. 60
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Wow!

        2. AlliOop profile image61
          AlliOopposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I just wanted to quickly address your point about young inexperienced workers. Reading this thread prompted me to do a little digging at the Department of Labor website, and I found what's called the Youth Minimum Wage Program.

          It states that "[a] minimum wage of not less than $4.25 may be paid to employees under the age of 20 for their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with any employer as long as their work does not displace other workers."

          And here's the link to that site: http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/ymwplink.asp

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It's the same in Canada, the youth minimum wage is less than it is for adults...

          2. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Pssst, didn't you get the memo?  Jaxson is always right and by reading and comprehending what he has to say we will save our future.

            I don't think she realized that reading and comprehending what he has to say might result in realizing he is quite often wrong.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Amazing arguments. Your logic has completely overwhelmed me.

              It's pretty stupid to be obsessed with saying that I'm always right when there are instances on these forums of me admitting I was wrong. But, if I'm that important that you feel the need to obsess over me, I'll take that as a compliment.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                LOL, I didn't say you were always right; someone else did.  I just thought Kathryn's pronouncement about you and our future was so over the top that it needed a little teasing.

                If you think I'm obsessing over you then perhaps it is you who thinks you're important.  I'd say Kathryn is the one with the idol worship.  big_smile 

                This is all in fun, right?

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The amount of times that someone says something about me always being right is just ridiculous.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, if more than one person is saying it, then maybe there is something to it?  From my perspective, I don't see you as always thinking you're right, but you are overly tedious about meaningless minutiae at times,  which is what I was dishing it back atcha with my insistence on source data for your chart, moreso than I might do with someone else.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There could be several reasons why the unemployment rate has gone up since the fifties. One could be that there are much more people vying for fewer lower wage jobs. The factory and manufacturing jobs are either becoming more automated through machinery and robots or they are being eliminated entirely by being shipped overseas. Another reason could be that the service industry jobs require less skills which make the competition to fill them much more competitive with those that live in family communities paying into the whole.
      The fact that there is a rising unemployment rate also has to take into account the recessions and slowing economies. When credit was free flowing higher wages were no problem to attain as there was a lot of work to be had. Employers and people alike are hunkering down for the time to come which can allow some breathing room and the demand to be there for the jobs.

  3. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    The minimum wage is designed to allow people to live an acceptable lifestyle.  So yes, it makes prices go up a bit so that every worker can have food, healthcare and shelter.  I agree with that 100%.

  4. SimeyC profile image89
    SimeyCposted 3 years ago

    The problem with this discussion is that there are two distinct issues.

    Economically there is always a burden on business - if there wasn't then Walmart wouldn't be paying minimum wages and employing 'illegal' immigrants - business will always (and always has) look at the bottom line. Walmart can offer lower prices because of low labor costs - increase labor costs and you either have less workers doing more work, or prices go up.

    Morally - in a country such as America corporations and governments should have a moral obligation to ensure that everyone has a decent standard of living - there is no way that anyone earning $7.25 has a decent standard of living - I don't even think $9 is a decent standard of living.

    The question is should companies bear the cost of morals? That's effectively what raising a minimum wage does - it puts the burden onto the shoulders of corporations - and as most corporations have shareholders then the end result is inflation or reduced labor - no shareholder wants to see lower profits....

    1. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And I would say, yes.  Because providing that bottom line creates an even playing field within the state or country.  And because paying someone too little to live like a dignified human being is not a civilized option.

    2. tammybarnette profile image59
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent, you have captured this arguement in a nut shell. When I was receiving my business degrees we took classes on ethics and social responsibility. It is unethical to underpay employees in order to increase profit margins, period, and I would suggest it should be criminal. Because the min wage jobs are not only being held by teens as some would love to suggest, but by many Mothers and Fathers trying to raise a family and provide their children with the opportunity of a better life.

    3. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You present a sort of false dichotomy. Morally a government or entity that controls the value of money to a large extent, makes standard of living irrelevant as per wage. Wage means nothing, buying power means everything.  If loaves of bread fell from the sky, it would drive bakeries out of business. Govts or entities allowing( control)  hyperinflation, because its good for them, or for whatever reason, the bottom drops out of our buying power.

    4. LiamBean profile image90
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The problem with this discussion is Jaxon did not post it in order to have an honest discussion. He does this for two reasons. To pound his chest and shout "I'm right and you are wrong." and to raise his hubscore.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The problem with what you said is that you're completely wrong. You are wrong for two reasons. I didn't start this discussion, and my hubscore is meaningless.

        1. LiamBean profile image90
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You didn't start the discussion because someone beat you to it; you said so yourself.

          I can agree with you on the second bit. Mine is pretty meaningless too.

          Be happy I do "drive-by" commentary. This topic has four more pages since this morning.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Happy? No, sorry. I'm not going to be happy for you to come into a thread and crap on my name.

            But, I was right and you were wrong, so there you can feel validated. Feel free to say something wrong any time you want to feel validated that all I'm concerned with is being right.

  5. peeples profile image89
    peeplesposted 3 years ago

    I'm stuck in the middle on this one. I have raised a family on $7.25 an hour working a 40 hour work week. I've seen that in the part of the country I am in it IS possible. However I am now a business owner. The minimum wage does not impact me because my employees are independent contractors who make as much (or as little) as they work for, but I would like to think that people shouldn't have to struggle so much. Surely there is a solution that would work for everyone and I think that is why the $9 an hour is being stated. I think there is a hope that the extra couple of dollars an hour will be enough to help the poor while not too much to seriously damage small businesses. Sadly I think we as a society forget sometimes that small businesses are just regular people not rich people. Any time someone says business owner it seems the majority of people associate that with rich when that is usually not the case with small business owners. I hope there is a way to bring more balance to society without causing too much damage.

    1. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You know, peeples, my mother raised me alone on far less that $7.25 per hour most of the time.  We lived in a rural area where the cost of living was fairly low in comparison to other places.  But, we went without heat in some winters, she never had a reliable vehicle, and I went to work at 14 to help support our household.  I don't think that's right.  Maybe I am just a bleeding heart liberal, but it seems to me that it isn't unreasonable for me to be more concerned about people maintaining some sort of quality of life than with how much more it might cost a business owner to actually aid them in doing that.

      1. peeples profile image89
        peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with you to a certain extent, but should one person be forced to struggle to keep someone else from having to? That to me is the issue. Many small business owners aren't far from the poverty line themselves.

        1. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I should indeed clarify that when I refer to business owners, I am referring to big business/corporations.  I have an entirely different mindset about small business owners - and small business owners have a far different mindset toward the people they employ than corporations do.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What about Convergys? They employ some 60,000 people at around $9/hr. Good or bad?

            1. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Do they have health benefits, a dental plan, daycare, 2 weeks paid vacation, Christmas bonuses, an expense account? Will they come and get me at around 10 ish, with a wheel barrel to tote me around in?

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                They have awesome health benefits, in the form that they are very basic, and expensive. Daycare involves letting your kids play with the cows next to the call center. After 1 year you get 1 week unpaid vacation. Christmas bonus is getting to go home an hour early. Wheel barrow is used to dump workers on the sidewalk when they break down from having customers swear at them all day. No union, you'll have to get some muscle to start one yourself.

                big_smile

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

                2. PhoenixV profile image79
                  PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, you sure paint a pretty picture,  if they gotta company racquetball court, or a brick wall and a used titleist golf ball, you can count me in.

            2. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Do they have a union I can join that will grind them and their entire city into dust?

            3. 0
              Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              MOST of the people who are employed by Convergys for that kind of money actually work from home.  I worked for Convergys.  smile  Their actual office employees make more than that.  When I worked for them, their call center folks started at $10 - I made around $32K in a different position.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Good or bad though? That's not a living wage for a family of 4.

                Furthermore, Convergys would go bankrupt if it raised the wages of all those workers by $0.50/hr.

                So, good or bad? Would all those people be better off with no job?

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Bowing out.

                  See above.

                  big_smile

              2. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, you are one of them 1% people.  I could use a loan, or.... I could make a sign/poster with -  im the 99% and walk around your block all day. Its your choice.  jk - 32k is the entire yearly budget of my town.

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yup.  I was living large in those days.  No one but me to pay for...LOL  Now there's a husband, a kid, a dog, a cat....oh, and me too.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image79
                    PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Lost all my dogs of old age and cats too. Now I gotta new stray cat. Most of my pets have been abandoned or strays. It costs a lot to feed them, flea/tick powders, collars, etc. My latest stray cat, is bad to the bone, looks like a miniature panther. I have seen him catch a mouse and an almost full grown rabbit, just to make ends meet.

  6. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Another example, from Mississippi, of why our welfare system is so broken.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitl … family-mak

    A family of 4, in which the household provider works 1 week a month at minimum wage, will have 92% as much income and benefits as someone working full time for $60,000.

  7. kathleenkat profile image88
    kathleenkatposted 3 years ago

    Minimum wage in WA is $9.17/hour. This has driven down wages for entry-level positions. Here's why:

    Back in '07, or '04 or whenever I was first looking for jobs, minimum wage was something like 6 or 7 dollars an hour. Entry-level positions, which required a college degree, you could expect to make at the very least 30k/year, which is about 15 dollars an hour. Since menial workers (minimum wage) are needing to be paid more, they have to cut costs somewhere...and not from high-paid management and executive positions. No highly qualified person will accept a job at less pay than their predecessor/s made.

    So, you cut the pay for entry-level jobs. People are so desperate to find work, surely one college grad will be HAPPY to work for $12/hour. When I was looking for jobs (last year), entry level positions that REQUIRED a college degree, were offering between 10 and 12 dollars an hour to start. Now, I was making more than that at the grocery store. These are the same jobs that would have offered more, in the past.

    This is Washington state. I don't know if it's the same everywhere else, but realize that our minimum wage is the highest in the country. Our cost of living is also rather high (maybe minimum wage pushed it up?) and I have seen several small businesses tank within the past couple of years, from what I could only imagine is inability to pay wages plus healthcare to their employees. I interviewed for a full-time marketing position up here, and they offered me $10/hour. $10/hour to do skilled work, that I worked years to be qualified for (not to mention the money I spent on school). No way.

    As minimum wage goes up, everything else will follow. It may be a temporary relief, but it is just hurting us. 20 years ago, a person making 60k per year is the equivalent to someone now making 90k per year. Dollar value has gone down. Back then, minimum wage was $5/ hour. 20 years is not a long time, and many people go through twice that in their working lives. We are inflation, people. Minmum wage may not be the only cause of this, but it certainly doesn't help!


    And to the person who said there's nothing wrong with Canada's economy (their min. wage is $10/hour) surely you don't know the many thousands of Canadians that cross the border every day to buy groceries here in the States, because they simply can't afford them up there?!

    1. tammybarnette profile image59
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes it is a cost driver, well one of them...have you noticed the rise in the cost of groceries and gas...minimum wage must rise inorder for those earners to afford the prices now...in time the prices raise and then min must be raised again...Letting the poor starve is just not an option.

      1. kathleenkat profile image88
        kathleenkatposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I would suspect this is a chicken-and-egg scenario.

        Since minimum wage went up, I have noticed small franchises (ie, Quiznos) raising their prices a tad bit. This happened well after minimum wage hit the $9 dollar mark here in WA, as well as the grocery thing. In 2011, I purchased my staple of 33-cent macaroni and cheese boxes. In 2012, they jumped to 50-cents. As did the little bottled sodas that used to be 3/$1 in 2011. Minimum wage was already up there at the time, so I know in this case minimum wage went up first.

        Also, gas prices go up and down. I recall paying $3.33 (because it's a cool number, okay?) in 2008. That's about what I'm paying now. Minimum wage was less in WA back then, like $7/hour, so perhaps in this case you are right.

        1. tammybarnette profile image59
          tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Gas prices are also a cost driver in grocery prices as well...But as with min wage, only one of the drivers.

          1. kathleenkat profile image88
            kathleenkatposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I fail to see how vehicle ownership is a standard of living. Don't quote me on this, but I believe minimum wage is determined based on basic needs of a family of four, with the assumption they will use publicly-funded transportation.


            Also, my mistake: I just checked, WA's minimum wage is actually $9.19, not $9.17. Wonder how they figured that. When I was a minimum wage worker, I was proud to be making 7 bucks and hour. At the time that was more money than I had ever seen in my life.

            1. tammybarnette profile image59
              tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I am not sure about vehicle ownership, but you would have trouble in my small town without one, we do not have a public transportation system.

              Back in early 2000 I was making $6/hr...above min wage at the time, while raising two kids by myself. I made a little under $700 a month and my rent was $500/month, so I know how hard it can be at the bottom...without food stamps we would have starved.

              1. kathleenkat profile image88
                kathleenkatposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Well you have mandatory public transportation to get the kids to and from school, no?

                In this day and age, where you can order groceries over the internet, it's a wonder more people don't do that. Having a car is expensive, and I don't think they factor that into minimum wage. Calling a cab twice a month for groceries would be cheaper than car payments, insurance, gas, oil changes, etc.

                I'm not arguing whether it is truly difficult to make $6/hour, because yeah, it is. You can make $16/hour and still live paycheck-to-paycheck.


                What I'm saying here is that it is liveable. Is it comfortable? No. Is it easy? Certainly not. But it's for sure liveable, you just have to be more careful with your choices. Also, if minimum wage was easy, there would be very little upward mobility. Minimum wage is there to pay for your food and living expenses. It's there to give you the minimum you need to survive. It's not there to pay for your car payments, pay for your college, or help you buy a house. That's just not a fair imposition on job market, which is already suffering.

                That is my opinion.

                1. tammybarnette profile image59
                  tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I understand where your coming from, and agree to a point. But circumstances are diffferent for different peoplle. I had two children to raise and could not afford groceries at all. I lived a 30 min drive from work, can't imagine how long that would have taken to walk, and in inclement weather, having to stop and get warm. I agree however that min wage should not be a comfortable pay for college wage, but should be liveable, and I do not agree it is liveable unless your single without children.

                  1. kathleenkat profile image88
                    kathleenkatposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Well the good thing is you have two standard deductions, so you probably took more home after taxes than the single woman would have. Not everyone fits the bill exactly. You, having two kids, and being unable to find a place to live near your work, probably an exception to "the rule." I don't think transportation (car, etc.) is even factored in, neither are special dietary needs (food allergies, ie, more expensive groceries)...  Let me do some digging...

                    Okay, I can't find anything. It seems there is either no "formula" to determine minimum wage rates, or said "formula" is kept secret. At least Federally. Here's what my state has to say about it:

                    http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/W … efault.asp

                    Again, though, this is under the assumption that public transportation is used, as these are based on urban workers. This probably lets a few people hang through the cracks in rural areas, but then again, cost of living is so much lower in rural areas (in my state at least) that I think they suppose you can afford a car and rent just fine (rented my first apartment for 700/month in a 'suburb' city, whereas urban Seattle area apartments of the same size are at least twice as much per month).


                    There are of course always people who slip through the cracks and get dealt a bad deal, but why should we change standards to accommodate them? I don't think minimum wage was meant to be a permanent thing, ie, if it was comfortable then you probably wouldn't have tried to find a better job (assuming you no longer work minimum wage, you "got out" for a reason).

  8. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    So basically you people don't want welfare but you don't want a living wage for people. Great concern for your fellow man. Profit is all I guess...

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't want our current welfare system, doesn't mean I don't care about people.

      I don't want minimum wage either, because our economy would do better without it, there would be more people working, more demand, more money circulating, and more jobs(in all pay ranges).

      1. tammybarnette profile image59
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Please explain how that works out...let's say we cut the min wage inhalf, well now they can hire twice as many workers and the welfare line doubles....please explain how it is that paying people less will do away with welfare?

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wages are driven by the demand for jobs vs demand for workers, coupled with the health of the economy.

          The largest group of unemployed people are teens, and other inexperienced, unskilled workers. If you allow people to pay them what is fair market value(government can't dictate fair market value, only the market can), then you end up with many more employed people.

          Now, all these inexperienced, unskilled workers are getting skills and getting experience. Furthermore, there is more of a demand for workers compared to a demand for jobs. When employers have less workers applying for jobs, they have to raise prices to remain competitive with other employers. The newly experienced workers also leverage their experience into higher wages.

          Having more of the population employed means more people are making and spending money. More money circulating through the economy translates to more demand, which translates to even more jobs. Low-wage jobs are the foundation for a healthy workforce... you have to have entry-level positions, you don't start building a workforce by looking for people with 50 years of experience, you start with people who naturally have NO experience, and give them jobs on the bottom of the ladder.

          The fallacy that you present is that, if minimum wage were cut in half, then existing wages would all drop. That's simply not true, the reverse would actually happen. Only 3% of all current jobs are at minimum wage, because fair market prices 97% of jobs above that.

          Really, that's a quick, simplified overview of how an economy is driven by jobs... if you want to understand more it's going to take more time and research.

          1. tammybarnette profile image59
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If I am not mistaken, I believe that is how China does business...Owners, stock owners, stock markets, CEO's...yes they all do VERY well, employees, not so much.

            See your answers are perfectly textbook logical, and yes in a perfect world this would work. But when human beings get involved, it no longer works, and we have CEO's paying $1000's for office curtains as 30yr employees are being pink slipped after the stock market just crashed and you lost your whole 401k...Corruption exists everywhere, in Big Business as well as in Government.

            What happened to creative thinking anyway. Why couldn't companies simply offer a choice to employees, for those who need that extra $1.75 an hour, fine, but how about the opportunity to be a stock owner in the Company, invest that $1.75 an hour...

            (By the way, these are mostly not unskilled workers or teens, check out the article I provided in another post)

            There are ways to work things out in this Country if everyone will quit digging in their heels and try!

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              35% of minimum wage workers don't even have a high-school diploma.
              32% have a high school diploma, and no college(not even a single credit hour).
              25% have some college education, but no degree.

              That's 92% of minimum wage workers that don't have a college degree. That accounts largely for unskilled/inexperienced.

              53% are under 25 years old. That goes along with inexperienced as well, but I fully acknowledge there are plenty of older people who aren't skilled or experienced.

              30% are 16-19... 491,000 of them. That age group, per age-year, is represented 4-6 times more than any other age group.

              So, the vast majority of minimum wage workers are unskilled, inexperienced, or uneducated. I say teens, because that's the group that fully-represents those characteristics.

              1. tammybarnette profile image59
                tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                My husband, who makes a good living because in our day that degree, piece of paper, was not near as important as will and pure ole ambition, has NO degree! having NO college experience does not = unskilled labor

                "There is this myth that minimum-wage workers are all suburban teenagers working after-school jobs. In actuality, 75.6 percent of workers affected by the increase are age 20 or older, 51.7 percent live within a family where the total income is less than $35,000 and 47.4 percent of those affected are full-time workers. So this whole minimum wage is far from being extra spending money for teenagers. In many families, the minimum-wage earnings actually provide a large portion of family income."

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not saying no degree = unskilled.

                  Unskilled, however, generally means no degree.

                  I don't have a degree. I'm not knocking on people who don't. I'm simply saying, most minimum wage jobs are taken up by people who fall into the unskilled/inexperienced/uneducated camp.

                  The statistics you are quoting are working backwards from the conclusion. Minimum wage supports very few family, statistically. When it does support families, it tends to be younger couples without children, while they get their educations in order.

                  Minimum wage CANNOT be a 'living wage' for a family of 4. Trying to do that will destroy the economy. It's well-intentioned, but ignorant to economics.

                  1. tammybarnette profile image59
                    tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I can meet you half way, yes min. wage can not care for a family of four and $9 won't, even though many do have to live in that scenario.

            2. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Jaxson is making great points about many of the finer and specific details and you also make good points here.  I was thinking something similar along the same lines as you- yet a raise of 1.75, 1 dollar has to go in some health fund and 75. in dental that is matched a % by the company and/or invested.

              What points I think are being missed however is the inflationary aspect of it all, in general.

              Like is said, I do not believe anyone cares whether people struggle on 7 bux or 9 bux. However 9 bux will help the total world financial, what I believe to be a ponzi scheme. Lotsa taxes, lotsa interest, losta everything and then a chump change raise to 9 bux?

              I wanna buy a new car on a months salary.

              I want to buy a gallon of milk for 1 dollar.

              I would like to see more intrinsic value to money, than just ink and paper.

              This would work great for the average person -- But this will not work for the wheels, because their are no big percentages in 1 dollar milk, new cars for a months salary. and intrinsic value to money.

              They make theirs on printing it outa thin air and then taxing it, and charging interest on the handle.

              1. tammybarnette profile image59
                tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Bravo!!! You are exactly right. If the money printing stops, if we pay off our deficit, then we can make our dollar strong and this silly arguement goes away.lol:) There should be options that employers and employees can find agreement on  that works for both of them and protects the economy at the same time...this could happen if these manufactured crisis would stay out of the news media injecting talking points into an already ridiculously divided society.

                1. PhoenixV profile image79
                  PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You wrote something earlier that we need creative thinkers. Or "What happened to creative thinking anyway.?" We definitely need people that could do with a lot less black and white thinking. You have shown that you can think creatively and thoughtfully.

                  Many others have shown that they cannot.

                  They discuss everything based specifically on their partisanship, which really has no place in a debate about finance. There is always two sides to a coin. My dad told me long ago; it does not matter how much money you make, if you spend more than you make.

                  Why raise the minimum wage? Is there something wrong with today's minimum wage? Conclusion: there must me a problem.  Otherwise if it aint broke, dont fix it.

                  Black and white thinkers that lack creative thinking or even analytical thinking skills will only see an all or nothing, one way or no way, answer.

                  You will not see any answer, solution, idea or debate, other than "it can only be this way". Not once can some offer a possible "other side of the coin". To them, its just one way, followed by much  confirmation bias.

                  Lower the minimum wage by 5%. Now what is the solution?

                  1. tammybarnette profile image59
                    tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I like the way you think. We do need some creative thoughts because obviously partisanship grinds the economy to a halt. Interestingly, we all have the same hope, we want our economy improved, we want our Constitution represented...we need to learn to work backwards from those ideas and find the middle that helps the majority of people as well as businesses.

                    I get upset when one side seems to want to punish the meek of society. The other side gets upset at the thought of punishing business. I had an awesome conversation yesterday with fellow hubber Old Poolman on my latest hub. We were saying how the school curiculum is out dated for the jobs today. One of the suggestions Obama made in the SOTU was to make it possible for HS students to be able to graduate with an Associate degree, then they would only need 2 yrs of a state college to obtain a BS or BA, We went further into that discussion, saying they could also partner with trade schools so they could effectively graduate with a certificate in welding, pipefitting, etc. Then we talked about the idea of businesses partning with schools in order to have a trained work force that meets the skills of the jobs of today. Business could get a tax incentive to do so AND end up with qualified workers. Win/Win....I am going to write a hub about this, and I am writing my state and city officials about these ideas.

                    If the black and white thinkng would stop, progress could happen.

          2. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "The largest group of unemployed people are teens, and other inexperienced, unskilled workers." Is that the case for the millions who have recently become unemployed with in the last four years? Are they mostly teens and unskilled labor? Couple the two together and pay them the current minimum wage would they be able to drive the economy back up again and not have to apply for government assistance?

            "Furthermore, there is more of a demand for workers compared to a demand for jobs." In the current job climate how does that work? The jobs being offered are more and more in service industries where the illegal immigrant faction will work for any wage and contribute to their communal living situation they have at home. Are we to live 10 to twelve to an apartment as they are forced to do on their minimum wage? Take for instance the highly skilled jobs being offered in the IT fields where masters and higher degrees are demanded at a cost of incredible debt for the individual to make good on. Are the wages keeping up with them.

            "Having more of the population employed means more people are making and spending money. More money circulating through the economy translates to more demand," Your premise demands that people have some expendable income to cover the many facets of the commercial economy selling us things we don't need with money we don't have. That won't happen with a low income that people cannot live on.

            You conjecture does not take into account the rising inflation running rampant among the energy, banking, and overseas manufacturers who just pass the buck onto the consummer waiting for the bubble to burst leaving us all scraping pennies together to survive.  Your scenario is the quintensential race to the bottom as all of these economic models lead to. You cannot cut out entirely one sector of the economic model i.e. the American manufacturing worker, and make up for it with some new world order of economic structure that does not severely handicap them.

  9. Barefootfae profile image59
    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago

    Trying to get this across.......



    If they raise the minimum wage all else raises with it and it is just exactly as if it never happened.
    And then the next politician who wants you to adore him can promise to raise it again.....to no effect.

    Now do we get it?

    1. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Trying to get this across....

      Your simple-minded description of what would happen is, well, simple-minded.

      There is actual research to help us figure out the likely effects of raising the minimum wage.

      Extensive research has been done on the economic impacts of the minimum wage

      1. Barefootfae profile image59
        Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ah so those last two times are a total success and that's why we are crying for it again?
        Please.......

        It's ok as long as you keep your voter base where they feel they have to depend on you and you alone.....

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How does raising the minimum wage make the voter base more dependent?  Facts, please.

  10. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    I forgot, Jaxson is always right about everything...

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, I'm sorry, did you have something to contribute to the discussion? Or, did you just want to come in here and insult me?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank goodness   s o m e o n e   IS right about everything!  You should be thankful and LISTEN!... I mean READ! (Of course you, Uninvited, are in Canada, thank goodness so, never mind).  Voting US citizens! Read and comprehend what Jaxson is saying. The future depends on it.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The future depends on what Jaxson, who is right about everything, is saying?

          http://s4.hubimg.com/u/4970259_f260.jpg

  11. MissJamieD profile image79
    MissJamieDposted 3 years ago

    It will probably be very obvious by my comments and questions that I'm not well educated in business or politics or finances..lol..except for being a stay at home mom for 15 years.

    What about ONLY allowing businesses and corporations to run in this country, that are moral and necessities? If we do away with strip clubs and porn shops, etc. Those people will have to find other jobs and will in turn assist other respectable, needed companies thrive so that the rest of the country can thrive a little bit as well???? I know this may sound assinine to some, but if we don't allow this type of bologna, these business minded people will have to come up with another type of needed goods to sell/trade or they can come out and work with the rest of us so that there is enough money to go around for the goods we DO need as a society. Or how about if we only allow ONE coffee shop wthin a one mile radius so that there is room for another type of business as well. Or merge certain companies with others, so that they could possibly grow their bottom line even further. But people are so greedy they refuse to make $9,000,000 instead of $12,000,000 (God forbid they can't afford their 3rd BMW) to help their employees live better lives. I understand that you have to make money to keep a company going and in the beginning it's especially tough, but I'm just making general statements about existing companies and/or ideas.

    Are these totally stupid ideas? Because I don't think many of these companies are necessary and we could be replacing them with better ones or merging them into even better major companies/businesses that can treat their employees better with a decent minimum wage.

  12. Barefootfae profile image59
    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago

    I posted this thread the way I did or a reason.
    This is no solution. But of course last night Santa Claus returns and everyone feels better.
    Pass the increase then and in about two years......hey!
    WE NEED TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM WAGE!

    And on and on and on adn on.
    Political football with people's lives. Just like the tax on tobacco.
    Keep em addicted....

    1. AlliOop profile image61
      AlliOopposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What you fail to realize is that inflation happens regardless of minimum wage increases. According to the Department of Labor, today's minimum wage of $7.25 actually has LESS purchasing power than the $3.35 minimum wage of 20 years ago. This is due to many factors, one of which is the devaluation of the dollar. Is it really so much to ask that the minimum wage keep up?

      As to your point that increasing the minimum wage will increase prices, you may be right, but it isn't as simple as a dollar for dollar increase. Even if prices go up slightly, it won't be enough to completely negate the extra pay that a full time minimum wage worker will bring home.

  13. Credence2 profile image85
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    Just another reason why I absolutely loathe the politcal right

    Their Dickensian vision of the world, there was a time where business sector took advantage of labor, are we to believe that this has all gone away?

    To change the subject it was interesting in Rubio's rebuttal to the State of the Union how he says that "big government" is the problem when he in fact used these so called big government programs to jump start his career!

    Ev erybody except the right winger, of course acknowledges that prices have risen far beyond the w. ages of the average worker.

    This determination needs to be made inspite of the fact that the inane on the right would have us believe that the invisible hand of the free market would not slap us in the face at the first opportunity. Have you ever watched the ritual of Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football?

    The minimum wage hs been around since the 1930's , the right has always cried wolf, but I have yet to see the sky fall.

    Business is exploiting the government and the tax payer by not paying a wage reflecting the actual cost of living instead of what they could get away with if the market would bear, $1.00/hour rather than $45.00? Ultimately, these people have to be able to live and what Walmart fails to properly pay, I have to pay through social services support, that concept in itself is absolutely anathema to the right?

    The rightwinger turns my stomach long, hard and frequently .For your information, are you aware that 90% of other nations provide for a minimum wage for the workers in their societies, perhaps they are aware of something that you are not, Jaxson and Barefootae?

  14. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Oh woe, getting the minimum wage back to where it was in 1981 will affect small businesses.  Whereas letting it fall lower and lower will merely prevent people from being able to afford both shelter and food.

    1. Greekgeek profile image97
      Greekgeekposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And, more importantly, raising the minimum wage might allow them to actually buy something from small business, once in a while.

  15. tammybarnette profile image59
    tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago

    http://onlineathens.com/stories/071909/ … 5372.shtml

    To all, both sides of this debate:

    "The federal Fair Labor Standards Act on Friday will bump up the minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour, an 11 percent increase from 2008.
    This is the third and final increase in a three-year series of adjustments after the wage remained unchanging for a decade. In 2007, the minimum wage was raised from $5.15 to $5.85 an hour, and last summer the increase was adjusted to $6.55."


    This article is from the last increase in 2009...4 yrs ago!

    1. kathleenkat profile image88
      kathleenkatposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      2009 was oh-so-recent for me, and I have notice that things have been about the same price, anywhere from gasoline to houses... I fail to see why there is a sudden need to increase the minimum wage by so much when items have remained about the same (in my humble observation, as a person who has purchased groceries, gasoline, college, housing, transportation, etc. in the past 4 years). Yeah, some things have gone up a little bit but I fail to see how that warrents such a huge increase.

      1. Barefootfae profile image59
        Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You have to let Santa deliver a present to his kids so they will continue to love him.
        It won't change their situation but they would vote for him again.

      2. tammybarnette profile image59
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        As I was telling Fae, we are having to play catch up. The min sat for a decade unmoved, and if you will notice, prices still rose anyway and this is the very reason so many live below the poverty line and need assistance. However, I have seen many changes at the pump and the grocery store in the last 4 yrs. as well, not astronomical but incremental...Min wage should grow every year with cost of living and we would always remain in balance.

  16. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    You've got to laugh!
    Some of the most vociferous opponents of the minimum wage are the very people who are driving the mom and pop businesses to the wall!

    A question?

    How many of you shop at your local mom and pop store and how many at Walmart et al?

    1. Barefootfae profile image59
      Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I do both. Most everyone does.

    2. 60
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe the mom and pop companies can get the tax break if they ship their employees out of country? That would save them a couple of bucks.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Or on the other hand if more of their customers were being paid above the minimum wage they would be able to spend more in their businesses allowing mom and pop to pay their workers a living wage!

        1. 60
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I would imagine most of their customers are being paid more than minimum wage. Do you have data that suggests otherwise?

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Generally those most dependent on their local shops are the poor without the money to travel to cheaper shops and take advantage of bulk buys and special offers.

            Do you know differently?

            1. 60
              whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Really? Those mom and pop stores are more expensive than the wal-marts or any other larger store, which by the way are relatively easy to get to.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, they are more expensive - another reason why poverty breeds poverty!

                And how do you describe "relatively easy"?

                1. 60
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Within walking distance, less than a mile where I live. There are a lot of wal-marts around.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So everybody in the US lives less than a  mile away from their local Wal-Mart!

        2. kathleenkat profile image88
          kathleenkatposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think this is a proveable correlation, that is, that if people make more, they will spend their money at more expensive businesses (mom-and-pop).

          I make well over minimum wage. I don't shop at mom-and-pop businesses. Why?  They are more expensive, and I don't care to pay $40 for a flower bouquet when I can get one for $10 at the grocery store chain (this is just an example). They are more expensive, and even though people who make more money don't *need* to be mindful of spending, many are. Just because my pockets are deeper doesn't make me want to spend more money than something is worth. Now, lets just drive those already-higher-than-Kroger prices up, by adding the cost of higher-paid menial labor. That makes me even less likely to shop there. When WA hit the $9/hr mark, I saw many small businesses and franchises struggle. And the reason was the higher wages. I went in for a job interview for some part-time gig at a laundromat, while in college. This was in 2009, where the minimum wage was nearing the $9 mark. At the interview, she offered me the job, but said she could not afford to work me more than 12 hours per week (I declined, as I could not afford to live off of 12 hours per week on minimum wage). This woman also owned and operated this shop on her own (and was looking for extra help). The shop hours were something like 9am-9pm, Mon-Sat. This woman was going to work 72 hours per week, simply because she couldn't afford to hire more than 12 hours of help per week. Poor lady, hope she got a vacation somehow. I suspect her laundry loads are no longer $.50 cents.

          1. tammybarnette profile image59
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I would say not when you will spend $1.50 a load to wash your own then another $1 or so too dry them and of course do the folding labor yourself. Not to mention a big bottle of Tide is about $13.00...She would be better off to turn that business into a regular laundry mat, she wouldn't have to be there and would just collect the money at the end of the day.

            As far as the mom's and pops vs the wal mart, this is the problem with US, the people. We want to be well compensated for our labor/job, but want to pay dirt cheap prices...this is why all of our manufacturing jobs have beeen sent to China and India where they pay there employees pitiful wages, offer no benefits, care not about emissions and caring for the earth, and WE support that system by voting for it with OUR MONEY! People need to start acting socially responsible. Spend a little more to buy American. Support small businesses, and watch our manufacturing come home and our economy improve. We need to stop BLAMING the government, because this is OUR fault as well!

  17. tammybarnette profile image59
    tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago

    1997
    unemployment rate: 5.4%
    new home : $176,200
    median hous income: $37,005
    stamp: 32 cents
    gallon of gas $1.23
    eggs: $1.17
    milk: $3.22

    2007
    4.8%
    $314,600
    $52,029
    41 cents
    $3.00
    $1.75
    $4.00


    This is how prices changed in the 10 yrs that minimum wage did not move! Min. wage earners sure had a harder time paying for their needs, and prices still went up even when min wage remained the same.

  18. kathleenkat profile image88
    kathleenkatposted 3 years ago

    I feel it's no longer possible to maintain a discussion in this forum topic. There's like 3 pages between each of my responses, I can't keep up. If anyone wants to continue discussing with me, well, PM me, because I can't  guarantee I'll notice your response through all this...

    1. Barefootfae profile image59
      Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry.....got people trying to kill the forum right now.
      You know, the one's without common sense.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Common sense is not so common, and rarely sensible either.

      2. LucidDreams profile image81
        LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I have not payed an employee less then 9.00 per hour for over 6 years. How they could live on that is beyond me. Raising the minimum wage will certainly help some. If your business model is created based on raping people at less then this wage, shame on you and just get a job and leave running a business to people that care about providing quality products and services versus screwing over poor people who need a break!

        1. Barefootfae profile image59
          Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't have a business model.
          I work for FedEx as a handler at 12.65 an hour.
          Best health care insurance I have ever had.

        2. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Could not agree more, unless they are still in school or something no one should be being paid so poorly.

  19. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    Yes that is logical. Those who make minimum wage are going to make more than people who don't make minimum wage big_smile

  20. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

    Conversation I had this morning with a conservative, a registered Republican (who also happens to be my husband):

    Me:  So, what do you think about raising the minimum wage?
    Him:  It has to be done.  Costs have gone up but wages haven't.
    Me:  You're a sensible Republican.
    Him:  The Republicans oppose raising the minimum wage?
    Me:  Yes
    Him:  I don't know what's happened to the party.
    [Long Pause]
    Him, chuckling:  I'm a sensible Republican when I agree with you.
    Me:  Of course

    big_smile

  21. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago
  22. kathleenkat profile image88
    kathleenkatposted 3 years ago

    Guys...I just figured out why Obama wants to raise federal minimum wage:

    More taxable income. There's a certain income level that doesn't get taxed (well, they get taxed, but get it *all* back in refunds). I think it's like $10,000/year. This way, with even part-time workers now making more than that, there will be so many more tax payers. This is all just a way to get more money for the government, methinks...

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      - good Indythink, Kat!

    2. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Or of course, more tax payers, reduced taxes.
      Add onto that money saved from all the subsidies to low paying employees and you would have a win-win situation.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Too logical smile

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah! Sorry, I must learn to stop that sad

      2. kathleenkat profile image88
        kathleenkatposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, we're in debt up to our knees here. No wait, up past our heads.

        There's no way they would decrease tax rates, even if they had more tax payers. Maybe over time, eventually, but certainly not right away. I suspect this is a way to get some "fast cash." We need it!

        1. Barefootfae profile image59
          Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Don't forget the Santa aspect.

        2. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well surely that would be better than cutting spending on public services?

          Increase tax revenue without increasing tax levels and get out of debt a bit quicker!

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            We'll never get out of debt by raising taxes. Not the way we're going.

            If every unemployed American were employed tomorrow, making $250,000 per year, the extra tax revenue wouldn't even cover our deficit, let alone pay down the debt.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Who said anything about raising taxes?
              I specifically said raising tax revenue, ie bringing more people into the tax paying bracket. That would raise the amount of tax revenue without actually raising tax levels.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Read my post again John. I said the same thing. If we had every unemployed person suddenly making $250k per year, that wouldn't cover our deficit with the new revenue.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Jaxson, you said "We'll never get out of debt by raising taxes. ".

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, my wording wasn't perfect. Read the rest of my post. I very clearly showed I was talking about tax revenue.

                    Technically, if you only want to talk about tax RATES, then you need to specify tax RATES. Tax REVENUE is another aspect of 'taxes'.

                    But, don't let that stop you from completely ignoring the point.

          2. tammybarnette profile image59
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The best spending cut we could make would be pensions, we are spending 18% of our spending pie chart on these lifetime pensions. We should allow maybe 5 or 10 yrs and then that's it...We could raise the cap on SS and make it solvent without having to cut anything.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So somebody hits, what, 75 and then they are on their own!
              Lot of work opportunities for geriatrics is there?

              1. tammybarnette profile image59
                tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm talking government pensions, those guys usually make a good living, they can save up like the rest of us have too.

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yet, I've contributed enough to my SS that had I been allowed to invest it normally over the years rather than have congress "borrow" it at near 0 interest I would be a millionaire several times over.  I could withdraw thousands each month and still watch the principle grow.

              Doesn't seem quite equitable to take what little is left after you've already used it for 40 years interest free.

              1. tammybarnette profile image59
                tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I understand your point, but some who are, not exactly financially intelligent, would not invest, they would be sitting on the welfare line, and the elderly have things pretty tough as it is...Maybe you should have the choice, but understand when your old if you lost your butt in the stock market, oh well....or if you squandered every penny, oh well...Yes, they should not be allowed to touch SS for any purpose other than paying it out in benefits...If the cap was raised it would be a solvent system.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So make every investment plan subject to federal approval and have employers put the money it it each month.  No withdrawals until 62 except for rollovers. 

                  It would be a completely solvent system now if it hadn't been raided for decades for pork barrel projects rather than invested at a reasonable rate of return.  Of even half of reasonable.

                  1. tammybarnette profile image59
                    tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Good idea, who oversees the program?

                2. PhoenixV profile image79
                  PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I bet there are more honest convicts that what has gone on in the stock market.  Some entities at the top of our financial system need to be jailed. Some need to have some assets seized. I'm talking trillions. Some countries need to be thrown out of our resources. Our resources need to be developed, not deferred to some world cronyism going on. Then maybe a sliding tax on luxury items.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image79
                    PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Do this and I will be all for raising min wage to 20 bux an hour.

                  2. tammybarnette profile image59
                    tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    big_smile

          3. kathleenkat profile image88
            kathleenkatposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe it would? Who knows? Not relevant to my statement.


            ^Yeah, I agree. Nobody should continue to get paid for a job that they no longer do. Retirement, cool, but pensions are just ridiculous. Especially if it's public-funded pensions. If some company has the money to pay their retired workers money for jobs they no longer do, then that's great; it certainly has nothing to do with me.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What do you intend to do when you are too old to work?
              Kill yourself?

              1. Barefootfae profile image59
                Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                What....you think this bunch running things cares about the elderly?
                Pay attention.

              2. kathleenkat profile image88
                kathleenkatposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Retirement=/=pension.

                I intend to use my 401k, savings, and assets such as a home which by then I would already have paid off.

    3. Barefootfae profile image59
      Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah..
      Just like the tax on cigarettes.

  23. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    If you want retirement, then offer every American a certain amount of 'Retirement bonds'. Fix them at 4% interest, and cap it at, say, $10,000 investment per year.

    Leave it up to people to invest in their own retirement though. This nanny-business has got to stop.

  24. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Oh, and for whoever said that experience doesn't really matter, try telling that to every apple grower in the western US. Ask them how much more they would be willing to pay someone like my dad, with 40 years of experience and a great reputation, over someone who just graduated with a Masters degree. Then ask them why they would be willing to pay 4, 5, or 10 times as much money to my dad than the new graduate.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Strangely enough, one of the reasons my father took early retirement was because he was expected to train up graduates who were earning more on a starting salary than my father was earning after thirty years of doing the job he was teaching to those graduates!

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Depends on the field. Some change drastically and quickly. Some don't.

        Like tech fields... my brother graduated... a while ago, but he has kept his salary growing and growing by getting ever certificate and taking every updated course he can. His experience, and certifications, get him double what new guys are getting.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You totally missed my point - again.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, I didn't. In most fields, an experienced worker can leverage for much higher pay than a new worker, especially if they keep on top of any new developments, methods, training, etc in their field.

            What field was your dad in?

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              My old man was a civil engineer with a profound knowledge of chemical engineering. He spent most of his life as a project manager for new plastic film factories.
              He answered to the directors of the company.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm surprised he wasn't able to leverage his work, especially in a non-permanent status, with other companies. That kind of expertise and job situation is usually in very high demand.

                Sorry, that is just strange to me, everyone I know in any engineering field just becomes more valuable as time goes on.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The company he worked for at the time was the only company in the UK engaged in the sort of work he was skilled in.
                  My father had an unrealistic sense of loyalty, served time in the army in WWII and then went to work for ICI up until he retired.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Was that something that was in demand in the US, do you know?

                    I do agree, it's unfortunate when companies don't treat employees well... but I believe in freedom above all.

            2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I do feel sorry for John's father.

              ...oops see how feelings could have created a tyranny for all?
              Logic, people!

  25. weedprices profile image58
    weedpricesposted 3 years ago

    I think this is a great idea! LOL

 
working