Minumum wage
 

Here is my spin. Raising minumum wage is not only a stupid idea, but it will make the economy worse and cause a sudded rise in inflation.
Raising minumum wage makes prices go higher. For example you raise the wage by 4% well everything goes up in price by approximatly 4%. And the only people who are making more money are the people who are working at the lowest wage level anyway. Ppeople may make more but they end up spending more int he long run anyway.

I for one am glad that this bill was shot down. Minumum wage helps those who refuse to get a good job or cannot get a good job.

We all know that if you really want to o to school, you can. If you really want a job making 8-10 dollars an hour you can get one. they are not hard to find or difficult to get. America needs to stop asking for Higher wages they need to ask for everything else to get less expensive and for the Government to do something about inflation. Anyway just my two cents what does every body else think.

I don't think we should have a minimum wage period.....

Shouldn't this be in the politcal forum though?

I'm apathetic about it, but when it was started in 1938 did the economy collapse?

I don't necessarily believe that we should have a minimum wage... but that statement I am not sure is entirely accurate.. there are parts of this country where jobs are few and far between and people just cant up and move...

Jobs at the local target and other retail places in the north east would pay 10 dollars an hour, at 40 hours a week that's only 21K a year... that'd be tough to live on...

i don't think that the government should tell businesses what they should pay, I think the market shoudl determine that, as well as the skill level of the employee... but I'm also realistic enough to understand that in some places, if the jobs are scarce and the people who need jobs is high, that the employer will pay as little as possible.. because they can...

Not necessarily, supply and demand dictates what the price of goods are. With the increase of oil in the last couple of years, do you think that all of that cost went directly to the consumer? Sure in some industries it did, and in others it had to be swallowed by the organization. Im sure a raise in minumum wage would have the same effect.

Here is a thought, lets raise minimum wage and reduce the amount of money that we give our CEOs. Did you know that the average CEO makes over a hundred times more than the average worker?

While I don't agree entirely with raising minimum wage, I did read a good article today about it.

WIth today's inflation, minimum wage is actually lower than ever in the past couple decades... And at the same time, almost every year congressmen all pat themselves on the back and give themselves a raise... I thought they were serving the people?

Seems like a waste of money to me to raise politicians salaries past their already high 6 figure wages...

Seems a contridiction to deny bottom level workers a little more money, while giving yourself more with the tax dollars they already pay out of those wages. Just my $.02...

I'll try to find the article.

When I was in my late teens, back in the mid-70s, minimum wage was $2.00 an hour. Using a handy inflation calculator, that works out to $7.49 an hour in today's money.

On the other hand, today's federal minimum wage of $5.15 translates into $1.37 an hour in 1975 dollars. 40 percent less than the actual minimum wage of that time.

Personally, I think of the minimum wage as the "16-year-olds and illegal immigrant wage." Few others will work for $5.15, but these two groups are desperate for work. Personally, I think the minimum wage is kept artificially low to allow employers to exploit these two groups.

That's a noble concept, but not a very realistic one. Most of the business which are affected by minimum wage laws aren't in the business of fair pay. Those jobs usually entail very few or no skills at all-- Certainly not enough for type of pay you would hope to see of the higher skill levels.

I know that, in the case of jobs with low skill level requirements, many businesses will try to exploit people by hiring labor as cheaply as possible if there were no minimum wage requirements (Business already do it in the case of illegal immigrants, though it's illegal). Personally, I can't tell you how many jobs I had which payed the minimum wage level. As it stands, if you tried to live off of minimum wage, you would BARELY cross the poverty threshold level, assuming you only have to take care of yourself.

Three things:

1.) It's not that easy to go out and find an $8 - $10 job without the proper education, at least not around here. Minimum wage isn't designed as something to live off of. It's only supposed to appeal to a certain group of people.

2.) You make it sound as if raising the minimum wage would be a bad thing. Even if the minimum wage rose to $7.25 an hour, when coupled with inflation, it still won't be as high as it has been in the past.

3.) I've never really understood how minimum wage hurts an economy, as I've always believed it to stimulate economic growth.

It would hurt the economy because companies would outsource and layoff more people. Instead of hiring 10 people, they would only get 8, unless the other 2 would bring in a lot more money.

And it hurts the people who aren't working. Retirees, unemployed, injured, new immigrants, people with no money... Why, because if the workers can afford to pay more for products, and the supply doesn't increase, then prices go up.

And what incentive do people have to work hard if given the choice between going to college and getting an office assistant job making $12/hr with $25,000 in student loans, or getting a job at 18 making $7.25/hr. With 4 years of experience, they would probably be able to get $9-$10/hr.

On the other hand, this would be a good thing, because I would rather have the workers making more money, then just having the owners and investors making it all. The workers will still spend all of the new money, so the CEOs and other businessmen/investors will get the money in the end eventually anyway. (Trickle down economies don't work very well, trickle up ones do)

And workers who are financially secure could hold out and not be desperate for any job at any wage. They could afford to look around.

And it would make the country stronger if there isn't a large poor community in certain areas. Yes, giving them $2 more an hour won't do a whole lot, but it's a start.

while i realize we are talking about the country as a whole..
the washington state minimum wage is 7.50 already.
i think its a good thing we have minimum wage, otherwise we would have walmart employees making 2.00 an hour to sweep and mcdonalds employees making 4 dollars to cook fries.

also, in my own opinion- ive always felt that people who have worked those super low paying jobs for years(minimum wage), fastfood, etc could have switched at any time but didnt do to simple lazyness.

After thinking about it for a while, I think that there should be a minimum wage and that it should always keep up with standard of living costs.

As a man who studied this subject in-depth academically, I really want to get into this discussion.

Didn't we have a thread on this already?

And for quoting articles, let me tell you that even the academics don't agree on this one.

Minimum wages affect the market, and it is true that in an unregulated wage market, labour would be taken advantage of, ceteris paribus. There is much discussion about CEO's and their wage market, and how a healthy business should cap the CEO wage at 30 times the lowest paid employee. The janitor makes 20k? CEO only allowed to make 600k.

Historical economists try to peg the minimum wage to a consumer price index; a bundle of goods that an hours worth of labour could purchase. The price of oil was also used as a benchmark, because oil is used to transport workers to their place of employment. I liked this theorem. That is all it was; a theorem.

What would you do if I offered you your dream job? Close your eyes and think about that for a second. Gourmet chef? Professional photographer? Circuit Court Judge? Teacher? Cop? Soldier?

What would you be willing to take as a wage for that job? What? You would do it for free? Come on now... You need to eat. You need to care for your family. You need to save for an uncertain future. Free doesn't cut it.

What if I told you that all of your needs, and some of your wants would be taken care of? You would never have to worry about money. You wouldn't be rich, but you would be able to concentrate on your dream job without worrying about finances. What would you say?

I am of the opinion that a minimum wage only protects those workers who would otherwise end up as endentured servants anyway. There are illegal immigrants working in agricultural jobs that are in that position now. Without it, a pound of Union strawberries would cost about 30 bucks.

Labour is being outsourced to countries without labour laws. It hurts to see those jobs leave, but do we want those jobs anyway? I say no, we should train our workforce to contribute skill in a value-added environment.

Shit, what a wide topic. I STUDIED THIS SHIT, and I still have a hard time wrapping my brain around it.

All I can say is that there would be a race to the bottom in trying to figure out just how little companies could pay their low wage employees...


PS: Moved to Politics

That's a pretty broad net you're casting there. With years and years of minimum wage job experience under my belt, I found that the vast majority was far from lazy.

Minimum wage jobs tend to be very, very flexible, which is great for students who want to make an extra buck in high school, or the college kid looking to defray some of the cost of his tuition and keep his loans manageable.

Minimum wage jobs tend to be classified as 'unskilled,' which is great for anyone who wants to work, but isn't qualified (for whatever reason) to work in a skilled field. Some people can't afford college. Some people couldn't graduate if they did. Some people get stuck in the muck early on and minimum wage jobs are all they do to keep their head above water.

It isn't 'laziness.' Minimum wage earners bust their ass working 8 or more hour days (not counting those with two or more jobs) for 40 hours usually stretched over 5 or 6 six days a week for about $200 (less, once the government takes its cut).

My opinion? I like convenience. People pulling oranges in the groves, grilling my steak and such are very convenient for me. If paying them a bit more keeps them doing the stuff I find it inconvenient to do for myself, then so be it.

That's an interesting question. If we are going to have wage controls why not look at them all. If 7.50 an hour is good, maybe 15.00 an hour is better and we can get the additonal money from those at the top. I am just kidding but who knows once we start down this path.:)

No shit. no one can live off 7.50 an hour. minimum wage should at least be $15-$20, if not more. Acutally the government should dictate how much everyone gets paid. that would obviously make it more fair. How about everyone get paid the same no matter what job they do. then no one will be poor and everyone will be able to do the job they want. Yes. thats the solution. :rolleyes:

I certainly enjoy all the sarcasm in this thread.

Anyway - I've come to the conclusion that there should be a minimum wage, and that it should be adjusted annually to the cost of living.

I agree with Gatorade Frost, that minimum wage should=cost of living. Admittedly, I don't know much about economics/wages, and I'm wondering if one of you who do could explain to me why this is/isn't possible. Instead of minimum wage being Federal, why not be set individually by state according to cost of living? Is this totally unrealistic for me to think this way?

The Feds set up an absolute minimum floor. States can create their own minimum wage, as long as it isn't lower than the federal.

...and here you go, DOL WHD: Minimum Wage Laws in the States. It's a clickable map that shows the rates. Kansas' is lower than the Federal rate ($2.65/hr!), so the Federal rate overrules in that case.

Whats the difference? Either the government should be able to tell businesses what to pay their employees or they shouldn't. people say the minimum wage should equal the cost of living. Well, in that respect the minimum wage should be at least 30k per year. At least. The only way to make minimum wage = 30k is to have the government also put a wage ceiling on compensation. So not only do we have a "livable" minimum wage that equals the cost of living, we're also dictating what the owner of a business can pay himself. Thats not even a stone's throw away from socialism. It is socialism. You can have it one way or the other. But not both.

Can you explain that a little more? I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, I just want to sort out what this means before I comment on it. I don't understand the correlation between why there would be a wage ceiling and why that is required for a minumum wage?

He's saying that paying employees a livable wage precludes obscene CEO pay.

Where is the money going to come from? Sure, its easy enough to dictate a minimum wage. but its not like businesses have extra money they could be paying their employees just sitting around. Its got to come from some where. If your advocating a minimum wage that equals the cost of living, then in most areas of the country you are mandating a wage at least equal to $30k a year. Its a lot of money that comes from somewhere and the most logical place for the lawmakers to mandate it comes from is the executives' pockets.

How else is this minimum wage=COL going to be funded? I suppose another option would just be to tax everyone that makes more than the COLmimimum wage and all that money would subsidize those that aren't paid the COLmin by their employer.

So the options so far are place a price ceiling on compensation and massive income redistribution. Any other "fair" options?

Well, since something like 1% of the population holds 60% of the wealth, it sound's good to me:D

Its closer to 1/3. that is the top 1% holds close to 33% of the wealth.

What's the difference really? Either way it sucks.

So the government should dictate the maximum amount people can be paid in this country or should we just tax everyone and pass out checks so we all make the same?

If we don't have a minimum wage, or make the minimum wage less than the cost of living, the result is simple: there are more people living below the poverty line, and therefore more people dependent on public programs to make ends meet (food stamps, food banks, temporary assistance for needy families, WIC benefits, Medicare/Medicaid, or state insurance programs).

This, in the end, puts the pressure on whoever gets taxed the most, because the cost of these programs is coming out of their pockets. Based on the current tax structure of the United States, that means that the middle class is paying the bulk for these programs--not the rich.

Sure, a minimum, LIVEABLE wage puts pressure on business owners. But in the end, it takes pressure off people who have enough pressure on them already to make ends meet--the lower class.

I'm guessing that the majority of you have never had to make ends meet on minimum wage. Believe me, it is a most humbling experience--and I wish everyone could experience living below the poverty line for themselves. Then you would not be so quick to do away with it.

I suggest a maximum wage so as to prevent the seperation of incomes.

A maximum wage is impossible. That is why three weeks ago, I posted the thread about limiting net worth. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=105021. I have an invention idea that if 100 million people around the world bought one, I would be a billionaire. Would I have to slowly roll it out and cut production to stay under the maximum wage for the year?

Yes, it would cause major problems with the value of the currency, but having a 80-90% tax rate on income once you get past 200 million would even out the income distribution in this country a little better. And the lifestyle one family lives doesn't change if they are worth 200 million or 2 billion. The amount they have to invest changes though.

I'm not talking about forcing people to spend money after a certian income, I'm talking about raising the wages of the bottom instead of the top. Instead of the CEO getting an additional $2 million a year, the 2000 workers on the floor make $1000 more a year. It's called class convergence, and it prevents poverty. Can you imagine the redistribution of wealth on a mass scale? Can you imagine Walmart employees making $25k a year, and the Walmart CEO making $20 million a year?

Tax breaks for those who follow the rule, and higher taxes for those who don't.

The company I work for starts employees at $8.50 to $11.50 per hour for the most basic of assembly jobs. Many people in one department get hired at $15.50 to $19.00 per hour with the expectation that we may still need to proivide a great deal of training. However we are talking about manufacturing jobs that many people don't enjoy. Work can be hot, dirty and outright boring. But I work for a company owned by a man who knows he gets what he pays for and not run by a board of directors looking out for their own asses. These jobs also include a half way decent insurance level of health insurance coverage, sick pay, vacation, 401k, etc. Yet we still have people who return to fast food jobs rather than come to work every day ready to follow procedures, work safely and work towards a quality product. Not that I'm saying fast food workers are having a cakewalk. I just don't understand why someone would opt for a minimum wage job with no benefits over a better paying job with good benefits. I suppose my opinions would be different were I to live somewhere else, but I'd half like to see where we would be with no minimum wage.

You know, that's borderline trolling. You (and others) twist what is said to an extreme. Saying people on the bottom deserve better living conditions in NO WAY AT ALL means that we are saying all the money goes in a pot and gets distributed evenly but it seems like it's the only response we get from those who don't support minimum wage or public assistance in general.

Be realistic about things:

1. There are not enough high paying jobs for everyone to live comfortably and there never will be. For this reason, it doesn't matter if a lot of people go to college or not.
2. Yes, some people find ways to rise above poverty and become sucessfull (even if sucessfull is just being able to have a house of your own and pay bills on time) but that low paying job is always there, so nothing changes for society as a whole.
3. Although people may be poor, they still need to have the ability to have a family. Otherwise our population shrinks and we either have to outsource everything we can and we still can't find people to serve us dinner, turn on the gas pump, ring up our groceries, etc.
4. If you pay people less than what is needed to get by they WILL end up being a drain on resources. They need money to eat, go to the doctor, to put a roof over their heads, get to work, etc.

It's hypocritical to complain about all the money that goes to aid the poor and then also complain that we pay too much for remedial services.

I see two solutions to the problem, pay the people at the bottom more or tax the people who refuse to give them enough to live on more. If you have a magical solution that incorporates reality into it, I'd love to see it.

The reality is there has always been poverty and there always will be. the minimum wage will not fix it. moving the minimum wage up from $5.15 to $7.50 won't do a thing to fight poverty. because $15,000 a year is not a "livable wage" If you want to dictate that people get paid a livable wage they need at least ten grand more than that. and closer to $30k+ with a family. so you can have the government dictate what business should pay or you can have the government redistribute wealth to the poor.

There's the mentality that business owners aren't also "just trying to make it" but already have made it. And thats not true. Take restaruant owners. Many mom&pop restaurants are "just trying to make it" the owner of that business isn't some rich meanie with a fat cigar. he's a working stiff. he has a business to run and employees to pay. Where is the extra money going to come from? should he have the same standard of living as the dishwasher in the back? After all, this guy put his sweat and tears into his business to get it going and keep it open. He can get another dishwasher anywhere. If you mandate the minimum wage be some livable wage - where is the money going to come from?

Any business owner knows you get what you pay for and if he's satisfied with what he's got then why should he have to pay more? Its his business. If the low wage employee isn't happy they are more than free to find another job or start a business of their own.

Minimum wage isn't about fixing poverty, it's about taking an active role in trying to prevent poverty. Not a fix, more of a piace of tape that prevents the back bumper from falling off. It's better than nothing. "...there has always been poverty and there always will be." is an excellent cop out and a great way to ignore your social responsibility. Stevo, there has always been murder and there always will be. Maybe we should stop taking steps to prevent it?
Some business owners are greedy, and no one can argue with that. Someone who makes over $50 million a year is no longer able to call him or herself a working stiff, and is living so far above the poverty line that it's not even visable. I put my sweat and tears in to my business, but I make damn well sure that my workers get fair compensation.
As much as the libertarian in me agrees with the previous statement, it's just not logical. Have you ever tried to start your own busniess? Do you know the capitol it takes to do that?

Some people, like myself, are stuck in the job that they have because either they have no other options, or the other options are even worse than the job you currently have. I'd love to start my own business or change jobs right now, but I have a responsibility to my family to do waht it takes to put food on the table and a roof over our heads.

Stevo, have you ever worked for minumum wage?

The following data is the stuff that violent revolutions are eventually made from:
Couple the data above with the decline of better paying union organized and collectively bargained jobs, the failure of government to perform it's chartered duty of guarding the borders, which has resulted in a "parallel" labor force of at least eleven million, low skilled illegals who are willing to work for a lower wage, and I have to ask those who speak against a higher minimum wage, what is the role of this federal government, now....

now....that it has allowed the distribution of wealth to become even more lopsided, because, among other things, the executive has appointed all 5 members of the NLRB from non-labor sympathetic factions, i.e....only those who side with the agenda of management....

now....that an illegal parallel labor force has been allowed to form as it passed unchecked, across the border guarded by an underfunded border patrol....

now...that representative government has been replaced with government by lobbyists paid and controlled by the top 2 percent...the class that already controls 67 percent of the wealth....

so....friends....what now??? Can you not recognize that failure of government to enforce the law, to represent the "people", to uphold the integrity of instruments to "level" the playing field...(as in the stacking of the NLRB with management "hacks"), is the cause of wage stagnation of the lowest paid workers?

In 2004, Floridians forced the issue with a populist driven effort to add a minimum wage referendum to the state ballot. The people bypassed their own
"special interest" corrupted legislature. They voted overwhelmingly to raise their minimum wage by one dollar per hour, raising the pay of at least 250,000 workers.

Why is government only "interfering" when it actually represents the people, and not when it is bought out by the wealthiest, or when it benignly neglects to guard the borders, while the employers, across the board, enjoy the benefits of reduction of upward wage pressure that a "parallel" illegal labor force, predictably brings to the status quo?

No its not. Its about making people who are in favor of minimum wage feel good about themselves. We don't try to prevent murder as much as we try and punish people who have comitted murder. Anyway the bumper analogy is pointless. If my bumper was falling off I wouldn't tape it back up. I'd bolt it back on. Bumpers on cars are nothing like poverty.

Some <- thats the key word here. What about the average business owner the guy who is the working stiff? It sure is convenient to ignore him when we talk about minimum wage.

With today's technology it is less expensive than ever to start a business. While I personally don't run my own business I have (and still help) family members run theirs.

But no one has yet to answer the question - Where does the money come from to pay the minimum wage? Where?

yes. way back when.

Coming up with a way to help those who do not earn enough to live above poverty is certainly a noble cause and I don't have a solution except maybe more government control of wages and/or a reverse income tax.

With the minimum wage law our government isn't giving the minimum wage earners anything but is instead telling us that if we hire someone we must pay them more than a certain amount regardless of our ability to do so.

I wasn't being completely sarcastic when I said if 7.50 is good maybe 15.00 is better. I don't have a good understanding of what a 7.50/hr minimum wage would do to the economy and what difference it would make if it was 15.00/hr or 3.00/hr.

I guess if every business, restaurant, landscapper, etc.. had to pay their workers 30K per year then no one would have a competitive advantage over another but prices would probably go up and patrons would fall off so some would have to close. This may happen anyway with the 7.50/hr proposal. Also as wages go up some businesses will probably have trouble competing on the international market.

What a fantastic point! Yes, the one and only reason for minimum wage is to make me sleep better at night. It's not like McDonalds would be paying people $3.45 an hour if they could. It's not like busniesses have to be heald responsible for the ability to give out fair wages to their employees.
Well what if you can't afford bolts because you only make $1.25 per hour? Punishment = deterrant so far as murder.
Again, anything over $20 million a year isn't a working stiff. You can't tell me that the CEO of Viacom works harder than my gardener (who makes about minimum wage). That's the bottom line.
Could poor people afford computers without minimum wage?
The income of the company. I don't know why you are making this seem so complicated. Company X has 4 levels of employees. Level 1 is the bottom level worker comprised of 40 people that do manual labor and makes minimum wage (about $10k a year). Level 2 is local managment comprised of 12 people that makes about $15 per hour (about $25k a year). Level 3 is the board of 4 people who makes about $70k a year. Level 4 is the CEO who makes about $750k a year. Is something wrong with this picture?
And what would life have been like for you then if you did the same job for $2.00 per hour? What if that was the best paying job for your work experience that you could find?


The answer to the above "Is anything wrong with this picture" is, of course, the CEO makes more than ALL the level 1 employees COMBINED.

So all companies look like the one you just described? didn't know that. What about the company without a CEO? What about the guy who runs his own consulting business? Him and his wife are the only employees. They want to hire someone as an office assistant but can only afford to pay $20,000/yr. They put out an add in the paper and someone replies. They want the job and they seem to be ok with the compensation since they responded to the add and accepted the job. Everyone wins.

But if there's a mandated minimum wage that has to be "livable" and that wage is equal to $30,000/yr our consultant can no longer afford to hire and pay for an office assistant. So this assistant still doesn't have a job and this consultant doesn't have an office assistant. Too bad the gov't decided what he had to pay.

Or how about the restaurant owner who pockets $60,000 a year. Employs a staff of 30. The managers make $11/hr, cooks make $8-10, while the busboys, dishwashers, and wait staff all make minimum wage (bus boys and wait staff get tips).

But you, and other people in favor of increasing the minimum wage don't think he should be paying his employees what he does. according to you, not one of his employees is making enough. So after the law is passed he goes out of business because he can't afford to operate his restaurant with any less staff, but he can't afford $750,000 annual payroll expenses either. So he closes his doors.

I could go on and on. Not all businesses are like the one you described. Like I said before. Its real easy to talk about a livable minimum wage, especially when you forget about the average business owner.

Look at your local franchise gas station. Do you think the owner of the stop-n-go on the corner is living the high life? do you think he could afford tripleing his payroll expenses? Those are the people you hurt when you mandate such things.

the effects of raising the minimum wage on an economy aren't as ambiguous as bigben implies. the effects have been empirically tested in the past, not proven, true, but tested.

when minimum wages have been raised in the past, jobs haven't disappeared and prices didn't go up. so that argument has historically not bourne out.


as far as the small business owner paying his or her employees and being priced out of business, most of the small business owners I know already pay their workers more than the minimum wage and give excellent benefits. the work environments are often a smaller atmosphere and more cordial than a larger business. the owner/boss is often in the same place and within close proximity to his or her employees. regardless, in the example provided a few comments back, food service workers don't always make the minimum wage because employers can take into account their tips when figuring wages. so that example, specifically, is not going to work to make your point that the minimum wage would hurt small business owners.

there's several things being discussed here. I'm not talking about a dollar increase in the minimum wage. That wouldn't help anyone. What's been brought up is a "cost of living" minimum wage or a "livable" minimum wage. Thats what would be detramental.

Not all companies look like the one I described, but it's not uncommon at all. A friend of mine works at Custom Chrome in Gilroy, and that is almost exactly the pay grade of the employees. What about the guy who rusn his own business? Well If his business nets $40 million a year and his worker gets $20k a year, then that poor kid is getting the shaft big time. Like I've said several times: it's dependant on the income of the top. If, in your hypothetical business, the owner makes $115k a year, then $20k a year isn't unreasonable at all.

I still can't believe that you seem to think that everyone who has low income made a decision to take that crappy job. No on wants to work at McDonalds. Some people have to work at McDonalds, or they will starve. Do you understand? When I was in college, I HAD to take a job landscaping for minimun wage because I would have had to drop out of school and screw up the rest of my life to work for more.
Who said livable? It's just a matter of trying to even out incomes. I'm not suggesting a $30k a year minimum wage. I'm suggesting a maximum wage.
Sounds fair to me.
I think minimum and maximum wage should exist. I think that companies should have the common sense to do it themselves, instead of making everyone complain to the government. In a eprfect world, people would be paid fairly for their work. While I know we don't live in that perfect world, it would be a damned shame to give up on it compeltly.
Livable minimum wage isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about two things: raiseing the wages of lower income workers as the business model allows, and putting a glass ceiling on income for those who make a ton of money.
I have a friend who owns a 7-11. He lives in a $4 million dollar home in Saratoga, where he is planning on retiring after sending his 2 kids through Stanford. He wasn't even born in the US. Do you know how much 7-11 pays for all that crappy food? Almost nothing. Their profit margins are uncanny. The same thing is true of the oil/gas industry. They are making more money now than most other industries combined.

maybe I should buy a 7-11.

You know what truly is pathetic?

I keep hearing CEO's and upper management put in all the time and resources and blah blah blah.... it's bullshit. What about the laborers who put in time, effort and their resources.

It has always been my belief that a company needs to pay employees a fair wage.

The reality, CEO's and upper management make far far more of a percentage and get bigger raises than the workers. It's BS.

Without the workers the company won't produce and even if they do outsource overseas eventually they will have no clientele to sell to. There are far more hourly wage earners who buy the goods than there are the CEO's.

When I ran my pizza company, I paid my workers $7.50 an hour, plus tips and mileage and that was to start. I had one employee making $11 an hour and one making $10.35 and I made a very nice living. The secret was, when I paid my employees more, they were more loyal, they worked harder, their friends and family were more loyal customers, my product was better than any of my competition and I went from $1,500 a week to the store making $10,000 a week within 3 months. (I made roughly 20% in my pocket profit within those 3 months, at first my employees made more than I did, but because of the respect, pay and a workplace that promoted fun, my sales skyrocketed and I reaped the benefits.... and yes, I spread the wealth around, paying for parties, dinners, golf outings and so on.)

Because I paid my employees more, I eventually made more. NEVER ONCE DID I HAVE TO RAISE MY PRICES.

But, also, for me the thrill was gone when I felt the challenge was gone and I gambled it away. (But that had nothing to do with what my employees made.)

Everywhere I have worked in management, I have always asked for 3 things, the ability to give raises, the ability to hire my own workers and a trust in me. And because of that every place I ever managed the workers were well paid, enjoyed their job and I made the store profitable. Every store I worked at in the Convienence or Pizza industry made more profit with higher payrolls than they did before me.

It's BS to say raising wages raises costs, if you have the right product and it is made well it will sell in volume and make up for the rise in cost. By having your employees well paid, loyal and happy, you will right there have a better product because labor is better.

Unfortunately, businesses treat the hourly employee like cattle and pay bare minimum, therefore turnover is high, people don't care and the workmanship sucks.

You need to find balance and if companies refuse to find a form of wealth distribution that works, either government needs to step in or workers need to unionize and truly fight for what is rightfully their share.

I predict that the agenda to destroy the "middle" class in America is too far along to reverse. In the future, many of us will find even the goods at Wal-Mart largely beyond affordibility. The minimum wage will be important to many more millions of us than it is today, as we join the new underclass. The plan is to bring us "down" to the earnings level of Mexicans, not to bring them "up" to our current level.

Make no mistake....TBTB are intent on the further lowering of our previous standard of living, and their new scheme involves the elimination of the union scale and benefits jobs of Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach dockworkers and of the American truck drivers represented by the Teamsters Union.

If the Teamsters Union workers are inhibiting "growth" or profits, why has UPS been so successful and efficient? <a href="http://www.laborresearch.org/story2.php/211">UPS employs 230,000 Teamsters Union members.</a> Is it not in the interest of U.S. small business to have customers who are paid wages and benefits that keep them in the "middle class", have health care and retirement benefits, that guarantee that they are not "queued up" along side Wal-Mart workers who require public subsidy in the form of medical care, food stamps, and welfare payments because they cannot make a "liveable" wage?

The first step is an disinformation "Op", led by this handpicked, partisan mouthpiece, as he "poses" as a "dissenter", who is actually assigned to float a trial balloon, to condition us as to what is coming....replacement of U.S. infrastructure in order to accelerate the plan to eliminate remaining union jobs and to "integrate" the entire low wage Mexican workforce everywhere in North America. There is nothing wrong with existing west coast port facilities, or U.S. highway distribution systems....they just are not quite as profitable for TBTB as they potentially might be.....
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010">MMFA investigates: Who is Jerome Corsi, co-author of Swift Boat Vets attack book?</a>

Jerome Corsi's fake indignation in the "piece" above, is quickly endorsed by someone who can make money on this scheme:
After these greedy, "visionaries" destroy the purchasing power of the folks who formerly could have bought the "goods" that their newly built "parallel" freight handling system will distribute throughout the North American continent, where do the expect the demand side for all of this "freight", to come from? If there is a "war on terror", is it really "safer" for U.S. national security, to move the principle ports to an adjacent, third world country, and allow the "goods" to travel all the way to Kansas City in Mexican trucks before any customs inspection of the incoming trucks?

The same political party that blocked the U.S. senate vote to increase the minimum wage, last week, also brought us the "new" deficit. Both the "no vote" on the minimum wage, and the deficit increase are intended to do the same thing....distribute the most wealth to the fewest and the most powerful interests....and it's working !<a href="http://www.startribune.com/587/story/508126.html">The measure drew the support of 43 Democrats, eight Republicans and one independent. Four of those eight Republicans are seeking re-election in the fall.</a>
How much and how quickly would the federal debt have to increase, to influence anyone to vote to replace republicans with democrats? How much longer will folks support "more of the same", as the "strategy" in the Iraq war?
How many of your neighbors will have to experience falling wages and loose their health insurance benefits, before you would vote for candidates who favor increasing the minimum wage? I guess we'll find some answers in about 4 months and 2 weeks from now.....

Interesting post, my friend. But I am an optimist and believe that Americans still have the American dream within them and that not all CEOs and powers that be are greedy enough to destroy the populace.

I still choose to believe that there are enough that will stand up and realize that their product won't sell until ALL workers are paid liveable wages.

It is only common sense..... the more the worker makes the more the worker can spend the more profitable your company becomes the more money you as the owner can make.

Less wages = eventual loss of disposable income, higher debt, lower credit available, fewer products bought.

Higher wages = greater disposable income, less debt, higher credit available, more product bought.

It's that plain and simple..... anyone arguing otherwise is completely and utterly greedy to the point they would destroy everything for their own selfish gains. And that is suicide.... whether they see it or not.

There are plenty of other countries that have a rich upper class, and a poor bottom class. With very few people inbetween. In this country, you can work hard and move up. But college is getting so expensive that unless you become an engineer, lawyer, MBA, or doctor, you will have student loans for a long time.

As for the maximum wage, there are lots of people who it couldn't really be applied to fairly. Professional athletes, singers, movie stars, lotto winners, and lobbyists, some entreprenuers who can bring in millions of dollars a year, and not have any workers.

Yes, I agree that there should be a kind of profit sharing and some other benefits. Or a restructuring of companies where they are run like Whole Foods and REI. But, if the janitor at one company (Microsoft/Apple/AMD/Exxon)is making more than than the engineers and doctors, what incentive is there for people to learn and work hard?

That's the argument everyone loves to give as to why CEO's and execs need to make 100x's more than the guy on the floor producing the goods. And the one everyone who is against any minimum wage or liveable wage uses.

It's BS. Yes you need to pay someone what their experience and skill level dictates, however, you also need to make sure that the janitor can feed his family, buy your product and can make enough to have a little nest egg, while being able to maintain paying all his bills on time.

So no wages don't even have to be close, they just need to be fair.

If you pay people more, invest in the infrastructure, train the workers and work on the health industry so that insurance is affordable to all and not bankrupting the nation, this nation can prosper again, and perhaps even better than ever.

But until that happens, this nation will continue to fall apart..... and even those so greedy they don't give a fuck about anyone or anything but themselves.... will eventually suffer. Maybe that is what it will take, but unfortunately those already at the bottom and nearing it will be in for worse.

We can change things now before they get worse. But the majority of the people need to find their voices and stop listening to the media and thinking the next great politician has the answers..... because those people will just say anything to keep their power. And part of keeping their power is keeping the average guy down and believing that politician (REP or DEM), religion or media has his best interest at heart, because in the end, those entities only have their interests and those who can afford to keep them in the lifestyles they desire at heart.

And those countries are mostly 3rd world countries. South America is just now starting to move away from the class seperation that has ravaged them for years. In an ideal econemy, there is a healthy distribution of incomes evenly across the populace (at least in my mind).
Everyone has someone. The way I see it, venues employ thousands of people. If a performing artist, be they musical, sports, etc. can play at a show for 50,000 people, then there are vendors, security guards, personal assistants, etc. that are there to do their job, too. As for the recording of an album, you have the people who actually write the lyrics, the people who actually compose the instrumentals, the people who make the CDs the marketing people...I mean this is an industry of people. Lotto winners are more complicated, but a lot less common. I'd say so long as the lottory is honoring their commitment to donating money to local schools and such, then let them have theirs. Lobbyists should be gathered up and shot. Entreprenuers who make a killing but work on their own already have even distribution of profits across the whole company, as there is only one income. I see that as being rather problem free.
Well when the CEO of Dunkin Doughnuts is making more than a doctor without borders, there is something wrong. The idea is to take small steps to level out and redistribute wages slightly. I'm not talking about $80k a year janitors. I'd blame unions for that one.

This is a great thread. I did a paper a while back on minimum wage, and many of the folks here are spot-on...raising minimum wage decreases job availability, period.

Looking at European countries where workers have fixed contracts, living wages, goods are sold at high prices, services are sold at high prices.

As far as the CEO stuff that pan mentions, if the CEO doesn't have the vision to create something so different and radical, then the worker has no work, ala Iacoca and the minivan, Eisner and the new animated princesses Little Mermaid et. al., Jobs and Mac and iPod.

The CEO is no more than a criminal, parasite who carves out obscene profits by exploiting the labor of workers who he pays the lowest possible wage...then he pulls up stakes, leaving them to live unemployed, in a local environment polluted with industrial wastes generated by his corporation. The CEO is off to the next obscure corner of the world where he can operate unfettered by environmental or labor protection regulation....where he can pay wages of 60 cents per hour, or less....
Mexico does not have to concern itself with the disruption caused by the rush of foreign factory owners to it's exploit the cheap labor of it's youthful workforce. The factories have moved on to cheaper labor markets, leaving the newly unemployed to live in the industrial waste that is left behind.

In the following article, it seems that it was not enough for the local gas utility to reap the savings of hiring only a part time, lower compensated workforce to staff it's call center.....the point of all of this, folks, is that no amount of concessions or cooperation with today's employers will be enough to encourage them to provide fair pay and benefits, obey labor and environmental laws, or to show any allegiance to employees, community or country. They will do nothing voluntarily that does not directly, quickly, and obviously benefit their own economic interests. Only populist legislative intiatives, backed by the threat of legal and economic penalties, and the threat of force to encourage compliance will slow the shift back to the pre-1930's employment environment that most Americans are swiftly and dramatically headed toward working in..... Government support for the right of labor to organize and bargain, along with legislation that protected workers and limited shift lengths and mandated overtime pay.....backed by strict enforcement, is the solution now, as it was 75 years ago. In the future, the only domestic jobs will be those that cannot be relocated or outsourced outside of the U.S., and it is in our interest to influence them to be well paying, if only because employers have no choice but to hire workers who live here, to do them. We already know from experience that no amount of wage and benefit concessions will stabalize or restore the numbers of jobs transferred out of the country. Populist activism will build on reaction to economic perceptions. High gasoline prices are a good start, and declining wages will push lobbyists aside and replace their influence with the political pressure of the sheer numbers of the newly and recently economically disaffected!
Cynthetiq, in the face of a recent history of CEOs such as GE's Jack Welch, who was regarded in the business community, as "America's most admired CEO", after he took every penny of U.S. taxpayer money he could con from the U.S. government, layed off nearly half of GE's U.S. manufacturing workforce, required all GE suppliers to move their manufacturing from the U.S. to Mexico, resisted all demands to conduct operations anywhere in an environmentally responsible and accountable manner, and authored the "factory on a barge", concept of harvesting the cheapest labor in the world with the least environmental and worker welfare regulation, I see no justification for your comments.

The CEOs of the worlds largest companies have left nothing but poverty, pollution, unemployed workers and ripped-off taxpayers in every locale that they have since abandoned in pursuit of still lower labor cost and less regulated manufacturing "opportunities".

You seem to advocate kissing their asses in the hope that they will provide some of us a few fleeting "crumbs", even as they loot our national treasury, lobby against the interests of the rest of us, and pollute the few prisitine places that their factories have not already contaminated. Can't an equally persuasive case be made for reacting to them the way Italian partisans did to Mussolini and his mistress?

I'm sorry but CEOs don't make decisions in a vacuum. They bring their ideas to the Board of Directors and the shareholders. The BoD votes before things that affect the stock price happen, such as moving operations overseas, launching huge new initiatives like a new product like iPod or minivan.

Keep in mind that shareholders demand profits. They demand to get better returns than last year. Like a baseball manager that doesn't keep winning the world series, BoDs like to oust their CEOs when profits plateau or worse fall.

Yes, the top dogs of CEOs have left the fields of the world ravaged, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Ted Turner, Sumner Redstone... :rolleyes:

What is your cost of living?

Is mine higher or lower?



Imagine wages as a ladder and each wage, in whatever increment you chose, is on the ladder. You are free to choose any wage on the ladder. You may not be able to reach the top wages until you climb up the rungs below. So the minimum wage is already on the ladder...it's zero.

Also I ran across this looking at
and discussing it with a co-worker in the past
http://www.nber.org/papers/w10656

There are CEOs who genuinely work smart and still have a conscience and the ability to empahtize. They achieve, by most measures, superior results:

which is exactly what I'm submitting, like any group there are a bad apples but it does not mean that the whole bunch needs to be tossed out, you've just proved that with the businessweek article, yet the previous ones, you were willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

So many quotes, so little time.
And you're implying that all employees work for major corporations--small businesses, Mom-and-Pops don't have employees?

We've already seen how well such a concept works with the alternative minimum tax. Within a few years, everyone's income will be the maximum that our leaders allow (except for theirs). Their income will be exempt, much as Congress is exempt from Social Security. You know, "Some animals are more equal than others."

If you have a solution that will prevent the entire world from buying products made in countries with lower labor costs than ours, I'd love to see THAT. Otherwise, as you said, it's GIVING away money unsubstainably, if you can call it "giving" at the point of a government gun.

This is just silly. Practically everyone has. Most people start at minimum when they are young, and then work to achieve a better life. A few find it easier to whine (for YEARS) that the minimum wage isn't high enough. That is, when they're not whining that there aren't any good jobs, usually because of competition from companies with a better handle on their overhead. Or because the employee couldn't be bothered to undertake some kind of training that would make them more valuable to the company.

That sounds suspiciously like the sarcasm that was mentioned before, with maybe a little bitterness thrown in. I will say, without a trace of sarcasm, that "It's not like employees can't switch to a job that pays better than minimum wage." Of course,that would require that the employee put forth some degree of effort, say, practicing birth control, looking for other work, being willing to relocate, taking additional training, or otherwise getting off their ass.

I defy you to show me a labor-intensive (or almost any other) business that can survive if no one will work for the pay it offers.
So what you’re saying is that minimum wage, in your case, propped you up until you had worked hard to get something better. You DO realize that you just shot your whole argument in the foot, don’t you? It backs up everything I said above!

Here is another little aspect of owning a business--it's not minimum wage-related, but it certainly has an impact on the funds employers have available to increase pay. Now employers may be responsible if an employee decides to have a kid they can't afford.

(This is from Rush Limbaugh, and it can't be linked. Please limit your discussion to the veracity of what he said, instead of your personal opinion of him. Thanks.)

Translation of the Massachusetts proposals: "Much like going out and looking for a better job, saving money in anticipation of having a child is now passe. Those rich business owners should pay for it!"

Will, since Massachusetts thinks this is "fair,” do you provide this, in order to "damn well [be] sure that [your] workers get fair compensation?" Or do YOU want to decide what's fair, instead of the government?

I would be interested to see the logic behind the government’s agenda to destroy a huge percentage of the tax base, but I am not interested in wading through pages of quotes that don’t really address the question. Now if you’d said that government officials had an agenda to control all aspects of business, while diverting huge sums of money into their control …

Thank you for slamming that nail right on the head.

Indeed.
We've already seen democracies fall, so we should probably steer clear of that. MagicToy, corruption could make it's way into every facet of government, business, religion, etc. It's ever present. The way that the good people in the world work is to do everything we can to make sure the greedy corrupt people are not given power. We do not simply stop functioning as a sociey because some people are asshats. Just because some people would work to corrupt a new system doesn't meant aht it would fail. Practically everyone has not. Only a few of my friends at school had to take jobs in high school at all. I was a low income teenager living in a high income area. Most of my friends had brand new cars, whilc I worked my butt off selling cell phones in the mall just to afford an old Civic. Out of a graduating class of maybe 300, I was one a of a dozen or so that worked. Yes, people in minimum wage jobs can whine. I whined. I also worked my ass off for next to nothing. Guess what? I know that I had every right to whine, and so do most who make minimum wage. Who are you to condescend?
Of course it was sarcasm. I was answering in turn for a ridiculous statement. The idea that minimum wage exists simply to appease the minority who cry and cry until they get their way was clearly a troll, and I treated it as such.

I can say without an ounce of sarcasm that I, as a manager at a cell phone booth for The Mobile Solution, worked harder than my distict manager, the West Coast Market Director, and the CEO of my company combined. I know this because I was friends with all of them. Did I make more? Hell no. Perservierence may have payed off back in the 1950s for young upstarts looking to climb the corporate ladder, but I didn't make any real money until I shoveled out a crapload of money to go to a private college.
What would that prove? We live under the current system where there are little or no alternatives. Of course people have to take the crap jobs. They don't want to starve to death. Have you ever gone more than 3 days without food? I did.
Nope. What I' m saying is that I worked hard, then I was EXTREEMLY lucky in that I was eligible for multiple scholarships. Most people don't have access to that. My jobs would not have even been able to pay for my books. The singular reason that I live in a house that I own and a car that has been payed off is one thing: scholarships.

I need you to understand something. For some people it doesn't matter how hard you work, study and try. Some people are doomed to live in poverty for the rest of their lives. We, as members of the same society as these people, have a responsibility to them. If you were starving on the street, I would buy you food.
'Another little aspect"? Weren't you just lecturing me on sarcasm?


Also, under your screen name and join date, doesn't your location say: "with my parents"? Dude, I really hope you're kidding.

Edit: I enjoyed your Ruch Limnough article, but do you have a link to the story anywhere else?

Nope. Just that many CEOs are by and large incredibly overcompensated.

True. I don't understand why people would buy stock in a company that overpays its executives.

However, your use of "many" and "by and large" doesn't indicate that you're backing off much from the broad brush that you originally painted everyone with. Small businesses have to abide by the minimum wage every bit as much as large corporations.

Can i just say right now that none of the small businesses that i have worked for have ever paid minimum wage? They all paid more by at least a buck or two. Now can we please back off this broad brush generalization that raising the minimum wage will hurt small businesses?


edit: I did work at a restaurant that paid me minimum wage, but it wasn't like they couldn't afford to pay me more. The owner was a cheapskate cokehead.

I'm still going to go with the lessons of history regarding your concept.

Someone who came from a similar background. Someone who realizes that you don't improve the situation by tearing down the successful people, but by helping the ones who are willing to improve themselves. Someone who has seen a yearly influx of Canadians into my area, because these Canadians have a maximum income allowed by their government. I am forced to assume that their employees get an unpaid vacation for months every year, when their boss reaches the limit of what his business is allowed to earn.

Oh, and by the way, I am not condescending to you; in fact, I admire people with a history like the one you provided. Especially if they were, unlike you, surrounded by people who received the government dole. "Free" money from the government seems to be the biggest spirit/ambition killer of all.

I DON'T admire the people who blame everyone else for their own lack of initiative. On the other hand, I find your opinion that so many are incapable of helping themselves, well, condescending. You did it; why are so many others inferior to you?

So do you recommend doing what you did, or would things have worked out better if you had just sat back and asked for another 50 cents per hour? Did the Marketing Director and CEO work "smarter" than you did? Did they spend years doing your job in order to learn the business?


So have I. Well, technically, I had a jar of peanut butter. No sympathy points for you here.

Let's take your concept a little further. Next time you walk into a McDonald's, or some other "crap" job, take a look at the manager. Do they look like a rich college kid, or like someone who learned the business from the bottom for a few years, and then got promoted? I'd be willing to bet they make more than minimum wage, too. Of course, it's much easier to ask the government for more money than to pay dues like the manager did.

Sounds like you didn't check out the military. Or grants. Or student loans. Or a great many other ways to pay for college, many of them provided by taxes and donations from greedy people.

That's where we differ. I believe if you work, study, and try, you will not remain in a minimum wage job. And if you were starving on the street, I'd try to get you a job. Buying food is a very short-term solution, even if it makes the buyer feel good and superior for a few days.

For the most part. "With" is a relative term. So is "location." Maybe I should have said "My parents are with me."

Maybe this will help. It has a link to the original article in Time.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai..._so.guest.html

Well, since it's true, no. When a US small business competes with a conglomerate, or with a foreign company with lower labor costs, I don't see how anyone could think an increase in the minimum wage wouldn't harm the US company.

What you're claiming is true in specific situations, but not across the board. Small businesses are only at a disadvantage if they're already paying minimum wage. In my experience this is rarely the case. What about if a mom and pop is competing against wal-mart:

-the mom and pop pays better than minimum wage
-wal-mart pays minimum wage
-minimum wage goes up
-wal-mart raises wages and makes concurrent adjustments
-the mom and pop doesn't have to do anything

At the vast majority of mom and pop places i've worked, a hike in the minimum wage wouldn't have affected the money they paid their employees at all. They already paid more than the minimum wage. They wouldn't have had to raise their compensation levels at all.

As far as competition with foreign companies, well, assuming a business pays minimum wage(otherwise a minimum wage increase is irrelevant), it only matters if that business is in direct competition with a foreign business, and even then, there are a great deal more factors that come into play than minimum wage.

I'm not sure how many small business actually compete with foreign business. Do you actually have any data on how many small business compete with foreign businesses? I would assume the number as a percentage of the total number of small businesses would be rather small.

I will concede that in certain situations some businesses will be possibly put at some kind of significant disadvantage by an increase in the minimum wage. I really doubt that the number of businesses put in a real bind would be that big and until you offer up some data to counter that assumption you're just blowing smoke.

It could also be argued that a considerable number of business suffer huge disadvantages from the existence of safety regulations, yet i somehow suspect you don't favor their abolishment. Fortunately for us, the rugged american entrepreneur seems to be really good at overcoming adversity, no matter how much of a wet blanket you might make him/her out to be.

How do your strong, though mostly unreferenced opinions, square with the impact of the federal government failure to stop the formation, inside U.S. borders, of a parallel work force of say....<a href="http://pewhispanic.org/">11 million trespassers</a> who <a href="http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/workerpanel042904.html">undercut</a> the wage and benefit "levels" that you seem to want to be determined solely by supply and demand?

How do your views square with an executive branch committed to pro-management objectives, at the expense of 70 years of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rulings that formerly protected the rights of workers to organize into unions and bargain collectively for wages and benefits?
How do your views square with a government that is now controlled by business interests?
How do the nearly unlimited resources and greedy, deceptive, nature of the wealthiest American families, exposed in an attempt to achieve legislation that solely benefits them, square with your POV? Consider that....even under current federal tax law, the wealthiest ten percent of Americans confine the rest of us to just 33 percent of the country's total wealth.....my earlier post on this page documents wealth distribution statistics that state that half of the U.S. population controls just 2-1/2 percent of the total wealth!

If you understand that politics is the business of control and distribution of power and wealth, your defense of the status quo, your failure to recognize that the wealthiest and most powerful few have marginalized the offset that a representative government in a constitutional republic is intended to afford the least wealthy, by the shear numbers of votes that they potentially exercise to influence control, to "balance" the power/wealth transfer, probably precludes chances for any meaningful discussion here.

The current uneven distribution of wealth and politcal power did not come to be where it is now, in a vacuum. Things are the way they are because too many were convinced by propaganda financed by the wealthy and powerful, to "go it alone", instead of in the way that post Hoover era Americans learned to behave politically, both at the polls and in their workplaces.

You seem to want government to suddenly take a "hands off" approach to legislating a more balanced wealth and power distribution. If your advocacy prevails, things will end badly for most of us, as they did in the 1930's, and the pendelum will swing the other way. Current federal policies yield results of half the population holding only 2-1/2 percent of the wealth, a 50 percent increase in U.S. treasury debt in less than 7 years, near total loss of the domestic manufacturing base, aggravating a trade imbalance nearing $70 billion per month, these twin deficits triggering a destruction of the purchasing power of the currency, delayed only by the printing of unprecedented new quantities of devalued fiat paper money that has fueled bubble level prices in real estate and in commodity prices.

The response to these trends by the federal executive and legislative branches was to empower energy and pharma inductry lobbyists to write "reform" legislation that benefitted only their industrys' interests and investors, as well as the politicians paid to cast yea votes for these bills, and sign them into law.
magictoy, minimum wage increase legislation cannot be isolated and then denigrated because this is a myopic and a disingenuous tactic. The contention that the "self made" entrepreneur must be protected from government "infringement" that is somehow "parasitic" is a sweet piece of propaganda. Wealth and power are distributed as a result of connections and influence, that could not occur unless the voting power of the masses are undermined.

It is nearly impossible to become wealthy and powerful without manipulating the system and exploiting other people. In a politcal system, a republic with democratically elected, representative bi-cameral government.....like we in the U.S. are taught to believe that we enjoy..... where elected officials actually represented the wishes of the majority, as they respect and uphold the constitutional safeguards intended to protect the interests of the minority, do you really believe that half the population would possess only 2-1/2 percent of the wealth, or that one percent of the population would control 33 percent of the wealth, and the power and influence that accompanies it? A "real" one man, one vote, political system would never arrive at the situation we find ourselve in now, and if it did, it would not maintain itself as it seems currently to do, for any signifigant length of time.

No magictoy....we live in a "fake" politcal environment of smoke and mirrors, produced by the richest and wealthiest, not unlike the scenario described in the last quote box. Why do you insist on protecting it, or to act so certain that it is the best we can do, and should not be used to shift some wealth and some power back to the bottom half.....to 150 million people?

Are the rich so fragile....that if they were to experience a populist legislated transfer away of say.....2-1/2 points of their 66-2/3 accumulated total points....leaving them with more than 64 percent of total U.S. wealth, that their business enterprises would crumble....triggering massive unemployment?
We observe the spectacle of 150 million people who on average are just 2-1/2 wealth percentage points, collectively....away from owning nothing.

Isn't the risk of their reaction, should they wake up one day and recognize that even that little bit of wealth is ebbing away from them.....via higher prices paid for fuel and rent, of equal concern to you, than the "backlash" and consequence of the transfer of wealth away from the wealthy, that an increase of several dollars per hour in the mimumum wage would cause?

You want them to continue to believe that if they work hard enough, do without long enough, study hard long and hard enough, that they too, will "make it". Shouldn't you be equally concerned that they may learn to do the math, while their low paying job buys them less and less, and realize that they have little left to lose? Don't think it can happen here? I predict that the dollar will grow weak enough to effect a sea change in the numbers of people who offer opinions like yours, magictoy, or more importantly....like Rush's, or like that clean cut republican congressman who represents their district and ran on promises of keeping the queers from getting married and on pro-life family values, but who voted for the bankruptcy "reform" law, and against an increase in the minimum wage.....

What I'm proposing isn't 'tearing down successful people', it's allowing people to be super rich instead of ultra, ridiculous, insane rich. If you can't live comfortably on maybe $20 million per year, then you have a serious problem and should speak to a professional. I doubt I could even spend $20 million per year.
I didn't think you were condescending to me, but I do think that anyone who reads your post who is stuck in a minimum wage job (operative word: stuck) could be pretty hurt. I did have to pay back about $45k in loans (the interest KILLS you), though.
Had I not been lucky enough to have access to scolarships, I would still only be making $24,000 a year or so, which is extreemly difficult to survive on in the SF bay area. While I would be dong everything in my power to get more money and become more successful, I still could end up dirt poor. Success isn't just from self, it also relies on outside souces. Even the most successful and driven person would still be starving in certian situations. What some people don't understand is that these situations exist all over the world, not just in 3rd world countries. A friend of mine came over from France about 5 or 6 years ago and still has yet to find a comfortable living situation, and I know that he has done everything he can. He couldn't afford a state or private college, so he had to go to a JC to get his AA. he had maybe a 3.83 graduating from HS and close to that in college, but he still only makes like $10 per hour. That's not enough. He applied to the same scholarships as I did coming out of HS, but the luck of the draw (and you do have to be lucky to get scholarships) favored me, and not him for some reason. Do I see him as inferior to me? God no. I respect him a great deal. Why wouldn't I respect someone who puts fourth a great effort? Isn't the effort what one should respect instead of the reslut?
Do I reccomend doing what I did? Sure, but don't always expect the same results. A good GPA and a scholarship isn't a guerentee of financial stability or a career. Did my superiors work smarter than I did? Well that depends on what you mean by smarter. Were they willing to lie, cheat, and steal to make a buck for the company? Yep. The CEO made millions before it was discovered that he was cheating the stockholders (the CEO of The Mobile Solution was also the CEO of Worldcom). It sucks, too, because Bernard was like Santa Clause in person. Right now, he's out on bail while he tries to appeal.

Let's examine for a moment my french friend vs. Bernard. My french buddy is an honest, hard working man who deserves all the success in the world, but has been denied that. Bernard is someone who lied and cheated to make millions and doesn't deserve one dime, but he made and still has millions.

Maybe it's not fair to judge a person on his or her bank account.
I wasn't going for sympathy. I wasn't convinced that you understood how the people that you basically ridicule live.
Actually I tried to get a job at McDonalds before. I didn't get the job. Do you know why? I'm white as snow and I'm not related to anyone who works there. Had I been a Mexican related to one of the workers, I would have gotten the job.

Let's take your concept somewhere else. Go to your local mall and look in the cell phone kiosks (like where I used to work), look at the manager who makes minimum wage + a tiny amount for commission. Does he or she look like someone who is trying to be successful?
I'm not eligible for the military because of a severe heart condition. I did have student loans (student loans arte a busniess, btw, like banking). They made quite a bit of money off me from the interest. The reason that someone might think that the rich pay for the military escapes me. They pay less taxes, they only make up a small percentage of out population.
So you believe that everyone who has a crappy job deserves it?
Well if you work hard enough, then you can afford to buy them a house.

The easiest way to avoid all this "if wages increase, we'll take our jobs overseas" (which btw hurts the disposable income needed to buy your product) is very simple and within Congress' means to do.

Pass a law that states if you are a company doing business in America, you will maintain the same working conditions, wages and income taxes.

If countries (i.e. China) don't like then they sell their goods elsewhere. If companies don't like it, then ask yourself why.

We have that power, and it would increase the wages and the standard of living everywhere, it would increase tax revenue, and best of all, selfishly speaking, it would keep jobs in the USA.

There comes a point when one has to ask why someone who works hard for 40 hours a week cannot afford to live a decent life.

That is what the GOP refuses to acknowledge. I see people I work with, I see even LadySage and myself with 2 incomes, barely making it. With house payments, food, gas, utilities, and so on..... our lifestyle and those of people I see who work at least 40 hour weeks are nowhere near our parents lifestyles.

Now forgive me, but isn't the great thing about our country the fact that each generation did better than the previous one? That we advanced and strove to do better?

So why all of a sudden do the GOP and these people who propagate how great life is here, want to keep wages down to the barest minimum, while CEO's make more and more every year?

The worker works just as hard as the CEO. The worker who works 40 hours a week deserves to live a comfortable life and be able to pay his/her bills, be able to have a disposable income that will buy products without having to use credit cards and go further into debt.

I have come to the conclusion that the rights whole argument is......

IT IS OPINION ONLY.... AS A MAJOR PART OF POLITICS IS BASED ON OPINION........


If the hourly common man, who puts in 40 hours a week demands a decent wage, where he can pay bills, take a decent 2 week vacation and have a lifestyle similar to his parents without having debt pile up... that man isn't worth it and this is all a class envy/class warfare/ class hatred issue and that guy who works 40 hours best shut the Hell up our we'll ship his job overseas....

Meanwhile, CEO's, upper management and executives, can demand whatever they want as far as wages and the GOP Neo con advocates are all for that....
The man works so hard and puts so much into the business and it's based on his vision and blah blah blah

One question......

WHO MAKES THE VISION POSSIBLE????????

Hmmmmmm maybe the person working their ass off designing, producing, warehousing, distributing and selling it..... the common man.

I have ture issues with ANYONE who feels that someone working 40 or more hours a week and doesn't make a decent respectable wage, is lazy, ignorant, has a job that doesn't deserve more, etc. etc.

Anyone working 40 or more hours a week should be able to live somewhat comfortably and not be borderline poverty.

He has as much right to live a decent and prosperous life as any CEO or nicely paid executive is "ENTITLED" to make their millions.

The figure I heard was 300 times.

To quote Chris Rock....

"Do you know what minimum wage means?

It means, if I could pay you less, I would, but I can't, cause that's the law"

No truer words have ever been spoken.

An excellent way of putting it.

Although I am not a huge fan of unions, I understand their place in sticking up for worker's rights. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever, that if unions were to disappear, it would be 1920 all over again in about 2 years for the majority of people.

I can just hear all the corporate double speak right now, "we have to think globally", "we need to increase efficiency" (translated to mean, you have to work more for less), "we have to be more competative" (translated to mean, we want to pay you less), blah blah blah.

True, there will always be poverty, but minimum wage isn't about eliminating poverty, it's about preventing EXTREME poverty. Minimum wage does prevent that.

Well, actually it doesn't. A guy earning minimum wage makes less than $11,000 per year gross. I dunno about you but if I were making that little I'd be struggling like hell just to eat and keep the lights on.

So unskilled laborers with little to no education that work 40 hours should make equitable salaries to what you make? Should someone with little to no experience make the same wages that someone with 20 years does? Then why do countries with abject lines of rich and poor have such rigorous education and more educated graduates that move to more prosperous nations than countries with social welfare?

Did you even truly read my post?

How did you get equitable to liveable from my post. I never suggested paying the same, just enough to live ......... so please do not put words into my mouth or try to make my argument look like something it isn't.

So we should have poor people who work their asses off for 40 hours and be paid wages that are just above or below poverty level.

So someone who is unskilled but works his ass off for 40+ hours a week SHOULD struggle and barely make it??????

Yet the CEO who pays everyone to make him look good can make 100's of x's what that poor schlob makes.

Oh and by the way...... are you saying because someone didn't graduate high school or college they are not worth wages that would give them a decent life?

And this isn't another country, this is the USofA supposedly the greatest country ever, yet we can't get corporations to pay people enough to live decent lives.

You don't want to raise wages ....... fine then the guy making $10/hour or and works 40 hours a week doesn't have to have income taxes. CEO's can have that burden added onto theirs.

I know plenty of people WITH college degrees that have been at jobs for years and are making only $10/hour..... because the job started at $7.50 and you get a 25 cent raise a year..... if you are lucky... some years no raises.

I know people who have been laid off by companies here that were making over $30,000/yr only to find that any job that is hiring is hiring at most $6.75 with no benefits.

You tell people to work hard and that they can live a decent life......... then you argue that if they haven't reached certain levels of education, no matter how hard they work they don't deserve to make enough to live and have some pride and feel like men?

You'd rather have them barely make enough to live and watch CEO's make so much they don't know what to do with it....... but because they are who they are.... they obviously know where the money needs to go far more than the guy who has to decide whether his family can eat this week or have the electric shut off.

No, I´m suggesting that people have something to STRIVE for. I know and understand the position you are taking. It is dear to me in ways you do not know and could not know.

I worked in NYC and lived in NJ in 1991. I made $4.35 working a small mom and pop garment factory working from 7am to 7am from Monday to Saturday. I got home every day around 8pm in a township that had blue laws so everything but grocery stores were closed on Sunday. In order to buy any work related clothing I had to travel to the next county or go into New York City.

When I first started working for this company I worked only 40 hours and asked for a raise, they suggested I wanted a raise and they said they had more hours to work available. Eventually they gave me a raise to $8/hr after I took on the duties of another gentleman that went on vacation and did both jobs, mine normal one and this new one. So my total hours increased even more since the original job I got hired to do I had to now do late at night.

I was sick or on vacation I did not get paid. If I had a doctors appointment I clocked out and did not get paid for those hours. There were many times I clocked out on Wednesday evening I had already worked 40 hours.

One day I got fed up with the whole thing and went to a career counselor. They tested me and had a potential job for me. Within 24 hours I had secured a new job doubling my total income. It was a corporate job, I stayed there until I closed the company after it was divested. I jumped from company to company until I landed where I am now. I have been with this corporation for 10 years now.

It took me a number of years NOT staying in the security of a particular job but taking risks that I did not want to but had to in order to better my lot. I know according to career counselors that I am underpaid since I have not yet gone above $100,000. But let me tell you, I am happy where I am. I have no stress. I get 3 weeks vacation a year, 2 weeks of sick days, summer fridays where from Labor day to Memorial day I get every other Friday off. I can take off early to go to doctor´s appointments. I get a good number of other perks, like a pension plan, bonus based on profit sharing, 401k matching. Many many other perks that I cannot even begin to list.

The moral here is that I could have stayed where I was like many other people at that garment company. I know many people still working there who have worked there for 25 years. I have surpassed many of them in income, but in happiness I could not say, because some of them equate security of the same place as something important to them.

I don´t have a college degree, I barely graduated from High School having to retake a science in summer school because I failed physics.

I believe that I wanted to have a better life, one better than what was just handed and given to me. I worked very hard for where I am, and will continue to do so. I resent anyone who isn´t willing to exert some effort to improve their lot in life and expect someone else to just divy it up for them.

I was laid off from my wonderful corporation, they gave me a severance package for 9 months. Looking for jobs there were few and far between, I ended up taking a pay cut that I know most people in poverty would never achieve. But I retrained and retooled my skills to make myself more desireable and marketable. I was eventually rehired back to the company because my skills fit the long term goals of the company something I prepared and worked hard for.

The mom and pop operation could not have ever provided me such a lifestyle. I could not have ever expected it. It would have been silly for me to think so. Just like I do not think that a CEO cannot provide me that lifestyle. I created it on my own with my own resources and my own blood, sweat, and tears, and sacrifices.

That truly is commendable Cyn. But not everyone has the drive you do, so we should punish people for just being happy to have a job where they can afford to live decently?

I find the argument that "if one wants better they will strive for it" very degrading, judgemental and assuming that EVERYONE has the same oppurtunities, background etc. as the one who made it.

I don't buy that BS. Cyn you are a very intelligent man and what drives you may not drive someone else. It isn't he/she is lazy but life may have happened and he/she may have kids, made a mistake somewhere along the road (quit school, committed a crime when he was young, had a severe illness, poor credit, whatever etc.) where a decent job can't be had, and so on. Do you suggest these people get stuck in a job they cannot afford to live but cannot afford to quit either be punished with those low wages because they fucked up in their past and made a mistake and thus are not worthy to advance?

For every great moving up story like yours there are many more where the guy had a decent job, lost it and found there were no jobs out there that could pay him near the wage he made.... so he couldn't afford his car payment, mortgage, kids' college, etc.

As college tuitions skyrocket, aid decreases it is becoming harder and harder to get an education..... and then with student loans (both public and private because the gov't loans aren't enough anymore), working at a job that pays barely enough to make it is like slavery. Why? Because you are stuck there. You have bills and can't afford to quit. You are exhausted because you are salary working 50 hours (or trying to work 2 jobs because neither offers full time) in a stress filled job and sleep is unheard of, because of the stress and nightmares of work....... How do you tell someone to get out of that? How do you show someone there is a light at the end of the tunnel?

Because there are more and more like that than are like you...... people beaten down by the system. At least with better wages..... perhaps they can afford to take a few days off to look for a better job or find something better.

Maybe these scenarios are just in Ohio...... (I will say AZ had plenty of work but lousy wages)..... I don't know I can only go by what I see and what I know.... and I know people have drive or they don't.... it doesn't matter what they make, the drive is there or isn't.... but the system can wear a person down to the point they give up those dreams and the drive because the possibility to advance isn't there. For the people with no drive and happy to make a wage they can live on..... who is to say there is anything wrong with that? As long as they work 40 hours a week and are happy and make enough to live on I see no problem with that.

This whole, "Either you have a drive or you can't make a liveable wage" is BS. It an excuse to keep wages low and people living on credit, heavily indebted and it is not bettering society in anyway. If anything it is destroying society and widening ths gaps.

i had considered posting stuff to this thread before, but held off because i did not find the way the arguments were presented to be useful--but the last posts to come extent change this, so here goes....

1. i should say that i find no argument compelling against raising the minimum wage to the level of a "living wage" however that is defined. a business is a social activity--economic action is social, it is not separate, not discrete, not a wholly private sphere within which "rational actors" pursue the infantile notion of "self-interest". as a social activity, business comes with obligations to the social context within which it operates, that enables it to generate a profit (to function at all). i do not buy the ideological focus that comes from the right on small business when the fact of the matter is that theoverwhelming majority of economic activity in the states is undertaken by large-scale operations.

this last point is one where pan and cyn/stevo talk past each other. if pan uses terminologies particular to corporate action, cyn/stevo respond with terminology that links theur positions to small businesses. i wonder about this choice, where it comes from and why it is compelling. i dont see this as self-evident, and it seems to me that entire arguments here hinge on which example you choose to think about.

2. another level problem: when pan, for example, talks about a living wage (or its functional equivalent) in economic terms, cyn responds with a parable concerning motivation. these are not the same type of argument. a living wage-type argument involves questions of economic position, which involve questions like food costs, rent or mortgage levels, etc. and something on the order of a cost of living index. these are social matters.
cyn's story avoids social questions, focussing rather on what he apparently take to be the subjective motivation absurdly low wages provided him as a person--which is fine--except that he seems to assume there is something generalizable about his story--the implication is that if everyone were more like him, things would be hunky dory. that seems kind of presumptuous to me.

further, it does not constitute a statement about anything social or structural at all---there is no attempt to understand factors like poverty as social phenomena or social problems---there is no consideration of the range of possible responses to poverty---there is only a story about motivation, which reads like it is also a story about virtue, the implication of which is that folk who work very low paying jobs do so because they lack motivation--that is they lack virtue--and so, by extension, they deserve to be poor. because, in the end, poverty is their fault and can be explained by this lack of an inward characteristic of virtue.

that seems to me meaningless if you take it at all seriously as a conversation about anything to do with poverty or with low wage levels.

to head off the international comparisons---in amartya sen's book "development as freedom" you can find very interesting arguments about poverty--he uses mortality rates to pose questions about false comparisons between poverty levels in different contexts (pp. 22-23 for the data itself). one target of the information is the routine (and false) claim that folk who are poor in the us are less poor than those in other places. these claims usually rest on data concerning income levels and nothing else.

if you look at mortality rates, the story changes: as of 1995, 82% of white males could expect to live to 75 yrs; 74 % of males in china, 71% of males in kerala, india; 67% of african-american males.

what to make of this?

there is a way in which the answer is obvious--measured in terms of income to the exlcusion of other factors, the poor in the states are not as poor as those in other countries; but if you think about poverty in relation to life expectancy, you have to think differently--while income levels may be higher, poverty in america operates in a different cultural environment within which the delightful consequences of the american intertwining of class and racism crystalize....poverty in the states is more dysfunctional than poverty in very poor countries as a function of the cultural context within which it operates.

this would seem to me a pretty strong argument for not only a living wage, but also for a radical equalization of educational and other forms of cultural resources that shape opportunity, a radical reform of the health care system and so forth.

another way: arguments against a living wage seem to me ethically wrong. i see no reason to not think about poverty as a social problem, not as the result of some lack of virtue on the part of the poor. i see no justification for firms of any size paying only the lowest possible wages.

yet another way: i think milton friedman is full of shit.

Roach I am in awe. Very profound and well written response that truly says everything needed to be said.

This just occurred to me also..... speaking on drive and pay in another wage type thread (where this question is alo posted).......

If the CEO decides to cut jobs in the US and move production (to say) Indonesia, knowing that they cannot make widgets as good as the workers here but those workers will do so for far less thus drivng up the profit (even if sales go down)..... is that truly a CEO with drive or is that a CEO just abusing the system and showing no ingenuity or drive to truly better profit through new ideas and better product????????

So yes he drove up profits but destroyed the social fabric of a whole community.... does this man deserve millions in bonuses and pay?

He truly didn't strive to better anything..... except his own finances.

So why did he deserve to make 100's of x's more than the employees who lost their jobs because they worked their asses of 40 hours a week trying to make a living?

In truth was not this country founded on paying decent wages to labor to get loyalty and the best work possible for products built to last longer than a few years, maybe even before they are paid off?

I'm sorry but when both my grandfathers were union in the 60's and 70's the products they made were made with pride, respect, built to last and done so because they made decent livings and didn't worry about living paycheck to paycheck.

Today, you pay someone barely enough to live and put more stress on them, not only are they not healthy physically but mentally they are close to breaking.

Everything in this world needs balance and right now the gaps in classes and wages are far far out of balance.

Actually, this country was founded with the help of slavery, which didn't require any wages at all, and then sweatshop type laber which required very little in wages. Both of these things were supposedly necessary for the economy to function and both required significant bloodshed to be ended. As you may know, america seems to be doing fine without them. A number of american companies still take advantage of sweatshop labor, just not american sweatshop labor.

Let me rephrase that then, to what I meant...... since the 50's has not this country been founded on decent wages and the ability to advance?

I know what you're saying, but i think that all changed in the eighties. Profit became much more important than decency, and still is. Everytime you hear someone talk about "letting the market handle it" is a reflection of this shift. The market cares solely about making money. The market is a completely different system of morality, and if you happen to think that morals should ultimately guide people towards creating a better world to live in, a wholly inadequate system.

This makes sense to me.

The "market" as I understand it, doesn't care about anything except profit. Or perhaps (IMHO) the perception of profitability is more important.

So I have no problem with other standards being applied through regulation. I'm thinking of polution laws, of minimum safety standards, of holidays (hours/conditions) and finally - minimum wages.

Maybe this is idealist bullshit. I'm living in a comfortable society. Maybe my values would be different if I lived in a slum and I had 5 kids to feed.

But, given a choice - I'd rather that we extended the work standards of developing countries (gently) rather than compete in a race to lower rates. If lowering standards is the only way to compete (and I'll accept some changes) then I'd be inclined to favour much more protectionist measures.

I'll put it another way, my support for free trade is linked somewhat to my support for reasonble labour conditions globally. If country X treats their civilians like battery hens, then I think we should limit trade with them.

I have had my run ins with bad luck and had my setbacks, I have lost my job several times and had to bounce back.

But again, you state "But not everyone has the drive you do, so we should punish people for just being happy to have a job where they can afford to live decently?" does that not imply then you wish for someone to have the same level as for someone else who worked hard for it? In the logic I follow from your writing it does.

As a manager of many people at one time, I had to motivate the over achiever along with the slacker. I tell you it was not fair to the achiever that the same merit increases had to be doled out to the slacker as the achiever. What would ever motivate someone then? Why should someone strive when to not strive they still get the same raise? Again, capitalism is not fair, as is life. We do not get to pick and choose what family we are born, we do not get to pick what country we are born. It is unfortunate, but that is a fact.

Half the population (graph displayed at the link below....) has an IQ of 100 or less. All of us know both curious and incurious individuals; driven folks, ambitious folks, and lazy folks. All of these factors influence success, even if they are not predictive....
In another thread, roachboy briefly mentioned that business owners must pay enough compensation to those who they employ to enable them to have enough wealth to successfully reproduce and feed and nurture a new generation to regenerate the labor pool......that seems obvious.....but it is not recognized universally.

Even slaveowners provided that much.....food, clothing, shelter, medical care, to insure that their "asset" could continue to produce and reproduce to replace itself....

Ford paid his workers $5 per day before 1915. He reasoned that his workforce would be more committed if they could afford to buy the product that they were building.....that wage also created a new consumer class, and spurred other employers to match that wage.....raising the number of other Americans who could afford to buy a model T Ford.

Immediately after WWII, the freight logistics and the large number of ships existed to move numerous U.S. factories to other countries where labor costs would have been much lower. That did not happen. I can't believe that no one thought to do it.....it was probably due more to moral and ethical influences.....and because factory owners just would not "dare" to do that to veterans returning for war duty who were looking for decent paying jobs.

Women who had toiled on war material assembly lines were laid off without anyone batting an eye.....but male American workers were still regarded highly enough and treated with enough respect to be offered jobs at pay levels that were much higher than employers could have gotten away with paying if they had relocated their factories to, say....allied European port cities. It just was not done, and it turned out to be smarter not to....and better for busines.....because it created a strong middle class, and a boom in the domestic economy.

The unwinding of that momentum is happening in the U.S. now. Earlier, I cited figures from a FED web page that showed wealth distribution to half of the U.S. population was just 2-1/2 percent of total wealth. Any discretionary income controlled by that group will take a big hit from stagnant or declining real estate prices, and higher gasoline prices. How will revenue increase at shops like Wal-Mart and Home Depot?

host, I agree with much of your analysis and especially the post WWII situation. I was a child in the '50s living in a middle class neighborhood and most families had multiple children and made out very well on one income and most had blue collar jobs. Many if not most of these jobs had good pensions, benefits, and medical insurance included.

In Halberstams's book "The Fifties" he details the growth of many industries during this time which would not have been possible if workers couldn't afford new homes, appliances, TVs, cars, etc... It seems that having a well paid middle class actually enables the rich to get richer and creates many opportunities for new businesses.

I'm afraid there is little loyalty among companies and workers nowadays and our retirement and medical benefits are slowly being eliminated from company offerings. I don't think my WWII generation father even heard the term "downsizing". Of course the world has caught up somewhat, and back then most of the stuff coming out of Japan, etc.. was considered inferior and cheap.

I think that a few statements, plus a not insignificant amount of time spent looking through archives, may have backed up my point. (Which, in case anyone has forgotten, is that people who work hard almost never stay in minimum wage jobs).

Judging by what you say about your present income, it would seem to have been a good deal. If I remember correctly, you own your house and car. Your statements have also led me to believe that your educational loans are paid off. According to your profile, you're 25. Not bad, I'd say. If your response is, "I worked my ass off," my answer would be, "That's the idea." If you are saying minimum wage should be higher so you would be in your current financial state of affairs BEFORE age 25, I'd say you were being a bit greedy.

However, your espousal of a minimum wage hike (and your interest in my personal life) encouraged me to learn how to search the archive, with the following results.

1. Although you describe yourself as a "low-income" teenager, you attended martial arts school(s) from age 4 to sometime past age 16. Martial arts are not cheap, and those payments didn't go into your college fund. You also weren't earning income while you were taking those classes.

I conclude that you made a conscious choice to study martial arts, even if it meant you had to borrow a "crapload" of money later. I don't fault that decision, but I don't accept "whining" (your word) about your lack of funds at the time, either.

"A few years back." You were 24 when you wrote that. Most people use the term "a few" to mean 3 or more. So if you were age 21 at that writing, which just about HAS to be when you were in college, the state of your finances, once again, was not as dire as it could have been.

Maybe, but if someone with a "severe heart condition" could be a 5th degree black belt, AND drive race cars, AND own his house and car, AND have his education paid for (you said you DID, past tense, have student loans) by age 25, well, this is a great country and we shouldn't fool around with it.

I don't understand this statement. What I was referring to is the GI bill, by which so many military veterans have obtained higher education.

The subject is minimum wage, not crappy jobs. I believe that anyone who has spent 5 or so years working at minimum wage isn't trying hard enough to improve their status.

Since you're so interested, I'll give you the full story. At the time I wrote that I was "with my parents," I was. In 2003, my sister and I were moving them to a house near us, because they were no longer able to manage all of their affairs. My mother had fallen for the workman appearing at the door to "do some repair work he'd noticed they needed." My parents fell for that--twice.

We got them moved near us. Two months ago, my mother died, and since she was the one who kept an eye on my father, who has Alzheimer's, I, my sister, her two kids, and my two kids are supervising my father in shifts.

Are there any more questions about me or my parents?

Born 8/3/83, which makes me 22 years old, 23 in August. I'm not fighting for myself, I'm fighting for others. I have a bit of a savior complex, which has a lot to do with my political beliefs. I tend to want to save people (sometimes to a fault). I do own my house and car, though I was given a good deal on the house by a family member.
My gradparents payed for my martial arts until I was 14, when I got my first job doing secretarial work for a neighbor who owned his own company. I made minimum wage then, too. No, martial arts were not cheap, that is until I left the ATA for more direct training. I paid for a lot of my own stuff with the money I earned. I payed for my martial arts, clothes, etc.
I expected to be paid on par with other people who did the same amount of work that I did, but were older. If I had the secretarial job today that I had then, I would be making at least $15 per hour. I made something like $5 per hour then. Whining had a lot to do with fairness, and less to do with selfishness. My employer easily had the means to pay fair wages.
I was 20 when I was allowed to race my friends car at LS. I did not own the car, I did not pay to have to car repaired or modified. I did share the cost of fuel and tires, but aside form that it was only an investment of time. My buddy who was and still is very well off had no problem with a friend racing his cheapest car. I was practicaly wetting myself at the prospet of racing at Laguna Seca at all. He was excited to have a 'team'.
I did the martial arts and racing against the direction of my cardiologist, but with the reccomendation of my sports doctor. I could and still cannot compete in martial arts, and I could not drive a really fast car (the 928 was practically stock) because of the force it put on my cardiovascular system. According to my condition, I cannot do competitive sports and I cannot lift heavy weights. A coarctation of the aorta repair means that my descending aorta is a grafted-on piece of dachron tube. This means that 1) the aorta cannot grow and 2) it has a limit of strength. I cannot allow my blood pressure to go above a certian point or my heath or even my life can be in serious danger. I know my limits, and I respect them. I hope that explaination was sufficient.
I disagree. Edit: 'Anyone' who has spend 5 years working minimum wage ins't trying hard enough? One word pops into my mind: empathy. Are you really able to put yourself in the shoes of these people and imagine the full gravity of their situation? What if you are the daughter of illegal immigrints (born here, and thus a citizen), who had to essentially raise your little brother who has down syndrome while both of your parents worked so that you could have a roof over your head and food on your table. It certianally builds character, but missing school puts you at a serious disadvantage in the job market when you are eventually asked to take a job. You start working at a run down supermarket because the owner is a friend of the family (you would not be able to get work otherwise), and you start orking 30 hours a week at $5/hr. Your refrences don't speak english, you have very little english skills at all, no education, no job skills beyond taking care of a sick little boy (which cannot be backed up by refrences). You're f**ked if you want a job that pays more than $5/hr. You continue to work at the run down supermarket hoping for a raise, but none will even come because the place only does enough business to break even.

Perhapse this hypothetical character should have been born in a better situation, and thus the situation she is in is her fault.
My questions were mearly intended to find out what background you have in the subject at hand.

While I do recognise that some of those making minimum wages simply don't care and are lazy, not all of them fall in to this catagory. I believe that some people do wish to better themselves, but are stuck for whatever reason, and despite admirable efforts cannot become unstuck mearly through perserverience or tenacity. The reason I believe this is I know people in that situation. There are valid reasons, beyond not trying hard enough, to explain why some people are forced to hold minimum wage jobs.

Wait, i thought this thread was about the minimum wage, not willravel's posting history. I also thought your original point was that raising the minimum wage hurts businesses.

Amen Brother!!

I don't understand how tearing down someone and trying to argue their past posts and how they have personally done ties into a debate about minimum wage either.

From what I see in Magictoy's post he tries to confuse the argument and change the subject by attacking Will.

How does this help Magictoy's side of the debate? What it shows me is he had nothing rational to add so he attacked someone personally through their posts.

Ah yes, the "minimum wage" for the worker must be kept down, yet the CEO NEEDS to make more in one hour than those workers in a year do.

Explain why.

Explain why the average CEO needs to make $11 MILLION dollars and more in one day than the average US worker who makes $42,000 a year?

Explain to me why you believe that anyone who works 40 hours a week should not make enough to buy food, pay their mortgage, afford their kids and be able to save a little while being able to afford a decent lifestyle.

I know people who work 40 hours a week and have to choose between buying gas to get to work or food for their kids..... Is that what America is about?

What happened to an honest day's wage for an honest day's work?

You pay people shit you get shit back in quality.

If you paid the honest hard worker more and gave him respect, perhaps you would find that you would have less turnover, more and higher quality production and more loyal customers.

If companies paid decent wages minimum wage wouldn't be an issue would it? Oh yeah, it's a bargaining chip for the non existent and pretty much decimated unions, that's right. Or no it means prices go up because those people who pay the minimum wage (or wages that are unliveable) want to punish everyone for the raise they must give, God forbid the bosses have to take a pay cut.

You have Congress giving themselves raises (oh yeah.... they vote the raises for the next Congress.... oops sorry just what 75+% get re-elected, so they'll benefit).... and with their benefits they don't truly ever have to touch their pay.

You claim you pay too much in taxes taking care of the "poor people".... hmmmm..... well maybe if you demanded companies paid better, liveable wages so that the people who DID work could afford to live, afford medical afford food afford to send their kids to college and be able to feel like they are someone because they have a little bit of money....... GUESS WHAT? Your fucking taxes would probably start going for better use, because the social part of the taxes wouldn't be such a strain.... more people making better wages, needing less government help = fewer social taxes needed....

What is so impossible to see about that?

But by all means keep arguing CEO's need to make more in 1 day than the average worker does in a year.

By all means keep picking and choosing which 40 hour a week jobs are meaningless and those who work them don't deserve a liveable wage.

Some people all they desire in life is enough to live a decent life ....... WTF is wrong with that? We need people who are willing to work jobs "of menial labor" and if they are working and trying to live a respectable life then who is anyone to say they do not deserve a decent wage?

Maybe if we paid better wages we wouldn't have to have the mothers work. Maybe all those people who one on hand are crying about the family not being close yet refuse to allow minimum wage to go up, would realize if you paid more and the family could live on one wage earner.... maybe we'd have closer families and less divorces.

Of course none of this makes sense to any of you who oppose any type of minimum wage?








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AS YOU SEE IT IS NOT JUST BUSH AND THE GOP THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING THIS. (sorry for the cap sentence but I do not want anyone using partisanship as their excuse.....)

==========================================================

Links: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...shots_20060621

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...shots_20060627

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfe...shots_20060726

I'm doing some actual research into the issues I'm voting for (Yes, it's a shock that someone actually looks at the facts before they go to vote)
http://raisethewage.org/pdf/MinimumW...dment_Full.pdf

And issue 2 in Ohio is the minimum wage amendment.
http://raisethewage.org/

It would raise the state wage from $5.15 to $6.85. And each year it would increase by the amount of inflation for the previous year.

It looks like it will pass, just because the large amount of lower income Ohioans that would get a large raise. I'm surprised there hasn't been a campaign from Wal-Mart and the fast food places against this. I'm sure if they said they would cut their workforce by 15% if this passes, it wouldn't be so guaranteed to pass. Even though it might not be in my best interests (it doesn’t affect me directly) , may cause further unemployment (or just be harder to find a job), and cause some small businesses to fail or move out of the state. I still tend to side in favor of this. Hopefully my taxes will go down as these people will now be able to get off Medicaid since they would be making over the poverty line. And they would be paying more in taxes. The big stores might raise prices though, however they have increased prices many times over the past 10 years and not really increased the hourly wage. The only other problem is that while it might bridge the gap between me and the minimum wage earner, it still doesn't address the bigger issue of wage disparity.

Plus I like the message that it sends to congress, that they are supposed to represent the people, not their agenda. Even if a representative is against the minimum wage hike, if 80 or 90% of the people in your district want it, the representative should vote for it.

We’ll see what happens…

Sounds admirable.

However...unless that inflatiary increase is applied across the board, within 20 years the minimum wage will have overrun everyone elses wages, and we will all be earning minimum wage. Or...we'll all be out of jobs and looking to immigrate to China.

Consider...few pay increases keep pace with inflation. The industry standard for wage increases was 3% last year. What was the rate of inflation? I dunno, I'm to lazy to look it up, but it was greater than 3%. See where this goes?

So...regardless...any increase in the minimum wage will reduce the value of your current wages...whatever that may be.

I've included the first year....1913.... that the US gov. meausred CPI. I'm not sure that it offers a meaningful year to year comparison, because the benchmarks of measurement have been changed over time....an example is that the CPI housing cost measure is tied to the cost of renting....while the US is a nation of about 68 percent homeowning households....rent costs went down during the recent housing price bubble, as less renters pursued more housing units......

I've included CPI for years that end in "6", and high and low years. While there were several periods in CPI history when prices actually decresed, this has not happened since 1955.....
The article above makes a case, IMO, for government intervention in the setting of a wage floor....especially the last paragraph. Labor lost contol of "ownership" of the means of production, beginning in the latter part of the 1700's. It seems to me that workers can, and have.....used the power of government, by the influence of their sheer numbers, to take back some of the power of ownership that they once enjoyed.....when they controlled the means of production, and labor was not just another "input" in the production process, a generic commodity.

I just want to know why it is so wrong to expect that men and women who work 40 hours a week make liveable wages and not have to go into debt, not have to have their intelligence or desires questioned.

If a person works 40 hours a week, they should be entitled to, have a right to and be able to make enough to live comfortably on and not have ANYONE question their integrity.

As for raising minimum wage.... here's a novel idea..... instead make it so that every time a CEO takes a raise (including ALL forms of compensation, stock options, bonuses, etc.), 110% is added to the worker.

So if a CEO makes a million one year and decides he needs a 100% raise and pays himself 2 million the next, the company's workers get 110% raise.

If there is a company that has say 1,000 employees and the CEO takes a $1 million raise and bonus and perks..... that those 1,000 workers each could have had a $10,000 a year raise? Imagine the dedication, loyalty and incentive you would create in your workforce if you said.... "I'll not take a raise this year, (or I'll drop my $11 mill salary to $10 Mill), and give it to the workers that produce the product the raise instead.

Let's see a CEO say that instead of why if minimum wage goes up, the prices of goods go up and he still takes a huge ass raise.

PS by giving the workers that raise also, increases the tax base thus takes some of the burden of the CEO.

What do you think a CEO does, Pan? Do you think CEO's do anything that add value to a company? Do you think CEO's are paid what they are only because "they can get away with it?" Is it ever justifiable that a CEO makes a seven-figure salary?

I dont need the govt to give me a raise. Anybody who does need them to doesnt even remotely deserve it.

I think Ben & Jerry's tried this, tying the executive salaries to the lowest paid employee. It didn't work, they eventually had to hire a real CEO at market prices to run their business effectively.

There are successful companies that are very profitable and pay their workers more than minimum wage, on their own initiative without government interference.

EX: Starbucks

From my own personal experience, I've always started off at minimum wage and then rapidly received pay raises and promotions due to my hard work ethic and skills. If anything, I would appreciate it if the government would tax me less.

Yeah, I'm not too big of a fan of the automatic adjustments to the CPI either. I guess social security does the same thing. But all that means is if people have more money, and are in the market for the same produces, the prices will go up. And for workers who are making $7/hour, it wouldn't be very good for them, because now they aren't making that much more than the minimum wage. I wonder what would happen if the CPI just shot up 100 or 200% because the value of the dollar plunges, what would happen?

There are quite a few jobs that can't go overseas, but that just means that the only jobs that will be left are at the big box stores, fast food, car sales, realtors, military, police, fire, government, medical, truck drivers, farmers, strippers...
There will still be enough jobs for a large percentage of the population.


Whole foods and a bunch of European companies have rules that the CEO can't make more than 14 or 17 times what the lowest paid employee gets.

as "grass roots" as Ben & Jerry's small company standing seems to be...

Ooh, thanks Cyn, do you have a link to the rest of the story? I wonder what the deal was; did their ideas really not pan out or what? It was a nice concept in theory I suppose... I'm also curious about the Whole Foods model. If I remember correctly, I don;t think they give their employees any health benefits (or maybe it was Trader Joe's).

Yep, I think that was the Ben & Jerry's model too (at least it sounds about right).

"failed attempt" doesn't have anything to do with their business model.
it's referring to the fact that the two owners tried to take sole ownership back after their company was open to "public" ownership...which means large conglomerates purchased enough stocks that they couldn't retain control over their own company.