NationStates Jolt Archive

Well this didn't take to long for the discussion to get in gear for another hike. So would like to hear the pro's and con's of this possible proposal. Good idea or bad idea?

http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/27/news/economy/minimum_wage/index.htm?postversion=2007072715

Eh. In states where the cost of living is through the roof, it makes enough sense. In other parts, it's excessive. It will mean higher prices all over the place.

Which means you'd have to raise minimume wage again. :rolleyes:

Sounds like a fucking fantastic idea to my $6.25 making ass. An extra $3.25 in my pocket would be great.

Sounds reasonable. The minimum wage is far too low in the US.

About time they lifted minimum wage...

I think if you have a minimum wage so people don't earn too little, you should have a maximum wage cap to ensure people don't earn too much, those on lower incomes should also get a universal basic wage to subsidize their regular wage.

I think if you have a minimum wage so people don't earn too little, you should have a maximum wage cap to ensure people don't earn too much, those on lower incomes should also get a universal basic wage to subsidize their regular wage.

Being as I don't actually have a wage, that would amuse me. So I am all for it.

We should make the minimum wage $100 per hour. Then everybody would be rich, right? :rolleyes:

If minimum wage were to rise, wouldn't that cause the cost of living to rise as well? People with crummy jobs would be in the same shithole they started in even with a pay raise.

Am I uneducated, or just stupid? *braces for impact*

We should make the minimum wage $100 per hour. Then everybody would be rich, right? :rolleyes:

Linky (http://www.bernankepanky.com/blog/2007/07/19/bp-20-house-financial-services-committee-20070718/)

If minimum wage were to rise, wouldn't that cause the cost of living to rise as well? People with crummy jobs would be in the same shithole they started in even with a pay raise.

Am I uneducated, or just stupid? *braces for impact*

Yeah, prices for almost everything would rise. However, so long as you don't spend any money, you'd do better than beforehand as a minimum-wage earner. :p

Really though, the minimum wage won't be that high for 20 years, barring some crazy inflation.

Yeah, prices for almost everything would rise. However, so long as you don't spend any money, you'd do better than beforehand as a minimum-wage earner. :p

Really though, the minimum wage won't be that high for 20 years, barring some crazy inflation.

Phew, I'm not an idiot.


Where well I live the only thing that costs an arm and a leg is gas. With a pay raise that would help bunches! Though what I said still applies so I will still have to sacrifice electricity in favor of gas! :D

So would like to hear the pro's and con's of this possible proposal. Good idea or bad idea?
Ideologically? Bad idea.

Practically? That would depend on some smart economist doing a cost-benefit analysis. Sadly that isn't exactly going to feature in the debate.

Cynically? One of the few things the Democratic congress can do right now that will win them lots of votes and impress their base, considering their relative impotence on Iraq.

Ideologically? Bad idea.

Practically? That would depend on some smart economist doing a cost-benefit analysis. Sadly that isn't exactly going to feature in the debate.

Cynically? One of the few things the Democratic congress can do right now that will win them lots of votes and impress their base, considering their relative impotence on Iraq.

Except there was a minimum-wage hike passed through Congress only a month or so ago. They may have already gotten their mileage out of that one. :p

If it jumps again. I will be extremely happy, because I make $14.50 already and if minimum wage rises, so does my pay :D

If it jumps again. I will be extremely happy, because I make $14.50 already and if minimum wage rises, so does my pay :D

How would that work, exactly? :p

Equal Opportunity Employer

If you started out at minimum wage when it's at 6.25 an hour and you get promoted it is only fair when a new law passes to raise minimum wage to raise what we could have been making if we started out with the minimum at 9.50 an hour with the promotions we gained. When the law just past around here to raise the minimum up .50, I seen I got a .50 raise because the law passes.

Equal Opportunity Employer

If you started out at minimum wage when it's at 6.25 an hour and you get promoted it is only fair when a new law passes to raise minimum wage to raise what we could have been making if we started out with the minimum at 9.50 an hour with the promotions we gained. When the law just past around here to raise the minimum up .50, I seen I got a .50 raise because the law passes.

Hm. It's never worked like that anywhere I've worked, but that sounds good. Although I though 'equal opportunity employer' was a term meaning non-discriminatory. I know that there's no legal obligation to give you that 50 cents, at least in this country. :p

Yes a term used for being non-discriminatory. But, it would be discriminatory to not give me what I earned because a new law passed. I deserved a $8.00 raise, so it shouldn't change to a $5.00 raise because a new law passed. Especially since the company has a Union. :P

Yes a term used for being non-discriminatory. But, it would be discriminatory to not give me what I earned because a new law passed. I deserved a $8.00 raise, so it shouldn't change to a $5.00 raise because a new law passed. Especially since the company has a Union. :P

That's cool. If it's in your contract, you can probably rely on it. For a lot of people, a minimum wage hike means decreased pay, I'm sure. At least if they're non-union or have no contract.

Indeed. I used to work for a banking corporation that didn't have a union. Basically making them an oppressive market. You can do something you were told to do, and you boss says otherwise after it's done and bam. Your canned and thrown to the curb, only because they wanted to replace you for someone who will work just as hard and get paid less.

That also happened to my mother when she worked for United Parcel Service

If minimum wage were to rise, wouldn't that cause the cost of living to rise as well? People with crummy jobs would be in the same shithole they started in even with a pay raise.

Am I uneducated, or just stupid? *braces for impact*

Well, prices are sticky in the short run - it takes a while for the prices to reflect changes in supply and demand. Increasing minimum wage would lead to an increase in prices due to the increased demand because of higher income and the decreased supply because of the increased cost of manufacturing goods. However, some products would only see a small increase in price, particulalry those where the change in minimum wage would have little effect on the cost of making the goods, including imports and products which are made with relatively little labour. It would also take a couple of years for such changes to take place, because as I pointed out short run prices are sticky.

The important question is wether this increase will satisfy both the low-income worker's need for a reasonable wage without driving up the costs for businesses so much that they are forced to higher much less employees.

Pushing the minimum wage up to $9.50 an hour will push the poor unskilled worker out of the workforce, and create a uptick in upemployment rates, effect services at resturants, hurt the purchasing power of the average worker in a indirect way. The poor worker wages should be address thru by giving lowest 20% of workers exempt from payroll, local, state, federal taxes, and give income tax credits to the lowest 10%of wage earners. Soaking the small business owners raises prices, and puts poor people out of work and creates more inflation in the economy. Federal goverment should allow flexbility in helping poorest paid workers out because cost of living differences in different parts of the country. Should abolish the minimum wage mandate by the federal goverment, and based poverty on more objective critera like nutirution, healthcare, housing, lesuire and give tax assitance, or income tax credits to help out.

Well, that would bring it up to the level of the min wage here in NZ which is pretty shitty by western standards as far as I'm aware. Well, at least until the US dollar gets off its ass..

Cynically? One of the few things the Democratic congress can do right now that will win them lots of votes and impress their base, considering their relative impotence on Iraq.
You assume people arn't stupid. Unless they do something that passes, all the Democrats who don't sit around following what Congress does all the time think they are doing nothing.

Everyone who works full-time deserves to be above the poverty line. Unfortunately, you can't nail down where exactly the poverty line is -- especially since some places have much lower prices. Think $5.85/hour is too little? In Zambia a whopping 94.1% make $2/day or less.

I'm going to take the liberty to do this
:rolleyes:

Everyone who works full-time deserves to be above the poverty line. Unfortunately, you can't nail down where exactly the poverty line is -- especially since some places have much lower prices. Think $5.85/hour is too little? In Zambia a whopping 94.1% make $2/day or less.

I think if you have a minimum wage so people don't earn too little, you should have a maximum wage cap to ensure people don't earn too much, those on lower incomes should also get a universal basic wage to subsidize their regular wage.
That's fine with me for one reason.

People who earn large amounts of money don't have wages, they have SALARIES. Of course I'd expect you to be a fool who didn't realize that.

I like the idea of indexing the minimum wage to the cost of living and inflation. How can anybody object to that?

Do they even consult economists before thinking of things like this? I mean, blatant vote buying is one thing but blatant vote buying that could be a disaster is another. They seriously need to do a cost-benefit analysis and determine whether other options would be better before doing this. Hiking the wage $2.25 all of a sudden could be a serious disaster, especially in areas where living costs are lower.

I think indexing the minimum wage is a pretty good idea--I don't know whether indexing to cost of living or inflation is better, though I suspect the former--but it would keep us from having to revisit the issue so often. The reason it became such a hot-button issue in 2006 is because it hadn't been raised in something like ten years. Index it and you remove it as an issue.

Do they even consult economists before thinking of things like this? I mean, blatant vote buying is one thing but blatant vote buying that could be a disaster is another. They seriously need to do a cost-benefit analysis and determine whether other options would be better before doing this. Hiking the wage $2.25 all of a sudden could be a serious disaster, especially in areas where living costs are lower.
You're trying to ask a socialist to grasp economic principles of inflation. I think that's a bit too much.

China is only doing well because they became capitalists.

You're trying to ask a socialist to grasp economic principles of inflation. I think that's a bit too much.

China is only doing well because they became capitalists.
That of course depends on your definition of "well" and "capitalist."

And the minimum wage rate is still under the rate of inflation Captain "economist."

That of course depends on your definition of "well" and "capitalist."

And the minimum wage rate is still under the rate of inflation Captain "economist."

That may be true, but hiking it to almost $10 would be a disaster. I'm for a slight raise in minimum wage, but not the rise proposed in the OP. That would be suicide.

So much for record-low unemployment...and those investments in small business I made last year...

That may be true, but hiking it to almost $10 would be a disaster. I'm for a slight raise in minimum wage, but not the rise proposed in the OP. That would be suicide.

Yes.

Hiking the wage $2.25 all of a sudden

No one is advising doing anything of the sort.

The idea is to continue the gradual increase that was begun by the recent legislation.

You're trying to ask a socialist

What socialist?

What socialist?
I think it's fair to say that to IDF, a socialist is anyone who doesn't subscribe to unfettered laissez faire capitalism.

If they make the minimum wage $9.50 an hour, I'll be hugely pissed. I started my current job at $8 an hour, and had to work for a year to get a $1 raise. Add in the $.50/hr bonus I got after my probationary period and my hourly wage is (guess what!) $9.50 an hour. It basically means that all the work I did to earn that extra money is now meaningless.

And the Democrats wonder why no one with a brain takes them seriously.

If they make the minimum wage $9.50 an hour, I'll be hugely pissed. I started my current job at $8 an hour, and had to work for a year to get a $1 raise. Add in the $.50/hr bonus I got after my probationary period and my hourly wage is (guess what!) $9.50 an hour. It basically means that all the work I did to earn that extra money is now meaningless.

And the Democrats wonder why no one with a brain takes them seriously.

You wouldn't receive a raise to make it similar proportionally?

You wouldn't receive a raise to make it similar proportionally?

Even if I did, the raise would be a result of legislation and not of my own production (which should be the basis for a raise). Add in the fact that I'm a Teamster (and that raises for ground-level employees are an issue that will have to be taken up at the highest level of the company) and we have a headache that I really don't want to have to put up with. If they raise the wage to $9.50 and my union demands a raise as a result, a strike suddenly becomes a distinct possibility, since paying every loader/unloader/etc in the nation an extra $1 or $2 an hour will increase payroll expenditures by a grossly huge amount.

EDIT: Also, whether or not I receive the raise doesn't affect my larger point as described in my first post. I had to bust my ass loading trucks for a year to get where I am right now wage-wise, and raising the minimum wage to $9.50 would mean that I'd have gotten the raise anyway, without having to pay my proverbial dues for a year first. It seems this is a corner few people bother to think around.

If they make the minimum wage $9.50 an hour, I'll be hugely pissed. I started my current job at $8 an hour, and had to work for a year to get a $1 raise. Add in the $.50/hr bonus I got after my probationary period and my hourly wage is (guess what!) $9.50 an hour. It basically means that all the work I did to earn that extra money is now meaningless.

And the Democrats wonder why no one with a brain takes them seriously.

I think that if you're still at $9.50 an hour in 2009, you'll have a right to be pissed(but not at congress). :p

If I'm still making $9.50 in 2009, it's my own damn fault.

If they make the minimum wage $9.50 an hour, I'll be hugely pissed. I started my current job at $8 an hour, and had to work for a year to get a $1 raise. Add in the $.50/hr bonus I got after my probationary period and my hourly wage is (guess what!) $9.50 an hour. It basically means that all the work I did to earn that extra money is now meaningless.

And the Democrats wonder why no one with a brain takes them seriously.

Enough people take them seriously that they're in charge in both houses of Congress, lead in all the polls for the 2008 presidential race, and hold more governorships in the 50 states. Of course, with a winning attitude like yours, I'm sure the Libertarians/Objectivists/whatever-the-fucks will be poised to rout them all at the polls next time around, since the rest of us have no brains in our heads.

Enough people take them seriously that they're in charge in both houses of Congress, lead in all the polls for the 2008 presidential race, and hold more governorships in the 50 states. Of course, with a winning attitude like yours, I'm sure the Libertarians/Objectivists/whatever-the-fucks will be poised to rout them all at the polls next time around, since the rest of us have no brains in our heads.

Ah, the old "Popularity = Right" argument. Gets more amusing every time I read it. Nazz, voters in America rarely vote for candidates, they vote against them. The Democrats did not win Congress on the strength of their platform, end of story. If their platform really was so solid, they'd have easily won in '04; Kerry's lack of charisma nonwhistanding (Bush doesn't have much either). They won Congress because American citizens are fed up with GOP bullshit, and for good reason.

Swing and a miss.

A minimum wage ought to be a living wage. If they make the minimum wage $9.50 an hour, I'll be hugely pissed. I started my current job at $8 an hour, and had to work for a year to get a $1 raise. Add in the $.50/hr bonus I got after my probationary period and my hourly wage is (guess what!) $9.50 an hour. It basically means that all the work I did to earn that extra money is now meaningless.
I have nothing but the highest respect for your work ethic and I do not mean to degrade it's value when I say this, but your hard work was not much of a factor as far as your wages are concerned. A boss will pay you as little as he thinks that he can get away with. Your boss gave you what he thought was the lowest possible raise that you would consider a fair compensation for your hard work. My starting wage was $10/hr because my boss did not feel that many competent workers would take the job for less. This is the easiest and most laid back job you can imagine outside of getting paid to sit around at home eating Cheeto's. I know folks working for 5.15 who work harder then anyone I know and they haven't gotten a raise in years. Their bosses feel that they can get away with it and that's that.

Here's another happy little fact: a higher minimum wage has been shown to create higher wages for those within a few dollars of the new minimum. A higher minimum wage is in fact likely to reward you even more for your hard work while mandating a fair wage for other hard workers who happen to work in industries where their employers could have otherwise gotten away with paying them less. Workers who make minimum wage are generally not lazy layabouts who are worthy of your contempt and at 9.50 an hour, you have more economic interests in common with them then you do with your boss.

Your hard work was meaningless as far as your wages are concerned anyway.
Uh.. sorry, but (at least in my case) that's patently bullshit. UPS awards all loaders/unloaders a $1 raise after a year because the job is such a pain in the ass. Add in vacations and benefits and we are actually compensated fairly well.

A boss will pay you as little as he thinks that he can get away with. Your boss gave you what he thought was the lowest possible raise that you would consider a fair compensation for your hard work
Well, duh. I wouldn't expect any less and no one with two neurons to rub together for warmth should either. It's kind of like how we will pay as little for a product or service as we can get away with. It's the nature of finance.

A higher minimum wage has been shown to create higher wages for those within a few dollars of the new minimum. A higher minimum wage is in fact likely to reward you even more for your hard work while mandating a fair wage for other hard workers who happen to work in industries where their employers could have otherwise gotten away with paying them less.

Lets pretend a skilled laborer makes $10 an hour and generates $25 an hour in wealth for his boss; maybe he turns customers over faster or something. His boss should like him right? He's getting more revenue out of his employee than he's paying for, which is kind of the point. If a business stops making money on a certain position or a certain person, he usually gets the boot. Now let's say another [unskilled] worker--maybe even at the same place--makes $5 an hour and creates $20 an hour in wealth. The first guy is still more productive, but the employer should notice equal hourly profit margins from both employees and will likely retain them both.

If you raise the latter's wage to $9 per hour, you're cutting into his hourly profit. Usually wage increases won't make people work any harder than they have already . Most people work according to their physical capabilities or their work ethic, neither of which is very commonly influenced by how much he happens to get per hour. [i]Wage increases are used by employers to retain individually productive employees, not as a motivating factor [and sometimes they're used to protect the employer from rehiring costs if the employee becomes technically indespensible]. Minimum wage increases protect skilled labor from competition by their unskilled counterparts.

I know my employer has embraced a moratorium on hiring new student employees, because of fiscal strain. I'd hate to see what would happen to my job with an increase of this caliber.

One of the many problems with a minimum wage hike is evidenced (although not explicit) in many of the comments so far... that is, people who aren't earning minimum wage also want an increase in pay. So the costs of a minimum wage hike need to be measured not just in the fact that low-wage workers are more expensive, but that many middle-wage workers will also expect or demand increased pay.

The ultimate effect of this is to increase the costs of the company, which will have to make up for the losses by reducing other cost factors... such as the number of employees hired. It makes perfect sense economically; raise the price of a product or service (in this case, employees) and the consumer (in this case, the employer) will purchase (hire) less. Alternatives to reduce cost may be lowering the wages of all non-minimum wage workers, or reducing non-wage benefits to employees.

A business that is confident of its control of the market might retain most of its employees and make up for the increased expense by increasing the cost of its product, thus externalizing the added costs onto the consumers themselves. This is one of the main reasons that the cost of living is so high in places (such as Australia) that have much higher minimum wages than the United States.

A final and even more destructive byproduct of a minimum wage hike is the decreased likelihood of businesses (both foreign and local) to employ American workers. This means greater outsourcing by domestic companies, less opportunities for domestic entrepreneurs and small businesses, and less introduction of foreign business opportunities (such as Honda, which at the moment primarily employs Americans). This factor could theoretically be balanced out by some sort of global minimum wage that prevents any international competitive advantage in employment, but even that measure would not prevent the detrimental effects I mention in the first three paragraphs.

Increasing the minimum wage increases (perhaps gradually, but still notably) unemployment rates, and consequently serves as a further drain on government welfare programs, while raising the cost of living.

That said, in the United States we've typically kept the minimum wage at around the market value of a minimum wage worker, thus avoiding the potential detrimental consequences of a minimum wage hike, but at the same time offering no real benefit to low-wage workers.

If the minimum wage were to be indexed, it shouldn't be to the cost of living, as increasing the minimum wage could increase the cost of living, which would then increase the minimum wage, which would increase the cost of living, ad infinitum. A dangerous market spiral that would end with mass unemployment, ridiculous inflation, and national economic depression.

what some of you fail to realize is that when minimun wage goes up so does the cost of everything else. when i first started working minimum wage was $3.35 an hour, it was also about the cost of a value meal at a drive-thru. gas was around $.85-.90, you could by a decent used car for $1500.-$2000. and a new truck ran about $11,000. this was about 1987. jump forward 10 years minimum was over $5.00, value meal about $4.50, gas about $1.00-1.15, a decent used car $5000-6000 and your new truck becomes about $20,000. don`t dismiss what i am saying about this, as i`ve been on the bottom of the pay scale. at my previous job i got two raises because minimum passed me up. wages don`t have to go up if costs can be forced back down.

Well in fairness, some of the cost increases are due to inflation, but I would guess (even though I haven't seen any raw figures) that costs have been rising faster than inflation. I might be way off on that, but I'm sure if I am someone will hasten to correct me. I've really only known what "inflation" was for six or seven years now, which isn't a very long time to observe its effects :p

If the minimum wage were to be indexed, it shouldn't be to the cost of living, as increasing the minimum wage could increase the cost of living, which would then increase the minimum wage, which would increase the cost of living, ad infinitum. A dangerous market spiral that would end with mass unemployment, ridiculous inflation, and national economic depression.I can see how this would make sense to you if you you somehow neglected to take into the account the RATIO of minimum wage increase to cost of living increase:rolleyes:UPS awards all loaders/unloaders a $1 raise after a year because the job is such a pain in the ass.Is this a union job?Well, duh. I wouldn't expect any less and no one with two neurons to rub together for warmth should either. It's kind of like how we will pay as little for a product or service as we can get away with. It's the nature of finance. Exactly. Thus any factor that makes that minimum higher is desirable. A work ethic is only one of many such factors. Not the most relevant one either as far as higher wages go either.Lets pretend a skilled laborer makes $10 an hour and generates $25 an hour in wealth for his boss; maybe he turns customers over faster or something. His boss should like him right? He's getting more revenue out of his employee than he's paying for, which is kind of the point. If a business stops making money on a certain position or a certain person, he usually gets the boot. Now let's say another [unskilled] worker--maybe even at the same place--makes $5 an hour and creates $20 an hour in wealth. The first guy is still more productive, but the employer should notice equal hourly profit margins from both employees and will likely retain them both. The amount of training and technical ability that a job takes is not necessarily directly tied to an industry's profit margin.

Ah, the old "Popularity = Right" argument. Gets more amusing every time I read it. Nazz, voters in America rarely vote for candidates, they vote against them. The Democrats did not win Congress on the strength of their platform, end of story. If their platform really was so solid, they'd have easily won in '04; Kerry's lack of charisma nonwhistanding (Bush doesn't have much either). They won Congress because American citizens are fed up with GOP bullshit, and for good reason.

Swing and a miss.

Only if you argue dishonestly, which is one of your favorite tactics, Melkor. I never said "popularity-right," because under that scenario, George W. Bush would have been the right choice for President in 2004 (though not in 2000).

Tell me--what proof do you have that the Democrats didn't win in 2006 on the strength of their platform? Anything at all? Or just your opinion that the party who stands for things you disagree with must be made up of people who, as you said, have no brains in our heads?

Maybe, just maybe, you're not as brilliant as you think you are.

I've got an idea! Let's leave the minimum wage where it is and tax everyone 10% of their income after deducting $20,000 for basic needs!?

:)

Minimum wage increases protect skilled labor from competition by their unskilled counterparts.

Which is good, isn't it? I mean for the people who actually take the effort to become skilled. I kind of like the elitist point of view I suppose. *shrugs*

The easiest way to compare cost increases caused by inflation to cost increases caused by an increased minimum wage and therefore increased costs on products and services, is to compare the exchange rates of currencies of different nations to the actual prices of products in different nations.

The American dollar is worth more than the Australian dollar, but the Australian dollar has been steadily increasing in relative strength. Despite this, the cost of living in Australia is high compared to in America--that is, you can buy more with the same amount of money (assuming currency conversion, of course) in America than in Australia. Inflation doesn't factor into it, since we're not talking about prices changing over time. Australia's minimum wage is 13.47 AUD an hour (which translates to about $11.53/hr American), compared to the United States at $5.85 (federally--certain states have higher minimum wages).

It's worth thinking about.

How much? That's pitiful - our UK minimum wage is much higher than that in real terms, and our economy has functioned very well (barring excessive credit). The US minimum wage should go up to $10 an hour - and then be pegged to the cost of living as it rises. Irrevocably pegged, as well. Otherwise real earnings will fall - at the expense of the most vulnerable in society, who already have very little healthcare and poor educational prospects.

The easiest way to compare cost increases caused by inflation to cost increases caused by an increased minimum wage and therefore increased costs on products and services, is to compare the exchange rates of currencies of different nations to the actual prices of products in different nations.

The American dollar is worth more than the Australian dollar, but the Australian dollar has been steadily increasing in relative strength. Despite this, the cost of living in Australia is high compared to in America--that is, you can buy more with the same amount of money (assuming currency conversion, of course) in America than in Australia. Inflation doesn't factor into it, since we're not talking about prices changing over time. Australia's minimum wage is 13.47 AUD an hour (which translates to about $11.53/hr American), compared to the United States at $5.85 (federally--certain states have higher minimum wages).

It's worth thinking about.1) correlation is not the same as causation
2) How much higher is Australian cost of living compared to American cost of living? Does it even come close to the 2:1 ratio of the respective minimum wages? A discussion of such things in vague terms such as 'more' and 'less' does not address the real difference between a poverty wage and a living wage.

Is this a union job?
Yes. If you had paid any attention to my earlier posts (which, exasperatingly enough, you responded to apparently without gleaning that and many other points) you'd have noticed I pointed this out already. Despite my staunchly pro-capitalist views, I actually don't have a problem with Unions, because they're basically just like any other group of people that gets together to defend their rights. I'm dubious of the practice of having "closed shops," but the priciple of Unions in general can hardly be deemed inimical to a functioning society.

Exactly. Thus any factor that makes that minimum higher is desirable. A work ethic is only one of many such factors.

I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around why you think this is a good thing. Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment and pretend that there's some kind of legislation that does to us what Minimum Wage legislation does to employers. If it's fair to force them to pay their workers more without increasing the value of the product, or its demand, then how would it not be justified to force us to pay a higher price for the goods in order to make ends meet for the employer?

I think you're missing my point: I'm saying that both employers and employees pay as little as they can possibly get away with and that it's a good thing.

The amount of training and technical ability that a job takes is not necessarily directly tied to an industry's profit margin.
I'm really at a loss on this one, I'm having a hard time devising a more in-depth response that doesn't openly deride your reasoning ability. I'll just make it as simple as possible: yes it damn well is.

Also, regardless of training and technical ability factors, a basic (and usually noticeable) difference between workers can be observed in any workplace. My point still stands and while I'm certain you understand it, you're clearly avoiding it.

Only if you argue dishonestly, which is one of your favorite tactics, Melkor. I never said "popularity-right," because under that scenario, George W. Bush would have been the right choice for President in 2004 (though not in 2000).
Spare me. The implication to that post is clearly that the Democrats are more popular because they have "better" ideas about how this country should be run, and that their popularity is a clear sign of how correct they are. I'm not letting you weasel your way out of this. Looks to me like someone is projecting "dishonest arguments" on his opponent.

Tell me--what proof do you have that the Democrats didn't win in 2006 on the strength of their platform? Anything at all? Or just your opinion that the party who stands for things you disagree with must be made up of people who, as you said, have no brains in our heads?
Um... basic logic, anyone? We have a 2 party system and Bush's approval ratings at the time were at a perilous low. Who do you think Joe Citizen would be more inclined to agree with at the time, given the relevant factors? Honestly Nazz, you're cracking me up. The prevalance of 'smear' tactics and the fact that most candidates focus on deriding their opponent more than clarifying their own platform (flipflopping, anyone?) during debates is a clear indicator that the political parties themselves are aware of this tendancy.

Maybe, just maybe, you're not as brilliant as you think you are.
I'm fairly well acquainted with my intellectual strengths and limitations. Somehow I doubt they'll be meaningfully effected by some random dude on the internet (and I suspect you would agree with me on that, at least).

Illinois just raised it's minimum wage. So far the result has been that my wife had her hours cut at her job and the temp company that my employer contracts w/ renegotiated their contract so that those employees have lost paid holidays. No compesatory wage increase for me so my labor has just been devalued.

Next will be an increase in prices.

How much? That's pitiful

You should realize that the majority of minimum wage-earners are temporary or part-time workers (generally teens and students, often living with family or working multiple jobs) rather than people with real need, such as homeowners (or even renters) or heads of family. Nobody should make a career out of taking people's orders at McDonald's.

Therefore, it works out economically that employees who don't need much money can do temporary jobs that reduce the costs of products and services nationally, providing increased benefits for people who do need money (and who have permanent jobs).

That's why we can buy two hamburgers for 99 cents in America.

You should realize that the majority of minimum wage-earners are temporary or part-time workers (generally teens and students, often living with family or working multiple jobs) rather than people with real need, such as homeowners (or even renters) or heads of family.

"* The earnings of minimum wage workers are crucial to their families' well-being. Evidence from an analysis of the 1996-97 minimum wage increase shows that the average minimum wage worker brings home more than half (54%) of his or her family's weekly earnings.

* An estimated 1,229,000 single parents with children under 18 would benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by 2009. Single parents would benefit disproportionately from an increase — single parents are 10% of workers affected by an increase, but they make up only 7% of the overall workforce. Approximately 6.4 million children under 18 would benefit as their parents’ wages were increased.

* Adults make up the largest share of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase: 79% of workers whose wages would be raised by a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by 2009 are adults (age 20 or older).

* Over half (53%) of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase work full time and another third (31%) work between 20 and 34 hours per week."

Minimum Wage: Facts at a Glance (http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts)

"* The earnings of minimum wage workers are crucial to their families' well-being. Evidence from an analysis of the 1996-97 minimum wage increase shows that the average minimum wage worker brings home more than half (54%) of his or her family's weekly earnings.

* An estimated 1,229,000 single parents with children under 18 would benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by 2009. Single parents would benefit disproportionately from an increase — single parents are 10% of workers affected by an increase, but they make up only 7% of the overall workforce. Approximately 6.4 million children under 18 would benefit as their parents’ wages were increased.

* Adults make up the largest share of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase: 79% of workers whose wages would be raised by a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by 2009 are adults (age 20 or older).

* Over half (53%) of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase work full time and another third (31%) work between 20 and 34 hours per week."

Minimum Wage: Facts at a Glance (http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts)

Just looking at those numbers, it seems to me like a very small amount of workers (using your own numbers, "1,229,000 single parents" for instance) will actually benefit from this. Since 1.2 million is a striking minority, this defeats the argument that a minimum wage increase is good for society as a whole. For all the shit the Left gives the Right about passing laws that only benefit a minority, I can't help but notice the hypocrisy of them doing the same thing.

Now, I don't really mind if $LAW is only beneficial to a minority, but the Left loves to portray itself as champions of the people, and are constantly stressing to me in various arguments that the value of legislation should be gagued by how many people it helps. Since 1.2 million single parents constitute a minority of the workforce, this is blatant doublespeak as far as I'm concerned, and it's one of the many reasons why I will never take the Left seriously.

Also, the fact that 79% of the workers who would benefit from a wage increase are adults probably has a lot to do with the fact that most people that have jobs in this country are not children.

And finally, you seem to be laboring under the impression that a wage increase is the only possible result of a minimum wage hike. It does happen, but a lot of people get laid off too. Maybe epi.org should consider that as well.

I'm going to need a better source than the Economic Policy Institute, in an article that references the the Institute itself for most of its sources. The Economic Policy Institute has a history of flawed research.

However, if those facts are correct then I apologize and withdraw my statements to the contrary. I was given to believe that a good number of minimum wage earners were in fact temporary workers, rather than "this is what I'm going to do until I retire" workers.

Although still, if roughly half of minimum-wage earners earn less than half their household income, I suppose that supports the spirit of my previous statement. A good number of minimum wage earners are not the sole source of income for their households--at least 47% earn less than half the household income, but definitely more than that have additional sources of income for their household (do you have those statistics too?).

*46%

Just looking at those numbers, it seems to me like a very small amount of workers (using your own numbers, "1,229,000 single parents" for instance) will actually benefit from this.

Indeed... I am not exactly the biggest fan of liberal reformism, but nevertheless I prefer something to nothing.

Since 1.2 million is a striking minority, this defeats the argument that a minimum wage increase is good for society as a whole.

I don't think anybody claims that the minimum wage increase will benefit everybody.

For all the shit the Left gives the Right about passing laws that only benefit a minority, I can't help but notice the hypocrisy of them doing the same thing.

Actually, the Left tends to denounce the Right for passing laws that only benefit a rich, privileged minority.

Leftists have no problem with--indeed, we have often historically been champions of--policies that benefit underprivileged minorities. Thus the Left's stance in favor of civil rights, affirmative action, same-sex marriage, aid to the desperately poor, and so on.

Our concern is not, generally, "whatever the majority thinks."

but the Left loves to portray itself as champions of the people,

The Left loves to portray itself as champions of the majority of the people against an obscenely rich exploitative minority.

The Left is much less keen to portray itself as champions of, say, the straight Christian majority against the disgusting homosexual perverts seeking to destroy traditional marriage... that is the realm of the Right.

and are constantly stressing to me in various arguments that the value of legislation should be gagued by how many people it helps.

Really?

Generally even purely utilitarian calculations take into account "intensity" as well as quantity... and that means that in the case of underprivileged minorities, a compelling case can be made for aiding them.

Since 1.2 million single parents consitute a minority of the workforce, this is blatant doublespeak as far as I'm concerned

No, it is merely your misinterpretation of the Left's position.

Also, the fact that 79% of the workers who would benefit from a wage increase are adults probably has a lot to do with the fact that most people that have jobs in this country are not children.

Undoubtedly... the point is not that the proportion of adults is disproportionately large (indeed, the opposite is probably the case), but that the common claim that the main beneficiaries of minimum wage increases are teenagers is untrue.

Edit: Maybe epi.org should consider that as well.

EPI does... indeed, it does right in the list of facts I linked to. I merely did not quote the relevant portion because it was irrelevant to the post I was replying to.

Gee-golly, I wish we could have a policy discussion thread without all the partisan name calling. It starts looking like a prick-waving dickfight after a post or two with some people.

Here's a question: if illegals will do minimum-wage jobs for less than minimum wage, how is that possible if the federal minimum is whatever it is? I know that farm workers and the like have an exemption, and the question is, why?

Also, economics rates right up with astrology for scientific legitimacy in my book precisely because of issues like this. How is it possible for any economy to continue growing? I hear economic forecasts and reports on NPR and they say that 1% growth was disappointing or whatever, and it makes me wonder how any system can keep growing, and why must it keep growing? The housing market, I'm told, is going down, but not everywhere (it's not takin' a break out West, but then, no news reports ever give anything but East Coast (read, New York)-centered figures anyway). It's a finite globe -- how can growth continue?

I see that an increase in the minimum wage has an effect on nearby wages, or so it's posted, but why? I can see it if your salary gets eclipsed by the MW, but why should everyone who isn't eclipsed get a raise? If you make $9.50, and the MW becomes $9.50, doesn't that simply mean that your job becomes a MW job? I thought the point of the MW was to make sure that nobody working full time got the shaft, economically. I think, then, that the entitlement mentality of those demanding their wages increase when the minimum does is part of the problem. You can't "level the playing field" by raising up one end and then raising everything else up, too.

Also, it seems to me that CEO salaries, and those of athletes, entertainers and the like have gotten patently ridiculous. Athletes, for example, sacrifice their bodies in their prime and deserve to be compensated for that, but I'm just not sure that hitting home runs (or scoring goals or throwing passes) is worth $250M over 10 years. And yes, I know it's all about "what the market will bear", but what about reality?

I realize most of my questions and worries come from an economically uneducated perspective, but guess what? That's the vast majority of the people who just want a job they can tolerate and enough money to not have to worry about where dinner's coming from or the next round of childhood maladies in their kids.

I don't know what the solution is, but it can't possibly involve more of the "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you" attitude that is pervasive in my country, and has been for some time. I understand that things like heavy-handed socialist policies can't work, either. We can't reprogram consumerist humanity all at once, but we either need to evolve to the point where we don't spend frivolously (iPhones, spinning rims, ridiculous shit like that) or perish as a society from the ever-widening gap between rich and poor.

[/misunderstanding-laced rant]

I see that an increase in the minimum wage has an effect on nearby wages, or so it's posted, but why? I can see it if your salary gets eclipsed by the MW, but why should everyone who isn't eclipsed get a raise? If you make $9.50, and the MW becomes $9.50, doesn't that simply mean that your job becomes a MW job?

Because your employer wants to give you an incentive not to take one of the jobs that just got a raise.

bad idea raise the minimum wage and the cost of living goes up because businesses have to bring in more money in order to make pay roll

There are a lot of ways to avoid paying the minimum wage. Any employer with an annual income below $500,000 is free to ignore the minimum wage. The federal minimum wage does not apply to workers on small farms or at seasonal amusement or recreational facilities. It does not apply to newspaper deliverers, companions for the elderly, outside salesmen, U.S. seamen on foreign-flagged ships, switchboard operators or part-time babysitters. States often have their own additional exemptions for state minimum wages.

Also, economics rates right up with astrology for scientific legitimacy in my book precisely because of issues like this.

Economics is basically just a way of looking at the world. It involves looking at the world in relation to the exchange of goods, services, and money. Economists try to learn the underlying principles of the market and figure out where it works, and to figure out how to fix it when it doesn't. For example, the Law of Supply and Demand is an established economic principle which examines the relationship between three factors: Supply, Demand, and Price. The law of supply and demand allows businessmen and politicians to predict what will happen when changes or restrictions are made to supply, demand, or price. E.G. if you put a price ceiling on a product that is below the market price (that is, the price that would be normal if all consumers could see all available options and buy the cheapest one, and all producers could see what the best price is to make both a lot of sales and a lot of money on the sales) then producers will produce less of that product than people demand, resulting in scarcity.

I see that an increase in the minimum wage has an effect on nearby wages, or so it's posted, but why? I can see it if your salary gets eclipsed by the MW, but why should everyone who isn't eclipsed get a raise? If you make $9.50, and the MW becomes $9.50, doesn't that simply mean that your job becomes a MW job?

The reason you weren't getting paid minimum wage in the first place is because you're doing more or better work than the minimum wage earners. If the minimum wage goes up such that the minimum wage earners are earning the same as you, then you are doing more or better work for the same price. This happens occasionally, but it's likely that you'd say "screw this" and just take the job that has less work involved but pays the same; but employers need people to do that kind of work, so to keep you they'd have to pay you more.

People get paid more because they're doing different jobs.

Because your employer wants to give you an incentive not to take one of the jobs that just got a raise.

That's the practice I guess, but it doesn't answer my question completely. Are you implying that the job that used to be at $6.25 and is now at $9.50 is somehow more attractive than the $9.50 job? Seems to me that if the mind-numbing nature of some MW work is still there, you're going to want to keep your current job, not give it up for an identically-waged position that burns you out. Isn't that the benefit? MW jobs are difficult to fill because of the low wage. If they paid as much as comparatively "cushier" jobs that require a more prepared/educated worker, the difference then would be that if you prepared yourself for the "cushier" job, you won't have to sling burgers or shovel shit -- what's happened is that slinging and shoveling become just as valuable as, say administrative assistants or whatever used to pay more, which, given the effort, should be the case. Physical labor and mental labor should both be rewarded commensurately because the advantage of not wearing your body out is the benefit of the non-physical position. Am I making any sense at all? This is one of those ideas that far more solid in my own head than it ever seems to be when I try to type it.

And finally, you seem to be laboring under the impression that a wage increase is the only possible result of a minimum wage hike. It does happen, but a lot of people get laid off too. Maybe epi.org should consider that as well.

not only that, but for companies to reduce overhead, a cut has to be somewhere... so yes, loss of posistions, Outsourceing work/departments, and even a cut in benefits would take place.

things that people really don't think about happening when overhead gets bigger.

Physical labor and mental labor should both be rewarded commensurately because the advantage of not wearing your body out is the benefit of the non-physical position.

If the low wages of low-wage jobs were a detriment to employment, then wages would go up. As it is, employers can find plenty of people to work as burger flippers, and burger flippers are willing to work for low wages. That is why wages stay down.

If higher waged positions really required no more qualification than low-wage jobs, then employers would already be paying them the same wages as burger flippers. As it is, employers compete for qualified employees and need to attract them and keep them with good wages.

An estimated 1,229,000 single parents with children under 18 would benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by 2009. Single parents would benefit disproportionately from an increase — single parents are 10% of workers affected by an increase, but they make up only 7% of the overall workforce. Approximately 6.4 million children under 18 would benefit as their parents’ wages were increased.

Tax credits, and payroll exemption would bring the purchasing power to the same level than goverment mandate.

Abolish the minimum wage because having it written into law creates more inflation in the long term.

Healthcare, food, basic essentials should be focused on than mandate higher wages for low skilled work.

Econ 101 will tell rational business onwer having to pay $9.50 an hour minimum wage will have to pay higher payroll taxes on that wage, and therefore would not risk his or her capital on building a business or creating jobs. The establised companies with the goverment indexing minimum wage will just hire more skilled workers, and shut out the lowest skilled because its too risky to pay a unexpericenced worker $9.50 an hour starting a lot of business would shut down actually. The Ted Keneddy idea is worse than soaking the billionares with more taxes actually because 90% of the economic output in the Untied States is from small business owners, or sole prioritors that make average wages majority of the time.

not only that, but for companies to reduce overhead, a cut has to be somewhere... so yes, loss of posistions, Outsourceing work/departments, and even a cut in benefits would take place.
And then the exec gets a multi-million dollar bonus for reducing company expenditures! Hurray unregulated capitalism!

And then the exec gets a multi-million dollar bonus for reducing company expenditures! Hurray unregulated capitalism!
yep.

but what's the alternative. Government regulates businesses in such a fashion that there is no incentive to do your best?

You work your ass off for 10 years but still get paid the same as the lazy co-worker who barely makes deadlines, takes long and frequent breaks, doesn't work a full 40 hours yet is paid for 40 hours?

$9.25 hardly seems high in comparison to that in the UK to be honest. How does the average cost of living compare to that of the UK?

yep.

but what's the alternative. Government regulates businesses in such a fashion that there is no incentive to do your best?
Executives shouldn't be getting rich on the backs of the grunts. And they especially shouldn't be getting rich for deriving the grunts of their pay and benefits.

You work your ass off for 10 years but still get paid the same as the lazy co-worker who barely makes deadlines, takes long and frequent breaks, doesn't work a full 40 hours yet is paid for 40 hours?
That is stupid and uninformed and reading it has made me stupider for having done so.

And then the exec gets a multi-million dollar bonus for reducing company expenditures! Hurray unregulated capitalism!

If they cut benefits and employees and other expenditures in relation to the losses caused by the increase in the minimum wage so as to keep profits steady, then they would only be maintaining present company expenditures rather than reducing them, and it is unlikely that the exec would get a bonus that he would not otherwise have had for maintaining the status quo.

$9.25 hardly seems high in comparison to that in the UK to be honest. How does the average cost of living compare to that of the UK?

Well, I don't have specifics for comparison. But from my traveling I know it's definitely cheaper in the states, but it might not be cheaper in direct correlation to the different minimum wages (especially since state minimum wages differ so greatly from state to state, as do taxes, which also affect the cost of living). Gasoline/petrol is a good example, hovering at about 3 dollars per gallon in the States (again, depending on the state). Alcohol and food are cheaper too. Two hamburgers for 99 cents is a good deal no matter how you slice it.

We should make the minimum wage $100 per hour. Then everybody would be rich, right? :rolleyes:

Right on the money my friend.

Raising the Minimum wage will drive several businesses RIGHT down the toilet. Unless you're a plumber or a bowel movement, that's no place to be. The Minimum Wage only really has meaning in a situation where there's enforced pricewatching. Since that's against free-market economy, it'll never happen.

Each member of the household has to make minimum wage in order to support a basic lifestyle. Unfortunately, that includes infants, toddlers, younguns, rug rats, and lazy teenagers.

Reduce social programs being exploited by families with one non-working parent and eight children, allow us to drill for oil and SPEND the damn reserves to get the economy moving forward again (yes, the entire economy boils down to the price of fuel...), and get rid of the IRS and Income Tax, allowing lobbyists to take a hike, corruption to take a dive, and a Flat Tax to smooth the class imbalance.

Radical Liberalists are actually on the right track, sorry to say, and this from a 'whatever happened to the party?' Republican.

If minimum wage had gone up the same percentage as average CEO pay if would be between $21 or $22 per hour. So until we impose a maximum wage that amount sounds reasonable to me.

Here's one thing I fail to understand: the displeasure we tend to show toward the gap in the wealthy and the poor. To my (albeit feeble) understanding, the general trend is for the poor to become richer and the rich to become richer faster, leading to an increase in the "income gap" between the top and bottom percentage earners, but also to a real and universal increase in the standard of living of the poor.

If the modern lower class standard of living continues moving up, I don't think it should matter if the standard of living for the upper class is moving up faster (and this is coming from a guy in the lower-middle-class).

There is not a limited amount of prosperity; that's not how economics works; someone doesn't have to be poor for someone else to be rich. Any ideological belief reflecting as much is based on flawed economic logic.

$9.25 hardly seems high in comparison to that in the UK to be honest. How does the average cost of living compare to that of the UK?I'd be interested to hear that aswell. $9.25 would be illegal to the max in my parts of Europe (and in Euros it is even worse...).
I imagine it's really hard to compare the actual costs of living though.

If the low wages of low-wage jobs were a detriment to employment, then wages would go up. As it is, employers can find plenty of people to work as burger flippers, and burger flippers are willing to work for low wages. That is why wages stay down.

If higher waged positions really required no more qualification than low-wage jobs, then employers would already be paying them the same wages as burger flippers. As it is, employers compete for qualified employees and need to attract them and keep them with good wages.

I'm looking for the logic in this post, and (honestly, not trying to be a jackass) I can't find it. Low wages aren't a disincentive. Low wages are the result of being poorly prepared and/or educated for higher-paying jobs, whether that preparation is not enough smarts or not enough muscle (fish processor boats pay beaucoup but require enormous stamina and strength).

I wasn't saying that higher-waged positions required or should require no more qualifications than low-wage jobs. I was saying that the MW was meant to equalize repetetive and toil-heavy work with work that requires less of both. Let me try again: A works as a receptionist for $9.50/hr and B works menial labor for the current federal MW ($5.85/hr). If the MW were raised to $8 or even to $9.50, that doesn't devalue the A's receptionist job, it properly appreciates the toil and monotony most MW jobs require. If A and B make the same, A's advantage is that they don't have to shovel shit, flip burgers (and deal with much of the consuming public, often the most pernicious part of retail/service industry jobs) and the like. The wear and tear on A's body (and perhaps soul) is likely less. The benefits of having job A still outweigh those of B, but the wage equality means that B doesn't have to be shafted twice by being paid a wage that puts them near poverty level WITHOUT having a family -- work is the only place people with B jobs should have to sweat.

And that's another thing with a federal MW -- the USA is BIG. What buys a gallon of milk in North Dakota won't buy one in New York City. The rent in Seattle that gets you a shotgun shack in a neighborhood Hellboy wouldn't visit will BUY you a comparative palace in Bismarck. National figures are perniciously sketchy in a nation so regionally imbalanced.

Anyone know how high the minimum wage in America would need to be as to negate tipping?

If minimum wage had gone up the same percentage as average CEO pay if would be between $21 or $22 per hour. So until we impose a maximum wage that amount sounds reasonable to me.
Well, how much have corporate profits increased on average, and how much has low-skilled labour productivity increased?

In recent years corporate governance, especially corporate finance, has made huge advances. Corporations have found new ways of making money out of almost everything they do. Porsche released its new profit figures the other day, and the vast majority of its profits came from financial operations (namely the shares they bought in VW), and it's the same for many large companies.

Of course boards (and the shareholders they're supposed to represent) are more likely to approve of an extra bonus if the company is making record profits. Sometimes something doesn't work, when a company performs badly and the CEO still gets some sort of golden parachute, but that's not the average.

Sorry to have confused you; I think I see what you're saying.

I was saying that the MW was meant to equalize repetetive and toil-heavy work with work that requires less of both.

And what I'm saying is that neither employees nor employers consider repetitive and toil-heavy work such a negative thing, if the minimum wage is indeed the standard wage for such jobs (I'm not certain about that, but for the sake of this scenario, let's presume it is), else the wages would already reflect as much because employees would refuse to do such work at such wages, and employers would reactively need to raise wages to attract employees.

Two hamburgers for 99 cents is a good deal no matter how you slice it.
No one bother to tell him there is no where that does this all the time.

And that's another thing with a federal MW -- the USA is BIG. What buys a gallon of milk in North Dakota won't buy one in New York City. The rent in Seattle that gets you a shotgun shack in a neighborhood Hellboy wouldn't visit will BUY you a comparative palace in Bismarck. National figures are perniciously sketchy in a nation so regionally imbalanced.
The is also the problem with the FairTax scheme, fei.

And what I'm saying is that neither employees nor employers consider repetitive and toil-heavy work such a negative thing,
You sound like you speak from experience :rolleyes:

else the wages would already reflect as much because employees would refuse to do such work at such wages
Job mobility isn't a fraction of what people like you pretend it is.

I wonder if Pelosi will see fit to raise the wage in American Samoa too or will her pockets grow not to include them. $9.25 might be too much for now. I say keep the federal minimum where it is and encourage states to change it as they see fit. It should really be an ultimate state right anyway.

Eh. In states where the cost of living is through the roof, it makes enough sense. In other parts, it's excessive. It will mean higher prices all over the place.

As in the middle of Manhatten vs. the middle of the Utah desert?

As in the middle of Manhatten vs. the middle of the Utah desert?

Not at all. For example, living costs in San Jose are 120% higher than those of my hometown, Cincinnati. If I wanted to move from Cincinnati to San Francisco, my living costs would be 135% higher. I'd have to earn twice as much in order to have the same kind of living standards I did back in Cincinnati; if I didn't, I would see them plunge, perhaps significantly if my new salary wasn't high enough to compensate for the difference. Even if I lived in Seattle, a city of similar size and location, it would still cost nearly 72% more.

Living costs vary wildly even between cities of similar size.

Since people in jobs that get tips as part of their income are legally paid far less than minimum wage, it'd never be high enough.

I got $2.15/hour as my minimum wage. The only time I was paid minimum wage was if the day's tips weren't sufficient to cover the difference during the time I worked.

Anyone know how high the minimum wage in America would need to be as to negate tipping?

Since people in jobs that get tips as part of their income are legally paid far less than minimum wage, it'd never be high enough.

This is why high ranking politicians should be required to have at least a master's degree in economics. Law too, while we're at it.

Since people in jobs that get tips as part of their income are legally paid far less than minimum wage, it'd never be high enough.

Wait, what? What is the point of having a minimum wage if you don't even have to pay people that much?

Wait, what? What is the point of having a minimum wage if you don't even have to pay people that much?

It's only people in jobs that are expected to receive tips to supplement their income that can be paid less, since, well, they're expected to receive tips to supplement their income.

Working two part time jobs I barely make 200$ a week. So I fucking endorse this.

The companies I work for Acme and Kohls are making money hand over fist, while I'm making money both hands in empty pockets. Maybe I'm pissed because I'm living in a single parent househould and got denied grant money from the state AND the government. Isn't life fucking great!

Sounds good to me.

On this side of the pond, the minimum wage in the UK is going up in October:

Workers aged 22 and over: £5.52 ($11.20) p/h
Workers aged 18 to 21: £4.60 ($9.34) p/h
Workers aged 16 and 17: £3.40 ($6.90) p/h

The increases match inflation.

Working two part time jobs I barely make 200$ a week. So I fucking endorse this.

The companies I work for Acme and Kohls are making money hand over fist, while I'm making money both hands in empty pockets. Maybe I'm pissed because I'm living in a single parent househould and got denied grant money from the state AND the government. Isn't life fucking great!

Tell me you support it when your hours get cut at work and prices of basic commodities increase.

Working two part time jobs I barely make 200$ a week.
You should consider delivering Pizzas. I don't exactly overwork myself at the moment and I make more than A$350 a week, which at current exchange rates is about US$300. And I make a fair bit more than the minimum wage here, I think so maybe you just need to scout for a place that offers better wages.

Amazingly enough, when the workers get more money they don't go and set it on fire. They spend it. So the company is getting larger profits.

Right, because they're not paying out higher wages = less profits.

Tell me you support it when your hours get cut at work and prices of basic commodities increase.

Amazingly enough, when the workers get more money they don't go and set it on fire. They spend it. So the company is getting larger profits.

Right, because they're not paying out higher wages = less profits.

That sentence does not make sense in any system of grammar I am aware of.

Good, I hope it goes through. They should just have it rise with CPI or SoL...

Why don't they call it what it is, not a minimum wage increase but a cost of living increase? Don't you understand that by demanding that employers pay their employees more that they will raise prices to maintain profits?

A business exists to make money. They do that by providing a service. If you decree that wages must be raised but prices cannot rise with them then businesses will shut down and people currently employed will end up unemployed and no services will be provided because the service providers no longer exist.

Tell me you support it when your hours get cut at work and prices of basic commodities increase.

I doubt my hours could get cut much more unless they flat out fire me (don't see that happening). If they do I'll find another job.

If they do I'll find another job.

You seem to have missed the point there, Lup.

Why don't they call it what it is, not a minimum wage increase but a cost of living increase? Don't you understand that by demanding that employers pay their employees more that they will raise prices to maintain profits?

A business exists to make money. They do that by providing a service. If you decree that wages must be raised but prices cannot rise with them then businesses will shut down and people currently employed will end up unemployed and no services will be provided because the service providers no longer exist.


Exactly, as they raise the minimum wage all it does for me is make me poorer. They raise the minimum wage but don't raise my wage to compensate for the increased cost of living, I suddenly make exponentially less an hour as each dollar I make is less valuable. The poor people get help, the rich live high and mighty and the working man pulls them both. Bullshit.

I remember there being a bill a while back to index minimum wage to inflation, but it was killed by the dems. The unions couldn't stomach the thought.

The minimum wage should be abolished, and so should NAFTA. Corporations wouldn't be tempted to pay a Mexican $.25 an hour if they could do the same thing here. Prices would go way down. The US Constitution gives the federal government the power to "coin Money, [and] regulate the Value thereof," so I'd say it does have the power to set a minimum wage, but it shouldn't exercise that power. And what happened to the times when all one needed was a high school diploma to be in the middle class?

The minimum wage should be abolished, and so should NAFTA. Corporations wouldn't be tempted to pay a Mexican $.25 an hour if they could do the same thing here. Prices would go way down. The US Constitution gives the federal government the power to "coin Money, [and] regulate the Value thereof," so I'd say it does have the power to set a minimum wage, but it shouldn't exercise that power. And what happened to the times when all one needed was a high school diploma to be in the middle class?

*sigh* (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/Luporum/Goddamnit.jpg)

*sigh* (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/Luporum/Goddamnit.jpg)
:p

Exactly, as they raise the minimum wage all it does for me is make me poorer. They raise the minimum wage but don't raise my wage to compensate for the increased cost of living, I suddenly make exponentially less an hour as each dollar I make is less valuable. The poor people get help, the rich live high and mighty and the working man pulls them both. Bullshit.

Yep, the middle is getting squeezed out even more. I say abolish the Federal minimum wage all together. Let states set their own and the fed's stay out of it.

$9.25 hardly seems high in comparison to that in the UK to be honest. How does the average cost of living compare to that of the UK?

Having lived in both nations I would say the cost of living in the UK is vastly higher then in the US. Possible due to the size of the nation and socialist governments(high tax rates). I know that housing and food are much more then what I pay in the US. Drawing a comparison between Leeds and Seattle.

Sounds like a fucking fantastic idea to my $6.25 making ass. An extra $3.25 in my pocket would be great.

see how much you like it when that $2.00 loaf of bread is all of a sudden $4.00.

companies will still seek out profit no matter to what the minimum wage is and if that means raising price that is what it would do.

We don't exist for the good of the economy. The economy exists for our good.
The rule of law in the U.S. is the constitution not economic theory: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

When the rules of economics conflict with the basic fundamental rule of our country the economic rules should always be subservient to the constitution not the other way around.

Except that economic laws are like natural laws; we can't change them by wishing. Enforcing laws that are harmful by economic law translate directly into harmful realities. This cannot and should not be ignored.

I am against minimun wage increase. It's a terrible idea. Recently, my state voted to increase minimum wages and you know we got out of it? Automatic inflation.Yeah you may say increasing it is fine but if you raise it, everything around you increases in price so much that it almost is like you were still making the original minimum wage.

And it really screws over people who actually get paid more than minimum wage. Their pays will more than likely stay the same but the cost of living goes up. Some people manage to barely survive on thjir current salaries and wouldn't be able to survive if auto-inflation occured.

So, I say, leave the minimum wage as it is. I do not want the prices of the things I buy to increase. No I don't make minimum wage but I make just 65 cents more than the $6.85 that is my states current minimum wage.

You won't have extra money in your pocket, you'll just be thinking you do.

Except that economic laws are like natural laws; .

I'm not buying that (excuse the pun).

Here's one thing I fail to understand: the displeasure we tend to show toward the gap in the wealthy and the poor. To my (albeit feeble) understanding, the general trend is for the poor to become richer and the rich to become richer faster, leading to an increase in the "income gap" between the top and bottom percentage earners, but also to a real and universal increase in the standard of living of the poor.

If the modern lower class standard of living continues moving up, I don't think it should matter if the standard of living for the upper class is moving up faster (and this is coming from a guy in the lower-middle-class).

There is not a limited amount of prosperity; that's not how economics works; someone doesn't have to be poor for someone else to be rich. Any ideological belief reflecting as much is based on flawed economic logic.

If that were the way it was happening today, then maybe there'd be less of a beef. But the fact is that for people in the lower and middle classes in the US, wages and the standard of living have been stagnant for the last 30 years, while the wealthiest have seen their wealth grow at a staggering rate over the same period. There's no rising tide lifting all boats at play here--there are lots of people drowning.

Quote:
Except that economic laws are like natural laws; .
I'm not buying that (excuse the pun).

I'm sorry, but you don't believe that people will buy less of something if it's more expensive? You don't believe that producers will charge more for something if people are willing and able to pay more for it? You don't believe that price is related to supply and demand?

I guess that's your prerogative; it's impossible to enforce belief in common sense. ...Have fun with that, along with the flat-earthers.

I'm sorry, but you don't believe that people will buy less of something if it's more expensive? You don't believe that producers will charge more for something if people are willing and able to pay more for it? You don't believe that price is related to supply and demand?

I guess that's your prerogative; it's impossible to enforce belief in common sense. ...Have fun with that, along with the flat-earthers.

Depends on what it is. Higher gas prices haven't have an effect on gas consumption in the US over the last three years, after all. People make cuts in other places when it's necessary, or they go into deeper debt. It's not a cut-and-dried law.

The science of economics covers that. It's called market elasticity. It's why the U.S. government can get away with imposing ridiculous taxes on cigarettes, making a cheap product quite expensive without greatly reducing the amount of consumption, taking advantage of the fact that consumers will buy certain products regardless of their expense. It doesn't change the reality or application of economic laws.

The science of economics covers that. It's called market elasticity. It's why the U.S. government can get away with imposing ridiculous taxes on cigarettes, making a cheap product quite expensive without greatly reducing the amount of consumption, taking advantage of the fact that consumers will buy certain products regardless of their expense. It doesn't change the reality or application of economic laws.
My point--which you artfully ignored, I notice--is that you made a general statement that has significant exceptions. A market is elastic based on how great a need the public has for the product. People have to drive--therefore, people will pay more for gas, even though they don't want to, because there's no other real option for them. If the price gets high enough to become prohibitive, then they explore other options--public transportation if it's available, carpooling, etc., but only as a last resort. That's far different from, say, gourmet cheese consumption, which can easily reach a price point where few people will be willing to purchase it.

And none of this has anything to do with the fact that wages and wealth for lower and middle class people have been stagnant for the last 30 years, while the wealthiest have increased their share of the wealth enormously over the same period.

And none of this has anything to do with the fact that wages and wealth for lower and middle class people have been stagnant for the last 30 years, while the wealthiest have increased their share of the wealth enormously over the same period.

That is true. But the increase in the wealth of the wealthy does not imply a decrease in the wealth of everyone else, but possibly rather (as you stated) a stagnation at which real earnings neither rise nor lower. This is not nearly as serious as the common misperception of "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" associated with the increasing wage gap.

If you have sources to support the idea that the real standard of living has been stagnant for the lower and middle classes for the last 30 years, I'd be happy to continue this discussion with you.

That is true. But the increase in the wealth of the wealthy does not imply a decrease in the wealth of everyone else, but possibly rather (as you stated) a stagnation at which real earnings neither rise nor lower. This is not nearly as serious as the common misperception of "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" associated with the increasing wage gap.

If you have sources to support the idea that the real standard of living has been stagnant for the lower and middle classes for the last 30 years, I'd be happy to continue this discussion with you.

Tell me something--if the poor are only treading water while the rich are getting richer, how is that, relatively speaking, different from "the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer?" If the economy on the whole is moving forward and you're standing still, aren't you losing ground?

If the economy on the whole is moving forward and you're standing still, aren't you losing ground?

That would be a big YES. Sorry had to agree with you there Nazz. Not very often do I. ;)

That would be a big YES. Sorry had to agree with you there Nazz. Not very often do I. ;)

You get one right once in a while. :p

No, I'm pretty sure that keeping pace with inflation and retaining a steady standard of living is not equivalent to getting poorer. You have to measure wealth in real terms, not relative ones, to say that the poor are getting poorer.

If you were saying that the income of the poor stayed the same despite increases in the costs of maintaining their standard of living and despite devaluation of their income due to inflation, then definitely yes the poor would be getting poorer in real terms (because they'd be getting paid money that is worth less and less).

Stupid question:

Would higher minimum wage make inflation fly through the roof?

Tell me--what proof do you have that the Democrats didn't win in 2006 on the strength of their platform? Anything at all? Or just your opinion that the party who stands for things you disagree with must be made up of people who, as you said, have no brains in our heads?


I know this doesnt qualify as proof but i live in NY. Im what i now call a disenfranchised Republican. As a general rule i have peretty much voted Republican across the board in my entire life. Bush both times. I despise Hillary Clinton and i do mean that with all my heart and i voted for her as a form of protest vote for George playing office trashcan basketball with a wadded up ball of Constitutiion.

Stupid question:

Would higher minimum wage make inflation fly through the roof?

It never has before, so I see no reason why it will this time. That said, we're talking about a potential further increase here, and I'm of the opinion that a better way of handling the issue is to index any future minimum wage increases so they happen automatically (and so employers can plan for them) instead of coming up with a magical number and fighting over it every five years or so. I mean, if conservatives want to get rid of an issue they claim is nothing more than vote buying, this is one way of doing it--they may not be able to get rid of the minimum wage, but they could take it off the table as an issue.

It's only people in jobs that are expected to receive tips to supplement their income that can be paid less, since, well, they're expected to receive tips to supplement their income.

Which is why I will never tip people who cut hair, pour coffee at Starbucks, or at any other place where they make a non-server wage but still have a tip jar. Well, save perhaps the valet, 'cause you want him to take good care of your car, but I never use valet parking, so moot point, really.

I am religious about tipping the pizza guy because I used to be one. I was going to stop because I looked into delivery charges. They're already charging about $1.50(US) as part of the cost of the pizza as a delivery charge -- which I could see if the restaurant owned the delivery car, but that's incredibly rare these days. Then I thought, nevermind -- tip the guy well. He's using his own car and gas as part of his job...doing his job costs him money...so when I do order in, I tip well. I also order in far less often than I used to -- using gas because I'm too lazy to stop by after work or in some other capacity seems like waste to me.

I am religious about tipping the pizza guy because I used to be one. I was going to stop because I looked into delivery charges. They're already charging about $1.50(US) as part of the cost of the pizza as a delivery charge -- which I could see if the restaurant owned the delivery car, but that's incredibly rare these days. Then I thought, nevermind -- tip the guy well. He's using his own car and gas as part of his job...doing his job costs him money...so when I do order in, I tip well. I also order in far less often than I used to -- using gas because I'm too lazy to stop by after work or in some other capacity seems like waste to me.

That's the same with me and waiters. Unless they're outright rude to me, I'll tip them in full even if they make a mistake because I know how difficult it can be to work a crowded section, especially if you're new at the job and are still getting a feel for it.

Why don't they call it what it is, not a minimum wage increase but a cost of living increase? Don't you understand that by demanding that employers pay their employees more that they will raise prices to maintain profits?

A business exists to make money. They do that by providing a service. If you decree that wages must be raised but prices cannot rise with them then businesses will shut down and people currently employed will end up unemployed and no services will be provided because the service providers no longer exist.

Seems to me that the upper echelon could take a pay cut for once in the history of time in what is purportedly a pluralistic society. Hell, I bet higher rank-and-file wages could be raised if CEOs didn't take a cut, but just stopped giving themselves increases for a few years. Surely millions to tens of millions a year in salary and stock options would hold out through a five-year CEO compensation moratorium.

And yes, I know that someone will counter-post with "well, that CEO will go to another company willing to pay them more." And they'll say it like it's rational! When does greed end? How many houses and cars can you really need?

That is true. But the increase in the wealth of the wealthy does not imply a decrease in the wealth of everyone else, but possibly rather (as you stated) a stagnation at which real earnings neither rise nor lower. This is not nearly as serious as the common misperception of "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" associated with the increasing wage gap.

If you have sources to support the idea that the real standard of living has been stagnant for the lower and middle classes for the last 30 years, I'd be happy to continue this discussion with you.

That post makes me wonder about your net worth and where you live and the like. It's none of my business and you shouldn't answer...but I do wonder.

Somewhere in between THE RICH ARE ALL EVIL and THE POOR ARE ALL LAZY, the truth lies. The problem is, instead of looking for that place, politicians would rather argue over how to unfold the map.

Whenever the minimum wage increases, cost of living expenses skyrockets, and unemployment rises. The reason? Unions will use the minimum wage as a baseline to increase the wages of their own people, and employers will not hire extra people at the higher rates. Quite frankly, we should abolish the minimum wage entirely and let it be the least amount of money you'll work for, decided by the individual actually doing the work. This whole debate is just class envy used to keep a corrupt party in power

Raising pay won't do the slightest bit. Cost will go up. For instance Mcdonalds will no longer have a dollar menu, but a three dollar menu. The only way to create a better living standards for everyone is to Tax the jesus out of corporations. Corporate profits has risen 45 percent in the last couple years, but worker wages have only risen 3 percent. I believe the government should step in and take away some of the power of these corporations such as mandating a pay percentage. Therefore if the corporation makes a large profit increase so should the workers. Honostly it wouldnt hurt the CEOs much they would make 45 million dollars rather then 60 million dollars a year, but honostly what is the difference between 45 and 60 million dollars, not much when you think about it. 4 million dollars could support someone for a lifetime, and there making 45 a year. Come on. But this will never happen considering the people who make the laws are also on the corporate payroll.

I believe we should do what the omish do. Create little communities "based on a religion for tax purposes" grow our own food have or own market and have no currency. People work for the betterness of the community. Right now the united states has created a need for corporations. Can anyone truley say they went a week with out giving there dollars to a corporation.

If minimum wage were to rise, wouldn't that cause the cost of living to rise as well? People with crummy jobs would be in the same shithole they started in even with a pay raise.

Am I uneducated, or just stupid? *braces for impact*

You are 100% correct in what you stated.

You are 100% correct in what you stated.

Only for companies that refuse to pay anything, but minimum wage. If your employees are already making around 8$-10$ an hour then this wouldn't mean a damn thing.

Zomg! Prices at McDonalds and Walmart are going to skyrocket! *Stocks up on hordes of great deals*

Whenever the minimum wage increases, cost of living expenses skyrockets, and unemployment rises.

Except, you know, that never has, not once. :rolleyes:

Sounds like a fucking fantastic idea to my $6.25 making ass. An extra $3.25 in my pocket would be great.
Yeah until that Big Mac/Whopper you buy at [insert fast food resturant here] goes up in cost because of this wage hike. A raise in minimum wage will bring the cost of items up so employers dont loose money.

Except, you know, that never has, not once. :rolleyes:

But it's also true that those increases were not as sharp as this; a raise in the minimum wage this quickly could have that kind of effect, especially if there is no inflation adjustment provision included.

Yeah until that Big Mac/Whopper you buy at [insert fast food resturant here] goes up in cost because of this wage hike. A raise in minimum wage will bring the cost of items up so employers dont loose money.

Well, my god, now McDonalds is going to have to compete on an even level with small commercial resturaunts. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Well, my god, now McDonalds is going to have to compete on an even level with small commercial resturaunts. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Im just saying that it wont make much of a difference in his pocket. And trust me I would love nothing more than to see McDonalds out and mom and pop resturants back.

Wanted to throw some facts out there for the minimum wage in a historical context. Just to add to the discussion.:)

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/coverage.htm

He'd just have to spend more with that new money he has. Not to mention inflation.

Wanted to throw some facts out there for the minimum wage in a historical context. Just to add to the discussion.:)

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/coverage.htm

And not once has the minimum wage doubled in five years...going from $5.15 to $9.50 in such a short time is not a good idea economically speaking. Maybe $9.50 in 2015, but not $9.50 in 2010 or 2011.

The 6.3% yearly increase in wages that a $9.50-by-2015 plan would produce would be more than enough to outpace inflation but also not so high that it would produce too great of a financial burden. If they try for $9.50 by 2010-2011, that would be an increase of up to 13% per year...that's simply too much, too fast. That would put a huge financial burden on companies of all sizes and would lead to severe cuts in employment and employment growth at the minimum-wage level.

Im just saying that it wont make much of a difference in his pocket. And trust me I would love nothing more than to see McDonalds out and mom and pop resturants back.

Going from 6.25$ an hour to 9.50$ an hour is pretty signifigant.

That's an extra 70$ a 20 hour work week. That's three less people I have to mug per week. :p

I like the increase, but it's too much too fast.

But it's also true that those increases were not as sharp as this; a raise in the minimum wage this quickly could have that kind of effect, especially if there is no inflation adjustment provision included.

There's also little to no chance of it passing, so all we're doing here is really talking about the effect of raising the minimum wage in general. But every time there's a minimum wage increase talked about, the same people trot out the same old bullshit about how we'll get increased unemployment and increased inflation and gloom and doom and somehow it never happens. So I call bullshit on the whole process.

But it's also true that those increases were not as sharp as this; a raise in the minimum wage this quickly could have that kind of effect, especially if there is no inflation adjustment provision included.

I dunno, judging by this chart from wikipedia there was a minimum wage increase in 1950 that was almost as extreme as the current one, when you adjust for inflation:

linky (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/History_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_increases.svg)

and the economy didn't collapse, in fact it boomed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950s#Economy)

and the economy didn't collapse, in fact it boomed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950s#Economy)

That doesn't really surprise me.

"I have...spending money?" *gets teary eyed* *Blows it all on useless shit within an hour*

Behold consumerism.

I dunno, judging by this chart from wikipedia there was a minimum wage increase in 1950 that was almost as extreme as the current one, when you adjust for inflation:

linky (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/History_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_increases.svg)

and the economy didn't collapse, in fact it boomed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950s#Economy)

That was almost entirely due to the Korean War; if you look at unemployment after the war ended, it zoomed right back up to just below its 1949 level and wouldn't approach its 1948 level again until 1964. We don't have that same kind of effect these days to absorb the rise in labor costs, so there probably would be a net rise in unemployment rather than no change. In addition, the labor force was a lot smaller as a percentage of the population and there were more high-paying manufacturing jobs to absorb some of the labor that might have relied on the minimum wage in our current environment.

And don't forget that there was a nasty recession in 1958, and that unemployment would not fall below 5-6% until 1964. The economy of the 1950's was extremely volatile and had huge growth swings.

There's also little to no chance of it passing, so all we're doing here is really talking about the effect of raising the minimum wage in general. But every time there's a minimum wage increase talked about, the same people trot out the same old bullshit about how we'll get increased unemployment and increased inflation and gloom and doom and somehow it never happens. So I call bullshit on the whole process.
So what you're saying is that raising the minimum wage actually creates jobs and raises the standard of living? Do I understand you correctly?

That was almost entirely due to the Korean War; if you look at unemployment after the war ended, it zoomed right back up to just below its 1949 level. We don't have that same kind of effect these days to absorb the rise in labor costs.
Now we wait until China launches an offensive against Taiwan.:cool:

That post makes me wonder about your net worth and where you live and the like. It's none of my business and you shouldn't answer...but I do wonder.

It doesn't matter if I'm currently doing grounds keeping at 6.75/hr and I'm the son of a working, single parent with three mortgages, and my net worth is actually negative thanks to all the loans I've taken out, or if I'm actually Bill Gates in disguise. Economics is rational and applies to reality (even if it at times seems counterintuitive at first glance) no matter who says it.

By the way, I'm not Bill Gates in disguise.

Only for companies that refuse to pay anything, but minimum wage. If your employees are already making around 8$-10$ an hour then this wouldn't mean a damn thing.
Except that more products at the bottom end of the price range (that is, McDonald's and WalMart and the like) will rise in price, effectively increasing the cost of living, forcing employers to pay more to everyone, not just minimum wage employees, if they want to be fair.

And complaining about corporate payrolls is childish and unnecessary. Like I've said before, someone else being rich does not mean that someone else has to be poor--that's a flawed perception; there is not a set amount of money in the world, and when someone gets rich it is not necessarily at the expense of others (in fact, it is usually to someone else's benefit as well--that's how the market works). As long as my real wages (that is, my spending power given the costs of living and inflation) are not declining, there is no reason to attack the increasing real wages of others except jealousy--not justice.

There's also little to no chance of it passing, so all we're doing here is really talking about the effect of raising the minimum wage in general. But every time there's a minimum wage increase talked about, the same people trot out the same old bullshit about how we'll get increased unemployment and increased inflation and gloom and doom and somehow it never happens. So I call bullshit on the whole process.

I strongly support linking minimum wage to inflation and increasing it to its real level of the 1960's or so (when it was at its highest) and then leaving it there. Not quite a living wage, but enough when combined with a strong program of government health insurance, educational aid and financial aid to allow a person to get through schooling and obtain a better job with a high enough income to support a family and pay their financial responsibilities without debt.

To use that horrible cliche, a handup, not a handout.

Now we wait until China launches an offensive against Taiwan.:cool:

Yeah, I'll be stuck in a trench somewhere outside Taipei...:(

Yeah, I'll be stuck in a trench somewhere outside Taipei...:(

I'll be stuck on a flight deck of a carrier. :p

So I call bullshit on the whole process.

If there were no detrimental effects of raising the minimum wage above market value, then why not raise the minimum wage in American Samoa and Puerto Rico to be on par with the rest of America? And, while we're at it, why not raise it to $20 an hour? Let's just repeal the Law of Demand (which states that an artificial increase in the price of something will cause less of it to be purchased; in the case of increasing the minimum wage by government edict, this means fewer low-income workers will be hired), since it is, as you say, just "bullshit." And heck, with the Law of Demand repealed, let's go ahead and increase the wages to $100/hr--there would be little or no unemployment among the poor as a result, since economics is all bullshit.

Yeah, I'll be stuck in a trench somewhere outside Taipei...:(

I'll be stuck on a flight deck of a carrier. :p

It's open to debate which of those is the safest place to be. There seem to be an awful lot of accidents on carriers -- even in peacetime.

There is not a limited amount of prosperity; that's not how economics works; someone doesn't have to be poor for someone else to be rich. Any ideological belief reflecting as much is based on flawed economic logic.

While this is true to a degree...

There still exists only a limited number of resources and goods, therefore there is only a limited amount of 'material prosperity' and ultimately a limited amount of immaterial prosperity, like services, to share around.

This is also a good reason why we want to keep poor people in poor countries relatively poor: If they had anywhere near equal purchasing power to us the price of average commodoties, like fuel but also other goods like refrigerators or food, would go up as the supply of basic resources is necessarily restricted by cost of harvesting and the amount of resource available for harvesting.

The easiest example of commonly increased purhcase power leading to less 'prosperity' would be oil: If people around the world would & could use oil more (a la wasteful USA) then the price of oil would skyrocket leading to diminished general availibility of oil based goods. For the average oil company this wouldn't matter as much as they don't care if the end user is Chinese government, African business man or Hollywood starlet but for the average *western* consumer (that would be most of us) any significant increase in oil prices would either simply cause less oil priced goods to be used or shift money from uses that don't involve increased oil costs.

It's open to debate which of those is the safest place to be. There seem to be an awful lot of accidents on carriers -- even in peacetime.

Only if John McCain is a pilot. :p

Only if John McCain is a pilot. :p
Or if you are in the trenches with Dick Cheney.

Or if you are in the trenches with Dick Cheney.

Touche.

This is also a good reason why we want to keep poor people in poor countries relatively poor: If they had anywhere near equal purchasing power to us the price of average commodoties, like fuel but also other goods like refrigerators or food, would go up as the supply of basic resources is necessarily restricted by cost of harvesting and the amount of resource available for harvesting.

I'm sorry, but we haven't had an economic policy based on keeping people poor so we could be rich for a long, long time. While economics was still developing as a social science, some people believed that for Britain to stay wealthy it needed to keep Ireland poor. We recognize now the flawed logic in that.

Thanks to supply and demand, when one product becomes scarce, the price that producers can get away with charging without hurting sales will increase, but this is counterbalanced by the fact that the higher price encourages more production of the scarce product (which will drive the price back down, or at least slow its ascent). At the same time, it encourages consumers to decrease the amount they purchase and/or to find affordable substitutes.

Most products can be manufactured to keep up with demand, and the idea of restricting them from the poor in order to keep prices down is ridiculous.

Limited natural resources are a special case, but the essential logic doesn't change; it just requires development and popularization of alternatives.

As it is, using your example of oil, most of the alternatives to petroleum fuel are too expensive. However, as prices of conventional fuels rise, alternative fuels become more and more appealing as a substitute product. If we all agree that oil reserves are running out, then we might as well let--nay, encourage--the market forces to make oil more and more expensive so that alternatives can be developed and substituted for oil, and we can stop obsessing over it.

I think if you have a minimum wage so people don't earn too little, you should have a maximum wage cap to ensure people don't earn too much, those on lower incomes should also get a universal basic wage to subsidize their regular wage.

That's just a bit more socialist than I'm willing to support.

Others who had those jobs will have hours cut or lose their jobs.
For jobs to be lost, demand for services would have to go down. I fail to see why a rise in minimum wage would result in less demand for the kind of jobs that pay minimum wage. Especially since the kind of jobs that pay minimum wage are the kinds of places that people blow their disposable income.

Oh, and 30 hours a week at 9.50 an hour > 40 hours a week at 5.85 an hour.

There's also little to no chance of it passing, so all we're doing here is really talking about the effect of raising the minimum wage in general. But every time there's a minimum wage increase talked about, the same people trot out the same old bullshit about how we'll get increased unemployment and increased inflation and gloom and doom and somehow it never happens. So I call bullshit on the whole process.
Nazz, stick to poetry. Economics isn't for you.

The fact remains that most minimum wage increases in the past have been minor so there was no adverse impact.

Increasing it to 9.50 within the next 3 years will mean a large jump in inflation. The resulting inflation will mean that people who work minimum wage jobs will have the same standard of living. Others who had those jobs will have hours cut or lose their jobs.

In the end, no one is truly helped and a lot of people get screwed.

Only if John McCain is a pilot. :p

McCain can't be blamed for the Forrest Fire. It was his plane that actually got hit by an rocket from a plane across the line. To even imply he was in any way at fault makes you a moron.

It's open to debate which of those is the safest place to be. There seem to be an awful lot of accidents on carriers -- even in peacetime.

20% of carrier pilots die in their first 9 years of service. (2 of which are flight training and then there is the 7 year commitment following the training)

I agree with this part of the article:

"There is also a possibility the wage would be indexed to inflation or some other measure of the cost of living. Ten states already have index adjusted-minimum wages. They provide for automatic increases to the wage in the same way Social Security or Congressional salaries factor in inflation and costs of living."

Sounds perfect!

I had to release an employee due to the last minimum wage increase.
It'll be tough, but another increase will force me to fire yet another.

The costs of regulation are already running small businesses through the wringer. I only have so many entry-level jobs, usually occupied by students looking to make a few extra bucks, but they are, by their very nature, the first to go.

I agree with this part of the article:

"There is also a possibility the wage would be indexed to inflation or some other measure of the cost of living. Ten states already have index adjusted-minimum wages. They provide for automatic increases to the wage in the same way Social Security or Congressional salaries factor in inflation and costs of living."

Sounds perfect!

In all honesty, there shouldn't be a nationally mandated minimum wage. Not to say I'm against having minimum wages, but it should be up to the states. A minimum wage set to cover the cost of living in Indiana doesn't bode well for those in New York and vise-versa.

I agree with this part of the article:

"There is also a possibility the wage would be indexed to inflation or some other measure of the cost of living. Ten states already have index adjusted-minimum wages. They provide for automatic increases to the wage in the same way Social Security or Congressional salaries factor in inflation and costs of living."

Sounds perfect!

...perhaps with the unintended consequence of runaway inflation?:eek:

Also, the Minimum Wage is a forced contract on two parties, whether they're willing or not. May as well mandate slavery.
Oh, yeah... income tax *is* slavery. I guess they've already covered that.

In all honesty, there shouldn't be a nationally mandated minimum wage. Not to say I'm against having minimum wages, but it should be up to the states. A minimum wage set to cover the cost of living in Indiana doesn't bode well for those in New York and vise-versa.

Agreed, but it could be federally mandated that all of the states must do the minimum-wage-for-cost-of-living thing.

Minimum wage increase is nice at first but prices will simply go up and encourage inflation which is a pain in the butt to get under control when it become a problem.

There's no way I'm going to get a job until I'm guaranteed to make at least $7.50 an hour.

$9.50 though... :D

I strongly support linking minimum wage to inflation and increasing it to its real level of the 1960's or so (when it was at its highest) and then leaving it there. Not quite a living wage, but enough when combined with a strong program of government health insurance, educational aid and financial aid to allow a person to get through schooling and obtain a better job with a high enough income to support a family and pay their financial responsibilities without debt.

To use that horrible cliche, a handup, not a handout.

See, that's sensible, which is precisely why it will never happen.

I had to release an employee due to the last minimum wage increase.
It'll be tough, but another increase will force me to fire yet another.

The costs of regulation are already running small businesses through the wringer. I only have so many entry-level jobs, usually occupied by students looking to make a few extra bucks, but they are, by their very nature, the first to go.

If you're running a business so close to unprofitability that you have to fire a single employee making minimum wage in order to survive, you need to look at your business plan a bit more closely, because you're doing something way the fuck wrong.

See, that's sensible, which is precisely why it will never happen.

As Elwood Blues once said,

"And God Bless the United States of America!!"

Also, the Minimum Wage is a forced contract on two parties, whether they're willing or not. May as well mandate slavery.
Oh, yeah... income tax *is* slavery. I guess they've already covered that.

Oh please, not this tired nonsensical rhetoric again. This crap was a bad idea when Lochner came down and it's a bad idea now.

Good for me, bad for the rest of the economy.

If you're running a business so close to unprofitability that you have to fire a single employee making minimum wage in order to survive, you need to look at your business plan a bit more closely, because you're doing something way the fuck wrong.
So says the poetry teacher who knows so much about economics.:rolleyes:

You seem to think raising it to 9.50 would be healthy for the economy. Get a clue.

If you're running a business so close to unprofitability that you have to fire a single employee making minimum wage in order to survive, you need to look at your business plan a bit more closely, because you're doing something way the fuck wrong.

As a business owner myself I can say that you need to keep within a profitable framework. There are formula's out there that many business owners follow. If one side of the business becomes out of line then you need to correct that. Either by raising prices or cutting expenses. If your particular business could not competitively raise prices then you cut expenses. One of the greatest expenses is employee's.

So says the poetry teacher who knows so much about economics.:rolleyes:

You seem to think raising it to 9.50 would be healthy for the economy. Get a clue.

Go find where I said that raising the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour would be good for the economy. I'll wait. Then I'll expect an apology.

As a business owner myself I can say that you need to keep within a profitable framework. There are formula's out there that many business owners follow. If one side of the business becomes out of line then you need to correct that. Either by raising prices or cutting expenses. If your particular business could not competitively raise prices then you cut expenses. One of the greatest expenses is employee's.

I understand that labor costs are a major factor, but if the line between your business surviving and dying is one minimum wage employee, you're pretty much fucked no matter what. Something else is going to kill your business--an equipment breakdown, a hike in your insurance premiums, something. You've got bigger problems to deal with.

McCain can't be blamed for the Forrest Fire. It was his plane that actually got hit by an rocket from a plane across the line. To even imply he was in any way at fault makes you a moron.

Get a sense of humor you robotic twat. Better yet, go get laid.

Get a sense of humor you robotic twat. Better yet, go get laid.

Or even better, lay off the personal insults.

I understand that labor costs are a major factor, but if the line between your business surviving and dying is one minimum wage employee, you're pretty much fucked no matter what. Something else is going to kill your business--an equipment breakdown, a hike in your insurance premiums, something. You've got bigger problems to deal with.

It's like saying if you give a poor man a penny it doesn't make him rich. But if you keep on giving him pennies, eventually he would be.

Keeping one employee despite the increased cost might not be enough to break the company, but if expenses aren't kept manageable eventually the company would break. Running a company well demands foresight and close budget management.

I personally never bought the argument that increases in minimum wage are catrostrophic to the economy, especially when they dont raise at the same rate as cost of living. However, there has got to be a limit. To raise the minimum by $.25 or a dollar every year is appropriate, but just suddenly popping it up to $9.50? Thats when the more conservative arguments start to sound reasonable.

Well this didn't take to long for the discussion to get in gear for another hike. So would like to hear the pro's and con's of this possible proposal. Good idea or bad idea?

http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/27/news/economy/minimum_wage/index.htm?postversion=2007072715

Bad for the economy, but good for worker efficiency. Basically a double edged sword...

Personally I think this is a good idea.though, it is true that areas with low cost of living it will be excessive,but with all the inflation things have become more expensive,like gas,per se.This is where it would be a good idea.

See, that's sensible, which is precisely why it will never happen.

Exactly. Well, at least not here...

Personally I think this is a good idea.though, it is true that areas with low cost of living it will be excessive,but with all the inflation things have become more expensive,like gas,per se.This is where it would be a good idea.

In reality, inflation is not a problem at the moment.

When I was 15 I made minimum wage.

At this rate, I'll be making the minimum wage again at age 27.

Cause I really wanted to start at the bottom again. :rolleyes:

Hold my nose when I vote? I might as well buy a fucking clothespin! :mad:

I'm sorry, but we haven't had an economic policy based on keeping people poor so we could be rich for a long, long time.This isn't exactly true.

There is much unnecessary poverty around the world and as long as the current economic mechanic supports it there's no need for active policy to keep other people poor.

Thanks to supply and demand, when one product becomes scarce, the price that producers can get away with charging without hurting sales will increaseYes, I quite mentioned this: From the producers point of view increased demand is almost always good.

Unless the demand and thus the price of produce grows to a point where alternative produce is used instead.
but this is counterbalanced by the fact that the higher price encourages more production of the scarce product (which will drive the price back down, or at least slow its ascent).This however is misleading as very rarely are we able to 'just dig up more resources' in a way that reacts to demand in any reasonable amount of time.

Refined material goods invariably need unrefined raw materials (or recycled materials) and the supply of those raw materials can't be increased (or decreased) at will fast enough to appease rapid shifts in demand. Case in point, price of steel and growing economy in China which affects the price and profit margins of all steel based goods (incl. for example cars, wrenches and garden tools)

At the same time, it encourages consumers to decrease the amount they purchase and/or to find affordable substitutes.

Yes, and by doing so the 'prosperity of consumer' goes down as he or she has to settle for second rate goods or food where he could previously afford the stuff he or she wanted.

Most products can be manufactured to keep up with demand, and the idea of restricting them from the poor in order to keep prices down is ridiculous.The poor are naturally restricted from the goods so there is no need to artifically enforce this dictum because the economic market does it by itself.

Limited natural resources are a special case, but the essential logic doesn't change; it just requires development and popularization of alternatives.

This mechanic isn't automagic and it's almost wholly incapable of reacting fast, at least in the correct way...especially if the resource needed is more or less irreplacable, in which case the price is allowed to rise faster than absolutely necessary (ie. R&D or investments are intentionally limited) because for the producers there is no risk of consumers abandoning the (refined) material.

Also the mechanic you're describing basically needs unlimited replacement resources at near flat real cost for it to work: If there are no undiscovered minable (at current cost) natural resources the price of the resource and goods dependent of the resource will soar to a new balanced point (in this case usually to cover the higher cost of mining previously unprofitable resources) and conversely the availability of the goods for the low income part of the public goes down, regardless of how much money they make per month.

As it is, using your example of oil, most of the alternatives to petroleum fuel are too expensive. However, as prices of conventional fuels rise, alternative fuels become more and more appealing as a substitute product. If we all agree that oil reserves are running out, then we might as well let--nay, encourage--the market forces to make oil more and more expensive so that alternatives can be developed and substituted for oil, and we can stop obsessing over it.

Yes, but we need global regulation to keep the market free of cartels, individual government regulations, monopolies and lobbying: Fossil fuels are going to end someday, the sooner we acknowledge this the better for us and the environment.

Also, the effect of the expenses needed cover the paradigm shift is to lower the availability of goods - prosperity - from those in low income bracket.