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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Management abilities can be taught. Doesn't merit higher pay than the floor guy who lifts 50-pound crates, though.
I disagree. Many jobs require traits that cannot be taught. You can give someone the "book knowledge" but success requires strength in these traits. Examples are analytical thought, judgement, perception, reasoning, patience, empathy...to name just a few. Manual labor comes much closer to your description, in that anyone can theoretically do it providing they are able bodied, but even there folks with an entitlement mentality or poor work ethic fail, (or if a union protects them and forces their continued employment), burden the company until it does.
As to the merit of pay, that is strictly (or should be), supply and demand. People with the abilities I described are crucial to the success of any business. So is manual labor, however the pool to draw from to fill the manual labor jobs is vastly larger. The pay required to draw talent for the respective roles reflects this.
Requiring traits that can not be taught is fine in principle but unfortunately many end up in managerial posts without these unteachable traits.
Agreed, but to the detriment of the business. It doesn't last that way. I am talking about what is required for a business to achieve and sustain success, without which everyone loses their jobs.
And only the government can decide what is best for a business.
Don't scare me Jaxson. You must be being facetious. (I was afraid you might have accidentally picked up the glass with the Kool-aid by mistake).
You may think so!
Unfortunately government has been taken over by business and so government will often do as dictated to by business.
Funny how in the past jobs managed to do exactly that!
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?
Probably the same place it came from when you were prosperous.
Oops, sorry, forgot that money is now the prerogative of the wealthy!
No John, come on.
Take a restaurant. 3 cooks, 2 dishwashers, 4 busboys, 4 servers, manager, host.
Let's say, $45,000/year? Sound good?
So, where is that money going to come from? Do you think everyone is going to be willing to pay $10 for a cup of coffee, $20 for a glass of wine, $45 for a plate of pasta?
No, no, no Jax.
That evil diner owner has the money.....you know it....in droves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. The evil diner owner who has enough money to pay all of his employees $45k per year, plus benefits.
My dad always said, if you want to start a business, make it a restaurant, cause those are a gold mine!
(Actually he said don't you dare ever even think about considering the possibility of maybe opening a restaurant )
Hardest work for the least money I have ever earned.
I worked as a server for one in highschool. The owners kept it going for two years, barely ever drew any salary from it, and ended up with two mortgages on their house and a mortgage on the property to show for it.
It was in a smallish area, and the community tried to support it, the profit margins just aren't there. I'm honestly surprised that the large chains are able to do it...
Only thing I know of would be the people my dad works for(I swear he's not going to retire until the day he dies)...
He works with apple/cherry orchards(mostly, some other fruits thrown in). Has been for 40 years. His expertise is extremely well-known in the field, he's always had people practically begging him to consult with them, but he's allergic to certain pollens and spores that are common around most of the places, so he can't do it.
Anyway, he's been heavily invested in one of the orchards, financially, ever since the 80's. He said his investment has averaged him a 1% return over that time period. He gets much more out of his consulting.
Farmers and growers have it even worse, most of the time.
Yes, there are plenty of broke restauranteers in the UK who despite being broke still manage to drive around in top of the range cars and live in all the best places.
Your point is? The fact that there are wealthy restaurant owners means that all restaurant owners are wealthy?
Do you actually want to look at the finances of a company to see why it's not possible?
No,my point is that many will claim to be broke to justify to themselves the payment of low wages.
So? What does that have to do with your claim that every restaurant could afford to pay $45k to every employee?
You fully supported that every one would be able to do that by raising their prices.
What? Pay everybody $45 an hour? Fraid I didn't.
I asked if businesses were supposed to do that by raising their prices, you said yes.
I still don't see how you think everyone can make that much money. Not unless you want massive inflation and unemployment.
What, like what we have now?
Or haven't you noticed the massive unemployment that plagues both our countries?
I have noticed, and I'm sad because we could get rid of most of it, very easily, by abolishing minimum wage and getting rid of corporate taxes.
See John, if everyone made at least $45,000 per year, then everyone would be paying 2-5 times more for food, gas, groceries, clothes, paper, school supplies, etc etc etc etc etc.
All those things that have to do with low-wage jobs, would be more expensive. So, forgetting all the lost jobs, $45,000 wouldn't be very much money anymore.
So basically you are happy for some to live in poverty so that you can enjoy cheap food and your corporate buddies can enjoy high profits!
I'm happy to say to all corporations in the world 'Come here! We love businesses, and we won't even tax you to operate here!'
That means more jobs. More jobs means more demand for workers. More demand for workers means higher prices for workers(aka wages).
Same with minimum wage. 25% unemployment among inexperienced workers? Let them work! Let them make money(therefore spending more money, therefore more demand, therefore more jobs[therefore more demand for workers, therefore higher wages]) while gaining skills and experience(therefore more demand for those workers, therefore higher wages).
I'm ALL for the free market. It works SO well.
Do you, or do you not, agree that increased demand leads to increased prices?
Yes it works really well! Why are both our countries in such a state?
And no, increased demand generally leads to decreased prices.
Here in the US, our government likes to interfere with the free market.
Increased demand leads to decreased prices? How is that supposed to work?
Look at guns and ammo in the US right now. A PMAG normally would sell for around $20. Now they are selling for $100+. Demand increased, and prices followed.
Sorry, I really didn't realize that you disagreed with the very basics of economic theory.
Well we are dealing with folks who think you can raise the wage as far as you like, the owner is supposed to just absorb and pay that without ever charging more for the good or service in question and we go tra-la-la on out merry way without any difference. Therein lies the basis of the whole forum.
Yes, in a free market increased demand leads to reduced prices.
In the short term it may lead to a temporary increase in prices for some goods where there is a delay between wanting the goods and producing the goods but this is not a lasting effect.
An increase in demand may lead to a price increase when sellers perceive an opportunity to increase prices and profits but this is not a direct result of increased demand.
I think you are confusing increased demand with increased supply.
Say there are 500 gadgets produced a month, and 500 are bought a month for $100. Suddenly, everyone wants that gadget, so 2,000 people show up to buy them. Once they are all sold out at the stores, people start making private deals. Auctions go up on EBay, and the gadgets start selling for $200 or more, because only the people willing to pay the most can get them with a limited supply. That's scarcity.
Do you agree with that? When the supply stays the same, but the demand goes up, the prices go up. For the prices to go back down, the demand has to drop, or the supply has to rise. If you always have 2000 people trying to buy 500 gadgets, then the prices will be higher than if you have 500 people trying to buy 500 gadgets. Please tell me you understand that.
Please stop patronising me Jaxson, it makes you look very petty.
In a free market if I am not prepared to increase my production to meet demand then somebody else will.
That's not what we are talking about. Increasing production is increasing supply. We're talking about increasing demand.
Either you don't understand how it works, or you are intentionally changing topics. Increased demand increases prices, yes?
No, increased demand is just as likely to reduce prices.
If we look at real examples (rather than your extreme one off events) let's take bread as an example, a bakery running at 75% capacity can increase its output to 100% with slight increase in costs but a much higher output to yield an increase in revenue in excess of those cost increases.
Look around you at all the things that have seen an increase in demand with a subsequent decrease in costs.
You seem to think that supply and demand are totally unrelated, they aren't, any increase in demand will usually result in an increase in supply.
There is a take away near to Old Trafford (the home of Manchester United) whenever there is a home game they see an astronomical increase in demand but never have they raised their prices as a result.
You are talking extreme examples where there is no flexibility in the market to meet increased demand.
Once again John. You are talking about increase in supply. I know that increasing supply can bring down prices, but that's not the question. I know it happens, but it's irrelevant to this conversation.
The question is, does increasing demand(by itself, no other changes, supply stays the same) increase prices?
Now who's moving the goal posts?
That was not the original question/statement which was simply that an increase in demand led to an increase in costs - with no qualification, no ifs and buts - just the bald statement that an increase in demand led to an increase in costs.
It does. Increased demand increases costs.
IF supply increases, prices go down, but that's from increased supply, not increased demand.
But who is going to increase supply without an increase in demand?
John. The question was about demand. Not supply. It's not moving the goalposts, because I didn't ask about supply. Supply and demand are not automatically entwined. An increase in one doesn't force an increase in the other. Often they follow, but it's not forced.
So, my question was 'Does increased demand lead to increased prices?'
Your answer was 'No, increased demand generally leads to decreased prices.'
Nothing about supply in the question, or the answer.
Here's an example. 1967 Mustang, it became more popular after being featured in Hollywood. Supply is fixed, you can't really make any more 1967 Mustangs. So, prices went up. Higher demand = higher prices.
You need to understand cause and effect. If demand increases prices, then supply increases as well and prices go back down, it's the supply that lowered prices, not the demand.
Jaxson, I think you say all that needs to be said on the matter with
" An increase in one doesn't force an increase in the other. Often they follow, but it's not forced."
So, you agree that increased demand leads to increased prices?
I agree that in some extreme circumstances an increase in demand results in an increase in cost but just as often, or even more often, leads to a reduction in prices.
As you so rightly said " An increase in one doesn't force an increase in the other."
Sad, you are getting your cause and effect wrong again. An increase in demand increases prices. IF supply increases to meet the new demand, then prices will go back down, but increased demand doesn't decrease the prices. What you are saying would be as ridiculous as saying that breaking down the front door of a house killed a burglar, because after he did that the homeowner shot him. It was the homeowner, not the door, that killed him.
But, since you insist on answering a different question than what I'm asking... I'll have to change it.
With a fixed supply, does increased demand increase prices?
Now, though nothing like the original question, that is straightforward. Of course if supply is fixed an increase in demand increases prices.
It is exactly like the original question. You just wanted to change the original question to 'If demand increases, and then supply increases, will prices go up?'
Now that you have said yes, do you understand how utterly important it is to get people working, period?
If you have 600 people applying to every single job, the supply of workers is high, and the demand for workers is low. What does that do for wages? It lowers them.
If you get most everybody employed, so there are only 10 applications to every job, what effect will that have on wages?
Now you are beginning to understand why unemployment is such an important tool to capitalists!
No, it's not. That argument makes no sense. At all. Capitalists do best when there is a growing economy, growing demand, and a lot of circulating money. Unemployment is detrimental to all of those factors.
Our laws and regulations that discourage jobs and corporations and employment are the problem. Not capitalism.
But it was the very argument that you put forward yourself!!
Lack of demand for jobs increases wages!
No, demand for workers increases wages.
Wages are the price of employees. If the demand for employees goes up, and the supply doesn't change(you can't just go build more employees), then the price(wages) for employees goes up.
So ANYBODY who is concerned about wages, should first and foremost be concerned with the number of jobs available.
Conversely, the demand for jobs is high and the supply of jobs is low!!
How does that fit with your argument?
You're really not reading what I'm posting. Yes, demand for jobs is high and supply is low. Which is why we need to do everything we can to encourage jobs!
Trying to raise wages when there isn't a demand for workers is ludicrous. Fix the balance of demand(really, let it fix itself) first.
Thanks for supporting my position though. Minimum wage is stupid. Raising it with 10% unemployment is unthinkable.
No Jaxson, I don't support your view that a minimum wage is stupid, on the contrary, I support the view that it should be higher.
Increased wages would put more money into the economy and stimulate demand thereby increasing the opportunities for employment.
Lower wages would have the reverse effect, reducing demand and thereby reducing employment.
More money? So increasing minimum wage will just create more money? Give me a break. There you go again, completely ignoring reality. Employers will just pay their employees more money, even if they don't have it, right?
You want to raise the price of a commodity that is low in demand and high in supply artificially. I want to raise the price naturally.
Do you just automatically view anyone running a business as having an evil intent?
Because it sure seems that way.
Yup, there are plenty of places in the UK that charge the equivalent $10 for a cup of coffee and $45 for a plate of pasta.
And there is only so much demand for expensive food. There is much more demand for cheaper food.
If you want every food place to charge those kinds of prices, you'll have very few food places. IHop? Gone. Denny's? Gone. Applebees, Chilis, Outback Steakhouse, Pappadeux, etc etc etc... all gone.
That's what minimum wage does. It destroys jobs that can't pay those wages. If you think about it, you'll realize it.
Because different people make different amounts of money, different people value money differently, and different people value different qualities of food differently.
Trade is all about trading what you have for what you want. Everyone has a price for everything. Same reason why some people will pay $15,000 for a dress made in the same building as a $500 dress, it just gets a different label stuck to it.
But given enough money there is little reason why anybody should select inferior food over adequate food.
People are still people. People are still unique. I know wealthy people who eat at Denny's. I know wealthy people who hate French cooking, and would prefer KFC.
I know you have this idealistic dream, where everyone has everything, and everything is the same, but life just doesn't work that way. You're never going to get people to pay the same amount of money for pancakes and eggs as others will pay for beef wellington and lobster risotto.
Who cares about lobster rosetti and beef whatever? Expensive food is just fap-bait for snotty, loathsome rich assholes, and it never tastes anywhere near as good as a big, fat, greasy homemade New York-style pizza.
But does that big fat greasy homemade New York-style pizza taste any better because the people making it have to rely on welfare to get by?
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...)
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.
It has everything to do with whether people can live on minimum wage or not. That is why it was created!
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.
Logic, reason, and math, most especially math, are all lost on the right.
And also, in Australia they raise minimum wage when the cost of living goes up. It's currently $16 Australian.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am all for "cleaning house". Like auditing the fed and then putting them behind bars in no particular order.
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?
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.
Exactly, that's why that evil Obama wants to raise min wage, to indoctrinate the young
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.
God forbid young people make a living wage, the evil is mindblowing
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?
Hence the idea of "achievement" when one gets raises to match their newly obtained skills.
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.
Yes all the Socialists think it's a wonderful idea.
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.
You are a Socialist and you love the concept.
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.
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*
I will give you this Cody, You're consistent.
So you admit that conservatives are wrong about minimum wage?
No, I am pointing out you blather the same stuff consistently.
Mostly just repeating what you have heard.
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?
He continues to make the same amount of money, nothing happens to him. Simple.
So now suddenly the kid flipping burgers earns more than I do?
After years of work to achieve a goal that's fair Josak?
When minimum wage went up in NYS everyone got a raise. Therefore, you would make more too.
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.
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.
I was being sarcastic. In the real world a burger flipper wouldn't make more than you regardless of the minimum wage being raised. You just like to throw out outrageous scenarios because they're easier to argue against. It's intellectually lazy.
I'm completely fine with this. Better than the $21.72 rate at which Obama countered with saying that it should be $9/hr.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
I think one of the problems is that a minimum wage is seen as hurting the shareholders and corporations care more about shareholders than they do about employees or Americans....
You're right, Simey. That's pretty much where I'm going. Business owners are concerned with protecting THEIR money. The government is concerned about protecting God only knows what. And no one is concerned about protecting people who can't afford to feed, house, or cloth themselves or their children.
Maybe it's all about ignorance. It's certainly much more important that we be concerned about the costs incurred by business owners than anything else.
It isn't a matter of fair, in my opinion. It's a matter of right and wrong.
That's the same logic behind telling a person it's impossible for us to help you because you make too much money in your minimum wage job, but offering them assistance if they just quit that job and do nothing to improve the situation.
Then those folks who can actually afford to eat and have a place to live look down on that person because they don't want to work a job for peanuts.
I have never said our welfare system is a good one. it's a joke. A single mother can make more with a job that pays $8/hr and the welfare that goes with it, than she can with a $50,000/year job with no welfare.
It's not a hand-up program, it's a dependency program. So for you to think I support it, or my logic supports it, is simply wrong.
Can you please back that up, because I don't believe you.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/ … 0cliff.jpg
It varies by state, how many kids, etc... but in this example she would net $50k with a $60k salary. With a $29,000 salary she would net $57k.
Notice, with a $29k salary, if she takes a $1000/year pay increase, she loses $8k/year in benefits.
Great system we have.
It would be nice to have some context. I did some digging and still haven't found the source data. The first two pages of a Google search showed this graphic and a quote from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania circulating among right-wing websites and blogs. Finally, I found a powerpoint presentation on the American Enterprise Institute (a right-wing think tank) website, but no source data.
I'm not saying it's definitely bad information, but given the lack of sourcing, one must be careful about spreading it around, don't you think?
My daughter earns minimum wage - she certainly doesn't bring home net $57k - while there may be welfare and other programs that can assist people - not everyone qualifies - things like rental assistance, food stamps etc. depend on household income - if my daughter lives at home she does not qualify for these. She lives in her own apartment but still doesn't qualify for much...
While in theory someone could earn $57k net - the reality is that most people will not....
I seriously doubt the accuracy of this data, but if it does actually apply to anyone in real life, I suspect very few people would fit the proper categories to receive that much help.
When I made $9.44/hour as a single mom, I didn't qualify for anything, including help with child care.
Just go look at a benefits calculator, plug in 1 adult 1 child and that income. You'll see.
Do you have a specific benefits calculator in mind? I'd be amazed if one single benefits calculator can be found that factors in all of the items included on that chart, along with income and number of children:
Child Care Assistance
Negative income tax
Earned income minus taxes
Of course you're not going to find a state benefits calculator that will tell you what your earned income is going to be. Are you just trying to be obtuse?
No, I'm not going to look at 10 different calculators for the various benefits. You're the one who told me to "just go look at a benefits calculator, plug in 1 adult 1 child and that income. You'll see."
Show me this fantastical benefits calculator that will supply me with the information in that chart.
Or, better yet, just show me the source data.
You mentioned one benefit in the post I responded to. I guess it's just too much work to check even one?
Why don't you call up the Secretary of Public Welfare and ask for his source data? It's all probably already on their website, but you're seemingly just trying to be difficult now.
I stated I didn't quality for "anything" including child care. Does "anything" mean just one thing to you? lol
Apparently, we're operating on a misunderstanding. Or, are you the one being difficult?
I already stated I looked for the source data and if it exists on the web, it isn't easy to find.
I'm just saying, if you find a graph spreading like wildfire across the web, especially on websites with one particular political slant, and it is difficult to find the source data and there is no source listed on the graph, then perhaps you should be suspicious of the graph.
And, if you're going to stand by it, then the onus is on you to show it is a legitimate source since you are using it to bolster your argument.
Again, I already showed the source for the graph. Whatever.
No, you linked to a .jpg.
If you provided the source data and I missed it, then show me again and I'll acknowledge that I missed it.
Or, you can just say "whatever."
The pdf from the AEI is the link. That's the source. Gary Alexander wrote it to be distributed by AEI.
The source data was the state statutes at the time.
Sorry, I'm not going to do that. You can, though, if you want your supporting information to be credible.
It's a presentation he made for the AEI.
Of course, I guess you'll just say it's wrong, since it's the AEI. Never mind that you just used a raisingtheminimumwageisthebestideaever.org website for your sourcing on raising minimum wage...
LOL, somehow I missed this response. Yes, I used a website that proposes that raising the minimum wage would be beneficial to our economy. That website provides a multitude of sources.
I did not attack AEI. I rarely attack a source; I try to look at the information provided by that source and evaluate the information on its own merits.
In my whole life I have never gotten - one job - from someone on welfare.
I have seen people, poor people, start their own business. Grow gardens, raise farm animals etc then raise 7 kids and never took one cent from the government. They worked 30 years and employed people.
The world does not owe anyone a living.
The burden is not upon the world or a business or a corporation to feed oneself. If someone takes a job it is a contract. You want the money, you do the job. If you do not think its enough money- then dont take the job. Find another way to feed yourself.
Here is a novel idea. Create your own business and employ people.
But if the business fails do not expect employees to come feed you or give YOU a job. Because there are givers and takers in the world.
Maybe not. But oddly, enough, I don't care about my logic, your logic, or anyone else's.
I would just like to see people able to feed and clothe their children without having to depend on anyone else to do it. Maybe I'm partially of the same opinion as Phoenix. BUT, between big business and the government, everyone in our country is dependent on someone else to provide for themselves and their children. That's what makes me angry.
And Phoenix, I don't agree that it's as simple as opening your own business and employing some people. Is that supposed to make a person stop caring about people who are going hungry?
People cannot eat "care". Provide a job. Look at it from that angle. Provide a job. Then, then you see the other side of the coin.
A person could get a piece of land, get some solar panels, grow a garden, do some canning, raise some chickens and drop out. Except it goes back to an earlier post of mine. We live in a ponzi scheme created by money cartels that insist that you pay property tax. etc etc etc.
You gotta cell phone and an apt and a credit card, but we are just slaves to the ponzi scheme. Welfare and food stamps are chump change to these cartels and they are more than glad to give it. It keeps their slaves hooked into their pyramid scheme matrix.
First of all...I have no cell phone. I have no credit cards. And, I am leasing my home with no rental assistance from anyone. I feed, house, and clothe another person's child with no help from either her parent or the state.
Next, I'm sure you can't eat care - but you sure as hell can't buy food to eat with a job that doesn't pay you well enough to do so. I'd rather feed someone for a year than give them a job that doesn't pay them enough to afford their own food.
Would you rather feed someone for a year, or give them a job that can cover 75% of their bills, and then feed them 25% as much as you did before?
Depends. Am I the provider of their job - or am I paying for their food? Big business may provide jobs - but they're not the one covering the employee's financial shortfalls.
All taxpayers are paying for their food.
Would you rather they not work, and we pay 100% of their bills, or that they work, and we pay 25% of their bills?
I'm going to bow out of this conversation now, for two reasons.
First, I am not educated in economics. The valuable knowledge I have about the subject would probably fill a thimble. I can't argue about certain things because of ignorance.
The second reason is that I am one of those people who gets easily defeated when I am really passionate about something, and one of the things I'm truly passionate about is helping the poor. I may demonize business owners (big business corporate types) without actually meaning to do so because I've never seen a big business concerned about the poor. They're concerned with THEIR profits, and will and usually do whatever it takes to ensure them.
There is a balance somewhere I'm sure. You're way too far to one side of the issue, IMO, to offer a workable solution and perhaps I'm too far to the other to offer one.
I know that my mother did not once collect welfare while I was growing up. And we suffered because the jobs she had never paid well enough for us to live on. She routinely worked more than one.
Everyone has a solution to the problem unless they're truly in the middle of it.
It's a simple question, has nothing to do with economics.
Would you rather someone who is on welfare stay there, where taxpayers pay 100% of their bills, or that they go to work, pay 75% of their bills themselves, and taxpayers pay the other 25%?
I would rather they be able to work a job that allows them to pay all of their bills - and eat - without having to ask for welfare. Some people can't even do that working more than one job. And parents? Yeah, just drop the kids in the pasture with the cows while you're working two jobs that keep you away from home for three times as long as your kids are in school.
Why won't you answer my question? Would you rather they not work, and we pay 100% of their bills, or they do work, and we pay 25% of their bills?
I have answered the question. I want their employers to pay them enough that they do not need welfare. Neither of your options is acceptable to me.
Earlier you said you would rather they not work at all, and pay for all their bills. Why wouldn't you want them to work and pay at least some of their bills?
The fact that you said you preferred them not to work contradicts what you said in this post.
Hmmm...I don't generally contradict myself. I think what it boils down to for me is that I'd rather a parent be able to feed, clothe, and house their children without having to be away from them for huge amounts of time (e.g., having to work multiple jobs). If that means that the taxpayers take responsibility, then let's...until they can find a job that pays them sufficiently to do all those things and still be around to parent their children.
See - idealist, I tell ya. How the heck do we make this happen without welfare reform. I think that's the actual question.
I apologize to all of you for entering this conversation. You especially, Jaxson, because I agree with you more often than I don't. Sorry, fae - didn't realize I was responding to your post. But I'd say the same to you both.
I am not an Obama supporter. Didn't vote for him the first time, nor did I vote for him the second time.
I am an idealist. I am a romantic.
That is why I write, rather than becoming a politician, an economist, or a social worker. I would never survive those jobs. And that is why I generally only observe these conversations, rather than participate in them.
Hey, no problems, no hard feelings
I would never survive a job like that either. That's why I just prowl around the internet, arguing in forums. I'm just cool like that
Um, you have no need to apologize to anyone, but especially to barefootfae. Her contribution in this particular thread wouldn't win any awards for depth or accuracy.
Thanks. I usually pay close attention to these threads, believe it or not, but prefer to stay quiet. Overall, I'm coming out unscathed, so you've all been gentle with me.
I think Barefootfae started this thread. Can you show me your post where you address her points that it could negatively effect small business.
Sure, I provided a link to actual research describing the economic impacts of the minimum wage.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/109487? … ost2329971
Yet again, you criticize me for posting something that originates from a website with 'a political slant', even though the source of the chart is a government official in the concerned department...
Then you post www.minimumwageisthebestever.org/thispageprovesit.aspx as your source for minimum wage...
Irony aside, why do you think that our unemployment rate is so high among inexperienced workers?
I did not feel the need to elaborate upon actual research. I suppose I could have just offered my unsubstantiated opinion. Would that have been better?
Well if you are going to put other people down for their contribution I would think I would do more than just post a link and claim your contribution is in there... somewhere.
I didn't put anyone down. I was, in fact, telling Motown she had no need to apologize to barefootfae, since her contribution was every bit as deep and accurate as BFFs.
Interesting interpretation, though.
Can you address her points that it could negatively effect small business.
There is plenty of evidence that raising the minimum wage does not negatively affect small businesses.
If BFF, or anyone, truly wants to know about the effect of raising the minimum wage on small businesses, the best thing they can do is research the topic. I have now provided two links with a compilation of studies that provide better information than what I could provide by typing my opinion on an internet forum.
Corporations won't skip a beat. They will adjust immediately, they can lay off some people, put people on part time, raise the price of their products and services. It's because they deal in such volumes,ie employees, prices etc.
Mom and Pop are a different story. They don't care about links or graphs.
Anyone can post a link.
And anyone can post an opinion. So what?
Did you read any of the information provided in the links?
Many things occur when people make just a little bit more money, including an increase in spending at the local Mom & Pop.
So what do we see? Whole bunches of Mom and Pop stores popping up and doing fabulously well and Corps feeling the crunch? Or do we see what we see? Corps getting bigger and bigger, huge salaries and bonuses and BAILOUTS by Mom and Pop Inc.
The point being the increase does not and will not solve anything.
It's a political tool.
And, how is that related to the minimum wage? Do you have evidence to tie those things to the minimum wage?
Do you mean this post?
"The point being the increase does not and will not solve anything.
It's a political tool."
Do you believe this post to be "evidence"?
I have a really jaded outlook on data from some of these places since they started accepting the practice of putting sensors nearer to heat sources to tweak the"data".
That is why it is important to show your sources, so that your study can be reviewed and replicated. Information that has no source is highly suspect.
What I was referring to had a source and we were told it was still legit.
Anytime we want control of something numbers appear.
So, you do not accept research as a valid form of information gathering?
I don't accept when people deliberately cheat to inflate the numbers to suit their results..no.
Do you? Are you willing to rearrange your life based on a lie?
Of course not. What a silly question.
Are you assuming all research is lies? Or just the one study you know about? Again, review and replication are essential to verify whether or not a study is legit.
No....I am pointing out that you can't discount the possibility it is happening and folks have just learned how to cover their tracks better. People being creatures of habit and so dearly wanting people to "progress"....
So, what do you suggest, that we just make guesses or that we rely on the data we have?
No.........I am saying research is research.
Common sense however is common sense. I do not intend to throw my common sense away because some fool writes a paper on numbers that he may have rolled dice from Dungeons and Dragons to get.
LOL, I have tons of common sense. I also have quite a lot of education and work experience that gives me a bit of insight into small businesses.
Yes, I use my common sense, life experiences and education to make decisions. That combination leads me to understand the concept of research and evaluation, especially in complex situations.
Of course, I could just ignore all that and go with my gut. LOL
Do you sit and wait to make decisions based on whether you can find data or not?
There is such a thing as life experience.
There are way too many factors to be graphed accurately. Higher min wage in Cali, will go a long way in a state that is struggling. LA is a sticker shock for outa towners. Likewise, people from LA feel like everythings a freebie in some small midwest town. Each state and town has different sales taxes that range widely.
Show me a link where its got a graph compiled by mom and pop and not a corporate sponsor or advocate. Otherwise I gotta go with what I see with my own eyes.
I'm not sure what you are asking for. If you are not satisfied with the multitude of studies shown on the links, from varying institutions and sponsored by a wide variety of organizations, then I suggest you search for those that will satisfy your own apparently very specific criteria.
You rely too much on information from places you are fed.
I presume you are an adult with common sense?
I think we have a big enough irresponsible monster government. I think we got enough billionaires.
Will you personally subsidize all the mom and pops increase to the salary of its employees?
Yes or no.
Edited to add: That has to be one of the dumbest questions I've ever seen on an internet forum, and that's sayin' somethin'.
Well, who can argue with links and studies? After all, if we are operating from the unquestioning position or assumption that; if it aint broke, why fix it?
improbe Neptunum accusat, qui iterum naufragiam facit.
You might want to look at some of those studies.
Maybe when a mom and pop store struggles a little more or closes their doors, you can send them a link.
I feel a little sorry for you that you apparently prefer dramatic pronouncements of doom over learning about what actually might happen if the minimum wage were raised. Again, take a little time to find out the results of individual states raising their minimum wage well above the federal minimum. Intelligent people have actually studied the effects and there is a ton of information available. Open your mind and take a stab at it. You might learn something.
I pumped my first couple a' three dollars worth of gas in 1969. I had to ask Pop what the customer meant by a "couple o' three dollars" was it - 2 or 3? Pop said a "couple o' three dollars" is always THREE dollars. ( I learned sales that day) Back then 3 dollars would put a idk 6+ gallons in. Plus you wiped their windshield, checked the air in their tires, and checked their oil, if they asked ya to.
How long you been around a mom and pop business? You ever had to give raises? Ever have to let people go? You ever had to close? Take a job for a chain of stores or franchise, because your store closed?
Minimum wage increases effect small businesses. Hey, ya gotta link that says eventually it all works out - despite it obviously ain't- more power to you. I just want a guarantee that each and every small business is not negatively effected. Not one store closes, not one employee let go. Its time to bail them out, not bury, even one.
Phoenix, I wanted to send you an email, but I didn't see that option on your profile. You might be surprised to find out what I do for a living.
You and I have the same goals, to keep small businesses afloat. I would never to presume to believe that I personally always know the best way to do that, which is why I think it's important that we actually examine these types of issues from a rational, factual standpoint, not just what we think is our own "common sense."
That is all.
Everyone seems focused on big business and squeezing a buck outa the corporations. They want that extra couple of dollars. Smaller businesses will be effected. But they aren't represented here.
The continual inflating of money is not the answer, its the problem. They dont care if anyone is struggling on 7 bux or 9 bux an hour. All they care is keeping the pyramid from collapsing.
I exist in the real world. People won't just absorb an increase.
You know that.
Keep taxing those smokers....
Actually, increases are often absorbed in the real world. What do you do when the price of gas goes up? Stop driving?
Also, you need to learn that there is no such thing, in reality, as business vs consumers in paying for stuff. It's all consumers. It's all taxpayers.
Taxpayers and consumers pay 100% of all taxes, of all business costs, of all wages, of everything.
I was speaking figuratively. In general we have these things or variations: a renta- tv, a cd player a car and a pay day cash loan or a bunch of pawn tickets. These things are just slightly better than a shack, some clothes, and food.
We settle for this because , Some people prefer the blue pill over the red pill. Take the blue pill and you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
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.
Thank you for that simple lesson and the condescending tone in which it was delivered.
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.
What seems 'nice?' Increasing minimum wage? It doesn't seem nice. It seems right and reasonable. When's the last time they increased the federal minimum wage? I'm willing to bet prices have gone up way more than once since then. Why treat this as the only cause of inflation?
I am not treating it as the only source of inflation.
I am trying to get you to understand it is a useless gesture that will not help you.
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.
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
It's the same in Canada, the youth minimum wage is less than it is for adults...
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.
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.
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.
This is all in fun, right?
The amount of times that someone says something about me always being right is just ridiculous.
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.
I am tedious, no argument from me about that!
But to say I'm always right... well that's just hilarious to me, and would be to anyone who has seen how much my views have morphed over the last few years.
I totally get that my style is pretty unique, and can be annoying or confrontational or whatever to some people.
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.
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%.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What about Convergys? They employ some 60,000 people at around $9/hr. Good or bad?
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?
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.
Do they have a union I can join that will grind them and their entire city into dust?
MOST of the people who are employed by Convergys for that kind of money actually work from home. I worked for Convergys. 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?!
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.
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.
Gas prices are also a cost driver in grocery prices as well...But as with min wage, only one of the drivers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
The example provided is exactly what I was speaking about. In most jobs, annual raises adjust for cost of living, however, for the most part this does not happen with min wage and it should. Not all min wage workers are teens, singles, or unskilled workers. When I worked for the sandwich shop, I made 50cents and hour above min because of my skills in retail and restaurant work, however at that point the min wage had not risen in a decade, so of course it was not a liveable wage.
I was able to go back to school and get a degree, thanks to government pell grants(like Rubio), so I was then able to become eligible for better paying jobs.
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...
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).
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?
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.
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!
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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?
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
Ah so those last two times are a total success and that's why we are crying for it again?
It's ok as long as you keep your voter base where they feel they have to depend on you and you alone.....
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?
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.
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.
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....
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
How many of you shop at your local mom and pop store and how many at Walmart et al?
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.
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!
I would imagine most of their customers are being paid more than minimum wage. Do you have data that suggests otherwise?
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?
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.
Yes, they are more expensive - another reason why poverty breeds poverty!
And how do you describe "relatively easy"?
Within walking distance, less than a mile where I live. There are a lot of wal-marts around.
So everybody in the US lives less than a mile away from their local Wal-Mart!
Nope, but not everybody is without transportation either.
You really have no idea what America is like do you? It would probably surprise you to learn there are transportation resources available to pick up and take home many people who are without transportation in rural areas for free.
I have a much better idea of what the US is like than you have about the UK!
These transport resources, will they come and pick me up at ten at night when I get in from doing my minimum wage job? And will they still be around an hour later when I want to go home again?
I don't know about you not having much idea of life in the UK, you don't seem to have much idea of life anywhere.
You see, thats why it isn't worth debating you. You never get it and only offer insults. Don't care what its like in the UK because I never want to go there. If i want to be miserable there are plenty of places to go in the US for that.
As for your questions, If you are only making minimum wage at your advanced age you should let someone else do your shopping.
There you go making assumptions again!
Where have I ever said that I am only making the minimum wage?
And enough of the insults.
LOL, This is where you said it
"These transport resources, will they come and pick me up at ten at night when I get in from doing my minimum wage job?"
Yes, enough with the insults, quit doing it.
Don't you recognise shorthand when you see it?
Hint, you may not have noticed but I don't live in the US and so would be extremely unlikely to be using any sort of US transport.
I knew what you meant obviously you didn't and don't know what I mean! Shorthand?
A common failing of the right. Bar jokes they understand.
Which reminds me. A Scotsman, Irishman, and Englishman walk into a bar...
Or being able to put themselves in another's shoes.
That's why they have trouble with anything other than bar jokes.
I've noticed that a lot on here. Whenever I see something from another's perspective 97 people immediately assume that I'm speaking from personal experience.
I can imagine what it is like to live on a minimum wage therefore I must be living on a minimum wage!
There is a very strong "I'm all right Jack, why aren't you" element. A total failure to recognise that we are all different with different strengths and weaknesses.
And whose shoes should we put ourselves? None of you are very funny but you seem to think its us, it isn't.
"Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes."
I don't believe its necessary to walk in someone elses shoes in order to criticize! I criticized OJ Simpson for the murderer he is without having to be him. And the 3 of you Liam, uninvitedwriter spend all your time criticizing others and do so with glee, don't lecture the rest of us.
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.
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!
unemployment rate: 5.4%
new home : $176,200
median hous income: $37,005
stamp: 32 cents
gallon of gas $1.23
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.
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...
Sorry.....got people trying to kill the forum right now.
You know, the one's without common sense.
Common sense is not so common, and rarely sensible either.
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!
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.
Could not agree more, unless they are still in school or something no one should be being paid so poorly.
Yes that is logical. Those who make minimum wage are going to make more than people who don't make minimum wage
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?
Him: I don't know what's happened to the party.
Him, chuckling: I'm a sensible Republican when I agree with you.
Me: Of course
Meanwhile, the world is ending...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … ZxXYscmgRg
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...
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
Jaxson, you said "We'll never get out of debt by raising taxes. ".
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.
Although I did understand your point I thought you had established that we should not read what was intended but restrict ourselves purely to what was written.
Or is it one law for you and another for everybody else?
As I said, what I posted was not incorrect. Tax revenues and tax rates are both PARTS of 'tax'.
I'm very sorry for wording it that way. You have my apology. Now, are you going to actually respond to the point, or was that all you cared about?
No, of course increased revenue wouldn't cover the deficit but it would be moving in the right direction - at least slowing down the rate of increase.
Then why were you talking about getting out of debt?
<sigh> because it would be moving in the right direction, not increasing debt.
No, we would still be increasing debt. Any deficit is an increase in debt.
We could make a slight dent in our deficits, but we're not going to get out of debt by raising revenues OR tax rates. Not even close.
Good, now all together on three - we're doomed I tell you, all doomed.
If we don't stop spending like someone who just won the Powerball, then yes, we are doomed.
You can't have it both ways - you can't be the worlds super power on a colonial budget.
You can't be the world's super power if you become insolvent either.
Our military is ridiculous in many ways. We just throw money at defense contractors, the F-35 program is what, a $300-$400 Billion program, to develop a jet? We're 12 years into the program, and it is continually plagued by problems.
All that for a jet that is only slightly more effective than our current fighters in some areas, and is worse in other areas...
We could stay the world's superpower without driving ourselves into the poorhouse.
No you couldn't, buying illusions is an expensive business.
It's not about buying illusions. It's about being smart with money. We could do much better with our military spending, but there's also ALLLLLLLL the other spending that we have, that has nothing to do with us being a superpower, that we could reform as well.
But, giving exclusive contracts for military R&D by throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at one company isn't the best approach. A better approach would be to have the contractors compete for our business by developing products on their own(I bet they would be a lot wiser with their own money!).
We've developed an inferior jet, based on the false premise that it was merely an upgrade to a previous jet, therefore would be more reliable and familiar to pilots, only to have it riddled with problems, and come nowhere near where its competition would have been. Now we are wasting hundreds of billions on a jet that might not actually get put into production, and if it does it might not be any better than what we already have.
Same story goes all around. Our wasteful spending is not required to be who we are.
The F-16 and F/A-18 are still good viable aircraft.
A little modification?
I was referencing a few different programs, for example the F-22 v YF-23. The F-22 was inferior in practically every measurable way. There's also 'favorites' played, not to mention the 'too big to fail' mentality, where our government wouldn't take a better jet from Boeing over Lockheed if it meant Lockheed would go out of business.
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.
So somebody hits, what, 75 and then they are on their own!
Lot of work opportunities for geriatrics is there?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do this and I will be all for raising min wage to 20 bux an hour.
The stock market is at a big high !
The wheels behind Washington are bearing 2 dollar gifts!
Everything is coming up roses.
Why do I feel like my boss is giving me an extra slice of cornbread? I have a feeling I am going to be clearing the south 40 tomorrow
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.
What do you intend to do when you are too old to work?
What....you think this bunch running things cares about the elderly?
I intend to use my 401k, savings, and assets such as a home which by then I would already have paid off.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I do feel sorry for John's father.
...oops see how feelings could have created a tyranny for all?
by SparklingJewel 8 years ago
here is one "perspective of facts"...anyone have another as well put together source of a "different perspective of facts" ?Seriously, just like the economy and how it is run, or how businesses are run, or how laws are perceived, or how judges judge for that matter...there are...
by Robert Erich 8 years ago
With the continual outsourcing of jobs to other countries, the struggling national economy, and the unrealistic ability for everyone to earn a college degree, should minimum wage be eliminated?Just something that I have been thinking about and I would love to get your opinions on.
by Scott Belford 7 months ago
The liberal Democrats are making a major push for a "living" wage, which they say is $15/hour or roughly $31,200 a year, somewhat below what people responding to one of my hubs about the subject. Conservative Republicans oppose such an idea saying it will drive businesses under and...
by Sychophantastic 7 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
by rhamson 6 years ago
Two trains of thought are being bantered back and forth. Does a raising of the minimum wage create job loss and lower profits and more unemployment or does it increase disposable income thereby jump starting the economy and increasing hiring?
by Shawn McIntyre 8 years ago
Always a hot button issue, let's see what HubPages has to say:Should the Minimum Wage be:A) Raised. B) LoweredC) Done away with immediately D) Phased out over the next 10 years.E) None of the above.
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|