jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (121 posts)

The $15 Minimum Wage

  1. Sychophantastic profile image82
    Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago

    What do you think of Nick Hanauer's suggestion that we have a $15 minimum wage?

    His article suggesting this can be found here:

    http://topinfopost.com/2014/06/30/ultra … are-coming

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

      I think we should go ahead and do it.  And double my SS payments at the same time, and let government intervene in the wages of my children and get them all doubled, too.  Then, to prevent all business from going under, we can have government force the doubling in price of every product and service in the country.

      And when it's all done and over, we'll all be exactly where we are now but with a massive increase in government controls.  Which is always a good thing, right?

      1. bBerean profile image59
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I think they might have been testing the waters on this premise when they raised the gas prices 100% over the last 6 years.  Their so innovative and proactive!

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

          ??  According to http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=247&t=10 the average price of a gallon of gas 6 years ago (July 7,2008) was $4.11.  My area is going for $3.75 - a decrease of 9%, not a twofold increase.

          1. bBerean profile image59
            bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Looks like lots of numbers fly around this topic.  Throw this in your mix for what it is worth:

            http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

            Set it to a 6 year time period and create a graph.  This supports the doubling argument.  I have to run premium and I remember paying half as much, (and complaining about it).  wink

      2. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The motto of this country USED to be ask not what your country can do for you but what YOU can do for your country; it is now ask not what you can do for your country but what YOUR COUNTRY can do for you and OWES you.    America is becoming the big welfare state.   

        No, minimum wage should not be raised to $15 hourly.  The context of minimum wage is that the job is a step off to better jobs.  Minimum wage jobs are for those with no experience nor skills.   That is why it is called MINIMUM WAGE.   When one gains the prerequisite experience, wages increase.   People earn according to their skills and education.   People with little skills and education earn....well, LESS.  That is the way it should be.  To raise minimum wage is, in essence, rewarding people with little or no skills nor education.   That is not good business practice nor sense.  Hell, keep minimum wage the way it is, adjusted to inflation of course!  Welcome to ENTITLED America, not hard-working America!

        1. Sychophantastic profile image82
          Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          We're talking about a living wage. Minimum wage is not a living wage. When minimum wage is not a living wage, then those people must turn to government for basic needs and we all pay for that. Raising the minimum wage is posed in the article (if you read it) as a possible solution for helping us all STOP paying for those who need that government help.

  2. Sychophantastic profile image82
    Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago

    Did you read the article, Wilderness? He's arguing for less government and that raising the minimum wage will actually reduce the size of government because people will need fewer services. Certainly, all those Walmart employees on Medicare might be off the government dole.

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

      I'm sorry, but the terms "less government" and "raise minimum wage" are the antithesis of each other.

      And providing higher wages does NOT take people off charity.  All it means is that the so called poverty level must again be raised so that people can still get their free money and luxuries.

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

        Yes, everybody knows that it essential for many to live in poverty so that others can claim their rightful heritage, more of the money.

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

          Or at least it is essential to claim it is so.  If we don't claim that people rich beyond anything our grandparents dreamed of is actually poverty stricken and starving to death, it means we can't collect and give away vast sums of money.  And that means politicians lose control over the people and their votes.  Obviously unacceptable.

          1. Sychophantastic profile image82
            Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            C'mon, Wilderness. You must understand the basic concept of this.

            If we raise the minimum wage, working people on the minimum wage will be able to get off food stamps and Medicare, thereby lessening your burden for having to pay for these services that they use.

            By raising the minimum wage, we increase their ability to purchase goods, thereby helping businesses. In any business, there are two ways to make more money: increase margins based on flat sales (raise prices) or increase marketshare (sell more goods with the same prices). Raising the minimum wage suggests that the people who benefit purchase more goods, thereby increasing the profits of the businesses they frequent.

            All the states where the minimum wage has been raised in the last year have above average job growth too.

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

              And how will they be able to get off welfare (in all it's forms) when prices will rise right with their wages?  That IS what happens, you know, unless there are severe extenuating circumstances (such as nearby competition that did not raise it's wages).  Prices go up commensurate with the wage increase and the people are no better off.  We've seen it a thousand times, and it is THE reason unions have about destroyed themselves; the constant requirement for wage increases to be better off than non-union workers result in the same kind of inflationary pressure you are proposing by government setting labor prices without regard as to the value of the work being done.

              No, there is no "suggestion" that people getting a doubling of minimum wage will purchase more goods; they won't have the money to after the prices rise.

              And you're "putting the cart before the horse", confusing cause and effect.  When business is great, misguided politicians decide it is time to buy some "poverty votes" and force business to pay for something they don't get.  But when business is poor and the same thing happens things fall apart quickly - we just don't talk about that end of it so as to pretend that the forced artificial wages is causing the business to boom.  It isn't.

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

                All through history an increase in demand has resulted in a decrease in price.

              2. Sychophantastic profile image82
                Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The claim that prices rise when the minimum wage rises is not true. If the result is that more goods are purchased, then prices do not have to go up. Also, if a corporation like Walmart, which made something like $25 billion dollars, could accept $15 billion in profit instead, prices would not have to rise.

                Again, the idea is that people who benefit from a rise in the minimum wage will purchase goods with that extra money.

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

                  I've been telling him that for months with absolutely no effect!

              3. Sychophantastic profile image82
                Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The reason Unions have destroyed themselves has more to do with excessive pensions (see GM) than with price increases. That being said, unionization is good for workers seeking fair labor standards provided that they are reasonable just as capitalism is good provided that capitalists are somewhat reasonable in their quest for profits. Regulation occurs when people are not reasonable.

  3. Rochelle Frank profile image90
    Rochelle Frankposted 2 years ago

    Why should government even mandate a minimum wage?

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

      Maybe to stop the corporations turning us into another third world country?

    2. Sychophantastic profile image82
      Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      This is a great question. If you don't believe in raising the minimum wage or having a minimum wage that offers a minimum standard of living that does not require government help, why mandate one at all. Why not just let corporations dictate what they will pay? In fact, what do you think would happen if we abandoned a minimum wage? Any guesses?

  4. peeples profile image89
    peeplesposted 2 years ago

    I wish someone would explain to me what the big deal is. I truly don't understand how places like Denmark and Germany (and many more) pay such high wages to their employees yet businesses are thriving. The average Mcdonalds employee (adult worker) is paid $20 an hour. Even after crazy taxes on the employee they still make more than USA employees. So if there is someone who can rationally explain to me why this is so successful in other countries but would be catastrophic to USA business I'd appreciate the explanation, because I truly don't understand the difference.

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

      Can only guess, but some thoughts:

      Average income for the Danes is around $2600, only $600 more than the effective minimum.  In other words, income is shifted from those jobs worth more to those jobs that are not worth what they are being paid.  If you like socialism but not work it's a great deal.

      Taxation is huge in Denmark, over 50% for the average person and there is no minimum amount to pay taxes on.  The VAT alone is 25%!  Again, nice for the socialist that has little income as someone else will pay to run the country.  For the worker, trying hard to improve their station in life, it would be very difficult and lowers actual income to something more in line with the US.

      Many prices are huge compared to the US.  Car ownership is enormous, many times that of the US.  Home ownership is over $200 per sq ft, as opposed to well under $100 in the US.  The extra income, then, buys less than a lower income in the states.

      All is not as rosy as it seems at first glance.

      1. peeples profile image89
        peeplesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        We must be looking at some seriously varying information. The multiple articles I have been reading show a net income monthly ( average in dollars after taxes) between $3500 and $4300 NET. They have repeatedly been named the happiest place in the world. They have far less corruption. The crime rate is SUBSTANTIALLY lower. So all that providing for the poor (all people there are provided the same benefits from the government) must be doing something right. In USA income is directly correlated to intelligence, unplanned pregnancies, education, crime, and several other things. Is it possible that their higher incomes are in correlation with all the things there that are better than here?

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

          Can't find where I got mine, but here is a wiki set of charts from various sources.  In all of them, the US is higher than Denmark, and that's gross, not net.  With higher prices and much higher tax rates the difference will be even greater in terms of buying power.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … erage_wage

          As far as a better place to live, higher living standard, etc., I've had this argument before.  All the studies indicating that place high value on socialism and the things socialism produces such as common health care, subsidized housing, lots of freebies at the expense of high taxes.  Americans (as a group) are not as interested in that, preferring big houses, lots of (long distance) travel, big toys, etc.  In other words, standard of living is extremely subjective and you can "prove" whatever you want.

          Making a causal relationship out of a correlation (giving to the poor causes less crime) is a logical fallacy.  You cannot make that connection; the crime rate could be low because penalties are severe, because there are 2 policemen per resident, because the country is high on drugs and doesn't care, because a lot of different possibilities.  You just cannot declare that giving money away reduces crime rates.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, it lists the U.S. at $55047. That may be the average wage, but it's not even close to what the average American makes (billionaires tend to skew these things). Try reducing that number by 20-25 grand, and then it'll be much more representative.

            EDIT: $4537 monthly average wage?! What the hell are these people smoking?! It would take everyone in the house combined two months to make that!

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

              The median wage in the US is $27519.10 in 2012.  Note that that means half the people made less, half made more.  Don't forget that a decent percentage work part time by choice, such as homemakers, retirees and kids.  http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html

              So you've exaggerated just a big - two wage earners, including kids, homemakers and retirees working part time by choice, can make that monthly wage.  Statistically, anyway; obviously two people working minimum wage for 10 hours a week won't make it.

              And don't forget that the $$$ in the check are only part of the wage - paid time off, SS payments, unemployment insurance, medical insurance, life insurance, LTD insurance, bonuses, free day care or gyms and a host of other things all enter into it.  Sounds about right to me, for an average - 20 years ago the normal "bennie" value was around 30% of the $$ wage and it's gone up since then.

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

                What about those working part time not by choice but because there are no available full time jobs?
                Oh and they are probably on zero hour contracts as well.

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

                  They lower both the median and average.  Simple arithmetic - you should have been able to determine that as well as I can.

                  What is a "zero hour contract"?  That's something we don't have and I've never heard of it.

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

                    It most be great comfort for those trying to get by on part time work that they lower both the median and the average!  It still doesn't mean that they choose to work part time though does it?

                    You don't have zero hour contracts! Good, that's one up to you.

                    In a zero hour contract you are not guaranteed any work although you are expected to be available at your place of work if you are needed. Of course if your "employer" has no work for you you don't get paid.

  5. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
    Shawn McIntyreposted 2 years ago

    Why stop there? Since so many people think that raising the minimum wage is the answer, why not make it $20 an hour, or $50, or $100?

    I can't understand how so many, seemingly otherwise intelligent people, can fall for, what is at its heart, such a stupid argument. So many people, especially those in my party, seem to think that the only thing standing between a strong middle class and economic prosperity for the poor, is raising the minimum  wage.

    The simple Economic reality is: raising the minimum wage does not "boost the Economy, and it doesn't "lift people out of poverty", all it does is hurt low-skill, uneducated workers, the very people the minimum wage was designed to protect.

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

      OK if raising the minimum wage doesn't help to boost the economy by the same reckoning paying 50c an hour would not have a detrimental affect on the economy either!

      1. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
        Shawn McIntyreposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That's like saying "Since aspirin doesn't cure cancer, it must be fatal".

        Your comments are always entertaining John, but they're simply not based in any kind of Economic reality.

        Since however you seem to believe I'm wrong, answer my question: Why stop at $15? Why not make it $20 an hour, or $50, or $100? If, as you seem to believe, boosting the minimum wage is nothing but good for workers and the Economy overall, why stop at $15?

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

          Why not reduce it to 50c or even zero?

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

            Probably a much better idea than setting artificial numbers that have nothing to do with market value received, wouldn't you say?  When prices are mandated according to the perceived needs of the seller for necessities+luxuries it kind of throws a monkey wrench into the whole concept.

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

              What? The whole concept of getting something for nothing?

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

                How about economic theory.  Finance.  Money.  Value.

                No other product sets price according to the personal needs of the seller; why should labor be any different?  When the grocer sells me a loaf of bread he doesn't ask how many people are in my home, or how much my medical bills are - why should a potential laborer get that option?  Just because he's in the business of selling labor instead of manufactured items?

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

                  But that is different, the grocer gets to set the price of the loaf of bread that he's selling, the person buying the labour gets to set the price he's paying.

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

                    Fine.  The grocer sets a price of double what the competition is asking - do you think he will sell any?  And when the laborer sets a price of double what the work is worth, do you he'll sell any?

                    John, you simply cannot pretend that labor costs aren't subject to the same kind of cost/price pressures that every other product is.  Because it IS subject to competition, and trying to artificially force a price isn't going to change that.  Crying out that the laborer needs more to support his lifestyle, that he has little kids to feed, that if he isn't paid you'll blackmail society by requiring charity for him; none of that is going to change the value of his product (labor).  And when you force the price up by law, the only real result is that everything is going to rise too - it's called competition.

          2. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
            Shawn McIntyreposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            See, just as I was saying: entertaining, but no grasp of Economics.

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

              No, being smart isn't answering the question.

              If I ask for the experience of your superior knowledge and you respond with sarcasm how will I ever learn?

              1. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
                Shawn McIntyreposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                It's not sarcasm John, it's simple fact: you're a very clever, and entertaining commenter, but you don't seem to have any grasp of Economics.Now while normally that's not a problem, it's a bit of a hindrance in a discussion about Economic Policy.

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

                  Come on, stop avoiding the question.

                  1. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
                    Shawn McIntyreposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm not avoiding the question John, you're dodging my question with a glib response. I know you're active here on the forums, so just in case you've forgotten the question you've been dodging:

                    Why stop at $15? Why not a $20, or $50, or $100 minimum wage?

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      .....Why stop there? Since so many people think that raising the minimum wage is the answer, why not make it $20 an hour, or $50, or $100?

      Because it is the lowest calculation based on inflation, expenses and living standards currently understood in the US.

      Raising the minimum wage is not the only thing that will spark the economy. Why is it that with these conversations people like to point to the silver bullet, one thing cure for a problem?

      The whole shooting match went out the door when the NAFTA and TPP agreements came to maturity in the '90's and more recently the TPP as late as 2013. The corporations have been after the low wage labor pool to reduce their cost while pocketing the difference. A raise in the minimum wage is one way of putting the consumer end of the process back in the process. Basic economics does not account for all out greed and the favor it has bought. Perhaps with more money to be made there may be some competition between the retailers when more money is available. I agree it may be temporary but it will spark a change. I always thought the best scenario in the bank debacle was for the government to give the money to the people to pay off their debt. The banks would have become flush again and the people would be out of debt. But that is another topic completely. We now trade on debt and not assets.

      Eventually if people can pay their bills and buy products the economy will move right along. So far the recommendations from the economists is work hard (as if that is not an option), save your money (what money if you can't get a job), invest in sound market choices (again with what money) and get more education ( again with what money).

      ....all it does is hurt low-skill, uneducated workers, the very people the minimum wage was designed to protect.

      And I really need you to explain this!

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

        What will doubling minimum wage do to the millions of college grads out there, working in their chosen fields, at $15-$20 per hour?  Think there might be a little inflationary pressure for all of them to double their wages, too?  And of course doubling what is often the single largest cost of a business won't affect the price charged for the product, not at all.

        It's fascinating to see people claiming that huge labor cost increases absolutely will NOT result in rising prices, an inflationary circle that has driven Detroit and Chicago to their knees.  That has virtually wiped out town after town as the unions drove the major employers out of business with continual wage increase demands.  We've all seen it happen and now want to do it to the entire country, all the while pretending that inflation is just a bogey man that will never happen.  How quickly we forget the double digit inflation of the 70's and 80's - or is it just those that didn't live through it, paying 20% interest for a home mortgage, that think inflation can't happen?  As it did when payments on a $200,000 home were $3300 per month for 30 years?

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

          But a small rise in the minimum is not a huge increase!
          And why do you expect the low paid to subsidise your lifestyle?

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

            100% is not a small increase.  Neither, in this country, is a $7 per hour raise.  It is massive in both cases - I never got anything like that in 50 years of working.

            I don't expect subsidies and have a problem with people that do.  Expect them, that is, not necessarily get them.  Some need, and deserve, some help back on their feet.

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

              But by insisting on a low minimum wage you are expecting a subsidy!

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

                Why?  School kids don't need more, and even youngsters just starting out can get by just fine with minimum wage.  They may need a roommate, they may not be able to have the newest cell phone or cable TV, but I have absolutely zero desire to subsidize such things for them.

                Anyone with a family expecting to make it on minimum wage needs their head examined.  And a new job, one suitable for an adult with some experience under their belt.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Something tells me you haven't been on the job hunt in the past, say, 11 years. Guess what? Minimum wage jobs are the only jobs out there anymore.

                  My sister had to look for three years--THREE YEARS--to finally land a job that pays more than minimum wage. How much more? She gets $9.25/hour instead of $7.25/hour. And landing this job took, as I mentioned, THREE YEARS.

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

                  If you really believe that only school kids and youngsters are paid the minimum wage you are really out of touch. Guess what, my 40+ year old friend is on the minimum wage and she's no exception.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image85
                    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok Mr. Holden, now here are the questions regarding your  40 year old friend.   What level of education does she have?   Does she have a speciality, instead of a general education?   What is her skill level. if any?   Does she have relevant work experience?    Other questions include: If she was fired for cause from a job?  If so, where the reasons unethical?    If the latter reason is true, companies are loathe to hire people who were fired for unethical reasons such as misconduct, violence, and other egregious work place acts.  Such people, although qualified, will be relegated to minimum wage as companies will be hesitant to place such a person in a high wage job as he/she is deemed as untrustworhy/unprofessional in addition to being damaged goods. Just sayin'.

      2. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
        Shawn McIntyreposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        In the interests of clarity, I'll take this point by point:

        First, it's not a simply question of the cost of U.S. Labor Vs. [Insert Country Here]'s Labor. When companies outsource, what they're actually saying is: "We can manufacture, package, ship, insure, pay import fees and tariffs, and still come in cheaper than if we produce the product in the U.S.". You can't blame the company for that.

        There was an article a few years ago that showed how much an iPad would cost if it were made in the United States, the difference was a 57% jump in price (from $729 to $1,144).

        As I've said before, increasing the minimum wage doesn't add money to the Economy, it redistributes it. Wages right now are not a product of "Corporate geed" or some nefarious right-wing plot, they're a result of the supply of labor far exceeding the demand. Until something is done to reduce the supply of labor, wages will not rise, and mandating higher wages will only make a bad situation worse.
         


        When we talk about minimum wage workers, it's important to know who we're talking about. Right now, roughly 3.3 million workers are paid at or below the Federal Minimum wage, that's 4.3% of the workforce (about 1% of the total population).

        Half of that 3.3 million is under the age of 25, included in that are teenagers who make up 20%. These are students and people just entering the workforce.

        Only 2% of minimum wage workers are people getting paid minimum wage for full time jobs (more than 35 hours a week). Minimum wage workers are 2.5 times as likely to not have a high school diploma, and 5 times as likely to not have a college degree.

        Now let's look at the minimum wage itself.

        Right now, the Federal Minimum Wage is $7.25 an hour; but that doesn't really tell us anything. The two most important questions are: "Why do people make minimum wage", and "What will happen to those workers if we increase the minimum wage".

        The second question is easy to answer: a lot of them are going to lose their jobs. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would be an increase of 107%. You don't need to be an Economist to recognize that, more than doubling the cost of unskilled labor, is going to reduce the demand for unskilled labor; this will lead to higher unemployment, which will add to the existing surplus of labor, which will only serve to compound the problem of low wages which are caused by... a surplus of labor.

        As for the first question: "Why do people make minimum wage", that's also a simple answer: because that's all the job is worth. You'll notice I said "the job" not "the employee"; Progressives love to play the emotionally manipulative "people are worth more than $7.25 an hour" card, and they're right: the people are worth more than $7.25 an hour, but the job isn't.

        Every job has both a cost, and a value to the company. If the cost is equal to, or greater than the value, then it doesn't make sense to have that job. Why is that important? Because when you set a wage- any wage, what you're saying is: Value > Cost. If you increase the cost (by raising wages), then the value needs to increase with it, or eventually you'll get to a point where: Value = Cost, and it no longer makes sense to have that job.

        If you double the cost of labor, you're then placing a burden on the workers to double their value, or it doesn't make sense to keep employing them. So what you end up with is a situation where only the best minimum wage workers keep their jobs, and the rest are terminated, and (as is becoming more and more common), replaced by technology:

        McDonald's Is Quietly Testing Its Own Order-Ahead And Payments App

        Tablets Are Making Waiters Obsolete

        100,000 Applebee’s Tables Get Tech Treatment

        1. Sychophantastic profile image82
          Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You're arguing that if we raise the minimum wage, then jobs will be lost.

          However, in the 13 or so states that raised their minimum wage, all are seeing increased job growth. That doesn't mean increasing the minimum wage creates jobs or necessarily increases job growth, but it does seem to suggest that it doesn't kill jobs either.

          1. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
            Shawn McIntyreposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            First, you'll need to provide sources on that one.

            Second, one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. Raising the minimum wage kills "minimum wage" jobs; it's entirely possible for a state to have a net gain in employment after raising the minimum wage, but that doesn't help the low skilled, uneducated workers that lost their jobs because of the increase.

            As I said, minimum wage workers only account for 4.3% of the workforce.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              4.3% is not the only ones making below $15.00 per hour. It raises all the in-betweens as well. $2,400 a month is not a lot of money in this country and barely gets you by. But it is a start on a long recovery for the poor.

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

              No answer Shawn? Why not 50c or even zero?

            3. Sychophantastic profile image82
              Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Sure! A biased source, but let me know what you think:

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/1 … 71412.html

              No worse than deriving policy direction from The Washington Times.

              1. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
                Shawn McIntyreposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The problem with the study they cite is the same with people who say the Unemployment Rate is 6%... they're using the wrong number. I'm not going to go so far as to assign motive and say that they're doing it intentionally, but the mistake is the same either way. They're taking those numbers from the Household Survey, which is the wrong number for what they're trying to prove. The number they should be using is the U-6, which is the "real" unemployment number.

                What they're doing is juicing the number by cutting off the back end of the sample.

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

            False assumption, that raising the minimum wage won't cost jobs because states where business is booming, and raised their wage, it didn't happen.  You are failing to account for a whole myriad of factors.

            1. Sychophantastic profile image82
              Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I know a lot about analytics and I basically agree with you Wilderness that people draw assumptions from data sets that don't give them the answers they want.

        2. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          ...."We can manufacture, package, ship, insure, pay import fees and tariffs, and still come in cheaper than if we produce the product in the U.S.". You can't blame the company for that.

          As referenced in my first reply the NAFTA and TPP agreements are what caused the fleeing of jobs to other markets. The blame is on the government who was coerced by the corporations to do it. In effect they have circumvented the natural progression of wage increases here to account for a rise in minimum wage requirements and inserted that of a third world standard of living to base those wages on. It really isn't rocket science. If you take somebody's money away and give a mere pittance of it to somebody who lives near or below the poverty level where it is an exorbitant amount under their standard of living, you have essentially made a killing as the manufacturer. The problem lies in when you try to sell the product back to the guy who lost his job. He now makes the same wage as the foreign worker in a grossly inflated living standard with all its costs and responsibilities and has to pay dearly for anything. The corporations have pocketed the difference for all this time and now when it has effectively thrown the labor pool into poverty there is no correction?

          ....There was an article a few years ago that showed how much an iPad would cost if it were made in the United States, the difference was a 57% jump in price (from $729 to $1,144).

          How much did it cost to manufacture it under the slave labor and what was the mark up? I produce a product that is made in China and the tooling costs are ridiculously low. They make their money on the back end providing the product. If I could take the hit that tool manufacturers want for the same tool I could well afford the product made here in the US. Before you flame me for having the product made in China, AAAAALLLLLL of my competition has their product made in China. When the computation is made of the difference it is pennies that make the decision as retailers want the bottom line.

          ....As I've said before, increasing the minimum wage doesn't add money to the Economy, it redistributes it.

          A very true statement! But what it does account for is the money being put back into the US economy so that US citizens have more to spend. Then jobs are created to account for demand and supply catches up quickly putting people back to work.

          ....Wages right now are not a product of "Corporate geed" or some nefarious right-wing plot, they're a result of the supply of labor far exceeding the demand.

          Absolutely!, because the job went where? Corporate greed in order to show growth to their shareholders has essentially replaced the US labor market with the Chinese labor market. What is left for US workers now is service oriented jobs that are in extreme competition with each other and therefore pay the bare minimum wages they can.

          ....Until something is done to reduce the supply of labor, wages will not rise, and mandating higher wages will only make a bad situation worse.

          One is not related to the other. What would you have us do? Relocate the US labor force to China therefore effectively reducing the surplus of workers here so that the wages can rise? Corporate America has already done that without the move. The only thing left is to get rid of these pesky US labor drones so that wages can rise? Mandating higher wages is the only option as the trade agreements are keeping those jobs overseas.

          ....."We can manufacture, package, ship, insure, pay import fees and tariffs, and still come in cheaper than if we produce the product in the U.S.". You can't blame the company for that.

          Why not they paid for it when they lobbied congress to put the trade agreements into motion. Absolutely they can accomplish all of that but at a cost to their customers ability to pay for anything. It is quite simple. It was not the smaller companies but they have to compete with the corporations so they are in the same boat. If you have a goose that produces eggs for a certain amount and then you take the goose away, how will you get your eggs and better yet pay for them with what? You are holding the manufacturers harmless irrespective of their past actions. They wanted to circumvent their costs at the cost of the consumers ability to pay.

          ....And I really need you to explain this!

          YES! Because none of your figures explain all those who are out of work because they can't get a job. Two thirds of new jobs created are part time and most of those are minimum wage jobs. I am talking about creating demand by putting more money in their pockets. More money in their pockets means that manufacturers will be able to hire because demand has risen. Forget the short term cost to employers if there is more work!

          ....The second question is easy to answer: a lot of them are going to lose their jobs. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would be an increase of 107%. You don't need to be an Economist to recognize that, more than doubling the cost of unskilled labor, is going to reduce the demand for unskilled labor; this will lead to higher unemployment, which will add to the existing surplus of labor, which will only serve to compound the problem of low wages which are caused by... a surplus of labor.

          Not according to the US Department of labor. It has no effect on the loss of jobs.
          http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/histo … ts/pay.htm
          And I quote!
          "The standard criticism of the minimum wage is that it raises employers' costs and reduces employment opportunities for teenagers and disadvantaged workers. However, several studies have found that the last two increases in the minimum wage had an insignificant effect on employment. Furthermore, an extension of the time-series studies that had previously been used to claim that raising the minimum wage decreases employment, no longer finds a significant impact.

          In a recent review of the literature, Professor Richard Freeman of Harvard, a widely respected labor economist, wrote: "At the level of the minimum wage in the late 1980s, moderate legislated increases did not reduce employment and were, if anything, associated with higher employment in some locales."

          In discussing the minimum wage, Robert M. Solow, a Nobel laureate in economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recently told the New York Times, "The main thing about (minimum wage) research is that the evidence of job loss is weak. And the fact that the evidence is weak suggests that the impact on jobs is small."

          ....As for the first question: "Why do people make minimum wage", that's also a simple answer: because that's all the job is worth. You'll notice I said "the job" not "the employee"; Progressives love to play the emotionally manipulative "people are worth more than $7.25 an hour" card, and they're right: the people are worth more than $7.25 an hour, but the job isn't.

          As based on what? A wage you can pay a foreign worker In a depressed state of living. That is the real comparison as all jobs are inter-related to each other as trade labor or goods for money. You cannot remove one from the other without an impact.

          ....If you double the cost of labor, you're then placing a burden on the workers to double their value, or it doesn't make sense to keep employing them. So what you end up with is a situation where only the best minimum wage workers keep their jobs, and the rest are terminated, and (as is becoming more and more common), replaced by technology:

          We have already doubled our value. Have you not heard that the production of the American worker. We are second only to Asia in productivity in the world.

          http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20572828/ns/b … 76y2SJOW00

          You are dealing with outdated and stick in the mud economics. The big picture evades you because of the short term solutions you don't even have. Eliminate the surplus of workers should be eliminate the competition to our standard of living as the only result of the course we are taking is a race to the bottom. What that may look like I hazard to guess.

          1. Shawn McIntyre profile image86
            Shawn McIntyreposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It's the same misguided arguments over and over. There always has to be some big conspiracy, whether it's Corporations or Republicans, there always has to be some "Boogyman" out there causing all the problems.It couldn't possibly be because the of the terrible Economic policies from politicians? No, that couldn't be it. I mean why wouldn't a group made up predominantly of professional Politicians and Lawyers be qualified to craft complex Economic Policy?

            Let's go through this one more time...

            First, you're not talking about a "moderate increase in the minimum wage", you're talking about doubling it; 107% is not, by any measurable standard, a "moderate increase". If you were talking about bumping the minimum wage to $7.80, or even $8, that would be one thing, but you're talking about going from $7.25 to $15. That will cost a lot of minimum wage workers their jobs, period.

            Second, wages are entirely a product of Supply and Demand, and anyone who tells you they aren't is either lying, ignorant, or selling something. If wages had nothing to do with Supply and Demand, then everyone would be paid the minimum wage, since there would be no market forces in play compelling them to pay more. Since less than 5% of the workforce is paid at, or below, the minimum wage, we know that there are market forces in play... Supply and Demand.

            Third, raising wages does not "boost" the Economy. The money for that increase has to first be taken from the Economy and given to workers. If you take $1,000 from a business and give it to the workers to spend, you're not adding $1,000 to the Economy, you're putting back the $1,000 you just took out. The best case scenario is a $0 net change. If those workers decide to take some of that $1,000 and, oh I don't know, pay off credit card debt, then you'll actually lose money.

            As for the productivity of American workers, that's due, in large part, to technology. We're rapidly getting to the point where technology is going to stop augmenting worker's productivity, and start replacing it. A prime example of this is the new "Google Car". Most people see it as a cool, Knight Rider-esque style toy, I see it as 30,000 out of work Cab drivers in New York City.

            Pretty soon, your cell phone is going to replace fast food workers, doubling their labor cost is just going to speed up the process.

            See the one thing that people forget when it comes to mandating higher wages, is that the Government can't mandate employment. Yes, the Government can tell McDonald's it has to pay it's workers $15 and hour, but it can't force McDonald's to actually hire people.

            And before you think I'm exaggerating, trying to "scare people", they had this 50 years ago...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmXLqImT1wE

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              ....It's the same misguided arguments over and over. There always has to be some big conspiracy, whether it's Corporations or Republicans, there always has to be some "Boogyman" out there causing all the problems.It couldn't possibly be because the of the terrible Economic policies from politicians? No, that couldn't be it. I mean why wouldn't a group made up predominantly of professional Politicians and Lawyers be qualified to craft complex Economic Policy?

              No boogeyman here as history speaks for itself. Why did Clinton, a democrat by the way, push to enact the NAFTA agreement. Was it out of benevolence to foreign nations to cash in on the capitalist bonanza here in the US? Of course not. It was his campaign donors the PAC's were loaded with them. The lobbyists and lawyers were his top donors. And absolutely the terrible economic policies that ensued that created the biggest exodus of jobs this country has ever seen.

              ....First, you're not talking about a "moderate increase in the minimum wage", you're talking about doubling it; 107% is not, by any measurable standard, a "moderate increase". If you were talking about bumping the minimum wage to $7.80, or even $8, that would be one thing, but you're talking about going from $7.25 to $15. That will cost a lot of minimum wage workers their jobs, period.

              Your logic is over ridden by the references I made in the last post. The US labor department says it will have no significant effect on job retention. Period. Just because you keep telling me the same thing does not make it so. Yes basic economics tells us that labor is a cost of manufacturing an item and that when the cost goes up it is passed onto the consumer. Your reasoning is that to remain competitive the employer would have to lay off the employee. Guess what the employers sales will increase because his demand will increase due to the increased buying power that was created.

              ....Second, wages are entirely a product of Supply and Demand, and anyone who tells you they aren't is either lying, ignorant, or selling something. If wages had nothing to do with Supply and Demand, then everyone would be paid the minimum wage, since there would be no market forces in play compelling them to pay more. Since less than 5% of the workforce is paid at, or below, the minimum wage, we know that there are market forces in play... Supply and Demand.

              Look above.

              ....Third, raising wages does not "boost" the Economy. The money for that increase has to first be taken from the Economy and given to workers. If you take $1,000 from a business and give it to the workers to spend, you're not adding $1,000 to the Economy, you're putting back the $1,000 you just took out. The best case scenario is a $0 net change. If those workers decide to take some of that $1,000 and, oh I don't know, pay off credit card debt, then you'll actually lose money.

              Since when does a business give $1000 away with out marking it up in their product. Dumb analogy. If the production increases because of demand the costs will go down as mass production decreases cost.

              ....As for the productivity of American workers, that's due, in large part, to technology. We're rapidly getting to the point where technology is going to stop augmenting worker's productivity, and start replacing it. A prime example of this is the new "Google Car". Most people see it as a cool, Knight Rider-esque style toy, I see it as 30,000 out of work Cab drivers in New York City.

              Absolutely so why did we ship the skilled jobs overseas? The jobs in the manufacturing segment were where the money for the middle class came from. So why did we ship them to cheaper labor pools. The bottom line and short term gains were required. Now if you are a corporation who has invested heavily in robotics and such technology as the jobs come back over here you can make a killing.

              ....Pretty soon, your cell phone is going to replace fast food workers, doubling their labor cost is just going to speed up the process.

              What world do you live in. Who will cook the food and clean up the facility and deliver the product?

              WalMart is even feeling the pinch of the out of work and underemployed. They have recorded several quarters of negative gain. They are looking to downsize more into a large 7-11 type store. Guess who is going to run those?

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

              Why couldn't it be the terrible economic policies of government? They are after all in the pay of the money men.



              Why? What evidence do you have to make that claim?
              When they introduced a minimum wage in the UK those who opposed it predicted huge job loses. It didn't happen.



              You are not of course so naive as to believe that those earning a dollar or two over the minimum wage are sorted are you? The minimum wage isn't an approximation, it is an absolute and will exclude everybody earning even just a few pence over.



              Do you really believe that money is one trip, use it once and it's gone? You do know why yhey describe money as being in circulation don't you, and you do realise that there is not actually any less money around than when times were better. There is as much money, it just isn't circulating as quickly.
              Take a business like Wal Mart with profits of c$35 billion, if they paid $10 billion to their workers they would get most of it back within weeks and make even more profit both from their employees and from those others that their employees spend their money with.
              Those paying off their credit cards are again increasing the money in circulation.



              A cell phone that can flip burgers! I must see that.



              No, the increase in employment comes with the increase in available money in circulation. Instead of dad being able to take the kids for a big mac every month or so, taking them every week or so.

  6. Silverspeeder profile image59
    Silverspeederposted 2 years ago

    We in the UK have had a minimum wage policy for some time, all it has done really is increase the amount of people on minimum wage and those whose wages are topped up from the taxpayer.

    Maybe government should state what the minimum percentage rise should be each year rather than setting minimum wage? Mind you that would probably have just the same effect on the employment market.

    Maybe there should be restrictive immigration policies, reducing the flow of low paid low skilled throw away workers and then maybe companies would pay more for the limited labour available.

  7. bBerean profile image59
    bBereanposted 2 years ago

    Here is another peek at the not too distance future for min wage jobs, when that becomes too expensive:

    http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11185 … r-machines

    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Not to bad a future then.

      I suppose the entitled will be complaining they haven't enough left out of their welfare check to use them though!

      1. bBerean profile image59
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Soon you'll be able buy a beer using your Obamaphone.  Sweet!

        1. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Still not as bad as the UK though, where they give extra welfare to alcoholics so they can buy more alcohol.

          1. bBerean profile image59
            bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Wow.  roll

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

            First I've heard of that and I know a couple of alkies who are on benefits and would be on that like shot.

            I think you should post a reference, and not the Daily Mail.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image59
              Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Don't need a reference John, my own mother in law was in receipt of Disability Living Allowence at the higher rate, she is and has been a full time alcoholic since the age of 35, the alcoholism has caused any other problems and she receives the benefit to deal with the effects of the alcoholism. She has had the new PIP and we all thought that ATOS would refuse her. It seems alcohol addiction is a legitimate complaint and as such she receives a tidy sum as they have awarded her the higher rate.
              It doesn't equate to me either John but that's what happened, I even commented on it to her mental health nurse who gave me the evil look and said alcoholism is a mental illness you know, I replied I know I have to keep picking up the prices when she drinks 2 bottles of vodka a day.
              Maybe she is the exception to the rule then John but I don't think so.

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

                But she's not getting the money to buy more alcohol is she?
                She's getting the money to help her to cope with the effects of alcoholism.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                  Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  And she is buying more alcohol with it.


                  Give a man a bottle of vodka he will get drunk for a day, give him money to buy the vodka and he will drink himself to death.

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

                    I know people who are not getting money for alcohol but still spend their money on it.

  8. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    Silver, rest and feel better soon.  Don't stress yourself, relax, remember you had an operation.  Time to rest and heal, my friend. God bless.

 
working