NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a shortage of jobs in the US, whether real or imaginary. Congress, it seems, wants to add to it.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050308006121&newsLang=en
As always, the Democrats propose a far higher minimum wage. The Republicans are a bit softer, but they seem in agreement to raise it. This will only serve to create less and less jobs in the US, both now and when the economy truely goes sour. Besides, between now and the last wage hike (1997), there was no significant inflation to justify increasing wages. Congress should just leave the minimum wage alone if it wishes to help create more jobs.

bump

*slaps the Congress back*

*slaps the Congress back*
You must really have big hands, there.

There is a shortage of jobs in the US, whether real or imaginary. Congress, it seems, wants to add to it.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050308006121&newsLang=en
As always, the Democrats propose a far higher minimum wage. The Republicans are a bit softer, but they seem in agreement to raise it. This will only serve to create less and less jobs in the US, both now and when the economy truely goes sour. Besides, between now and the last wage hike (1997), there was no significant inflation to justify increasing wages. Congress should just leave the minimum wage alone if it wishes to help create more jobs.
You know, the more money people earn, the more money people spend. So at worst this has a wash effect.

Wow. Somebody who realizes that minimum wage creates unemployment. That's rare. About time. I agree wholeheartedly. It also causes inflation. Minimum wage laws are bad all-around.

You know, the more money people earn, the more money people spend. So at worst this has a wash effect.
And the less money employers have to employ more workers. Besides, as what inevitably happens in a wage hike, when there is one, everyone, no matter what their salary, demands a raise. It's strenous, and it hurts small businesses, the backbone of the economy, the most.

There is a shortage of jobs in the US, whether real or imaginary. Congress, it seems, wants to add to it.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050308006121&newsLang=en
As always, the Democrats propose a far higher minimum wage. The Republicans are a bit softer, but they seem in agreement to raise it. This will only serve to create less and less jobs in the US, both now and when the economy truely goes sour. Besides, between now and the last wage hike (1997), there was no significant inflation to justify increasing wages. Congress should just leave the minimum wage alone if it wishes to help create more jobs.
No inflation to justify increasing minimum wage? Have you lost your cotton picking mind or are you a hermit? The minimum wage is 5.15 and an increase of it is a long time coming. And how would it put people out of work? With more money people will be able to buy more crap, with more people spending money, more people can be hired and will need to be so people can be serviced. Why do you think places start hiring more at Christmas? If you like capitalism so much I'm sure you can see that.

Heres something for you:
http://www.econop.org/MinimumWage/MW-Report2004.pdf

Wow. Somebody who realizes that minimum wage creates unemployment. That's rare. About time. I agree wholeheartedly. It also causes inflation. Minimum wage laws are bad all-around.
Alright, you work for a quarter an hour and the fat cats sitting at their oak desks in some big city will continue to garner hundred of thousand of dollar paychecks, probably more since they don't have to pay people a minimum wage.

Say it ain't so. I thought with a Rep. majority they'd shoot that down for sure. Here we go again on the inflation binge as well as pricing the U.S. labor market even farther out side any kind of capacity for competiveness with other markets. Say bye bye to even more businesses.... :rolleyes:

And the less money employers have to employ more workers. Besides, as what inevitably happens in a wage hike, when there is one, everyone, no matter what their salary, demands a raise. It's strenous, and it hurts small businesses, the backbone of the economy, the most.
Prove it.

(And you do realize that small businesses would have been exempted from the federal minimum wage, right?)

You know, the more money people earn, the more money people spend. So at worst this has a wash effect.

The more money the employers need to fork out, the more they lose and will have to reduse employees. If people are getting more money, then consumer goods will cost more. Things are bad enough with high gas prices. I think the minimum wage is fine. If anything, there should be another "New Deal" type event where the unemployed can get a chance to earn money through working instead of the government giving it to them for nothing. That might help a little. There is no overnight cure. Anything done will take a long time for our economy to recover and employment to go back on the rise, but anything is better than what we have now...stupid bush.

You know, the more money people earn, the more money people spend. So at worst this has a wash effect.

The more money the employers need to fork out, the more they lose and will have to reduse employees. If people are getting more money, then consumer goods will cost more. Things are bad enough with high gas prices. I think the minimum wage is fine. If anything, there should be another "New Deal" type event where the unemployed can get a chance to earn money through working instead of the government giving it to them for nothing. That might help a little. There is no overnight cure. Anything done will take a long time for our economy to recover and employment to go back on the rise, but anything is better than what we have now...stupid bush.
Out of curiosity, have you ever had a minimum wage job?

Alright, you work for a quarter an hour and the fat cats sitting at their oak desks in some big city will continue to garner hundred of thousand of dollar paychecks, probably more since they don't have to pay people a minimum wage.

If minimum wage gets raised, employers have to pay more to make a certain product. So they raise prices to make up for it, moving us to an inflationary cycle. Or, from the other side, a raise in minimum wage raises people's purchasing power. Businesses realize that they can charge more and still have people buy their product, so they do. Inflation goes up again. Or better yet, we do the first one again, but with different results. To keep the prices the same, businesses have to cut costs, so they cut jobs. Which means fewer people to do the same amount of work, and higher stress on everyone. Bad idea all-around.

Wow. Somebody who realizes that minimum wage creates unemployment. That's rare. About time. I agree wholeheartedly. It also causes inflation. Minimum wage laws are bad all-around.
Yeah, I love slave labour too!

Hey, want to earn $1 for a 12 hour day in my factory? Come on, it's a job, right? I can pay lots of people $1 a day. So what if they can't live off those wages.

Prove it.
If you want a chart filled with statistics, I can't provide that to you. However, I know because it is happening on a smaller scale. A few months ago, New York state (where I live) was in the process of raising the minimum wage to $7.15. It seemed like everyone was talking about his payraise from this, and it was reverberated in the local media. It's certainly enough to cut into profits, even if earnings do go a bit higher.
[/quote](And you do realize that small businesses would have been exempted from the federal minimum wage, right?)[/QUOTE]
Yes, but the effects are still felt. Having a family member own a small business, I've heard how a few of the employees have demanded raises. Like all businessmen, he claimed that he'd only pay them what they were worth. Unlike all businessmen, he paid them more, anyhow.
I'm sorry if this anecdotal evidence simply doesn't work for you. But it provides evidence for a point: while employees are happy, profits dwindle, and there is less room to expand. That's a basic principle, or so I thought.

Say it ain't so. I thought with a Rep. majority they'd shoot that down for sure. Here we go again on the inflation binge as well as pricing the U.S. labor market even farther out side any kind of capacity for competiveness with other markets. Say bye bye to even more businesses.... :rolleyes:
I knew that the Republicans would turn into this at some point. I didn't think it'd take this quickly.

If minimum wage gets raised, employers have to pay more to make a certain product. So they raise prices to make up for it, moving us to an inflationary cycle. Or, from the other side, a raise in minimum wage raises people's purchasing power. Businesses realize that they can charge more and still have people buy their product, so they do. Inflation goes up again. Or better yet, we do the first one again, but with different results. To keep the prices the same, businesses have to cut costs, so they cut jobs. Which means fewer people to do the same amount of work, and higher stress on everyone. Bad idea all-around.
For one thing, in Canada at least, well Ontario, I'm not sure about the other provinces, manufacturing jobs are all well above minimum wage. Any job in a noisy, hot factory or warehouse pays much better than minimum wage, especially if you can get hired by the company rather than an employment agency. So the manufacture of things won't be impacted.

The jobs that are minimum wage level are say, the store clerks and the like, but even then you get paid more if you're available during the day in the school year.

Obviously you have never had to work a summer full of shitty jobs to put yourself through school.

There is a shortage of jobs in the US, whether real or imaginary. Congress, it seems, wants to add to it.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050308006121&newsLang=en
As always, the Democrats propose a far higher minimum wage. The Republicans are a bit softer, but they seem in agreement to raise it. This will only serve to create less and less jobs in the US, both now and when the economy truely goes sour. Besides, between now and the last wage hike (1997), there was no significant inflation to justify increasing wages. Congress should just leave the minimum wage alone if it wishes to help create more jobs.

Let me ask you something; DO you honestly consider working for $5.15 an hour to be a 'job'? Of what use to anybody are more jobs that pay less than a person can live on?

If minimum wage gets raised, employers have to pay more to make a certain product. So they raise prices to make up for it, moving us to an inflationary cycle. Or, from the other side, a raise in minimum wage raises people's purchasing power. Businesses realize that they can charge more and still have people buy their product, so they do. Inflation goes up again. Or better yet, we do the first one again, but with different results. To keep the prices the same, businesses have to cut costs, so they cut jobs. Which means fewer people to do the same amount of work, and higher stress on everyone. Bad idea all-around.
The increase in product prices would be an artificial device to be assholes because solely on the fact everyone gets mroe money. However, if they increase the minimum wage WITHOUT inflating product prices, they will make more money. Why is that you ask? People who are making more money will be able to buy MORE of a product when it costs the same after their pay increase as before. If the price is increased to match the pay increase, they won't earn a damn penny. Sadly, intelligent people don't get business degrees apparently.

To buy a $100 item, some one on the CURRENT minimum wage will have to work ~20 hours. However, if the minimum wage is increased to $6.25, the amount of time worked to be able to buy that product is cut by 4 hours. With more people making more basic money, they will be able to buy more stuff and will inherently buy more stuff because with the wage increase they will come into spending money instead of sustenance money. I should get a fucking business degree, then I'll be fucknig rich because I can do MATH.

No inflation to justify increasing minimum wage? Have you lost your cotton picking mind or are you a hermit? The minimum wage is 5.15 and an increase of it is a long time coming. And how would it put people out of work? With more money people will be able to buy more crap, with more people spending money, more people can be hired and will need to be so people can be serviced. Why do you think places start hiring more at Christmas? If you like capitalism so much I'm sure you can see that.

Heres something for you:
http://www.econop.org/MinimumWage/MW-Report2004.pdf

Actually increasing the minimum wage also Increases labor costs to employers.. so they have less money to employ more employees (possibly requiring lay offs). as well the extra costs in labor now must be made up and will most likely be traslated into higher product prices... <== this controbutes to infaltion.. Captialisim is all about earning what you make.. why raise the minimum wage to 7.50 ? why not 20 an hour ? 7.50 still isn't nearly enough to sustain a family (not that minimum wage was ever meant for this)

No inflation to justify increasing minimum wage? Have you lost your cotton picking mind or are you a hermit? The minimum wage is 5.15 and an increase of it is a long time coming. And how would it put people out of work? With more money people will be able to buy more crap, with more people spending money, more people can be hired and will need to be so people can be serviced. Why do you think places start hiring more at Christmas? If you like capitalism so much I'm sure you can see that.

Heres something for you:
http://www.econop.org/MinimumWage/MW-Report2004.pdf
It'd be interesting to see if the minimum wage there was just raised marginally, or not at all. It may have very well decelarated, or perhaps reverse the rate of job loss.

Actually increasing the minimum wage also Increases labor costs to employers.. so they have less money to employ more employees (possibly requiring lay offs). as well the extra costs in labor now must be made up and will most likely be traslated into higher product prices... <== this controbutes to infaltion.. Captialisim is all about earning what you make.. why raise the minimum wage to 7.50 ? why not 20 an hour ? 7.50 still isn't nearly enough to sustain a family (not that minimum wage was ever meant for this)
No, it wouldn't, as they would sell more product as more people have more money. Their labor costs would be higher, but their incomes would go up at the same time.

Let me ask you something; DO you honestly consider working for $5.15 an hour to be a 'job'? Of what use to anybody are more jobs that pay less than a person can live on?

of course its a job... meant for those with little or no expenses.. (high school students, partime students.. etc.) it is certailny not meant for sustaining a faimly. Many companies especially those in the food industry rely highly on minimum wages for their entry-level employees.. by arbitrarly raising it you sky rocket their costs and effect millions of jobs... So yes, some people may get paid more.. some will lose their jobs.. and most people will be paying more to go to a diner or get a big mack

Actually increasing the minimum wage also Increases labor costs to employers.. so they have less money to employ more employees (possibly requiring lay offs). as well the extra costs in labor now must be made up and will most likely be traslated into higher product prices... <== this controbutes to infaltion.. Captialisim is all about earning what you make.. why raise the minimum wage to 7.50 ? why not 20 an hour ? 7.50 still isn't nearly enough to sustain a family (not that minimum wage was ever meant for this)
Depending on where you live, $7.50 can be enough to sustain an individual.
I live in student housing, rent $350 a month + $40 in groceries a month. If i were to work full time at minimum wage, I would be able to more than support myself. Note the housing isn't student housing because you have to be a student to live in it, it's just that the landlords are targetting students and it's near the school.

It'd be interesting to see if the minimum wage there was just raised marginally, or not at all. It may have very well decelarated, or perhaps reverse the rate of job loss.
maybe you should read it, the minimum wage there is 7.16 as compared to 5.15

of course its a job... meant for those with little or no expenses.. (high school students, partime students.. etc.) it is certailny not meant for sustaining a faimly. Many companies especially those in the food industry rely highly on minimum wages for their entry-level employees.. by arbitrarly raising it you sky rocket their costs and effect millions of jobs... So yes, some people may get paid more.. some will lose their jobs.. and most people will be paying more to go to a diner or get a big mack

Heh. Even McDonald's in my area pay $8.00 an hour or more. ;)

No, it wouldn't, as they would sell more product as more people have more money. Their labor costs would be higher, but their incomes would go up at the same time.

That is assuming raising the minimum wage will effect industries whose product lines are effected by more money in peoples pockets.. like i said before the food industry would be largely effected by things like the minimum wage... do you think kids are going to suddenly flock to restuarnts because they are getting paid 7 dollars an hour as opposed to 5 ? And by what you suggest companies could well now cut the prices of their products and still sell more.. but selling volume dosn't always equate more profits...

of course its a job... meant for those with little or no expenses.. (high school students, partime students.. etc.) it is certailny not meant for sustaining a faimly. Many companies especially those in the food industry rely highly on minimum wages for their entry-level employees.. by arbitrarly raising it you sky rocket their costs and effect millions of jobs... So yes, some people may get paid more.. some will lose their jobs.. and most people will be paying more to go to a diner or get a big mack
I'm glad I can do math.

Let me ask you something; DO you honestly consider working for $5.15 an hour to be a 'job'? Of what use to anybody are more jobs that pay less than a person can live on?
Most of those that hold minimum wage jobs are either kids, college students, or retired people looking for something to do, and not really money. Those are the last remaining cheap workers in this country, and they can do lots of little jobs: clerks, janitors, etc. It gives them a little extra spending money, but at a price affordable to the business.
As for those living on minimum wage, I realize they exist. However, increasing it would be of no help. Minimum wage jobs are often the first to go when a company is loosing money, so raising it would raise the risk that they could be unemployed. Then, we would risk seeing more people living like the poor whites in the Appalachians. I've heard that it's the closest to Africa one economically gets in the US.

maybe you should read it, the minimum wage there is 7.16 as compared to 5.15
I know. But if you are saying that is a marginal increase, it is not. It adds up very quickly.

If Congress slapped working Americans in the face, it's obvious what the only solution is:

Duel to the death at dawn.

Uh, janitors get paid more than minimum wage too. I applied for a couple jobs along those lines last summer and they were usually $10 an hour or so.

If we had gotten rid of the minumum wage law, people would still make money. It's not like people are going to sit there and be "oh ok, I guess I can work for $2 an hour here" instead of finding someone who's willing to pay more for the same work because they're harder up for employees.

Making the minumum wage some high amount of cash just increases the probability for that job to be sent overseas to someone who will work for even less than $5.15. Of course, flipping burgers can't be sent overseas, but a lot of other jobs can and will be if people find a way to make more profit that way.

The increase in product prices would be an artificial device to be assholes because solely on the fact everyone gets mroe money.

There's the problem...most product makers will jack up prices just so they can make more money. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And no, I have not had a minimum wage job. I work in electrical for $7.75 and I have some extra left over that I put into a savings account for whatever. My bills and what not (I've done the math) came out to if I worked for only $4.67 an hour, then I can survive on the bare bone minimums.

Uh, janitors get paid more than minimum wage too. I applied for a couple jobs along those lines last summer and they were usually $10 an hour or so.
Interesting. Still, though, many minimum wage jobs are something along those lines. One finds them a lot in the resturant industry.

Depending on where you live, $7.50 can be enough to sustain an individual.
I live in student housing, rent $350 a month + $40 in groceries a month. If i were to work full time at minimum wage, I would be able to more than support myself. Note the housing isn't student housing because you have to be a student to live in it, it's just that the landlords are targetting students and it's near the school.

yet how many supermarket attendants get paid minimum wage ? And how many temporary workers who work on farms producting those agricultural get paid minimum wage ? Those food products as well will go up in price as owners will need to account for higher labor costs. Now your 40 dollar grocery bill could climb to 60 or 70 more dollars... if not more.

The rise in inflation over the last 10 years has been marinal at best, there seems little evidence to justify a rise in the minimum wage so great (7.15)

I would be far more accepting of the Republican number as it calls for much more moderate of an increase

Let me ask you something; DO you honestly consider working for $5.15 an hour to be a 'job'? Of what use to anybody are more jobs that pay less than a person can live on?

I can provide more people willing to work for that wage from foriegn than you can provide jobs for.

The increase in product prices would be an artificial device to be assholes because solely on the fact everyone gets mroe money.

There's the problem...most product makers will jack up prices just so they can make more money. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And no, I have not had a minimum wage job. I work in electrical for $7.75 and I have some extra left over that I put into a savings account for whatever. My bills and what not (I've done the math) came out to if I worked for only $4.67 an hour, then I can survive on the bare bone minimums.
So basically, you would earn just above minimum wage under the Democrat's proposal. Should this pass, would you feel your job security is threatened?

Guys you are missing the point. The debate now is not to hike minimum wage, but whether to keep it from being cut more, and making it equivalant to minimum wages 30 years ago.

The Labor Department said workers earn less now than their counterparts earned 30 years ago. If converted to 1998 dollars, the real value of the minimum wage in 1968 was $7.49 an hour, significantly higher than the current level of $5.15 an hour.

As for the RepubliCONS, their plan for changing the minimum wage and their other economic policies are riddled with kickbacks to the richest of the rich of our nation. Now I'm not saying the Democrats are all chocolates and roses themselves, but the RepubliCONS are the ones currently in control of 2 branches of gov't (and if Bush nominates and gets the passing of a few conservative judges, you could say all three).

Representative Rick Lazio (one of those oh so loved RepubliCONS) and others have joined together to propose a "minimum wage" bill that would most benefit none other than the best-off 1% of Americans. Tying the meager raise in the minimum wage to tax breaks, Lazio's bill proposes changes in tax laws including:

(1) significant reductions in the estate tax,
(2) augmented tax breaks for private tax-exempt bonds,
(3) tax breaks for timber companies, and
(4) added tax breaks for pensions & 401(k) plans. (The changes in tax laws
related to pensions would make pension tax breaks considerably more lucrative for highly paid executives and other highly compensated individuals).

The bill results in tax cuts totaling over $97 billion over the next decade --73.4% of which would go directly to those tax payers earning salaries of over $301,000 a year.

I would be far more accepting of the Republican number as it calls for much more moderate of an increase
But I wouldn't be too accepting. The increase is still big enough to leave a hole in the wallet for many businesses. In fact, over the past year, corporate profits in America have been at record highs, adjusted for inflation. With either one of the proposals, you can kiss those profits goodbye.

For one thing, in Canada at least, well Ontario, I'm not sure about the other provinces, manufacturing jobs are all well above minimum wage. Any job in a noisy, hot factory or warehouse pays much better than minimum wage, especially if you can get hired by the company rather than an employment agency. So the manufacture of things won't be impacted.

The jobs that are minimum wage level are say, the store clerks and the like, but even then you get paid more if you're available during the day in the school year.

Obviously you have never had to work a summer full of shitty jobs to put yourself through school.

You mean like how I'm working my way through college right now?

The increase in product prices would be an artificial device to be assholes because solely on the fact everyone gets mroe money. However, if they increase the minimum wage WITHOUT inflating product prices, they will make more money. Why is that you ask? People who are making more money will be able to buy MORE of a product when it costs the same after their pay increase as before. If the price is increased to match the pay increase, they won't earn a damn penny. Sadly, intelligent people don't get business degrees apparently.

To buy a $100 item, some one on the CURRENT minimum wage will have to work ~20 hours. However, if the minimum wage is increased to $6.25, the amount of time worked to be able to buy that product is cut by 4 hours. With more people making more basic money, they will be able to buy more stuff and will inherently buy more stuff because with the wage increase they will come into spending money instead of sustenance money. I should get a fucking business degree, then I'll be fucknig rich because I can do MATH.

Economics is less about math and more about psychology.

Have you heard of the laws of supply and demand? How much people want to buy is (partly) based on how much they are willing to spend. If they have more to spend, they are willing to buy more. If they want to buy more, then businesses will raise prices until the equlibrium point is reached. It's easier to show with a graph, but the point is that the extra $1.10 you're suggesting will not mean that I can buy another $1.10 worth of stuff at today's prices.

But I wouldn't be too accepting. The increase is still big enough to leave a hole in the wallet for many businesses. In fact, over the past year, corporate profits in America have been at record highs, adjusted for inflation. With either one of the proposals, you can kiss those profits goodbye.
Only artificially. MORE MONEY = MORE BUYING POWER = MORE PRODUCTS MOVED = MORE PROFIT

The people only want to be assholes and raise the cost of items solely to be assholes if minimum wage were raised.

if you can't do math, that's not my problem, I suggest you see some one about it.

And Robboppolis, again its not my fault businesses can't do math, they need to consult some one. Capitalism shouldn't be based on psychology, it should be based on mathematics, because you want most money possible.

For one thing, in Canada at least, well Ontario, I'm not sure about the other provinces, manufacturing jobs are all well above minimum wage. Any job in a noisy, hot factory or warehouse pays much better than minimum wage, especially if you can get hired by the company rather than an employment agency. So the manufacture of things won't be impacted.

Most manufacturing jobs do. Blame it on the unions, or just blame it on market forces, but manufacturing jobs, at least in the US, tend to be well paying and gracious to their employees. It's not like a sweatshop's pay.
Anyhow, that's what's attracting several manufacturers to China and Mexico. But in the US, after years of contraction, the manufacturing sector is hiring again, albeit at a slower pace.

Guys you are missing the point. The debate now is not to hike minimum wage, but whether to keep it from being cut more, and making it equivalant to minimum wages 30 years ago.

The Labor Department said workers earn less now than their counterparts earned 30 years ago. If converted to 1998 dollars, the real value of the minimum wage in 1968 was $7.49 an hour, significantly higher than the current level of $5.15 an hour.

As for the RepubliCONS, their plan for changing the minimum wage and their other economic policies are riddled with kickbacks to the richest of the rich of our nation. Now I'm not saying the Democrats are all chocolates and roses themselves, but the RepubliCONS are the ones currently in control of 2 branches of gov't (and if Bush nominates and gets the passing of a few conservative judges, you could say all three).

Representative Rick Lazio (one of those oh so loved RepubliCONS) and others have joined together to propose a "minimum wage" bill that would most benefit none other than the best-off 1% of Americans. Tying the meager raise in the minimum wage to tax breaks, Lazio's bill proposes changes in tax laws including:

(1) significant reductions in the estate tax,
(2) augmented tax breaks for private tax-exempt bonds,
(3) tax breaks for timber companies, and
(4) added tax breaks for pensions & 401(k) plans. (The changes in tax laws
related to pensions would make pension tax breaks considerably more lucrative for highly paid executives and other highly compensated individuals).

The bill results in tax cuts totaling over $97 billion over the next decade --73.4% of which would go directly to those tax payers earning salaries of over $301,000 a year.




So, don't touch the minimum wage or eliminate it altogether. Reduce the size of Gov. significantly and cut taxes in such a way that we each pay a flat rate for the cost of whatever Gov. programs we support or utilize.

Only artificially. MORE MONEY = MORE BUYING POWER = MORE PRODUCTS MOVED = MORE PROFIT

The people only want to be assholes and raise the cost of items solely to be assholes if minimum wage were raised.


Not really. They need the money to pay their workers to come from somewhere, so why not raise prices a little bit?

Actually, we should divide the minimum wage by 5 and make it $1 an hour... then force ALL people who provide services in our country to divide their sales prices by 5.

Instant deflation. And chaos. Fun.

Not really. They need the money to pay their workers to come from somewhere, so why not raise prices a little bit?
BECAUSE IF YOU DO YOU WON'T EARN MORE PROFITS. God, how hard is that to udnerstand, if people have more spending money and see things the same price as they were when they didn't have enough spending money, they will be more inclined to buy it, thus producing previous non-existant profits. All in all, new profits will offset expenses AND will surpass original profits.

Actually, we should divide the minimum wage by 5 and make it $1 an hour... then force ALL people who provide services in our country to divide their sales prices by 5.

Instant deflation. And chaos. Fun.

services and products would both need to be divided by 5.

Why is the minimum wage needed? Ya'll are arguing its existence, but forgetting why it exists (and , hence, why it is long overdue for a hike).
Because BIG companies did thier best to get the most work from workers for the least pay- and being so big, they didn't know thier workers, have to see thier faces. They didn't care. And people working hard for them, couldn't make ends meet.
(Hmmm. Sound like Walmart for example? )
The worst thing is the wage disparity. Europe does not permit the highest CEO, company bigwigs, to have salaries exceeded a certain percent over the lowest paid worker. They don't have the wage disparity the USA has.
So why care? People want more they work harder, right?
To a point. Look at history. Wage disparity creates classes of haves and haves not. And there are a lot of have nots in the USA, whose quaility of have not is becoming have even less. (Like to see my paychecks? And I've years of experience and a college degree.)
Historically what happens when you have a HUGE group of unhappy people really really pissed off at those few having lots of stuff???
A freakin' messy bloody revolution. (Not that the USA has reached that point, but its sure trying...)
A minimum wage hike is a really smart move of self-preservation for the government. Big buisness can do just fine- they can cut pay raises from thier upper ranks and easily pay for the increase.

BECAUSE IF YOU DO YOU WON'T EARN MORE PROFITS. God, how hard is that to udnerstand, if people have more spending money and see things the same price as they were when they didn't have enough spending money, they will be more inclined to buy it, thus producing previous non-existant profits. All in all, new profits will offset expenses AND will surpass original profits.
You can't wave a magic wand and change production overnight. That may be a long term consequence, but by the time it happens, the damage is done, as inflation has happened.
*Edit*
Don't forget, production increases take longer in one field than others. That will also have an effect on inflation, and thus, hurt the unemployed only moreso than before.

Problem? CEO's with too much money, employees with too little money.

Solution (and here is where nobody in congress would approve of it because some idiot would call it "communism" and it would get shot down without anyone actually reading into what it did): Copy the English and restrict CEO salaries to a ratio to that of the lowest paid worker.

The again, that would never happen in our society. The government is too ignorant/greedy to consider that option. By the way, I'd like to point out that big business in America essentially = government in America.

Problem? CEO's with too much money, employees with too little money.

Solution (and here is where nobody in congress would approve of it because some idiot would call it "communism" and it would get shot down without anyone actually reading into what it did): Copy the English and restrict CEO salaries to a ratio to that of the lowest paid worker.

The again, that would never happen in our society. The government is too ignorant/greedy to consider that option. By the way, I'd like to point out that big business in America essentially = government in America.
That sounds like a ludicrous idea, anyhow. CEOs are entitled to what they get, so long as their shareholders see it as in line. They spend or invest what they got on several sectors of the economy at once, and are vital to be paid. Besides, most CEOs are very hard working individuals. They even work harder than most of their employees, just in a different way.

I don't think you quite get this. One owner of a huge corporation could just one day, out of the blue, take 500 million dollars out of the company and spend it how they see fit. They buy cars they don't drive, estates they never live in, they essentially just acquire things.

I don't think you quite get this. One owner of a huge corporation could just one day, out of the blue, take 500 million dollars out of the company and spend it how they see fit. They buy cars they don't drive, estates they never live in, they essentially just acquire things.
A.) We can let the shareholders decide that one.
B.) What is wrong with that? For one, it is their choice. For another, they put several people to work for their spending. Do you know how many diverse sectors are required to build a house? How about a mansion? They are doing a great service to everyone by earning and spending, or even just saving it.

Originally Posted by I_Hate_Cows
Out of curiosity, have you ever had a minimum wage job?

I know this was posted on page 1, but I have to respond to it. This person probably never has had a minumum wage job (no matter whom you are asking), because minimum wage jobs are pretty rare. For the sake of giving money to those who do not have it, raising the minimum wage is almost unnecessary. It might be good for society for other reasons (especially according to Keynesian economics), but it is not necessary for humanitarian reasons. It isn't even the best way to give money to the poor, as direct charity (or even direct redistribution) is so much more efficient.

You can't wave a magic wand and change production overnight. That may be a long term consequence, but by the time it happens, the damage is done, as inflation has happened.
*Edit*
Don't forget, production increases take longer in one field than others. That will also have an effect on inflation, and thus, hurt the unemployed only moreso than before.
In all honesty, this entire farce of a debate is based on you being a right-wing pro-business lackey who supports big business no matter what and take no external factors intelligently into account. I vote it get closed because it is NOT a debate and will go nowhere

I know this was posted on page 1, but I have to respond to it. This person probably never has had a minumum wage job (no matter whom you are asking), because minimum wage jobs are pretty rare. For the sake of giving money to those who do not have it, raising the minimum wage is almost unnecessary. It might be good for society for other reasons (especially according to Keynesian economics), but it is not necessary for humanitarian reasons. It isn't even the best way to give money to the poor, as direct charity (or even direct redistribution) is so much more efficient.
Then I, who HAS had a minimum wage job, win.

huh problems with capitalism sounds like a good reason to convert to socialism

Originally Posted by Mystic Mindinao
What is wrong with that? For one, it is their choice. For another, they put several people to work for their spending. Do you know how many diverse sectors are required to build a house? How about a mansion? They are doing a great service to everyone by earning and spending, or even just saving it.

Well, this spending and saving of money is as helpful to society no matter who has it (in theory), so why not redistribute it. Actually, in many cases during a slow consumer spending, the government can kick-start the economy by redistributing wealth to those who will spend it more likely than save it.

(Don't think that I am completely a liberal economist, though. Although I support these basic ideas, I think that people should be able to choose not to participate in this liberal economy. This kind of optional non-participation is a very free-market idea. So I am, in fact, a conservative macro-economist who supports liberal micro-economics.)

BECAUSE IF YOU DO YOU WON'T EARN MORE PROFITS. God, how hard is that to udnerstand, if people have more spending money and see things the same price as they were when they didn't have enough spending money, they will be more inclined to buy it, thus producing previous non-existant profits. All in all, new profits will offset expenses AND will surpass original profits.

You are making the assumption that somehow demand will increase simply because the minimum wage goes up, and that demand will increase enough to allow you to not charge more money. Demand may go up, but it isn’t likely to increase enough to result in no need to adjust prices.

Originally Posted by Salvondia
Demand may go up, but it isn’t likely to increase enough to result in no need to adjust prices.

Did you mean to say that the increase in demand will raise prices as well, thus destroying the usefulness of the wage increase? It seems like you actually said that the increase in demand won't be large enough to stop prices from increasing. However, the larger the increase in demand, the larger the increase in prices (although not necessarily in a one-to-one ratio).

If you meant to say what I think you meant to say, then you are still not accounting for the part of the redistribution results in a temporary decrease in corporate profit (although most of it results in an increase in prices, as you note). The part that comes out of corporate profits "kick starts" consumer spending because workers actually receive more redistributed wealth than the increase in prices they have to pay because not all of the redistribution results in increased prices.

You are making the assumption that somehow demand will increase simply because the minimum wage goes up, and that demand will increase enough to allow you to not charge more money. Demand may go up, but it isn’t likely to increase enough to result in no need to adjust prices.
I'm not assuming demand goes up, I'm assuming consumption goes up, not necesarily related to demand in this case. Some one may want something but can't afford it, if they can afford it they will buy it, if they can't they won't.

I'm not assuming demand goes up, I'm assuming consumption goes up, not necesarily related to demand in this case. Some one may want something but can't afford it, if they can afford it they will buy it, if they can't they won't.

:headbang:

Take an Economics class.
Ie, Demand is consumption for all intents and purposes.

Originally Posted by I_Hate_Cows
I'm not assuming demand goes up, I'm assuming consumption goes up, not necesarily related to demand in this case.

Aggregate demand and consumption are the same thing.

Edit: No they are not. I apologize. Demand is the curve or equation that describes the quantity of a particular good that consumers would buy at a certain price, whereas consumption is the actual amount that consumers buy, considering supply and demand. Although, the usual ways to increase consumption are to increase supply, increase demand, both, or force consumers to buy the product. I'm assuming that we're not doing the last one, and for the sake of our example I thought we were holding supply constant (temporarily). Thus, demand would have to increase for consumption to increase.

Did you mean to say that the increase in demand will raise prices as well, thus destroying the usefulness of the wage increase? It seems like you actually said that the increase in demand won't be large enough to stop prices from increasing. However, the larger the increase in demand, the larger the increase in prices (although not necessarily in a one-to-one ratio).

Er no. I said exactly what I meant to say so far as I know. If demand increased enough to neutralize the necessary increase in labor costs and variable costs then the prices wouldn’t rise much. Its that the demand doesn't actually increase enough to account for both the labor and variable costs, if it is even enough to cover either, thusly prices will go up.

If you meant to say what I think you meant to say, then you are still not accounting for the part of the redistribution results in a temporary decrease in corporate profit (although most of it results in an increase in prices, as you note). The part that comes out of corporate profits "kick starts" consumer spending because workers actually receive more redistributed wealth than the increase in prices they have to pay because not all of the redistribution results in increased prices.

It was a simple statement. I had originally created an actual accounting problem with fixed, variable, price, labor cost/hour production/hour etc... and then decided "screw it, just say something nice and simple"

Yeah, I love slave labour too!

Hey, want to earn $1 for a 12 hour day in my factory? Come on, it's a job, right? I can pay lots of people $1 a day. So what if they can't live off those wages.

Do you know that unionized factory workers are some of the best paid workers in the world? Full benefits and $20 something an hour. Far Far above minimum wage. No one in the US will work 12 hours for $1. Which would force employers to raise the wage. It will move to an equilibrium. Please take econ 101. It will help explain some of these things.

A slight minimum wage hike would NOT force most major industries to raise prices. It would force them to raise prices if the ridiculously overpaid executives want to keep themselves rolling in dough.

http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2004/CEOPayRatio_pr.html

if these bastads actually cared about their businesses and their employees they would cut back on their own ludicrous, company-crippling expenses, pay more for higher-quality work and eliminate the need for a minimum wage. It's not this imaginary class of minimum-wage-whiners that's hurting these businesses, its the irresponsible spending of the people in charge.

Originally Posted by Salvondia
If demand increased enough to neutralize the necessary increase in labor costs and variable costs then the prices wouldn’t rise much.

Is there some way that demand can increase without an increase in prices, assuming supply stays the same (temporarily)? As far as I knew, an increase in demand always means an increase in prices, and the greater the increased demand, the greater the prices.

Even if the increased total sales made up for the increased costs at the same price, companies would still increase price (assuming supply remains constant, temporarily), because the increase in demand at each price would cause the company to take a higher price at the higher point where the supply and demand curves meet. (Now I understand what you meant by demand being not necessarily related to consumption, I_Hate_Cows. I was mistaken.)

It was a simple statement. I had originally created an actual accounting problem with fixed, variable, price, labor cost/hour production/hour etc... and then decided "screw it, just say something nice and simple"

Could you post these. Strong examples usually help to solidify your argument.

Is there some way that demand can increase without an increase in prices, assuming supply stays the same (temporarily)? As far as I knew, an increase in demand always means an increase in prices, and the greater the increased demand, the greater the prices.

I'm assuming supply increases to match the increase in demand, as is Cows'.

Even if the increased total sales made up for the increased costs at the same price, companies would still increase price (assuming supply remains constant, temporarily), because the increase in demand at each price would cause the company to take a higher price at the higher point where the supply and demand curves meet. (Now I understand what you meant by demand being not necessarily related to consumption, I_Hate_Cows. I was mistaken.)

I'm not assuming Supply remains constant. Nor is Cows'. Trust me you were not mistaken.

Could you post these. Strong examples usually help to solidify your argument.

They would be hypothetical and I could easily make examples that support me and that support cows. IE a product where labor cost is inconsequential doesn't care if minimum wage increases. A product where labor costs dominate cares a lot if minimum wage increases.

Originally Posted by Salvondia
I'm assuming supply increases to match the increase in demand, as is Cows'.

Okay, then what you say makes sense, basically. However, the statement below still doesn't make sense:

demand will increase enough to allow you to not charge more money

I don't think I_Hate_Cows was saying this (as you stated) because it is not good economics. Demand cannot increase enough to keep prices from going up. The more demand increases, the more prices increase.

Actually, this is probably another misunderstanding because I came in the middle of the debate. I'll just leave you two to debate this because I don't know where you are.

Just one request, can we stop telling me and/or other people what I mean

something something something RepubliCONS something something

Am I the only one who pictured something like Voltron here when I saw this line?

"Karl Rove and Dick Cheney! You form the legs! Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld! Form the arms! And I, George W. Bush, will form the head!"

"REPUBLICON GOOOOOOOOOO!"

Sorry. That's all I have to say, since I, knowing fully well nothing about economics, can't actually make an informed post on this subject.

Okay, then what you say makes sense, basically. However, the statement below still doesn't make sense:

I don't think I_Hate_Cows was saying this (as you stated) because it is not good economics. Demand cannot increase enough to keep prices from going up. The more demand increases, the more prices increase.

I was stating that Cows was saying that demand will increase, but also that supply will increase and thusly no price will increase. I personaly doubt anyone is going to just increase supply because demand goes up.

Aggregate demand and consumption are the same thing.

Edit: No they are not. I apologize. Demand is the curve or equation that describes the quantity of a particular good that consumers would buy at a certain price, whereas consumption is the actual amount that consumers buy, considering supply and demand. Although, the usual ways to increase consumption are to increase supply, increase demand, both, or force consumers to buy the product. I'm assuming that we're not doing the last one, and for the sake of our example I thought we were holding supply constant (temporarily). Thus, demand would have to increase for consumption to increase.

Yes they are the same thing. Demand is the totality of consumption at all levels. Demand at X price = Consumption at X price. There is no difference between them.

Just one request, can we stop telling me and/or other people what I mean

Than perhaps you would like to explain it because nothing you've said makes economic sense in the way Charles is interperting it. IE if you are saying that supply is constant than prices will go up if demand goes up, yet you are saying an increase in demand won't increase prices.

Because all you said was "demand is not consumption" well it is in economics. You were apparently making a distinction between "how many people want a product" and how many people will buy it. How many people will buy it at X price is demand.

Originally Posted by Salvondia
How many people will buy it at X price is demand.

Actually, this is quantity demanded. There is a difference between overall demand and the quantity demanded at one price, especially if you are referring to an increase. An increase in demand is a shift of the entire demand curve to the right, an increase in the quantity demanded is a change in number of units bought (or sold) along a demand curve that has not changed.

Actually, this is quantity demanded. There is a difference between overall demand and the quantity demanded at one price, especially if you are referring to an increase. An increase in demand is a shift of the entire demand curve to the right, an increase in the quantity demanded is a change in number of units bought (or sold) along a demand curve that has not changed.

For demand to increase at one price point requires a shift of the entire demand curve. If only that one point is affected, the entire curve still shifted because that one point is no longer the same. It is still an increase in the overall demand.

Beyound that this argument is taking place in context of Cow's statements. Who is apparently arguing that an increase in minimum wage will increase "consumption." Inside that context demand is consumption.

For demand to increase at one price point requires a shift of the entire demand curve. If only that one point is affected, the entire curve still shifted because that one point is no longer the same. It is still an increase in the overall demand.

Beyound that this argument is taking place in context of Cow's statements. Who is apparently arguing that an increase in minimum wage will increase "consumption." Inside that context demand is consumption.

Increasing the minimum wage might increase consumption in the short term but it would also bring about long term inflation.

When the value of money inflates, it brings about a "cost-of-living" situation, because money is worth less now. Consumption will be cut again as the value of money decreases. The only answer is deflationary fiscal policy.

Alright, you work for a quarter an hour and the fat cats sitting at their oak desks in some big city will continue to garner hundred of thousand of dollar paychecks, probably more since they don't have to pay people a minimum wage.
Right...
You see, that's why we have things called "strikes," and "hit men." No rich fella could pay Americans a quarter an hour and get away with it without ending up dead. However, lower wages would reverse inflation and bring down the costs of items. it used to be that gas cost less than $.50 a gallon, and that wasn't even a generation ago. Hell, I still remember that one summer when ga was $.90 a gallon, and that wasn't but maybe 5 years ago tops.

Increasing the minimum wage might increase consumption in the short term but it would also bring about long term inflation.

When the value of money inflates, it brings about a "cost-of-living" situation, because money is worth less now. Consumption will be cut again as the value of money decreases. The only answer is deflationary fiscal policy.
You made a mistake. You said something that sounded suspiciously like "less money," and now I'm afraid they are going to kill you.

Look, those idiots don't understand economics. We might as welllet it go.

Increasing the minimum wage might increase consumption in the short term but it would also bring about long term inflation.

When the value of money inflates, it brings about a "cost-of-living" situation, because money is worth less now. Consumption will be cut again as the value of money decreases. The only answer is deflationary fiscal policy.

If you are going to say something, read the damned thread.

I don't think you quite get this. One owner of a huge corporation could just one day, out of the blue, take 500 million dollars out of the company and spend it how they see fit. They buy cars they don't drive, estates they never live in, they essentially just acquire things.

actually this is entirely incorrect... CEOs may not touch the assets of the company for personal use in the manner you describe.. the CEO... CANN however get a LOAN form the board of directors (essentailly the voice of the stockholders) and then he would TECHNICALLY have to pay that back.. please dont make things over simplified to prove a point that is obviously skewed.. dont forget about all the people that benifit from that kind of rich man spending

The increase in product prices would be an artificial device to be assholes because solely on the fact everyone gets mroe money. However, if they increase the minimum wage WITHOUT inflating product prices, they will make more money. Why is that you ask? People who are making more money will be able to buy MORE of a product when it costs the same after their pay increase as before. If the price is increased to match the pay increase, they won't earn a damn penny. Sadly, intelligent people don't get business degrees apparently.

To buy a $100 item, some one on the CURRENT minimum wage will have to work ~20 hours. However, if the minimum wage is increased to $6.25, the amount of time worked to be able to buy that product is cut by 4 hours. With more people making more basic money, they will be able to buy more stuff and will inherently buy more stuff because with the wage increase they will come into spending money instead of sustenance money. I should get a fucking business degree, then I'll be fucknig rich because I can do MATH.


from reading this post.. you may have your buisness degree.. but apparently you failed basic economics.. Thats why half the time buisness men dont understand the financing behind their company and rely on accountants to explain in lamen terms whats going on in their own buisness....

Increasing the minimum wage might increase consumption in the short term but it would also bring about long term inflation.

When the value of money inflates, it brings about a "cost-of-living" situation, because money is worth less now. Consumption will be cut again as the value of money decreases. The only answer is deflationary fiscal policy.

And yet, right now the U.S. is coming dangerously close to a deflationary crash. The rise in the minimum wage is a good way to help forestall such an eventuality.

Looking through the last 6 pages, it's interesting to note that the one thing I didn't see in the discussion was the most important point in the discussion: productivity. Economists agree that one reason why people should earn more is when they produce more. Since the last raise of the minimum wage, per capita productivity has skyrocketed, meaning that the average worker today produces far more goods and services, or produces better value goods and services, than what he produced in 1997. And yet, adjusting for inflation, he is now paid less today than when he was in 1997. For all of you talking about all the idiots who never took an Econ 101 class, allow me to pitch you a softball: what happens when there are too many goods chasing too few dollars? For a graphic demonstration, bring me a fan and some horse apples. . .

The reason we've been able to forestall a deflationary crash this far is because we've massively loosened our debt restrictions, which allow more people to spend more money they don't have, and because we've experienced a boom in housing prices, which conveniently enough, has allowed people to refinance to pull the added value out of their home and pump it into the economy. But the housing boom looks to be peaking, and there is only so much debt that people can take on. What they need now, desperately, is an increase in real income to 1) pay down some of their debt, and 2) further push the economy.

There is a shortage of jobs in the US, whether real or imaginary. Congress, it seems, wants to add to it.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050308006121&newsLang=en
As always, the Democrats propose a far higher minimum wage. The Republicans are a bit softer, but they seem in agreement to raise it. This will only serve to create less and less jobs in the US, both now and when the economy truely goes sour. Besides, between now and the last wage hike (1997), there was no significant inflation to justify increasing wages. Congress should just leave the minimum wage alone if it wishes to help create more jobs.
Get a job you lazy bastards? Make sure it is a low paying job so that you don't put companies out of business?

Human and income poverty: OECD, Central & Eastern Europe & CIS

United States: (http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/cty/cty_f_USA.html)

Human poverty index (HPI-2) Rank 17

That is 17th out of 17 countries. The richest country in the world? Capitalism is great IF you are rich?

I believe Australia has a higher minimum wage, around $12.50, which can buy a lot more than US $5.50 any day. We are still internationally competitive with no major economic problems other than the aging population and the CAD getting bigger than I'm comfortable (government maintains that it's sustainable).

I don't know what is so hard about paying some guy another dollar an hour... I get paid more than $5.50 USD an hour and I'm 17 years old, with a minimum wage job.

Thank god Republicans don't exist in Australia.

And yet, right now the U.S. is coming dangerously close to a deflationary crash. The rise in the minimum wage is a good way to help forestall such an eventuality.

Looking through the last 6 pages, it's interesting to note that the one thing I didn't see in the discussion was the most important point in the discussion: productivity. Economists agree that one reason why people should earn more is when they produce more. Since the last raise of the minimum wage, per capita productivity has skyrocketed, meaning that the average worker today produces far more goods and services, or produces better value goods and services, than what he produced in 1997. And yet, adjusting for inflation, he is now paid less today than when he was in 1997. For all of you talking about all the idiots who never took an Econ 101 class, allow me to pitch you a softball: what happens when there are too many goods chasing too few dollars? For a graphic demonstration, bring me a fan and some horse apples. . .

The reason we've been able to forestall a deflationary crash this far is because we've massively loosened our debt restrictions, which allow more people to spend more money they don't have, and because we've experienced a boom in housing prices, which conveniently enough, has allowed people to refinance to pull the added value out of their home and pump it into the economy. But the housing boom looks to be peaking, and there is only so much debt that people can take on. What they need now, desperately, is an increase in real income to 1) pay down some of their debt, and 2) further push the economy.
This kinda supports your theory? (http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/02/markets/consumerbubble/)

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/02/markets/consumerbubble/consbub2.gif

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/02/markets/consumerbubble/consbub1.gif

In all honesty, this entire farce of a debate is based on you being a right-wing pro-business lackey who supports big business no matter what and take no external factors intelligently into account. I vote it get closed because it is NOT a debate and will go nowhere
That's not a bad thing. Businesses being able to have more control means more entrepenuers, more innovation, and more wealth creation in the long run.

Well, this spending and saving of money is as helpful to society no matter who has it (in theory), so why not redistribute it. Actually, in many cases during a slow consumer spending, the government can kick-start the economy by redistributing wealth to those who will spend it more likely than save it.

I believe that this is more a matter of control. A business should control who gets the money and for what reason. Employees should be paid based on need and merit. Executives, especially those in charge of operations, like COOs and CEOs, should be paid based on a mutual consensus between shareholders and themselves. If shareholders don't object, CEOs need to be paid more. They are, after all, an extremely critical componet of the economy.

Get a job you lazy bastards? Make sure it is a low paying job so that you don't put companies out of business?
The employee can search for whatever job he can get for whatever wage. I just don't want the government to interfere. It's like price fixing.
That is 17th out of 17 countries. The richest country in the world? Capitalism is great IF you are rich?
Proportionally, then yes, the US has a very high amount of poverty. But it is not clear if this survey follows its own standards, or the government's. Besides, these "social factors" are outside an economy's control.
There is, btw, a country that makes the US look communist: Hong Kong. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/hk.html#Econ
As you can see, Hong Kong has poverty that is imperceptible even to the most astute of researchers. They have stable inflation, a booming economy, and a current account surplus, one of the few of that size among rich nations. Not bad for what was once a giant refuggee camp.

There is a shortage of jobs in the US, whether real or imaginary. Congress, it seems, wants to add to it.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050308006121&newsLang=en
As always, the Democrats propose a far higher minimum wage. The Republicans are a bit softer, but they seem in agreement to raise it. This will only serve to create less and less jobs in the US, both now and when the economy truely goes sour. Besides, between now and the last wage hike (1997), there was no significant inflation to justify increasing wages. Congress should just leave the minimum wage alone if it wishes to help create more jobs.
According to this little website I found (http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/InflationCalculator.asp), the inflation rate since 1997 (the latest minimum wage increase) is around 20%.

Sure there was no big hike one year, but you minimum wage job lets you buy only 80% of what you could afford then. It's high time the congress raises the wage, if only to keep the same basic level of living that has been steadily declining since 1997.

Get a job you lazy bastards? Make sure it is a low paying job so that you don't put companies out of business?

Human and income poverty: OECD, Central & Eastern Europe & CIS

United States: (http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/cty/cty_f_USA.html)

Human poverty index (HPI-2) Rank 17

That is 17th out of 17 countries. The richest country in the world? Capitalism is great IF you are rich?

Actually, that's a funny way to look at it. Seeing as how we have a vastly larger population than any of the other nations, doesn't it make sense that we would have a larger amount of low-income individuals? Especially since our long-term unemployment is at .5%, while Sweden's is 1.1%. So apparently my logic follows through. Even though Sweden is extremely socialist, it has higher unemployment, which means that the only reason their poverty levels are as low is that they spend massive amounts on handouts. Sounds like a crappy plan to me. And apparently our way creates more jobs. And believe me, I don't live an affluent section of town, but I know damn well that even the poorest American lives better than 60% of the population of the world, if not more.

I believe Australia has a higher minimum wage, around $12.50, which can buy a lot more than US $5.50 any day. We are still internationally competitive with no major economic problems other than the aging population and the CAD getting bigger than I'm comfortable (government maintains that it's sustainable).

I don't know what is so hard about paying some guy another dollar an hour... I get paid more than $5.50 USD an hour and I'm 17 years old, with a minimum wage job.

Thank god Republicans don't exist in Australia.
Australia is heading off a cliff. The rampant government ownership of many things has long term economic consequences manifesting themselves today. For example, government ownership of agricultural land has meant dictatorial land practices that are undermining it. Australia even threatens to become a net food importer.
Australia also has other problems from government control, such as overruse of water resources, and price fixing that allows foreigners to rip you guys off with trading (hence, part of the reason for the high trade gap). An infinite amount of ogood woudl happen from revising the minimum wage, such as more workers in the export sector. The unemployment figure, while better than most first world nations, can definitly come down further.

According to this little website I found (http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/InflationCalculator.asp), the inflation rate since 1997 (the latest minimum wage increase) is around 20%.

Sure there was no big hike one year, but you minimum wage job lets you buy only 80% of what you could afford then. It's high time the congress raises the wage, if only to keep the same basic level of living that has been steadily declining since 1997.
Yes, because that way we artifically increase buying power of the average American, leading to increased inflation since money is easier to get, which means inflation soars another 20%. Brilliant idea.

How many of you arguing against this small pay raise make minimum wage?

How many of you arguing against it make less than $15 per hour?

Most low paid, or even not low paid, hourly workers would like to see a wage increase. Who can't use more money? If you make minimum wage, you can always use more $$.

How many of you arguing against this small pay raise make minimum wage?

How many of you arguing against it make less than $15 per hour?

Most low paid, or even not low paid, hourly workers would like to see a wage increase. Who can't use more money? If you make minimum wage, you can always use more $$.

Actually I make nothing right now, because I am unemployed. And I believe the economy is doomed anyway. But if we had a chance to go back I can see a lot of merits to restricting inflation.

P.S. I have never made more then $15 an hour. Only mechanics make that around here.

bump

bump

Actually, that's a funny way to look at it. Seeing as how we have a vastly larger population than any of the other nations, doesn't it make sense that we would have a larger amount of low-income individuals? Especially since our long-term unemployment is at .5%, while Sweden's is 1.1%. So apparently my logic follows through. Even though Sweden is extremely socialist, it has higher unemployment, which means that the only reason their poverty levels are as low is that they spend massive amounts on handouts. Sounds like a crappy plan to me. And apparently our way creates more jobs. And believe me, I don't live an affluent section of town, but I know damn well that even the poorest American lives better than 60% of the population of the world, if not more.
You are not seeing the whole picture? The US has the highest percentage of poverty rates amonst the 17 OECD countries. Sweden has the lowest rate.

If your system creates more jobs, generates more wealth, then why are your poverty rates higher?

If the "poorest American lives better than 60% of the population of the world", then the poorest Swede lives better than 99% of the population of the world?

Remember, they are usuing individual nation's standards of poverty. The US has a generous standard of poverty.

You are not seeing the whole picture? The US has the highest percentage of poverty rates amonst the 17 OECD countries. Sweden has the lowest rate.

If your system creates more jobs, generates more wealth, then why are your poverty rates higher?

If the "poorest American lives better than 60% of the population of the world", then the poorest Swede lives better than 99% of the population of the world?
Pretty much. Sucks that I don't live in Sweden, then. Oh well.

How many of you arguing against this small pay raise make minimum wage?

How many of you arguing against it make less than $15 per hour?

Most low paid, or even not low paid, hourly workers would like to see a wage increase. Who can't use more money? If you make minimum wage, you can always use more $$.

I make less than $15/hr. Once again, all raising minimum wage will do is raise prices on goods thereby making the raise worthless and people who don't get an equivalent raise are now making less.

Most (remember most not all) low paid workers are low paid because they don't have the skills/drive/intelligence to do more and don't see the big picture. They'll be the first ones complaining when the local store jacks prices up after they are forced to pay their employees more and start demanding another wage increase.

According to this little website I found (http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/InflationCalculator.asp), the inflation rate since 1997 (the latest minimum wage increase) is around 20%.

Sure there was no big hike one year, but you minimum wage job lets you buy only 80% of what you could afford then. It's high time the congress raises the wage, if only to keep the same basic level of living that has been steadily declining since 1997.

Inversely, small business owners are able to afford to employ 20% more entry-level workers than they could eight years ago. Raising the minimum wage would only make entering the job market more difficult for young and part-time workers.

Average wages have done nothing but increase in that same period. Raising the minimum wage would only result in fewer job for minimum wage employees, higher job expectations and higher costs for consumers. The money hast to come from somewhere.

Inversely, small business owners are able to afford to employ 20% more entry-level workers than they could eight years ago. Raising the minimum wage would only make entering the ob market more difficult for young and part-time workers.

Average wages have done nothing but increase in that same period. Raising the minimum wage would only result in fewer job for minimum wage employees, higher job expectations and higher costs for consumers. The money hast to come from somewhere.
Ooh ooh, lets all work for pennies and do away with the minimum wage, the no one can buy a pack of gum on a week's wages. Not to mention, I don't see anything to back up your assertion

Ooh ooh, lets all work for pennies and do away with the minimum wage, the no one can buy a pack of gum on a week's wages. Not to mention, I don't see anything to back up your assertion
Back it up - how about ummm. maybe math?

Working for pennies a day would require (and/or result) in something called 'deflation' which is a very bad thing for the economy.

Care to share more of your economic ignorance?

A problem with minimum wage jobs in this country is that people are increasingly forced to take these jobs as the means of their full-time employment.

To an ever-increasing degree, these jobs are going to people who have children and are trying to sustain a household.

But anyway, assuming government was reduced and the cost difference redistributed amongst the population, it seems like the increased supply of cash floating around would also contribute to a rise in inflation.

Either way, people get more money, they're going to push up prices.
So then it seems as though the inflation argument is moot.

Also, assuming minimum wage was kept the same, lowered, or outright abolished, there is absolutely no guarantee that the price of goods would fall in-line with that. Indeed, past precident backing me up, the price of a carton of milk or other basic necessities has risen significantly, while the wage has stayed more or less the same.

Now, what's the point of keeping wages low if the companies are going to keep raising prices anyway?

Why not put minimum wage on par with inflation and real cost of living? Arguably, it would only be logical if that were the case, and if it ends up hurting the economy, I would consider it the consequences - pardon my bluntness - of boardroom greed coming home to roost.

A problem with minimum wage jobs in this country is that people are increasingly forced to take these jobs as the means of their full-time employment.

To an ever-increasing degree, these jobs are going to people who have children and are trying to sustain a household.

But anyway, assuming government was reduced and the cost difference redistributed amongst the population, it seems like the increased supply of cash floating around would also contribute to a rise in inflation.

Either way, people get more money, they're going to push up prices.
So then it seems as though the inflation argument is moot.

Also, assuming minimum wage was kept the same, lowered, or outright abolished, there is absolutely no guarantee that the price of goods would fall in-line with that. Indeed, past precident backing me up, the price of a carton of milk or other basic necessities has risen significantly, while the wage has stayed more or less the same.

Now, what's the point of keeping wages low if the companies are going to keep raising prices anyway?

Why not put minimum wage on par with inflation and real cost of living? Arguably, it would only be logical if that were the case, and if it ends up hurting the economy, I would consider it the consequences - pardon my bluntness - of boardroom greed coming home to roost.

You argument sound compelling and if it contained anything resembling fact it would by poignant. However it does not. Real wages (in the US) have been increasing steadily year over year. This would not be the case if your hypothesis were true.

Next time you try writing fiction maybe you should include some spaceships and aliens. It'd be a better and more interesting read.

If your system creates more jobs, generates more wealth, then why are your poverty rates higher?

Because Sweden has better unemployment benefits. (?)

Back it up - how about ummm. maybe math?

Working for pennies a day would require (and/or result) in something called 'deflation' which is a very bad thing for the economy.

Care to share more of your economic ignorance?
Wrong, wrong wrong, if we are using MATH, I have already explained how increasing the minimum wage is good. Your statement has no actual mathematical basis. Your just making a basic well this therefore this, and that is a fallacy.

Why don't you cut all the elitist bullshit since you obviously have no more idea what you are babblnig about than anyone else.

I think this refutes capitalism quite nicely. You have to choose between high unemployment or terrible wages. Unemployment is stupid. If capitalism is so efficient, then why does it purposely keep so many from working?

Phillips Curve. (?)

Macroeconomics rock. :D

Because Sweden has better unemployment benefits. (?)
Sweden is an anomoly. It's economy seems quite good foro a European one. However, most countries in the area offer comparable benefits, or as in the case of Germany, just finished reforming . Unemployment seems to be between 8-10%, and according to prominent businessman Erique DuGulle, is the number 1 social issue in France at the moment.

Sweden is an anomoly. It's economy seems quite good foro a European one. However, most countries in the area offer comparable benefits, or as in the case of Germany, just finished reforming . Unemployment seems to be between 8-10%, and according to prominent businessman Erique DuGulle, is the number 1 social issue in France at the moment.
Sweden is having problems with their social programs not dissimilar to the US is with social security and medicare. They will not be able to affor it for long... They owe much of their economic success to exports to America. As the American economy goes so goes theirs...

I think this refutes capitalism quite nicely. You have to choose between high unemployment or terrible wages. Unemployment is stupid. If capitalism is so efficient, then why does it purposely keep so many from working?
As opposed to communism where you get high unemployment and terrible wages with no choice at all! :cool:

As opposed to communism where you get high unemployment and terrible wages with no choice at all! :cool:
Minister of Misinformation I presume?

Wrong, wrong wrong, if we are using MATH, I have already explained how increasing the minimum wage is good. Your statement has no actual mathematical basis. Your just making a basic well this therefore this, and that is a fallacy.

Why don't you cut all the elitist bullshit since you obviously have no more idea what you are babblnig about than anyone else.

No, you suggested a controlled economy with price, wage, consumption and production strictly regulated. You may have read about economics once, but the only degree you could earn would cost $5 and is mailed from Paraguay.

There is nothing 'elite' about anything I've said. I'm not the one who suggested anyone here 'has no more idea what they are babbling about than anyone else'. THAT would be elitist.

No, you suggesteed a controlled economy with price, wage, consumption and production strictly regulated. You may have read about economics once, but the only degree you could earn would cost $5 and is mailed from Paraguay.

There is nothing 'elite' about anything I've said. I'm not the one who suggested anyone here 'has no more idea what they are babbling about than anyone else'. THAT would be elitist.
1) You continue to put down any one who says things that you don't agree with and never provide a basis for doing so or statistics to back up your assertions of fact. That is elitist - you assert you are right while everyone disagreeing is wrong while never backing up anything you say. And your statement in the first paragraph proves that point

2) I don't know what you are referring to but I said this: If you up minimum wage people will be able to buy more stuff, if people buy more stuff, over all profits will increase, and with more people buying stuff there will be more of a need for service, so more jobs. That is what I said.

You argument sound compelling and if it contained anything resembling fact it would by poignant. However it does not. Real wages (in the US) have been increasing steadily year over year. This would not be the case if your hypothesis were true.

Next time you try writing fiction maybe you should include some spaceships and aliens. It'd be a better and more interesting read.

Your rebuttal is likewise compelling and if it contained anything resembling civility it would be poignant.

Fact
Productivity has climbed over 74 per cent between 1968, but wages have dropped 3 per cent, adjusted for inflation.
Fact
Retail profits have climbed 158 per cent since 1968. The minimum wage would be about $20 had the wage kept pace with with retail profits.
Fact
If average minimum wages in the United States kept pace with the rate of inflation, then it would be closer to $14 or $15 per hour.

1) You continue to put down any one who says things that you don't agree with and never provide a basis for doing so or statistics to back up your assertions of fact. That is elitist - you assert you are right while everyone disagreeing is wrong while never backing up anything you say. And your statement in the first paragraph proves that point.

Being correct has nothing to do with being elite. Making light of a incorrect statement is not elitist, though some would confuse flippant with rude. Not providing numbers or statistics would be sloppy, but not elitist. Lucky for you because you have been sloppy.

If you really want me to do the math for you I will. Please follow along with a calculator. If the minimum wage is 80% lower today and MW is increased for inflation then a small business owner has to increase their pay 20%. They have only two options - raise prices or fire workers. If they must cut into profits (which for a small business run my MW workers are seldom large) then they may end up in the red or worse.

Meanwhile, their higher skilled and higher paid employees will require a larger pay to offset both the higher cost of good and to reflect the greater value of their work.

Minimum wage SHOULD be kept low because it discourages people from spending their life pursuing unskilled limited productivity marginal jobs. Meanwhile the marketplace has done a fair job at growing real wage income for a very long time. I could back it, but I have to leave now and go contribute to capitalism (shopping) and until my home is restored I am on dial-up. No time. Maybe you have the time to find something to refute that. Or not considering you'd be looking for something that does not exist.



2) I don't know what you are referring to but I said this: If you up minimum wage people will be able to buy more stuff, if people buy more stuff, over all profits will increase, and with more people buying stuff there will be more of a need for service, so more jobs. That is what I said.
In an earlier post you suggested (or at least impluied) price controls in conunction with a MW increase. What you describe now is close to the model Henry Ford championed. It was effective then, but meaningless when applied to the minimum wage. You make two incorrect assumptions that most workers work for minimum wage and that raising it would result in a commensurate increase for higher paid workers.

Minimum wage SHOULD be kept low because it discourages people from spending their life pursuing unskilled limited productivity marginal jobs. Meanwhile the marketplace has done a fair job at growing real wage income for a very long time. I could back it, but I have to leave now and go contribute to capitalism (shopping) and until my home is restored I am on dial-up. No time. Maybe you have the time to find something to refute that. Or not considering you'd be looking for something that does not exist.

No one, pretty much, is suggesting that the MW be raised to match inflation blow for blow, we are suggesting it be raised to it isn't a worthless piece of shit.


In an earlier post you suggested (or at least impluied) price controls in conunction with a MW increase. What you describe now is close to the model Henry Ford championed. It was effective then, but meaningless when applied to the minimum wage. You make two incorrect assumptions that most workers work for minimum wage and that raising it would result in a commensurate increase for higher paid workers.
No, the statement I made is the exact one I made earlier.
1) I make no assumption, I make a simple statement. If the minimum wage is increased, people on minimum wage will be able to buy more stuff. But, you are asserting something stupid and hyppocritical in light of what you are saying to me: increasing minimum wage will screw up the economy or at least small businesses, you ASSUME there are enough people on minimum wage to make an impact but are chastising me because I am supposedly making the same assumption. If you are good at mathematics, you must have sacrificed simple logic to get that good.
2) I don't make that assumption, YOU people have been making that assumption.

bump

Your rebuttal is likewise compelling and if it contained anything resembling civility it would be poignant.

Fact
Productivity has climbed over 74 per cent between 1968, but wages have dropped 3 per cent, adjusted for inflation.
Fact
Retail profits have climbed 158 per cent since 1968. The minimum wage would be about $20 had the wage kept pace with with retail profits.
Fact
If average minimum wages in the United States kept pace with the rate of inflation, then it would be closer to $14 or $15 per hour.

Fact
90% of Accountants have giant warts on their butts
Fact
Australian beer tastes better than Canadian beer
Fact
Wooly marmots have more dark meat than chickens.

Hey, you're right! Making up facts is FUN!

Yeah, I love slave labour too!

Hey, want to earn $1 for a 12 hour day in my factory? Come on, it's a job, right? I can pay lots of people $1 a day. So what if they can't live off those wages.


I wonder how many jobs are really down to the minimum wage level. I suppose the government made Mcdonalds pay their worker 11 dollars an hour in the bay area...or perhaps it's the market.

*baaa*

bump

I wonder how many jobs are really down to the minimum wage level. I suppose the government made Mcdonalds pay their worker 11 dollars an hour in the bay area...or perhaps it's the market.

*baaa*
1.7% of ALL salary jobs are minimum wage or LOWER (3.3% of all hourly wage jobs) (3x+ as many lower, though thsoe are probably restuarant jobs which get tips)

-cite-
some government website, use google

There will still be a ripple effect throughout the labor market. Those earning less than $15 will probably demand a raise of some form, and some businesses can't afford that. Something's gotta give.

There will still be a ripple effect throughout the labor market. Those earning less than $15 will probably demand a raise of some form, and some businesses can't afford that. Something's gotta give.

I know in San Diego (where I live) and in So. Cali in general prices are going up because more and more people want to live here. This is especially true of San Diego, where you see this steep boom in prices over the past three years. Jobs have to compensate for rises like that.

I know in San Diego (where I live) and in So. Cali in general prices are going up because more and more people want to live here. This is especially true of San Diego, where you see this steep boom in prices over the past three years. Jobs have to compensate for rises like that.
Of course they will. But they will do so naturally, or else no one will move to San Diego anymore. Government interference would be great in your case, but not in a dying labor market's, like Detroit. Besides, San Diego won't always be a boom town.

Of course they will. But they will do so naturally, or else no one will move to San Diego anymore. Government interference would be great in your case, but not in a dying labor market's, like Detroit. Besides, San Diego won't always be a boom town.

So you're saying it should be based on a state-by-state scenario? Or even a city-by-city scenario? That seems to make sense.

I think thats the case about big urban cities. The Cost of living would definitely be very much higher.

Plus, Job wages are rigid most of the time. It's either you get a better job, or move to somewhere quieter.

So you're saying it should be based on a state-by-state scenario? Or even a city-by-city scenario? That seems to make sense.
That can happen, but there is one problem: when times get bad, no one will want to lower the minimum wage to make the labor market flexible. Santa Monica made that mistake by raising its minimum wage to over $10/hour. While the rest of LA is booming, it is suffering. That's why I feel that market forces can set it.

There is a shortage of jobs in the US, whether real or imaginary. Congress, it seems, wants to add to it.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050308006121&newsLang=en
As always, the Democrats propose a far higher minimum wage. The Republicans are a bit softer, but they seem in agreement to raise it. This will only serve to create less and less jobs in the US, both now and when the economy truely goes sour. Besides, between now and the last wage hike (1997), there was no significant inflation to justify increasing wages. Congress should just leave the minimum wage alone if it wishes to help create more jobs.
Oh do behave! At $6.00 an hour we are talking $240.00 per week vs. $210.00. A whopping $30.00 increase. What does $30.00 net out to, about $20.00? In the period from 1997 through 2004 the CPI increased at a rate of about 3% P.A. If you take $5.25 and increase it accordingly the 2004 break even point would be $6.46. The $6.00 rate is a mere 14.29% against the over 23% in costs of goods.

The working stiff in America is losing ground.

I know in San Diego (where I live) and in So. Cali in general prices are going up because more and more people want to live here. This is especially true of San Diego, where you see this steep boom in prices over the past three years. Jobs have to compensate for rises like that.

Jobs do not have to compensate for a rise in the real estate, or any other, market. People want to live there, so prices will go up. Artificially raising the wages will simply serve to further inflate the prices.

Oh do behave! At $6.00 an hour we are talking $240.00 per week vs. $210.00. A whopping $30.00 increase. What does $30.00 net out to, about $20.00? In the period from 1997 through 2004 the CPI increased at a rate of about 3% P.A. If you take $5.25 and increase it accordingly the 2004 break even point would be $6.46. The $6.00 rate is a mere 14.29% against the over 23% in costs of goods.

The working stiff in America is losing ground.

The "working" stiff in America doesn't earn minimum wage. Not when grocery store clerks were striking to keep their $15-$25 dollar an hour union wages and their 100% paid for by the company healthcare benefits.

The "working" stiff in America doesn't earn minimum wage. Not when grocery store clerks were striking to keep their $15-$25 dollar an hour union wages and their 100% paid for by the company healthcare benefits.


That's not true everywhere though... here in our area we have less than 1% unemployment, but grocery store clerks still get paid $7.00 an hour or less.

But a lot of other jobs get higher than usual pay and benefits.

Whether it's been said before or not, take a friend of mine who works at Toys R Us. The last time minimum wage was raised, the store simply fired a few of their employees to cover the raises of those they kept around, then forced those employees left to cover the loss of the other employees, so what raising minimum wages really means is that you get paid more money but have to do more work because the companies are no longer willing to keep as many people employed.

Just because you have to give your employees more money doesn't mean you're able to increase your budget for payroll, you just cut enough employees that you can give everyone a raise without having to increase the payroll budget.

Whether it's been said before or not, take a friend of mine who works at Toys R Us. The last time minimum wage was raised, the store simply fired a few of their employees to cover the raises of those they kept around, then forced those employees left to cover the loss of the other employees, so what raising minimum wages really means is that you get paid more money but have to do more work because the companies are no longer willing to keep as many people employed.

Just because you have to give your employees more money doesn't mean you're able to increase your budget for payroll, you just cut enough employees that you can give everyone a raise without having to increase the payroll budget.
Toys R Us is overpriced bullshit anyway. It has half the stuff of target and Walmart at twice the prices

Toys R Us is overpriced bullshit anyway. It has half the stuff of target and Walmart at twice the prices
and your point is.....

and your point is.....
I don't have one, what is yours?

Toys R Us is overpriced bullshit anyway. It has half the stuff of target and Walmart at twice the prices
Take that as a warning. Toys R US employs a lot of people, and it may be in a financial tight spot. The federal government can't afford to kill it.

if you can't do math, that's not my problem, I suggest you see some one about it.

It isn't just math. It is economics. I'd suggest you take some economics courses. You will get a much better understanding of all economies, not just capitalism.

.. it $1 an hour... then force ALL people who

One of my first jobs in a drug store started me at 90 cents an hour. Of course that was 1958 or 1959. I worked up to $1.00 or $1.10 an hour then took a drastic pay cut in 1961 when I joined the military and got paid $89.00 a month.

It isn't just math. It is economics. I'd suggest you take some economics courses. You will get a much better understanding of all economies, not just capitalism.
We are on the 10th page, not the like 4th, catch up

We are on the 10th page, not the like 4th, catch up
Could you clean up your grammar for me, please?

Could you clean up your grammar for me, please?
Why? I wasn't under the impression I made that statement for anyone other than the person I was replying to to read

Why? I wasn't under the impression I made that statement for anyone other than the person I was replying to to read
Well, this is an open forum, and all posts are subject to critique by anyone.

Well, this is an open forum, and all posts are subject to critique by anyone.
Not when the statement is completely irrelevant to any sort of scrutiny and useless to critique since it is a direct reply and not a topical statement

Would you like to critique some one saying "hi, how are you?" No, never mind, I suppose YOU would

Not when the statement is completely irrelevant to any sort of scrutiny and useless to critique since it is a direct reply and not a topical statement
Except, of course, in grammar. You do know what that is, right?

The mimumum wage in the UK is the equivalent of about $9.50 per hour (less for under-21s). We have a very healthy economy and a lower unemployment rate than the US.

That is not to say that hiking the rate makes no difference to businesses and the economy, only that when such a rate is introduced gradually it is perfectly possible for unemployment to stay low. Of course, the higher it is taken the more effect it will have, but I would suggest that raising the minimum wage to $6 an hour will not produce a significant rise in unemployment. If unemployment rises slightly in a healthy economy, as might happen in the US to a small degree, then any job losses tend to get reabsorbed relatively swiftly.

I would support a $6 minimum wage, personally. It's a pittance in any case. You could barely live off that in this country.

Except, of course, in grammar. You do know what that is, right?
Hey, why don't you grow up or at least go troll under a bridge

Maybe they just figure that teens spend more money than Adults.

If the teens had more money, they would spend it.

That's not true everywhere though... here in our area we have less than 1% unemployment, but grocery store clerks still get paid $7.00 an hour or less.

But a lot of other jobs get higher than usual pay and benefits.

You will most likely find the cost of living in Vermont is considerably less than in California, so $7.00 per hour there will probably buy as much as $15.00 in California.

Toys R Us is overpriced bullshit anyway. It has half the stuff of target and Walmart at twice the prices

Then don't shop there. :D

We are on the 10th page, not the like 4th, catch up

Ok, I caught up. I suggest you take an economics course.

That can happen, but there is one problem: when times get bad, no one will want to lower the minimum wage to make the labor market flexible. Santa Monica made that mistake by raising its minimum wage to over $10/hour. While the rest of LA is booming, it is suffering. That's why I feel that market forces can set it.
Any more than they will lower prices. When was the last time you saw residential rent or the price of bread reduced?

The "working" stiff in America doesn't earn minimum wage. Not when grocery store clerks were striking to keep their $15-$25 dollar an hour union wages and their 100% paid for by the company healthcare benefits.
The comment was a response to MM's comments on the minimium wage. If you wish to introduce a different aspect, please do so without appropriating a conversation.

As for the grocery store clerks, which clerks in what market? Are we talking Billings, Montana or New York City? In NYC an annual wage of $30,000 is no great shakes for a family of 4. A simple 2 bedroom apartment in the less desireable outlying areas runs about $14,400, electricity about $1,000, groceries about $5,200 - that pretty much seals them into a cycle of struggling to make ends meet. Manager's may make the higher amount, but the stocking clerks and checkers do not.

Ok, I caught up. I suggest you take an economics course.
I submit that I don't care any more, as long as B0zzy has stopped

I submit that I don't care any more, as long as B0zzy has stopped
Ooooh, then I gotta start. What was it I was doing so I can do it some more? Last I recall I was simply holding up a mirror so you could see what an elitist snob you are being. Calling you on your BS was also fun.

You can dish it out but you just can't take it.

Ooooh, then I gotta start. What was it I was doing so I can do it some more? Last I recall I was simply holding up a mirror so you could see what an elitist snob you are being. Calling you on your BS was also fun.

You can dish it out but you just can't take it.
You mean by showing me your equally shoddy math and reasoning?

Any more than they will lower prices. When was the last time you saw residential rent or the price of bread reduced?
I often see it reduced. This year, it is not because of inflation, but normally, it goes down.

You mean by showing me your equally shoddy math and reasoning?
Your first step toward humility - it must be exhilarating!

I often see it reduced. This year, it is not because of inflation, but normally, it goes down.
come again?

Do not worry your US$ is worth 30% less than last year. Even if congress was to up the minimum wage by 10%, it would still cost a foriegner 23% less to buy an American's labour than last year.

As long as the US$ continues it's downwards spiral America becomes a cheaper and cheaper place to buy labour.

Your first step toward humility - it must be exhilarating!
Eat any good goat lately?

Eat any good goat lately?
:p :p :p

come again?
Prices for basic necessities, like food and clothing.

The comment was a response to MM's comments on the minimium wage. If you wish to introduce a different aspect, please do so without appropriating a conversation.

You attempted to make the connection between the minimum wage and the "working stiff" who is getting screwed by not changing it. The working stiff does not earn minimum wage. And is not "getting screwed" when the minimum wage doesn't change.

As for the grocery store clerks, which clerks in what market? Are we talking Billings, Montana or New York City? In NYC an annual wage of $30,000 is no great shakes for a family of 4. A simple 2 bedroom apartment in the less desireable outlying areas runs about $14,400, electricity about $1,000, groceries about $5,200 - that pretty much seals them into a cycle of struggling to make ends meet. Manager's may make the higher amount, but the stocking clerks and checkers do not.

California and the associated union that encompasses Safeway, Ralphs and Albertsons. The wages were being paid to the shelf stockers, clerks, meat, pastry, fish, bread etc... ie all the "working stiffs." The managers are not part of the union IIRC.

BTW: for your example of “an annual wage of 30,000” includes only one adult working. Both adults work the same job they have an income of 60,000 dollars and can apparently afford the costs without much trouble.

I often see it reduced. This year, it is not because of inflation, but normally, it goes down.
You sure don't live in NYC. Here the prices are a one way street - all upward, never downward.

You attempted to make the connection between the minimum wage and the "working stiff" who is getting screwed by not changing it. The working stiff does not earn minimum wage. And is not "getting screwed" when the minimum wage doesn't change.



California and the associated union that encompasses Safeway, Ralphs and Albertsons. The wages were being paid to the shelf stockers, clerks, meat, pastry, fish, bread etc... ie all the "working stiffs." The managers are not part of the union IIRC.

BTW: for your example of “an annual wage of 30,000” includes only one adult working. Both adults work the same job they have an income of 60,000 dollars and can apparently afford the costs without much trouble.

In the real world a family with school age or younger children either one spouse doesn't work or doesn't work fulltime. If they do both work then there are childcare expenses which are substantial enough to make the second salary more a tax burden than an expense relief. At that point, the underground economy has it's attractions.

In the real world a family with school age or younger children either one spouse doesn't work or doesn't work fulltime. If they do both work then there are childcare expenses which are substantial enough to make the second salary more a tax burden than an expense relief. At that point, the underground economy has it's attractions.

So they work part time and make 45,000 a year. Still more than adequate.

So they work part time and make 45,000 a year. Still more than adequate.
Then you do support the wage increase to these levels?

Then you do support the wage increase to these levels?

What does what I said have anything to do with wage increases? If the family already makes 30k and can't support itself, have the other person work part time.

A wage increase would do nothing but create inflation causing the new salary to not be adequate. After all if minimum wage goes up, the price of the housing people on minimum wage buy goes up because now everyone can actually pay more and they will bid up the price. Electric companies will need to charge more because they have to pay some people more money. Grocery stores will raise prices because now the high-school kid cleaning the floor has to get paid more money. Etc…

What does what I said have anything to do with wage increases? If the family already makes 30k and can't support itself, have the other person work part time.

A wage increase would do nothing but create inflation causing the new salary to not be adequate. After all if minimum wage goes up, the price of the housing people on minimum wage buy goes up because now everyone can actually pay more and they will bid up the price. Electric companies will need to charge more because they have to pay some people more money. Grocery stores will raise prices because now the high-school kid cleaning the floor has to get paid more money. Etc…
Now what were you saying about price increases?

http://wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/ceos-m08.shtml

CEO bonuses in the US rose a whopping 46.4 percent in 2004, according to a survey of 100 major corporations performed by Mercer Human Resource Consulting. The median CEO bonus stood at $1.14 million, the highest level in at least five years in both absolute terms and percentage gain.

Not too shabby?

Yeah, I guess if you increase the minimum wage a bit, it just might make a dent in those "capitalistic" bottom line CEO's wage package?

Now what were you saying about price increases?

http://wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/ceos-m08.shtml

CEO bonuses in the US rose a whopping 46.4 percent in 2004, according to a survey of 100 major corporations performed by Mercer Human Resource Consulting. The median CEO bonus stood at $1.14 million, the highest level in at least five years in both absolute terms and percentage gain.

Not too shabby?

Yeah, I guess if you increase the minimum wage a bit, it just might make a dent in those "capitalistic" bottom line CEO's wage package?

And that has anything to do with an artificial increase via minimum wage as opposed to an increase that companies deemed possible, and mainly issue via stock that has very strict rules attracted about when you can sell and how much you get?

Never mind that the actual cumulative affect of a 46% increase in CEO’s earnings would pale in comparison to the cumulative affect of the kind of minimum wage increases being proposed in this thread?

And that has anything to do with an artificial increase via minimum wage as opposed to an increase that companies deemed possible, and mainly issue via stock that has very strict rules attracted about when you can sell and how much you get?

Never mind that the actual cumulative affect of a 46% increase in CEO’s earnings would pale in comparison to the cumulative affect of the kind of minimum wage increases being proposed in this thread?
So the capitalist society requires a certain amount of perpetually low paid jobs in order to generate big profits to companies, which in turn pass on these windfalls to the CEOs and bean counters?

So the capitalist society requires a certain amount of perpetually low paid jobs in order to generate big profits to companies, which in turn pass on these windfalls to the CEOs and bean counters?

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, and is a conclusion that can not be drawn from what I said.

Nice try though.

The comment was a response to MM's comments on the minimium wage. If you wish to introduce a different aspect, please do so without appropriating a conversation.

As for the grocery store clerks, which clerks in what market? Are we talking Billings, Montana or New York City? In NYC an annual wage of $30,000 is no great shakes for a family of 4. A simple 2 bedroom apartment in the less desireable outlying areas runs about $14,400, electricity about $1,000, groceries about $5,200 - that pretty much seals them into a cycle of struggling to make ends meet. Manager's may make the higher amount, but the stocking clerks and checkers do not.
And therein lies the problem. A grocery store clerk doesn't deserve to support a family of four on his job; his labor isn't worth that. Minimum wage is not a living wage.