DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum House passes minimum wage increase

Why not raise it to $20.00 dollars an hour? I mean, why just a couple bucks? You can't live on 5 bucks an hour.....you think 7 dollars an hour is going to fix that?? So, why don't we raise it a lot? Because it would hurt businesses and jobs and make prices on products outrageous, right? It's okay if we just hurt them a little at a time though, correct?

From Boortz today:


HOUSE PASSES MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE

The Democrats have fulfilled a pledge and have passed a bill raising the minimum wage over the next 24 months. Every single member of the House who voted for this legislation has now, through their vote, told us that they:

Believe it is the role of the Imperial Federal Government of the United States to set wages in the private sector.

Believe that it is appropriate for the Imperial Federal Government to use its police power to force an employer to pay an employee more that that employee's labor is worth to the employer.

A question for you: Do you think that it would be appropriate for the federal government to force you to pay more for a product at the store than that product is worth to you? What if the government came to you and told you that the company making the product you wish to buy just isn't making enough money. Their profit margin has been stagnant for four years, and so the government wants you to pay more for the product so that the company making the product could get more profit. Like the idea? Do you think the government should tell you what must pay more for an item from the department store or grocery shelf than it is worth? If not .. then how can you support the idea that the government should tell an employer that he has to pay a person more for his labor than it is worth?

Don't you just hate questions like that?

Boortz

They already do. Isn't there a state min. that stores have to charge for beer?

My first thought was gasoline... a product which could sell for $1.30 a gallon if it didn't have 60-70 cents worth of tax on it above and beyond normal sales tax....

Umm, No
Comparing ones value of labor, too a can of Beer???? <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

If a business, can't afford a minimum wage for their human labor costs, they shouldn't be in business. The service or product, that they provide, is not valuable enough, or will produced overseas, by third world countries. I for one prefer living in a country, that fosters an environment, that prevents third world status. The minimum wage is a tool, that fosters that environment. I can understand the rational, behind not increasing the wage. I don't agree with it, but understand the thought. I for the life of me, can't fathom our country without a mandatory minimum wage. There was a free market for labor in this country, and it didn't foster a modern civilized society. It fostered starvation, disease, death, and rebellion. Thankfully both sides of the House, understand the need for it, and know the history of our nation with out it.

Miss the point much? Read what he said again.....


And then read this with a little more open mind:


The Right Minimum Wage

By George F. Will
Thursday, January 4, 2007; Page A17

A federal minimum wage is an idea whose time came in 1938, when public confidence in markets was at a nadir and the federal government's confidence in itself was at an apogee. This, in spite of the fact that with 19 percent unemployment and the economy contracting by 6.2 percent in 1938, the New Deal's frenetic attempts had failed to end, and perhaps had prolonged, the Depression.

Today, raising the federal minimum wage is a bad idea whose time has come, for two reasons, the first of which is that some Democrats have an evidently incurable disease -- New Deal Nostalgia. Witness Nancy Pelosi's "100 hours" agenda, a genuflection to FDR's 100 Days. Perhaps this nostalgia resonates with the 5 percent of Americans who remember the 1930s.

Second, President Bush has endorsed raising the hourly minimum from $5.15 to $7.25 by the spring of 2009. The Democratic Congress will favor that, and he may reason that vetoing this minor episode of moral grandstanding would not be worth the predictable uproar -- Washington uproar often is inversely proportional to the importance of the occasion for it. Besides, there would be something disproportionate about the president vetoing this feel-good bit of legislative fluff after not vetoing the absurdly expensive 2002 farm bill, or the 2005 highway bill larded with 6,371 earmarks or the anti-constitutional McCain-Feingold speech-rationing bill.

Democrats consider the minimum-wage increase a signature issue. So, consider what it says about them:

Most of the working poor earn more than the minimum wage, and most of the 0.6 percent (479,000 in 2005) of America's wage workers earning the minimum wage are not poor. Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum lives in families with earnings below the poverty line. Sixty percent work part time, and their average household income is well over $40,000. (The average and median household incomes are $63,344 and $46,326, respectively.)

Forty percent of American workers are salaried. Of the 75.6 million paid by the hour, 1.9 million earn the federal minimum or less, and of these, more than half are under 25 and more than a quarter are between ages 16 and 19. Many are students or other part-time workers. Sixty percent of those earning the federal minimum or less work in restaurants and bars and earn tips -- often untaxed, perhaps -- in addition to wages. Two-thirds of those earning the federal minimum today will, a year from now, have been promoted and be earning 10 percent more. Raising the minimum wage predictably makes work more attractive relative to school for some teenagers and raises the dropout rate. Two scholars report that in states that allow people to leave school before 18, a 10 percent increase in the state minimum wage caused teenage school enrollment to drop 2 percent.

The federal minimum wage has not been raised since 1997, so 29 states with 70 percent of the nation's workforce have set minimum wages between $6.15 and $7.93 an hour. Because aging liberals, clinging to the moral clarities of their youth, also have Sixties Nostalgia, they are suspicious of states' rights. But regarding minimum wages, many have become Brandeisians, invoking Justice Louis Brandeis's thought about states being laboratories of democracy.

But wait. Ronald Blackwell, the AFL-CIO's chief economist, tells the New York Times that state minimum-wage differences entice companies to shift jobs to lower-wage states. So: States' rights are bad, after all, at least concerning -- let's use liberalism's highest encomium -- diversity of economic policies.

The problem is that demand for almost everything is elastic: When the price of something goes up, demand for it goes down. Obviously were the minimum wage to jump to, say, $15 an hour, that would cause significant unemployment among persons just reaching for the bottom rung of the ladder of upward mobility. But suppose those scholars are correct who say that when the minimum wage is low and is increased slowly -- proposed legislation would take it to $7.25 in three steps -- the negative impact on employment is negligible. Still, because there are large differences among states' costs of living and the nature of their economies, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) sensibly suggests that each state be allowed to set a lower minimum.

But the minimum wage should be the same everywhere: $0. Labor is a commodity; governments make messes when they decree commodities' prices. Washington, which has its hands full delivering the mail and defending the shores, should let the market do well what Washington does poorly. But that is a good idea whose time will never come again.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010301619.html

Furthermore, no employer should be allowed to unreasonably profit by exploiting the lack of negotiating power of low-wage workers. The free market fails to set a fair price when one side holds all the bargaining chips. In another context, this is why laws exist against monopolies. If only one supplier supplies a good, it can charge more than the good is worth because the purchaser is powerless to obtain it elsewhere. Low-wage workers are in the opposite position of the monopolist. They lack the skills that command higher wages, but, because they need to work to survive, they cannot withhold their labor from the market. The monopolist can set the price at almost whatever level it wants, while the low-wage worker must take almost whatever is offered for his or her labor. Minimum wages exist for the same reason that laws against monopolies existthey deal with situations in which the market fails to set fair prices.

Whos and whys of minimum wage


• On average, their earnings contributed 68% of their total family income in 2002.

• Almost half (47%) were married or had children.

• Eighty-seven percent were 20 years of age or older.

Read the stats above. They paint a bit different picture. And the grim picture of the evil business owner doesn't fly with me. Sorry.

Boortz missed the boat on this one.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The minimum wage act was passed in the late 30's. He's about seven decades late with his rant.
<img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Allowing people to get paid far below the poverty level while working 40 hours a week doesn't fly either. Unless you really do believe in some "sub human class" that should cater to the rest of us?

Talk about taking something out of context. And there are plenty of things enacted many years ago that I rant against....funny, I think you do too. <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

And I worked minimum wage for quite a few years starting out. Didn't consider myself sub-human, just working my way to a better career and salary. I never for a minute expected to work at that salary for the rest of my life, nor did I expect to be able to live on it. So, silly me worked their way through college and got a better job! It's a miracle!!

So you do feel it's fine to have a "sub work force" working 40 hours a week while getting paid below the poverty level?

That they should work 40 hours,but not at least be AT the poverty level for their efforts and working every day?

So did you not READ George Will's stats or are you calling him a liar... which would it be?

. Companies would never take advantage of anyone <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> I can find just as many studies and theories for it as you can against it. Wich tells me both sides are full of it and the truth is somewhere in the middle as usual. But very few companies actually pay minimum anyway. Because its not enough to attract even the most unskilled in populated areas. They get away with it in rural areas where there is more competition for less jobs. This has happened before, if it was truly so bad for the economy it would be fairly easy for you or other opponents of it to go back and show where the economy collapsed when it happened. But you cant, because there has not been a single minimum wage increase that has been any more than a small ripple on the pond as far as our economy goes. And neither will this one. Everything goes up, the minimum must as well. This isnt new territory we are talking about. Show me one time in history where it has hurt us and I might agree.

Translation: I can't refute your stats so I'll just go off on a wild tangent about how bad the big bad business owners are and ignore common sense......

Read my link, From a quick look the stats dont look all that different, Your guy is just putting up the same numbers from a different angle. There is nothing to refute. Now show me one time in history where its been a bad thing.

Had minimum wage been FROZEN for ten years when you did that?

That's the issue here. While everything has gone up for TEN YEARS,minimum wage hasn't. How long should there be between minimum wage hikes? 20 years? 30 years?

That's the problem here. Had we had a few small hikes while the GOP was in power,we wouldn't need such a big raise in the minimum wage. But it's been ignored for so long now.

I worked for minimum wage too starting out. The difference was,it went MUCH further then because there WERE periodic raises in minimum wage. That hasn't been done for ten years now. That's the problem.

Everybody complains about crime,then they object to people making a living. You can't have it both ways. People will steal and kill before they starve. And in the richest nation in the world,the only thing stopping people who will work from making a living is greed. So I can't really blame them for their sentiments.

JMHO

I mean greed is just as much of a sin as stealing. I guess both sides would be just as guilty.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Now wait a minute.

I thought the whole idea of raising the min. wage was to get the poor people to pay more for themselves, i.e. earn it. Yet here you state that most people are already earning MORE than minimum wage. ......so who exactly is raising the minimum wage going to help?

Let's face it, this is "feel good" legislation, or perhaps more accurately it is "look what we did for you" legislation.

I am of the opinion that life is not fair, unless you yourself make it fair, tempered with "their is only one richest person, and one poorest person. The rest fall in between." Fariness comes from good decisions, and hard work. It does not come from the gov't.

Stuck in a min. wage job? Do you have skills that are needed to get a higher paying job? If so, why not do it. If not, why not get the skills. And trust me, if you're living in poverty and have the real desire to improve yourself, you can. Now, I understand their are many, too many, that think "hey, man, I have a job, I should be making more - I deserve it".

It's a free market. If you have skills in high demand, you get paid more. if you have skills that are in low demand, you get paid less, since more people can do the same thing you can.

While attempting to legislate "improving others lives" is fantastic, it just doesn't work the way some seem to think it will.

How many people are making the same wage they were 10 years ago? You'd be hard pressed to find 1.

The market would dictate wages, if people would quit expecting the government to do it for them, and just refuse to work for "sub human" wages. Companies wouldn't be able to fill the jobs and be forced to pay higher wages or go out of business.

It was a workers market just a few short years ago, and that's exactly what happened. There weren't enough workers to fill the positions, so the wages went up to entice people to apply.

What are the side effects of raising the min. wage? Well unemployment benefits will go up, welfare benefits will go up. Companies will have to raise prices or lower benefits to compensate for the extra cost.

Well I don't feel living AT the poverty level working 40 hours a week is "fair" but it helps.

In case you wish to see what a"true free market" does,check out the conditions of working people and children were in the 20's and early 30's before labor laws and the minimum wage was passed and why they were passed.

Once you do,maybe you'll realise that all you're condoning here is to make "sweat shops" legal. There are very valid reasons these laws are in existance. That's why a "true free market" is impossible. Go ahead and check out what I'm saying arch?

Both parents and their kids over 12 years od were working 12-16 hour days and lived in poverty. There's simply no excuse to plague your fellow man into being destitude in the richest nation in the world if they'll work every day.

Much like you,if they want to "better themselves" I say they should get training. But come on arch,living AT the poverty level while working? That's hardly a giveaway program arch. It is however a rational and humane approach for those willing to work.

I'm just curious Pit... those increases in minimum wage that allowed it to go much further... did all of your raises follow the minimum wage hikes or would you have gotten raises anyway for doing a good job?

Sure pick the depression era for comparison of wages. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The minimum wage is a lot like government run social security... it's an idea whose time has come.... and gone.

So you're saying someone that started off 10 years ago is still making minimum wage???????????

If so, show me the person, and I'll show you someone with no desire or skill what so ever.

Min. wage, pit - see, it's a starting point - not a stopping point.

No arch,I'm NOT talking about "the same people".

What I'm talking about is a young person starting out now on minimum wage is NOT getting the same spending power as a person who started at minimum wage ten years ago.

Gas,car insurance,food and housing has gone up considerably over the past ten years. Shouldn't people starting out now make at least enough to make ends meet like the young people of ten years ago? Or should they be handicapped by 10 years of inflation without ANY adjustments?

What I simply have shown,is just how far business will use and abuse its workers if not kept in check. It was happenning BEFORE the depression. You may want to do a little studyiong on the subject.

But then it's much easier to spout off and not look to see what was going on isn't it?
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Yeah,and tax deferments on retirement funds too. And let's not forget about tax breaks on college funds as well.

Funny how I never see you criticising government help when it benifits you and your family DC? Only when it's something that doesn't pertain to you.

Hmmm? Can we say one way street boys and girls?
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Are you dizzy yet? Cause you're just going in circles, pit.

Very few people making min. wage are supporting families. You've agreed to that.

Of those that are supporting families, very few continue to make minimum wage. You've agreed to that.

Very few places pay min. to their employess, you 've agreed to that.

Who makes min? Teens, as they should. And older adults trying to supplement their retirement.

Oh, and the unskilled.

Why not do like Jules said - just pay everyone $20 an hour. (and yeah, she said it. I said $15 - so don't try to pull the "you go to extremes" stuff)

Everyone has to start somewhere, pit. And if, as an adult supporting a family, or just yourself, you start at min. and don't make headway, you flat out have no desire, or skills, whichever.

Sure it's tough. But people that want to make it, do. People that don't care, don't.

And as for "shouldn't people starting off now make at least enough to make ends meet, as they did 10 years ago"?

Min. wage 10 years ago didn't support a family - min. wage 10 yrs. ago didn't support a single person that had a car, rent and utilities, so why should it today? And further, you have stated that few people work for minimum anyway!

Circles are weird things. You debate apoint, you get shot down, you go to another point, you get shot down, you go to another one, you get shot down, and you come back to the first point......and it goes on.

Raising the min. wage is nothing but a "feel good" thing. Sure, raise the minimum. And in the process, watch prices go up on everything. Then, in 5 years we can have this discussion again.. The discussion would go like this: well, the min. was raised 5 years ago, but everything went up in price, so the people it was designed to help didn't get the help. In fact, more people fell under the fed. poverty line, so we need to raise the min. even higher yet.

Come on pit, I was under the assumption that you were a smart cookie. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Pit they can have all of their cute little tax breaks back if they would just lower the nominal rate Pit... I use those tax breaks because they are there and it would be stupid not to.... but given the choice between a 35% tax bracket with some neat incentives to behave a certain way and a flat 25% tax break without them... well I'd rather have the money up front.... Don't throw those numbers back at me, I just made them up... <img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

can you say EIC? You know, the program that gives some people back all of the taxes they pay, plus? Welfare at it's finest, pit. And most hidden, I might add.

According to the article about 5 million people currently make under $6.85 an hour. Even though only half a million are making 5.15 right now, a lot are making under 6.85. I agree with you that it should be a starting point but to me the starting point has to be reasonable and to me the newly passed wage is reasonable.

I agree with most of your post - and the starting point should be reasonable.

However, what is reasonable? You can't subsist on $5.15 an hour, nor can you on $6.85 per hour. Many would be hard pressed to make it on $10 per hour - that's only $1600 per month. Take taxes out, damn, its tough even at that.

So, what is reasonable? Like Jules said, let's make it $20 an hour. I mean, after all, you should be able to live off of that, not? Why, your spouse would even be able to stay home to care for the kids that go to public schools all day, and aren't home anyway.

What's reasonable? It's already been established that not many make minimum wage - not many family supporters, that is, and those that do don't stay at minimum wage.

And according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 5.87 million teenagers worked in 2005.... I know 5 million is a big number and they love to throw out big numbers because the average person can't relate to them, but consider the size of the work force.... if almost 6 million teenagers are working and 5 million are in this group... then what does that say?

So in other words,you're saying "deny workers today,the same spending power that they had ten years ago" when they first start out,right?.

Because that's what it boils down to. Minimum wage has been frozen for almost ten years. You think that's fair for people coming out of high school now?

Let's take a kid starting college. There's book fees,gas.car and fill in for tuition. So while all of these costs have gone up,minimum wage should have stayed frozen? It's not just for the poor arch. But you seem to think these college kids should pay ALL THE SAME expences that college kids did ten years ago without any raise? Try that yourself and you'll see it's not plausible.

BTW- Heck,let's keep minimum wage frozen so single moms can draw more food stamps and government assistance. Because while you don't care for it,the bottom line is,that's the results arch. I guess you've picked your poison.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

It doesn't say what the "raise the minimum wage in order to help the poor" people want it to say. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Well, if a stay at home parent goes back to work for $20 an hour, the family would have to hire housekeepers, before and after school care, etc., and that would all be $20 an hour. A lot of times, you see, it's more economical for one parent to stay home. Don't pick on SAHP....I mean it.

Reasonable is an increase that helps low income workers,while not slaughtering the business community at the same time.

That's why you don't get goofy and go off the charts with it. But at the same time,you try to keep some balance in the buying power of the lowest working sector. Balance.......

What is your definition of greed?

Now, just a second here. First, I was being partially facetious with that. Second, do you mean to tell me that when both parents work, you need to hire a housekeeper? <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

What have I been doing wrong? I work 40 to 60 hours per week, my wife works 40 (on occasion a few more). I work days, she works nights. Our house is one of the cleaner ones you could find, and I mean that. Our laundry is done way before it needs it (yeah, we bought a super duty can wash 16 pairs of jeans at one time" washer 2 years ago - and it doesn't even get worked)

I'm not picking on stay at home parents. I wish one of us were, although, with our youngest in school, it wouldn't make much sense. See, we choose to spend enough that we both need to work. We could also choose to spend less, so that my wife could stay at home.

Stay at home parents are great. Right up until they start saying "we need more money".

Just making sure you weren't picking on them. <img src="/images/graemlins/azzangel.gif" alt="" /> And, yes, in some families, a housekeeper would be needed. The families who don't share the chore load equally. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />