DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus These states cut unemployment aid early to supercharge hiring. It isn't working.

These states cut unemployment aid early to supercharge hiring. It isn't working.

By Aimee Picchi

Updated on: July 30, 2021 / 4:39 PM / MoneyWatch

In May, Missouri Governor Michael Parson explained he was directing the state to cut off $300 in weekly jobless payments, months before the federally funded benefits were due to expire in September. The "excessive" aid had "incentivized people to stay out of the workforce," he said.

But Parson's plan to supercharge hiring by curtailing jobless benefits may not be paying off, based on a new analysis of hiring data from Gusto, a company that handles payroll and other services for small and midsized businesses.

So far, a dozen states that were the first to cut pandemic jobless benefits have experienced hiring growth on par with states that kept the federal benefits, the Gusto analysis found. These 12 states, all of which have Republican governors, blamed the generous unemployment benefits for keeping workers on the sidelines, but early evidence suggests that other issues — ranging from pandemic health concerns to problems with childcare — may be weighing on the job market, Gusto economist Luke Pardue said.

"These benefits [were] ended early in order to try to speed up economic growth, but this data shows that this policy didn't have that intended effect," Pardue noted.

He added, "At the end of the day, if these governors have in mind creating a longer-term, sustainable recovery, and if we want a speedy recovery, ending unemployment insurance isn't the silver bullet."

The dozen states that ended unemployment aid by June 19 — Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming — saw its employment headcount grow 11.6% since April 2021. By comparison, hiring has grown at relatively the same rate, 11.2%, in states that kept the benefits, the Gusto analysis found.

To be sure, the analysis only tracks a few weeks after the termination of the jobless benefits last month. Nevertheless, the early data signals that the strategy hasn't immediately had the impact that the governors of those states hoped for. Two of the states that were among the first to cut benefits — Texas and Missouri — were among the states posting the biggest increase in jobless claims for the week ended July 17, the Labor Department said on Thursday.

Some governors are also facing court battles over their decision to cut jobless aid, with judges in Maryland, Indiana and Arkansas so far ruling that the unemployment benefits must continue while the lawsuits proceed. In the most recent case, an Arkansas judge wrote that the lawsuit, filed on behalf of five Arkansas workers who have struggled since the befits to pay for essentials such as food and rent since the benefits ended, has "a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits."

Vaccinations boost hiring

Among the 12 states that cut aid off early, Gusto found there was a stark difference in hiring numbers between those with higher vaccination rates — Alaska, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming — versus those with lower vaccination rates. After the states announced they were ending jobless aid, almost all hiring growth occurred in the six states with higher vaccination rates, the study found.

That suggests hiring is impacted by people's concerns about health and fear of contracting COVID-19, issues that may be more prevalent in states like Missouri where vaccination rates are below the national average. Only about 41% of people in Missouri are fully vaccinated, compared with about 50% across the U.S., according to state and federal data.

States, therefore, that want to boost hiring "would be much better off increasing the vaccination rate" rather than cutting off unemployment aid, Pardue noted.

With the spread of new strains such as the Delta variant, workers' concerns about returning to the workforce may only heighten, especially in regions with low vaccination rates. As COVID-19 cases tick up, some regions are reinstating restrictions such as mask mandates, while some major companies like Apple are delaying a return to the office.
Increased hardship

Gusto's findings were echoed by research from University of Massachusetts economist Arindrajit Dube. Dube's analysis found that while enrollment in unemployment programs dropped by 60% in the 12 states where aid was cut off by June 19, there was no change in the employment-to-population ratio. In other words, these states did not see an immediate boost to job growth.

Yet Dube did find one significant impact of the early expiration of benefits on the labor market: an increase in hardship. More people in early-cutoff states, according to Dube's analysis of Census Bureau data, reported they had increased difficulty paying their bills in the prior week.

That's been the experience felt by former Uber driver Kristen Adkins, 36, who was cut off from her unemployment aid in Texas on June 26. Adkins said her financial situation, already precarious before the aid ended, was now even worse. While she was homeless prior to the early expiration of the jobless aid, she now can't afford to rent a hotel room as frequently as she would like, and sometimes sleeps under a bridge.

"Domino effect"

"It's a domino effect," Adkins said of losing the unemployment benefits. She said that if the payments had continued, "I would have a roof over my head, be more stable. I know that I could pay for the bus around town."

For now, Adkins is receiving some support through food stamps, and is hoping that some loans for small businesses come through for her. She'd like to restart a business transporting dogs to rescue groups and breeders around the country, but needs the money to get a vehicle since her last car was repossessed in the pandemic.

Adkins said she'd like to say to Texas Governor Greg Abbott: "People can't afford to pay their bills. Where are you at with helping anyone when you are taking everything away?"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/enhanced-un...jH_ewR6gMZGiilo

I can't say that I agree with all of this but one thing is for sure. Many employers are going the extra mile to get employees. Higher wages and hiring bonuses. Those refusing to do this will be last in line to find and be able to keep employees.

It's odd how people are so gung ho when those at the bottom of our economy make very little and feel they don't deserve to make a living. Then when they demand to make a living they call them lazy. It's disgusting. They then start to whine, "Yeah but inflation went up over 5%!" Heaven forbid you have to pay a little more for hamburger so Americans can afford to live. Those same people were claiming a far higher rate of inflation when wages rose.

Now they're whining about a much lower rise than they ever predicted.

Well the tables have turned and employers will have no choice but to pay more. It's that supply and demand system they love so much....... when it favors them.

The people getting mad are the ones who perceive their participation trophies being somehow diminished by the poor making more.

so, if you worked a 40 hour work week in missouri at the state minimum wage, you would make $412 a week, $1,785 a month, $21,424 a year.

in todays world, thats not enough to live on your own. the average income is about $61k.

so thats about 35% of the average if you work at a minimum wage job.

average middle class income in missouri is $46k for singles, $57k in missouri.

if you tacked on a part time job on top of that at 20 hours a week, you'd make $892 a month, $10,712 annually. combine that with the full time job, and you're working 60 hours a week for $2,678 a month, $32,135 annually.

thats 52% of the average income in america. that doesn't account for taxes, cost of living, etc. so in missouri, you can have 2 jobs working 60 hours, and still not be middle class.

so imma need somebody, specifically a conservative, to help me understand why politicians, who make easily double the average income of an american from getting paid by said american, are out here trying to re-enforce a slave class in this country.

cause the message i keep receiving from conservatives is this:

yea, i know you're underpaid and can't afford to live, but i reeeeeaaally need this burger right now before i head back to the office. its, well, more important.

After seeing your numbers it's a wonder you don't realize it's the left that has been causing it all. If it weren't for the left, everyone would probably have more, it's a longterm problem.

Only problem is, hardly ANYONE works a 40 hour week at state minimum.

j/c

At or below minimum wage earners make up about 1.5% of all working people. With nearly half the 1.5% made up of high school and college age people.

yes, people should make a living wage, but there are many factors involved. Job market, desire to seek a better paying job, ability to get to said job, job skill of employee. Add in attitude, work ethic, health and other personality traits, and there are some folks that just will not exceed low wage jobs.

When I moved to Florida, it was leaving a job that paid more, for a job that paid less but allowed overtime, which more than covered the difference. I was single and young and was fine working more at the time.

I still put in 45-50 office hours, plus a few remote from home hours.

First I think that is horse crud. So I'll ask Where?

While there is a site saying 1.5 % make at or below minimum wage, I think many make just above it.

"how many US workers make less than 15 dollars per hour?"
almost half of US workers 42.4 percent make less than 15 dollars per hour.

Ohio's minimum wage 8.70 is 1.45 above the federal minimum wage, 7.25.

One of the problems with raising the minimum wage constantly is,
anyone who climbed above minimum wage over time is roped right back down to minimum as whatever increase gains occurred over time,
are just instantly swallowed up by the currency manipulation.

Look, If the democrats want to make the minimum wage 21. dollars per hour,
but along with it, raise the price of cheese to 7.90, or 17.90 from 5.00, which used to be 2.99,
then all it accomplishes is to reign in anyone making 21. per hour, back to the real value, the buying power of the person on minimum wage.
Again.
like they've done every dozen years or so, perpetually.

That is kind of my point, is that minimum wage is just a number, and raising it will hurt more than it helps, especially in the long run.

We must first know who truly makes minimum wage, and why? Until we truly know those answers, how can anything be corrected?

Umm, trickle down economics, ya know republicans Jesus practice in order to chase profits, has led to the crap situation we’re in now.

It’s got to the point where the biggest business deals I see consolidation, nothing else. That’s all America does now. Cut labor cost to increase profits. That’s what lead to the situation we’re in now. People are tired of working for scraps. Conservatives turned America into a game of monopoly.

And they did that under the guise of pro growth policies.

45 years in the employment/HR/Recruiting business and here's what I know to be true today.

During the Pandemic, people received cash help from the Government. it really was needed by so many.

But, the smarter ones said, wow, this is the perfect time to try to start something in the Gig Economy. Some drive lift, some started clothing lines that sell on Amazon and plenty of other sites.. One guy in Solon Ohio found ways to buy products (shaving cream, razors, panty hose etc etc) at discounted prices in bulk so he can turn around and sell them at prices that are highly discounted from Retail.

another guy I know went out and bought a ton of these little matchbox cars. He turned around and is selling them over his own website.

All kind of products that you wouldn't think would be something you can buy and resell are out there..

As an old boss of mine once said, there are a ton of ways to make a buck.. These folks found those ways and no longer want to be part of a company where the boss tells them where to be, when to be there and what to do while there.

This whole thing has caused people to stand on their own two feet...

Exactly as it should be...

So yeah, only the weak minded that can't think beyond the end of their nose want to blame this person or this thing..

It's freakin idiotic.

So in TL post - the argument against helping the lowest paid workers is that raising wages will increase cost of goods which has a negative impact for the folks earning at or above minimum wage before the change is made??? [1] That's a really bad argument for not helping the neediest in society. [2] The impact of raising the minimum wage doesn't send the price of cheese from $5 a lb to $15 a lb ... there will be an impact but it is not THAT big of an increase. Maybe we need to deal with some facts before making up numbers to dismiss something.

I agree understanding who makes min wage helps clarify the picture and what impact changes to min wage might make. But focusing on Min wage like this discussion seems to be doing - and highlighting college kids and students who might be on min wage - does a disservice to what the real discussion and focus should be: Poverty - people/families who live at or below the poverty line. We should even have a discussion about what the poverty line is and what that means. Probably very few on this board have any concept of what it might mean to work 40-50 hours a week and not have enough to feed and cloth your family AND pay rent. We won't even talk about adequate first world healthcare. So often the assumption is that if someone wants to get ahead they can ... but the reality for many is that is not the case despite earnest efforts and hard work.

It's so easy for the detractors to point to the very small minority that abuse the system and who get help and then have the latest iPhone or 70" TV. Sure that happens. It happens in every first world country on earth. A British MP coined the term 'the work shy and the shifty' back in the 80's ... To my mind for every scammer exploiting welfare there is probably a corporate tax thief or business owner that manipulates his taxes, or a Jared Kushner slum lord breaking the law to raise rents illegally etc. Or a Bernie Madoff stealing 100's millions $$. Personally I think instead of focusing on the few - focus on those in need and find a better solution and then figure out how to tighten the process to prevent exploitation. But focusing just on the minimum wage doesn't necessarily get us to the solution.

None the less, minimum is minimum. Raising it helps for a short while, but in the end, you are still a minimum wage earner and minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage. That is what pimple faced teenagers make to make date and gas money.

The reality is raising minimum wage lowers the standard of living for a large segment of the population because as soon as the wage limits go up, so do prices, which immediately impact people on a fixed income, and everybody else for that matter.

That is the communist goal, have everybody needing the government to solve their problems.

So for now, $15 seems to be the number. In short order, it won't be enough once rents, insurance, food, energy, etc all start to go up, thrusting more and more people towards the poverty line. In the end, they will still be bottom of the barrel wage earners needing the same government support as always, plus many more....again, part of the plan.

You are a sharp guy. Don't fall for it.

That's why I said "Minimum Wage is Just A Number", it does not tell the story, or provide an answer to the bigger problem.

Even putting a number stating what is considered poverty, does not tell the whole story. Some can't believe it, but there are people who are perfectly happy just living life. They aren't looking for fancy cars, big TVs, large houses, they just want to pay their bills, put food on the table and relax on weekends.

exactly. No matter what you are going to have people in poverty.

The question is do you want it to be some of the people, or all of the people?

Like you said, some people are happy getting by. What you don't mention is there are people who are just poor employees for one reason or another.

Actually I did farther up in my initial post.

"Yes, people should make a living wage, but there are many factors involved. Job market, desire to seek a better paying job, ability to get to said job, job skill of employee. Add in attitude, work ethic, health and other personality traits, and there are some folks that just will not exceed low wage jobs.
"

I always thought minimum wage was intended to set the baseline of a living wage, and followed a lot of the Fat Cat rises to prominence (Carnegie, Rockefeller) that we saw in the original monopolization era when you had people working ridiculous hours and child labor.

This is from Cornell:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minimum_wage

I find myself between mainline stances on the right and left in the argument. On one hand, the stagnant minimum wage that we've had in place needs to be updated. On the other hand, a clear cut, nationwide imposition of $15/hour from the get-go is too aggressive IMO. I brought up the notion of imposing minimum wages tied to cost of living (like how federal employees salaries are scaled), and I was assailed for that one.

The factual dynamic that I think we currently have in place is that you have an obvious wealth gap. If you take the dawn of the booming American economy following WWII, you saw minimum wages far more commensurate ratio-wise to what the executives were making. Since then, the ratio has widened immensely.

You also saw tax brackets that were far more "socialist" (during the Cold War mind you) during the post-war era than you did after Reagan.

On top of that, you see outsourcing of labor to other countries which don't have a floor, combined with the movement to automation.

It's really the perfect storm, and I don't think we can really satisfy that with a minimum wage, but I would ask what the alternative solution is, especially from the Conservative (Big C Republican) side? It seems like the Conservative side to the issue is just to talk about how bad the policies of the Left are without actually doing anything themselves.

You and I disagree in terms of our concern over the presence and threat of communism in the USA, but I would just offer that the historic pattern leading to communism is an ever-shrinking middle class, a detached, disinterested wealthy elite who controls politics, and a widening economic class disparity.

I think that has to be addressed.

Now, as to my own personal views, I think at our finest, we should be a nation where competition and performance is awarded, and people are allowed to freely fail and succeed, with guard rails in place. I think the past several decades, we have gone outside of that. I mentioned the whole dynamic in the defense industry with corporations consuming each other, oligopolies, and poorer end products all to achieve a better bottom line. I think that's a microcosm of what has happened. We have gotten far outside the guard rails, and it culminated with corporate bailouts. "Oh, you did a bad job, here's money to help you." That's not capitalism at all. But, that's where we've gotten to. So, when that guard rail was lifted, what argument do we have when the other end says "Hey, you bailed them out, now where's ours?"

You're "desire to seek a better paying job" has zero to do with what minimum wage was created to accomplish.



And while your statement of "only 1.5% of workers make minimum wage" may be true, those working jobs that place them below the poverty line is almost half of Americans. In many states $8.00 an hour is above minimum wage. So how does that help?

And to say that "the poverty line is only a number"? I know you're smart enough to know that they take rent, the cost of food and other cost of living factors into account when arriving at what the cost of living is. It's not as if it's a number they drew out of thin air.



You have just described exactly what a minimum wage is supposed to accomplish despite the popular opinion of some. And nothing close to the minimum wage is many states accomplishes that.

This is the most ridiculous statement in the entire thread. You're not going to "be poor" if those at the bottom of the social rung can make a living wage.



No they're not and that's the problem. If you have crappy employees either you need to get new employees or you're not paying enough to attract good ones.

Quit making cheap excuses for promoting a working class poor to serve you.

You took my opinion with the negative context.

By saying they are just numbers, and I thought I made this clear in other responses, that they are arbitrary numbers that don't reflect the whole situation, and therefore cannot correct it. Yes there are people living in poverty, struggling to pay bills, put food on the table, etc.

But without actually truly finding out out who these people are, where they live, how they live, what they want, a solution to help them is based on statistics and not reality.

If we want to help them, we have to understand their situation. Throwing money at problems has yet to work.

You even said it yourself, that the 1.5% making minimum doesn't account for those making just slightly over. What are these jobs, why are they working these jobs, could they get better paying jobs if they were available to them? If not, why not? What can be done to help them get better paying jobs.

I think you should refer back to the quote from FDR as to why minimum wage was created in the first place and what exactly it is meant to accomplish.

Paying a living wage isn't "throwing money at them". All of "these jobs" are supposed to provide a living wage.

Are you explaining how to solve the bigger picture? At least you're trying to look deeper into the underlying social issues that go beyond a living wage. And that's certainly never a bad thing. Who they are and how they live however is no excuse not to pay them a living wage as minimum wage was intended to do in the first place.

You seem to wish to focus on "why they work here and why they work these jobs? What are these jobs?" When the fact of the matter is no matter where or what these jobs are, all jobs should pay a living wage. If we would focus on that rather than try to sidetrack that issue, life would be better for a large segment of our society.

You're never going to get an entire society to be "smart with their money". We see that in people who make good wages. So there will always be a segment of our society that will live badly due to their own mismanagement. But that isn't an isolated issue that exists only within the poor.

I could read your last post and think that you intend / believe that every job, no matter what, deserves to be paid at a level where someone could support a family doing that job 40 hours a week? Not sure if that is correct?

Honestly in addition to wages - for me a huge part of helping the neediest would be to raise the threshold at which tax is due. If I am reading it correctly... Currently about 10% up to $9,950.00. 12% from $9,9950-$40K. 22% from $40k-$86K

In the UK for instance there is no income tax due on less than about $16K.... without all the data it's an impossible balance book to balance ... BUT, I imagine if you didn't tax income below $16K - and started at 12% from $16-36K and the next tier 22% from $36K to $70K etc ... I bet the books could balance. The goal would be for anyone earning about $50-60K to be net neutral. Earning below that you see more in your pocket. From $60-90K you'd see a very small difference and earners over $90K would pay the rest. . . based on data and tax revenue it would seem to be very doable. Maybe start paying tax at $10k or $12k ... whatever makes it workable and low impact for the top 10-15%

And maybe close some loop holes to the 1% actually contribute to Federal tax coffers.

"You seem to wish to focus on "why they work here and why they work these jobs? What are these jobs?" When the fact of the matter is no matter where or what these jobs are, all jobs should pay a living wage. If we would focus on that rather than try to sidetrack that issue, life would be better for a large segment of our society."

And we can, and have raised minimum wage, yet here we are. So obviously there are other variables that are part of the problem as well.

We should also, not only, look into these variables to see if there is a better, more permanent solution.

The last time the federal minimum wage was increased was in 2009.

The current minimum wage in the state of Florida is $8.65 an hour. 14 states use the $7.25 an hour minimum that the federal government set. 27 states have minimum wages below $10 an hour. Five states have no set minimum wage at all. Maybe you should take a look at what the poverty line actually is and compare that to minimum wages in our country.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx

It's quite obviously not what you're describing or think it is.

What is it you think I am describing or think it is, because I thought I have been pretty clear on things, maybe not.

I was basing my comments on this. The thing is we have not increased minimum wage almost anywhere that would make anything close to minimum wage a living wage. So to get to the point of "yet here we are", you would first have to accomplish paying a living wage. Because we're certainly not there yet.

To look deeply into a situation you must first know what that situation is. As of now people have no choice but live in poor conditions. They can't afford anything better.

As I've shown above, minimum wage was most certainly created to provide a minimum standard of living. So where you work and what job you have should be of no impact on that. Until we have a living wage for all American workers we have no idea of how much of, or which problems will remain beyond that point. So to me it's a matter of not putting the cart in front of the horse.

Minimum wage jobs are not, and never were supposed to be living wage jobs.

Min. wage jobs are part time jobs. For teens, or extra hours/income for others. And if you stay at minimum wage for long, the problem isn't some set "minimum wage" number. Rather, the problem is you.

This has been discussed on here at great length previously, and often.

Jack minimum wage up to $15 an hour? Fine. That great employee you have that's been with your company/business for 5, 15 ? years? They'll demand a raise. And it would be merited. Next thing you know - inflation. And those at $15/hr are still poor.

I don't know of 1 single full time, 40 hour a week job, that pays minimum wage. Even fast food restaurants - which aren't 40 hour a week jobs other than for a few managers, are starting out at $11-12 an hour.

Daughter - college student, is starting a part time job soon. $16.50 an hour with a guarantee she can pick up extra shifts if she desires.

Some will read this and say "arch wants to keep the poor people down". That would be idiotic to say, but....

When places are STARTING you well above minimum wage, they STILL can't find employees that want to work, that show up, and do even a decent job.

Anyone that thinks working 10-25 hours a week should be a living wage job is just not grounded in reality.

If you're working a full time job - 40 hours a week, you aren't making minimum wage. Period.

I based that "And here we are" based on the fact we have raised the minimum wage in the past, "and here we are."

First of all you can make well above minimum wage and still be living well below the poverty line. Secondly, you haven't been paying attention. The very reason minimum wage was created is so that every American who works full time can make a living.



Just because you keep saying the same thing over and over again does not make it true.

If the increases in minimum wage had kept up with the actual cost of the necessities to live we may not be where we are.

j/c

Did a little research since what we really are talking about is poverty, more so than actual minimum wage.

This is from 2019. While 10.5 is still high, I was surprised to see it has been dropping, and is at it's lowest sine 1959.

Poverty:
The official poverty rate in 2019 was 10.5 percent, down 1.3 percentage points from 11.8 percent in 2018. This is the fifth consecutive annual decline in poverty. Since 2014, the poverty rate has fallen 4.3 percentage points, from 14.8 percent to 10.5 percent (Figure 7 and Table B-5).
The 2019 poverty rate of 10.5 percent is the lowest rate observed since estimates were initially published in 1959 (Figure 7 and Table B-5).
In 2019, there were 34.0 million people in poverty, approximately 4.2 million fewer people than 2018 (Figure 7 and Table B-1).
For all demographic groups shown in Figure 8 and Table B-1, poverty rates in 2019 were either lower than or not statistically different from those in 2018.

Which is certainly a positive trend. Sadly the middle class has shrunk by 10% from 1971 through 2019 but that's a discussion for another time.

But it seems we both agree that over one in ten Americans living below the poverty line are too many Americans and sadly many living below the poverty line work 40 hours a week.

That's really my problem here. I don't think government hand outs should raise you above the poverty line. If you work less than 40 hours a week at a low paying job, I don't think that should raise you above the poverty line.

But I do think every American who works 40 hours a week in our nation should not be in a class know as "the working poor".

You do understand that people making minimum wage now currently rely on the government, right? Walmart is the biggest retailer in the world, I believe, and for years they made billions in profits while a majority of their workforce was subsidized by the government. They have improved some recently, but for years it was that way. Same thing happens with McDonald's and such. It's not that they can't afford to pay a living wage, it's that they know they don't have to.

I agree that the extra government money for unemployment should stop, and people need to be getting back to work, but we have it so ingrained in our society that certain jobs shouldn't pay hardly anything, even when the companies are making billions of dollars. Obviously it shouldn't pay $100,000 a year, but paying $7.15 minimum wage is a problem. Or $8 and change that it is here in Ohio.

Go ahead. Jack the wages for part timers up to $50 an hour if you want.

Part time jobs aren't meant to be living wage jobs. Period. End of discussion.

Do you know why there are so many "part time" jobs out there?

Also, no one is saying $50 an hour.

Do you have comprehension issues?

NO ONE works a full time job at minimum wage. Period.

Hardly ANY ONE makes minimum wage if they've been at a job for over a month. And if they are making min. after a month? If they truly want to work, they go somewhere else.

There are so many part time jobs because people won't work full time jobs. Those jobs require clocking in, sweating, working.

I'm tired of the "minimum wage needs to be raised" crap, when only part timers make anywhere near min.

And then you get they "oh, republicans want to keep the wages down so they can get their burger a bit cheaper."

If we're using fast food jobs as the mile stone for wages............well, we're in a sad position.

There are so many "part time" jobs because then employers don't have to have insurance, especially the huge corporations. There are plenty of lazy people, but they won't work part time, full time, or whatever else.

Also, the thing is, even places that raised minimum wage, prices didn't increase in the same proportion as so many claim. My favorite was people saying "$15 an hour if you want to pay $38 for a Taco Bell burrito." That doesn't happen.

You're being obtuse and confusing things.

Part time jobs are what the people that want to mandate a living wage are talking about.

You simply will not find a full time job today that pays minimum wage, let alone vacation time, health insurance, etc.

If we're talking part time jobs at a gas station...fast food place, etc - those are NOT meant to be living wage jobs in the first place. And they are not full time jobs.

If you think prices haven't gone up recently, I'd like to live in your world.

That's an absolute lie and I have proven to you that the very person who created the idea and law stated that was the very reason minimum wage was created. Yet you continue to post the same old BS. Just for the benefit of everyone else I'll point out to them one thing you said is certainly true. You can't be schooled. Even with the facts stuck right in your face. Those who refuse to learn never do...



You can have your own opinion. Not your own set of facts.