Minimum Wage Increase - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

soccerchamp76 · 06-20-2004, 11:10 PM

John Kerry has proposed that if president he would increase the minimum wage to $7.00 an hour by 2007 which would total about $3500 extra a year for minimum wage workers.

For this or against this?

Reason: Most recent increase from 1997 has been cut due to inflation.

Zeld2.0 · 06-20-2004, 11:12 PM

Don't see that as a real big issue honestly....

Though I'll admit that lately what has been a concern has been rising prices and seeming inflation out here in CA... geez the prices sure have gone up lately

SixEdxMia · 06-20-2004, 11:16 PM

For it...The kid flippin my burgers should at least make as much per hour as the cost one Value meal. Ya know?

hammer4all · 06-21-2004, 12:00 AM

Here are some historical numbers adjusted for inflation:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

Note that the minimum wage has been going down since 1978...

It really shows the free market fundamentalist offensive of the past quarter century since the activism of the 60s and 70s.

Kadath · 06-21-2004, 05:04 AM

I'd like it if the minimum wage at least kept up with inflation. On the other hand, it will hurt small businesses.

For it. I've made minimum wage, and it sucks. I won't forget about that just because I've got mine now.

Superbelt · 06-21-2004, 05:12 AM

For it if it includes some kind of tax break for small businesses to offset the financial strain.

Something that perhaps works if you have under 20 employees currently making the minimum wage.

hrdwareguy · 06-21-2004, 05:49 AM

Against it. I've made minimum wage and while it does suck, I managed to get by and further myself.

No that I have furthered myself, I don't my paycheck to "devalue". I don't want my pay staying the same while those making minimum wage get a huge boost, thereby making things I purchase now more expensive and puttin a strain on my already dwindling checkbook.

If you want to make an increase to minimum wage, make it small, like a quarter, but lets not get out of hand and make it over a dollar an hour.

ARTelevision · 06-21-2004, 05:55 AM

The problem is we are already uncompetitive labor-wise in the world market.

I think everyone would want people to get as much return for their investment of work as possible.
The issue is how do we compete with wage scales in other countries that benefit from companies moving jobs to low-wage areas of the world?

apeman · 06-21-2004, 06:17 AM

this is indeed the problem - you can't compete with a peasant in east asia who gets paid a cupful of rice for a 12 hour day, poor bugger

FoolThemAll · 06-21-2004, 06:36 AM

As a free market fundamentalist, I don't really see a justification for any minimum wage. I see the well-intentioned, often selfless desire, sure, but that's it.

reconmike · 06-21-2004, 06:36 AM

I do not really know about the rest of the country, but here in Jersey burger flippers are already making $7+ an hour while laborers are making $8 to start.

There is work out there that requires no skill that will pay better than minimum wage, they just have to look.

Bill O'Rights · 06-21-2004, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
I do not really know about the rest of the country, but here in Jersey burger flippers are already making $7+ an hour while laborers are making $8 to start.

There is work out there that requires no skill that will pay better than minimum wage, they just have to look.

It's not too often that I do, but I have to agree with reconmike. The wages that he's quoted are about on target for the Omaha area, as well. I don't know of too many jobs, these days, that are still minimum wage. Although, to be fair, it's been 24 years since I, myself, earned minimum wage...at 3.10 an hour. When I started working, it was 2.90 per hour.
Any raise in the minimum wage just excuses price hikes by manufacturers and retailers. And unless I receive a similar pay hike (not likely), then my buying power is diminished.

cthulu23 · 06-21-2004, 06:57 AM

The idea that wage increases are always harmful for business ignores the fact that as workers earn more money, they also spend more money. Think of it as the "trickle up" effect.

Real wages have been declining in this country for decades now, an fact that is largely ignored by both political parties. We can never win in the global cheap wages game, nor should we desire to. Isn't one of the promises of the free market greater economic growth? Shouldn't some of this "new" money find it's way into the pockets of the middle and lower class?

Stompy · 06-21-2004, 08:11 AM

I don't understand why they call it minimum wage.

You CAN'T live on minimum wage.. $4.75 @ 40 hours a week is only $570 a month..

Most apartments cost just about that in rent. How are you supposed to pay for electricity, phone, and food?

Raise it.

[edit]
I don't even know if 4.75 is still the minimum... I tried searching google but it came up blank.

ShaniFaye · 06-21-2004, 08:18 AM

I found this site that tells all the states minimum wages if any one wants to check out what theirs is..the federal wage is 5.15 per hour but some states are different with some already over 7 dollars an hour

US Dept of Labor Minimum Wage

onetime2 · 06-21-2004, 10:57 AM

In all truth, it doesn't matter. In terms of economics it means almost nothing. The fact is there are plenty of jobs which do not fall under the minimum wage umbrella and the ones that do don't pay people minimum wage for long. As an employee gains experience and performs well they progress beyond the minimum wage and the vast majority of current workers have progressed beyond even the "new" minimum wage being proposed.

The minimum wage issue is just a ploy used by politicians to appear sympathetic to workers.

Zeld2.0 · 06-21-2004, 11:07 AM

Yeah it really doesn't mater al lthat much honestly

And here in CA, if you try living on minimum wage - you might as well be homeless

It's amzing n how a small apartment now is costing more than a house used to just 5 years ago - and believe me, i've seen this while in real estate myself

cthulu23 · 06-21-2004, 01:25 PM

In states with a low standard of living, such as Louisiana (my fair home), it is common for many workers to be paid minimum wage. Even with the cheaper prices here, you can't live on that amount.

You can say that the minimum wage question is "meaningless," but I think that it's stagnation is a strong symptom of the shrinking of the middle class. It's not just the minimum wage....real wages for most Americans have been shrinking since the 1970's. Politicians of both parties don't like to mention this, though. I guess they're still waiting for the money to trickle down.

Hwed · 06-21-2004, 03:30 PM

cthulu, I'd ask for some of what you're smoking, but if it's going to make me that gloomy, I'll pass.

Against it. Minimum wage is a completely arbitrary number. If you increase it, markets quickly adjust to compensate and return everything to equilibrium, with the exception of some irreversible inflation, the weakening of the dollar in international currency markets, and a likely bump in interest rates.

If you want to improve quality of life, you need to increase the demand for goods and services produced by workers across the spectrum. Encouraging investment and allowing people to keep more of their money is a good start.

People gripe about tax cuts for the rich (if you define rich as a married couple making $100k a year, like the Democrats do), but the fact is that excess wealth in the hands of the upper 50% does a tremendous amount to stimulate and grow the economy in the long term.

If a low-end wage earner is given more disposable income, that worker is very likely to spend most of it on consumable goods. No new investment, no new jobs.

On the other hand, middle- and upper-class workers will spend excess disposable income on two things: consumables AND investment. This newly spurred investment funds new business opportunities, creating jobs and giving those low end workers a chance to move up the scale.

John Kerry is an airhead, not to mention a gigolo who has never worked a day in his life, marrying wealth to live a life of privilege.. He pays $1000 for a haircut. This man is so disconnected from people who work hard for a living it's sad.

cthulu23 · 06-21-2004, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed
John Kerry is an airhead, not to mention a gigolo who has never worked a day in his life, marrying wealth to live a life of privilege.. He pays $1000 for a haircut. This man is so disconnected from people who work hard for a living it's sad.

That's great....Kerry as an elite airhead, in sharp contrast to Pres. Bush, with his poor upbringing (rich, powerful family, CIA director/vice-Pres/President father) and academic excellence (C student and admitted partier, no drugs since the 70s, though). That's the funniest thing I've heard since the attacks on Kerry's military record. Come on people....you don't have to like Kerry, but let's see a little perspective here.

To get back on topic, you describe supply-side economics well. It's important to recognize, however, that supply-side is only one of many economic theories, and a controversial one at that. What I've always found incredible about "trickle-down" is the idea that rising wages are bad except when they go into the hands of the upper class....how can anyone take that seriously?
How come the "equilibrium" of the "free market" has increasingly rewarded CEOs...in 1980, the average CEO earned 42 times that of an average factory worker in their company. By 1996, that number had swelled to 217 times the average salary. Given all of that growth in incomes for the ultra-wealthy, why have we seen real wages decline for most Americans? Why hasn't anything trickled down to the average American?

If you want a (very) dry yet unpartisan source of information on the truth of the growing inequality, see:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60asc.html

Other census docs can give you more raw numbers. This data only goes to 1996. There is no reason to believe that the situation has reversed itself since that time.

hammer4all · 06-21-2004, 06:48 PM

Two more resource links on the growing gap between the rich and the poor...

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/executivepay.html

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/electionincome.html

pan6467 · 06-21-2004, 06:54 PM

Minimum wage is a joke. It gives the Neo-cons fuel to a fire that unfortunately is out of control.

Cities are dying going bankrupt laying off cops and firemen. If a factory gets taxed they leave to an area that will give them tax-abatements. Leaving 100's maybe 1000's unemployed.

So who pays the factories taxes? The workers who are making less than they did at the old factory. So you pay more taxes but make less and the factories are getting subsidized.

What happens to the cities? Well the cities that lost the factories no longer have that tax plus they lose the taxes from the workers, plus the ones that do find work make less so they don't pay as much, so the cities and schools and states suffer. As do the people who drive on roads that can't be repaired, the services that cannot be rendered because the city cannot afford them.

The new cities that offer the tax abatements thinking it will booost their economy, see the factories paying poverty wages, having revolving doors of workers, and their citizens paying more in taxes because someone has to pay for the new services that city needs.

The companies get away with no benefits by using temp labor, whom can be fired just before their 90 days and new wagers come in, perhaps even cheaper than the old ones. If they do hire, they only offer part-time so they don't have to pay benefits.

The unions, well factories have taken care of those also. By closing down and moving to a "right to work" state where government gives employers the right to hire and fire at will, with no cause. That means at the new factory if someone says "union" they can be fired on the spot.

Minimum wage is a joke because companies pay just a little more than that to say, "they are paying people more than minimum." But how much more is a joke. what maybe a dollar or 2 more.

Let's see a family of 4 live on 2 people making $7 an hour, $560/wk before taxes. So let's say between them they bring home $400/week, or $1600 a month, that's a whopping $19,200

Let's say this family lives on bare minimums also.

Rent (2 bedroom townhouse) = $650/month
Insurance (2 cars as both have to work) = $125/month
Health insurance (a decent plan) = $150/month
Gas and car maintenance = $200
Groceries (2 adults 2 kids) = $400/month
Phone just local calls only nothing else = $25
No cable can't afford it
No internet can't afford it
Electricity = $50

That's pathetic. If we, the "greatest country" to ever grace the planet cannot make sure hard working people can make more and live a decent standard of living without worrying about debts, then we are a very sad, greedy nation.

I quote Henry Ford, "Pay your workers enough to live comfortably and buy your product and you will always have customers and hard workers."

We need to fix the whole wage problem in the USA. Not just minimum wage.

nanofever · 06-21-2004, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed
cthulu, I'd ask for some of what you're smoking, but if it's going to make me that gloomy, I'll pass.

Against it. Minimum wage is a completely arbitrary number. If you increase it, markets quickly adjust to compensate and return everything to equilibrium, with the exception of some irreversible inflation, the weakening of the dollar in international currency markets, and a likely bump in interest rates.

If you want to improve quality of life, you need to increase the demand for goods and services produced by workers across the spectrum. Encouraging investment and allowing people to keep more of their money is a good start.

People gripe about tax cuts for the rich (if you define rich as a married couple making $100k a year, like the Democrats do), but the fact is that excess wealth in the hands of the upper 50% does a tremendous amount to stimulate and grow the economy in the long term.

If a low-end wage earner is given more disposable income, that worker is very likely to spend most of it on consumable goods. No new investment, no new jobs.

On the other hand, middle- and upper-class workers will spend excess disposable income on two things: consumables AND investment. This newly spurred investment funds new business opportunities, creating jobs and giving those low end workers a chance to move up the scale.

John Kerry is an airhead, not to mention a gigolo who has never worked a day in his life, marrying wealth to live a life of privilege.. He pays $1000 for a haircut. This man is so disconnected from people who work hard for a living it's sad.

Weeee, that same logic was used in the past to pay workers just enough to keep them alive. The Iron Law of Wages is an attempt to keep workers in the depths of poverty, and to give those who control the means of production a permanent lock on wealth. Increased consumer spending drives the market. (notice the period at the end of that sentence) If you pay the poor higher real wages, they can consume more and investment and new job will happen. On that note, supply-side economics are a horrible joke on the poor by the wealthy.

pan6467 · 06-21-2004, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed
cthulu, I'd ask for some of what you're smoking, but if it's going to make me that gloomy, I'll pass.

If you want to improve quality of life, you need to increase the demand for goods and services produced by workers across the spectrum. Encouraging investment and allowing people to keep more of their money is a good start.

People gripe about tax cuts for the rich (if you define rich as a married couple making $100k a year, like the Democrats do), but the fact is that excess wealth in the hands of the upper 50% does a tremendous amount to stimulate and grow the economy in the long term.

If a low-end wage earner is given more disposable income, that worker is very likely to spend most of it on consumable goods. No new investment, no new jobs.

On the other hand, middle- and upper-class workers will spend excess disposable income on two things: consumables AND investment. This newly spurred investment funds new business opportunities, creating jobs and giving those low end workers a chance to move up the scale.

Starting with a personal attack? Not exactly helping your point.

People could raise the needs for goods if they were paid enough to buy the goods without going into heavy debt.

Tax cuts never stimulate the economy all they do is take away services to help those who need it. Education cut, Fed. aid to cities CUT, (which makes sense seeings how we are in terrorist times and need the police), HUD, Social Security being raped, and so on.... Oh excuse me the Administration can afford us to go into heavy heavy deficit to fight a war.

Give the low wage earner more disposable income and he'll spend it???? Oh my lord, you hypocrite. First you say buy more then you say "if we pay the low wage earner enough to live, he may go buy things and increase demand." It's one or the other, either pay workers more or demand drops, can't have it both ways.

As for this Upper and middle class investing and buying more, hate to disappoint you but I know from experience that most of them sit on their money until times get better. Look at the market exploding isn't it with these tax cuts and "investments". Don't think so. In fact, very, very, very, few people I know (and I know some big boys) are investing in anything but gold, silver and the Euro, some Real Estate but none of that involves new jobs does it?. They don't stimulate it is the grunts, those low end wage earners you talk about that affect the economy.

Boo · 06-21-2004, 08:01 PM

You can starve to death in Alaska on minimum wage.

I don't believe that teenagers under 18 should receive it, they should get a prorated amount.

I also believe it should be indexed to a cost of living index for the area.

irseg · 06-21-2004, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pan6467
Rent (2 bedroom townhouse) = $650/month
Insurance (2 cars as both have to work) = $125/month
Health insurance (a decent plan) = $150/month
Gas and car maintenance = $200
Groceries (2 adults 2 kids) = $400/month
Phone just local calls only nothing else = $25
No cable can't afford it
No internet can't afford it
Electricity = $50

That's pathetic. If we, the "greatest country" to ever grace the planet cannot make sure hard working people can make more and live a decent standard of living without worrying about debts, then we are a very sad, greedy nation.

So let me get this straight. You're COMPLAINING that people who never bothered to advance themselves enough in life to get more than $7/hour (fast food wages) can afford to raise a family, live in a house, own and maintain two cars, have health insurance, plenty to eat, electricity, and a phone? That it's some kind of travesty that cable TV or Internet access would cut into their $400 food budget? If you're trying to garner sympathy for the working "poor" you're not doing a very good job at it.

pan6467 · 06-21-2004, 09:18 PM

I see so with college basically out of reach for many nowadays, unless you want to be strapped with $1000's in debt, you should not be allowed to live a standard that others.

It's just not fast food, it's the temp services that are paying it, the factories that have moved that are paying it.

There are college kids who have degrees that have $1000's in loans and those are the only jobs available.

Have you looked at your help wanted ads lately?

But ok, the working poor don't deserve anything but to work and barely eek out a living. That inspires hard work now doesn't it?

And $7 isn't the minimum wage yet. It's $5.25 and in Ohio if you are a waitress it's $2.15. Yeah I can see how people can live on that. And you have raises of at most 25 cents? These people usually work harder than people who make thousands more.

You didn't address one other fact, amazingly, just the money. And say they can't afford insurance and one of the kids has ADD, Asthma or whatever and needs medicine. Or one of the parents gets hurt and cannot work for awhile?

They live paycheck to paycheck and people like you only give a damn about what you have. That's ok, but remember this people who don't see a future don't have job loyalty. It costs more to keep training new employees than to keep them.

You need to show people a reward for their hard work, not let them barely live.

nanofever · 06-21-2004, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by irseg
So let me get this straight. You're COMPLAINING that people who never bothered to advance themselves enough in life to get more than $7/hour (fast food wages) can afford to raise a family, live in a house, own and maintain two cars, have health insurance, plenty to eat, electricity, and a phone? That it's some kind of travesty that cable TV or Internet access would cut into their $400 food budget? If you're trying to garner sympathy for the working "poor" you're not doing a very good job at it.

Not to accuse, but it REALLY sounds like someone was born wealthy...

Zeld2.0 · 06-21-2004, 10:29 PM

I just don't get how sometimes one can claim to care for others yet still say others should get a better life - gee, some are real screw ups, but others really didn't have a choice

Seaver · 06-21-2004, 11:10 PM

I'm in shock.. I actually agree with Superbelt.

The argument for minimum wage is that it is the minimum amout of money a person in an area can live on and keep the minimum living set down by the government.

Minimum wage has not kept up to the inflation rate. Now you can say so increase it. Well the problem is increasing minimum wages doesnt just hurt small business, but it increases the price for every single item you can buy. So this in itself increases inflation.

Big businesses can absorb this hit (the dip in funds until market prices can balace it. Small businesses will cut back their workers, or flat out close.

Sure, increase the minimum wage, in all honesty I dont care because it wont allow them to buy a new car, they'll be in the same spot as they were before. But you cant allow the small businesses to be crushed just because Kerry has yet to find an actual platform other than the not-bush vote.

irseg · 06-22-2004, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
Not to accuse, but it REALLY sounds like someone was born wealthy...

Actually, my dad had a low-paying job which he lost 6 months before I was born. I spent my first few years living in a trailer. Nice try at the "anyone who doesn't want to give more money to poor people for no reason must be a multimillionaire asshole" argument, though.

onetime2 · 06-22-2004, 03:37 AM

It seems that quite a few people don't quite grasp the impacts of minimum wage increases. Here is an excellent article that explains a number of the downsides.

Increasing the cost of inputs on business owners invariably effects other inputs (fewer jobs being the likely next step) or, if prices are elastic, results in increased prices passing the cost of higher wages on to the customer.

Quote:

Minimum Wages
by Linda Gorman

Minimum wage laws set legal minimums for the hourly wages paid to certain groups of workers. Invented in Australia and New Zealand with the admirable purpose of guaranteeing a minimum standard of living for unskilled workers, they have been widely acclaimed as both the bulwark protecting workers from exploitation by employers and as a major weapon in the war on poverty. Minimum wage legislation in the United States has increased the federal minimum wage from $.25 per hour in 1938 to $5.15 in 2001, and expanded its coverage from 43.4 percent of all private, nonsupervisory, nonagricultural workers in 1938 to over 87 percent by 1990. As the steady legislative expansion indicates, the minimum wage has had widespread political support enjoyed by few other public policies.

Unfortunately, neither laudable intentions nor widespread support can alter one simple fact: although minimum wage laws can set wages, they cannot guarantee jobs. In reality, minimum wage laws place additional obstacles in the path of the most unskilled workers who are struggling to reach the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. According to a 1978 article in American Economic Review, the American Economic Association's main journal, fully 90 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers. It also reduces the on-the-job training offered by employers and shrinks the number of positions offering fringe benefits. To those who lose their jobs, their training opportunities, or their fringe benefits as a result of the minimum wage, the law is simply one more example of good intentions producing hellish results.

To understand why minimum wage policies have such pernicious effects, one must understand how wages are determined in the free market. Consider, for example, the owner-operator of a small diner. To stay in business, he has to make sufficient profits to provide adequate support for his family. The market dictates how much he can charge for his meals because people can choose to eat at other restaurants or prepare their meals at home. The market also dictates what he must pay for food, restaurant space, electricity, equipment, and other factors required to produce his meals. Although the restaurant owner has little control over either the prices he can charge for his meals or the prices that he must pay for the inputs needed to produce them, he can control his costs by changing the combinations of inputs that he uses. He can, for example, hire teenagers to wash and slice raw potatoes for french fries, or he can purchase ready-cut potatoes from a large company with an automated french-fry production process.

The combination of inputs used and the amount that the diner owner can afford to pay for each one depend both on the productivity of the input and on the price that customers will pay for the product. Suppose that a trainee french-fry cutter can peel, cut, and prepare ten orders of fries in an hour, and that the diner's customers order about ten orders of french fries an hour at $1.00 each. If the minimum profit required to keep the owner in business plus all costs except the cutter's labor amounts to $.80 for each order, then the owner can afford a wage of up to $2.00 per hour for one trainee. Legislating a minimum wage of $4.50 per hour means that the diner owner loses $2.50 an hour on the trainee. The owner will respond by firing the trainee. The minimum wage prices the trainee out of the labor market. Similarly, other employers will respond to the increased minimum wage by substituting skilled labor (which does not cost as much more than unskilled labor as it did before the minimum wage) for unskilled labor, by substituting machines for people, by moving production abroad, and by abandoning some types of production entirely.

Australia provided one of the earliest practical demonstrations of the harmful effects of minimum wages when, in 1921, the federal court institutionalized a real minimum wage for unskilled men. The court set the wage by estimating what employees needed, while ignoring what employers could afford to pay. As a result unskilled workers were priced out of the market. These laborers could find work only in occupations not covered by the law or with employers willing to break it. Aggressive reporting of violations by vigilant unions made evasion difficult, and the historical record shows that unemployment remained a particular problem for unskilled laborers throughout the rest of the decade.

The same type of thing happened in the United States when a hospital fired a group of women after the Minimum Wage Board in the District of Columbia ordered their wages raised to the legal minimum. Ironically, the women sued to halt enforcement of the minimum wage law. In 1923 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Adkins v. Children's Hospital, ruled that the minimum wage law was simple price-fixing and an unreasonable infringement on individuals' freedom to determine the price at which they would sell their services. Although the peculiar logic of the last seventy years has seen this line of reasoning completely abrogated, the battle over allowing people to work at whatever wage they choose continues.

One skirmish occurred in 1990 when the U.S. Department of Labor ordered the Salvation Army to pay the minimum wage to voluntary participants in its work therapy programs. The programs provide participants, many of them homeless alcoholics and drug addicts, a small weekly stipend and up to ninety days of food, shelter, and counseling in exchange for processing donated goods. The Salvation Army said that the expense of complying with the minimum wage order would force it to close the programs. Ignoring both the fact that the beneficiaries of the program could leave to take a higher-paying job at any time and the cash value of the food, shelter, and supervision, the Labor Department insisted that it was protecting workers' rights by enforcing the minimum wage. By the peculiar logic of the minimum wage laws, workers have the right to remain unemployed but not the right to get a job by selling their labor for less than the minimum wage.

In addition to affecting how many people will be employed, minimum wage laws may also leave workers worse off by changing how they are compensated. For many low-wage employees fringe benefits such as paid vacation, free room and board, inexpensive insurance, subsidized child care, and on-the-job training (OJT) are an important part of the total compensation package. To avoid increasing total compensation, employers react to arbitrary boosts in money wages by cutting other benefits. In extreme cases, employers may convert low-wage full-time jobs with fringe benefits to high-wage part-time jobs with reduced benefits and fewer hours. Employees who prefer working full time with benefits are simply out of luck.

The reduction in benefits may be substantial. Masanori Hashimoto used data from the 1967-68 U.S. minimum wage hike to calculate its effect on the value of on-the-job training received by white men. Hashimoto estimated that the 28 percent increase in the minimum wage reduced the value of OJT by 2.7 to 15 percent. Because OJT is an important source of education, particularly for those with limited formal schooling, Hashimoto's findings have ominous implications. By reducing OJT, the minimum wage law increases the number of dead-end jobs and effectively consigns some of the unskilled to a lifetime of reduced opportunity.

Estimates of the overall effect of increases in the minimum wage on total U.S. employment often focus on teenagers, who, as a group, contain the highest proportion of unskilled workers. Most studies suggest that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage decreases teenage employment by 1 to 3 percent. Using these estimates to forecast small increases in unemployment from future minimum wage increases is risky because most of the estimates rely on data from the sixties and early seventies, when minimum wage legislation applied to fewer occupations.

Raising the minimum wage when it applies to a relatively small proportion of occupations will not necessarily increase unemployment. Some people will lose their jobs in covered occupations and withdraw from the labor market entirely. These people are not included in the unemployment statistics. Others who lose their jobs or are offered fewer hours of work will seek jobs at lower pay in uncovered occupations. This labor influx drives down wages in the uncovered sector, but people do find jobs and unemployment remains constant. As minimum wage legislation expands to cover more occupations, however, the shrinking uncovered sector may not be able to absorb all of the people thrown out of work, and unemployment may increase. In the United States the 1989 minimum wage legislation brought this possibility one step closer by extending coverage to all workers engaged in interstate commerce regardless of employer size. Small businesses previously exempt from the minimum wage faced an 11.8 percent increase in money wages. If the repeal of the exemption that affected more than 6 percent of the nation's hourly workers substantially reduces the number of uncovered jobs, then overt unemployment caused by the minimum wage could become a more serious problem.

Estimates of the overall effect of minimum wage increases also tend to blur the regional and sectoral shifts that average together to produce the national result. A federal minimum wage of $4.25 an hour may have little effect in a large city where almost everyone earns more. But it may cause greater unemployment in a rural area where it substantially exceeds the prevailing wage. Regional and sectoral studies leave little doubt that substantial increases in the minimum in areas with lower wages can cause industries to shrink and can inhibit job creation. The growth of the textile industry in the South, for example, was propelled by low wages. Had the federal minimum wage been set at the wage earned by northern workers, the expansion might never have occurred.

This explains why unions, whose members seldom hold minimum wage jobs, encourage minimum wage legislation and, as in the Australian case, assiduously help enforce its provisions by reporting suspected violations. Unions have historically represented skilled, highly productive workers. As has been demonstrated in the construction industry, employers facing excessive wage demands from union members may find it less expensive to hire unskilled workers at low wages and to train them on the job. Unskilled workers often benefit: accepting lower wages in return for training increases their expected future income. With high minimum wages like those specified for government construction by the Davis-Bacon Act, the wages plus the training cost may exceed the total compensation that employers can afford. In that case the employer would prefer the union member to his unskilled competitor, and passage of a minimum wage law reduces the competition faced by union members.

In spite of evidence indicating that minimum wage laws reduce the number of jobs and distort compensation packages, some people still argue that their benefits outweigh their costs because they increase the incomes of the poor. This argument implicitly assumes that minimum wage workers are the sole earner in a family. This assumption is false. In 1988, for example, the vast majority of minimum wage workers were members of households containing other wage earners. Moreover, only 8 percent of all minimum wage workers were men or women who maintained families, and not all of those families were poor. The simple fact is that most minimum wage workers are young and work part-time. In 1988, 60 percent of minimum wage workers were sixteen to twenty-four years old, and about 70 percent worked part-time.

In view of what minimum wage laws actually do, their often uncritical acceptance as a major weapon in the war on poverty stands as one of the supreme ironies of modern politics. If a minimum wage set $.50 above the prevailing wage helps the working poor with no ill effects, why not eliminate poverty completely by simply legislating a minimum wage of $10.00? The problem, of course, is that pricing people out of a job does not reduce poverty. Neither does skewing compensation packages toward money wages and away from training, or encouraging employers to substitute skilled workers for unskilled workers, part-time jobs for full-time jobs, foreign labor for domestic labor, and machines for people. Minimum wage laws do all of these things and, in the process, almost surely do the disadvantaged more harm than good.

About the Author
Linda Gorman is a Senior Fellow with the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado. She was previously an economics professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

Further Reading

Brown Charles. "Minimum Wage Laws: Are They Overrated?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 2, no. 3 (1988): 133-45.

Eccles, Mary, and Richard B. Freeman. "What! Another Minimum Wage Study?" American Economic Review 94 (May 1982): 226-32.

Forster, Colin. "Unemployment and Minimum Wages in Australia, 1900-1930." Journal of Economic History 45, no. 2 (June 1985): 383-91.

Hashimoto, Masanori. "Minimum Wage Effects on Training on the Job." American Economic Review 72, no. 5 (1982): 1070-87.

Rottenberg, Simon, ed. The Economics of Legal Minimum Wages. 1981.

Welch, Finis. Minimum Wages: Issues and Evidence. 1978.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html

cthulu23 · 06-22-2004, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
Minimum wage has not kept up to the inflation rate. Now you can say so increase it. Well the problem is increasing minimum wages doesnt just hurt small business, but it increases the price for every single item you can buy. So this in itself increases inflation.

If we folllow this logic to it's end, than business should never be taxed and wages should never increase. History shows that both can happen without the economy collapsing or inflation skyrocketing. People seem to forget that an economy is nothing but a collection of human tendencies, not a natural phenomenon like a hurricane. We can change ourselves.

pan6467 · 06-22-2004, 07:57 AM

Personally what we should do to help wages is top the maximum an executive can be paid in salary (he still can recieve bonuses), install a price freeze for one year allowing goods to increase only by the rate of inflation now and raise minimum wage to $10 an hour.

Offer companies that this would hurt tax breaks and incentives to maintain a frozen price.

Even IF prices then skyrocket after that 1 year the workers have made and hopefully saved enough to be ready.

What I see happening by doing this is people will be out spending money and the economy would be strong as everyone buys more because they are more comfortable.

Sounds radical and there are spots I'm sure a true economist could work on but this would be doable, IF the companies worked with government to make sure people got fairly paid.

Right now and since Reagan the pay between the top management and the workers has never been worse. Not to sound like a baby, because in life a lot is unfair, but treating workers like this is truly evil. Is it any wonder people are so angry?

Hwed · 06-22-2004, 03:06 PM

Wake up and smell the international markets, bub. The USA isn't the whole world. On one hand, liberals screech at Bush and blame him for menial jobs being outsourced to other countries... on the other, they want to make our domestic workers so expensive that any company that wants to compete has to look overseas!

pan6467 · 06-22-2004, 05:15 PM

Then something needs to be done, eh?

We claim this country to be the greatest on Earth yet, companies are willing to exploit their workers by paying as low a wage as possible.

If it could work and if enough people would stand up and boycott $1 at cost shoes being sold for $100 things would change drastically.

Problem is we have been pushed into corners and told anyone who thinks we can do and pay better is a radical and they are leftist nutcases, so the majority won't listen or they believe they can't change anything.

However, this is not only a nation with a proud history of hard workers BUT the world's greatest consumer nation, and I truly feel an across the board boycott of any imported item even if only 25% of the population participated would change things dramatically.

I am a firm believer that a nation needs to PRODUCE a majority of their own goods, and if they can't or lack the materials then an international board is set up to help them get industry started .

In the end you have got to pay workers enough to have a comfortable life and make sure your country's peoples are taken care of or they will in time rebel.

We cannot keep going from one country to another exploiting their peoples for low pay then leaving as soon as they want more. We'll run out of countries and we'll see even greater hatred towards the USA.

By the way, who's to say Al Quida can't put some anthrax powder or nerve agent in your shoe or whatever, or spray some deadly insecticide on the produce we import from Argentina. Nice way to really terrorize us, make our consumables deadly. By the time we traced where it was coming from millions would be dead or dying.

Outrageous? Yes, but highly possible.

Seaver · 06-22-2004, 06:05 PM

No it's not possible because to produce enough anthrax to actually affect everyone it would make McDonalds look like a country kitchen.

About your proletariate uprising it's simply not going to happen worldwide, put down Marx and come into the real world please. If big business accross the board increases pay as much as you are arguing for guess what... the prices for their goods to be produced increase exponentially... leading to the final product costing more. What do we call this? Inflation.

And other countries not accepting us hiring them wont happen either, they need funds to increase their own economy. Guess what? they want their economic setup so they can do the same we're doing, hold power over other countries through economic routes and will even go to other countries once their own workers demand higher wages.

cthulu23 · 06-22-2004, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hwed
Wake up and smell the international markets, bub. The USA isn't the whole world. On one hand, liberals screech at Bush and blame him for menial jobs being outsourced to other countries... on the other, they want to make our domestic workers so expensive that any company that wants to compete has to look overseas!

Ok, so are you ready to accept 50 cents an hour so that you can remain "competitive?" Supply-side theory is a relatively recent idea in economics, but it has done tremendous harm to the public conciousness. It has popularized the idea that economic growth is only beneficial when it occurs at the top of the financial food chain, a bewildering thought in any other American historical context. What is the bottom 99% supposed to do? Should the economics of our society function solely for the few that have done little to reward the many during the recent economic boom times? Why have wages fallen during periods of great prosperity? Where is the promised trickle down? It's not as if the last few decades have been lean for business. Huge amounts of wealth have been created....shouldn't some of it go to those on the bottom end who are instrumental in creating it?

pan6467 · 06-22-2004, 07:28 PM

Yeah that's me. Expecting companies to share the wealth with their employees and having all countries as independant from imports as possible is Marxist.

Yep, you're right I should never expect greedy fucks to share with people who can barely live. And sad thing is most of them (from my experience) call themselves Christians. So Christ must be wondering where his true teachings went, cause he taught love peace and believed a man should be treated as a man and not an indentured slave or paid to where the man can barely live. Yep, that's Marxist allright.

What's the quote by Jesus that Christians seem to have forgotten? something along the lines of, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven." Something along those lines.

smooth · 06-22-2004, 08:01 PM

I see some interesting ideas from a number of people here. My responses are:

1) The minimum wage will primarily affect service oriented jobs. Most of these can't be exported overseas, unless you are going to eat your burger or make your motel bed in India.

2) If the price of a burger or motel room increases to compensate for the wage increase, so be it. The workers aren't buying the burger or staying in the room. This inflation scare tactic will only affect the people buying the product, not the producers or suppliers--just as it should.

3) I have worked for small businesses before. I haven't ever worked for minimum wage at any place other than a large corporation (fast food and retail clothes). I doubt minimum wage will force out wage earners in mom and pop shops, unless we're talking about the 5 and dime (which are already headed out of existence for more reasons than the wages their workers are making).

4) The standard of living has been decreasing in a similar trend to the dollar's value falling. All these programs that people complain about as giving to the poor (actually, the worker bees in our economy, but shelve that small detail for a minute) kicked off one of the largest periods of prosperity for our country. The minimum wage, GI bills, and various other "handouts" for the baby boomers created a huge middle class and spawned our technological growth, rise of corporations (and those "nasty" CEO's), and huge production rates right up until a few decades ago when those programs began to be phased out.

Many people argue now, leftists and rightists both, that the New Deal programs saved capitalism. People back then thought it was going to rain fury on the wealth of the elites, too. It wasn't until decades later that the genius of the effects were recognized. If not for those various give-away programs, our economy would have completely imploded and we'd probably look like Sweden, New Zealand, or something *right-wingers shudder*

06-20-2004, 11:10 PM	#1 (permalink)
soccerchamp76 Go Cardinals Location: St. Louis/Cincinnati	Minimum Wage Increase John Kerry has proposed that if president he would increase the minimum wage to $7.00 an hour by 2007 which would total about $3500 extra a year for minimum wage workers. For this or against this? Reason: Most recent increase from 1997 has been cut due to inflation. __________________ Brian Griffin: Ah, if my memory serves me, this is the physics department. Chris Griffin: That would explain all the gravity.

06-20-2004, 11:16 PM	#3 (permalink)
SixEdxMia <3 Peetster Location: Peetster's house.	For it...The kid flippin my burgers should at least make as much per hour as the cost one Value meal. Ya know? __________________ Honey,We're home.

06-21-2004, 05:04 AM	#5 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	I'd like it if the minimum wage at least kept up with inflation. On the other hand, it will hurt small businesses. For it. I've made minimum wage, and it sucks. I won't forget about that just because I've got mine now. __________________ it's quiet in here

06-21-2004, 05:49 AM	#7 (permalink)
hrdwareguy "Officer, I was in fear for my life" Location: Oklahoma City	Against it. I've made minimum wage and while it does suck, I managed to get by and further myself. No that I have furthered myself, I don't my paycheck to "devalue". I don't want my pay staying the same while those making minimum wage get a huge boost, thereby making things I purchase now more expensive and puttin a strain on my already dwindling checkbook. If you want to make an increase to minimum wage, make it small, like a quarter, but lets not get out of hand and make it over a dollar an hour. __________________ Gun Control is hitting what you aim at Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

06-21-2004, 05:55 AM	#8 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	The problem is we are already uncompetitive labor-wise in the world market. I think everyone would want people to get as much return for their investment of work as possible. The issue is how do we compete with wage scales in other countries that benefit from companies moving jobs to low-wage areas of the world? __________________ create evolution Last edited by ARTelevision; 06-21-2004 at 06:35 AM..

06-20-2004, 11:12 PM	#2 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Don't see that as a real big issue honestly.... Though I'll admit that lately what has been a concern has been rising prices and seeming inflation out here in CA... geez the prices sure have gone up lately

06-21-2004, 12:00 AM	#4 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	Here are some historical numbers adjusted for inflation: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html Note that the minimum wage has been going down since 1978... It really shows the free market fundamentalist offensive of the past quarter century since the activism of the 60s and 70s.

06-21-2004, 05:12 AM	#6 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	For it if it includes some kind of tax break for small businesses to offset the financial strain. Something that perhaps works if you have under 20 employees currently making the minimum wage.

06-21-2004, 06:17 AM	#9 (permalink)
apeman Wah Location: NZ	this is indeed the problem - you can't compete with a peasant in east asia who gets paid a cupful of rice for a 12 hour day, poor bugger __________________ pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

06-21-2004, 06:36 AM	#10 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	As a free market fundamentalist, I don't really see a justification for any minimum wage. I see the well-intentioned, often selfless desire, sure, but that's it. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

06-21-2004, 06:36 AM	#11 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	I do not really know about the rest of the country, but here in Jersey burger flippers are already making $7+ an hour while laborers are making $8 to start. There is work out there that requires no skill that will pay better than minimum wage, they just have to look. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

06-21-2004, 06:57 AM	#13 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	The idea that wage increases are always harmful for business ignores the fact that as workers earn more money, they also spend more money. Think of it as the "trickle up" effect. Real wages have been declining in this country for decades now, an fact that is largely ignored by both political parties. We can never win in the global cheap wages game, nor should we desire to. Isn't one of the promises of the free market greater economic growth? Shouldn't some of this "new" money find it's way into the pockets of the middle and lower class?

06-21-2004, 08:11 AM	#14 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	I don't understand why they call it minimum wage. You CAN'T live on minimum wage.. $4.75 @ 40 hours a week is only $570 a month.. Most apartments cost just about that in rent. How are you supposed to pay for electricity, phone, and food? Raise it. [edit] I don't even know if 4.75 is still the minimum... I tried searching google but it came up blank. __________________ I love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 06-21-2004 at 08:14 AM..

06-21-2004, 08:18 AM	#15 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	I found this site that tells all the states minimum wages if any one wants to check out what theirs is..the federal wage is 5.15 per hour but some states are different with some already over 7 dollars an hour US Dept of Labor Minimum Wage __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

06-21-2004, 10:57 AM	#16 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	In all truth, it doesn't matter. In terms of economics it means almost nothing. The fact is there are plenty of jobs which do not fall under the minimum wage umbrella and the ones that do don't pay people minimum wage for long. As an employee gains experience and performs well they progress beyond the minimum wage and the vast majority of current workers have progressed beyond even the "new" minimum wage being proposed. The minimum wage issue is just a ploy used by politicians to appear sympathetic to workers. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

06-21-2004, 11:07 AM	#17 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Yeah it really doesn't mater al lthat much honestly And here in CA, if you try living on minimum wage - you might as well be homeless It's amzing n how a small apartment now is costing more than a house used to just 5 years ago - and believe me, i've seen this while in real estate myself

06-21-2004, 01:25 PM	#18 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	In states with a low standard of living, such as Louisiana (my fair home), it is common for many workers to be paid minimum wage. Even with the cheaper prices here, you can't live on that amount. You can say that the minimum wage question is "meaningless," but I think that it's stagnation is a strong symptom of the shrinking of the middle class. It's not just the minimum wage....real wages for most Americans have been shrinking since the 1970's. Politicians of both parties don't like to mention this, though. I guess they're still waiting for the money to trickle down.

06-21-2004, 03:30 PM	#19 (permalink)
Hwed Tilted	cthulu, I'd ask for some of what you're smoking, but if it's going to make me that gloomy, I'll pass. Against it. Minimum wage is a completely arbitrary number. If you increase it, markets quickly adjust to compensate and return everything to equilibrium, with the exception of some irreversible inflation, the weakening of the dollar in international currency markets, and a likely bump in interest rates. If you want to improve quality of life, you need to increase the demand for goods and services produced by workers across the spectrum. Encouraging investment and allowing people to keep more of their money is a good start. People gripe about tax cuts for the rich (if you define rich as a married couple making $100k a year, like the Democrats do), but the fact is that excess wealth in the hands of the upper 50% does a tremendous amount to stimulate and grow the economy in the long term. If a low-end wage earner is given more disposable income, that worker is very likely to spend most of it on consumable goods. No new investment, no new jobs. On the other hand, middle- and upper-class workers will spend excess disposable income on two things: consumables AND investment. This newly spurred investment funds new business opportunities, creating jobs and giving those low end workers a chance to move up the scale. John Kerry is an airhead, not to mention a gigolo who has never worked a day in his life, marrying wealth to live a life of privilege.. He pays $1000 for a haircut. This man is so disconnected from people who work hard for a living it's sad.

06-21-2004, 06:48 PM	#21 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	Two more resource links on the growing gap between the rich and the poor... http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/executivepay.html http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/electionincome.html

06-21-2004, 06:54 PM	#22 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Minimum wage is a joke. It gives the Neo-cons fuel to a fire that unfortunately is out of control. Cities are dying going bankrupt laying off cops and firemen. If a factory gets taxed they leave to an area that will give them tax-abatements. Leaving 100's maybe 1000's unemployed. So who pays the factories taxes? The workers who are making less than they did at the old factory. So you pay more taxes but make less and the factories are getting subsidized. What happens to the cities? Well the cities that lost the factories no longer have that tax plus they lose the taxes from the workers, plus the ones that do find work make less so they don't pay as much, so the cities and schools and states suffer. As do the people who drive on roads that can't be repaired, the services that cannot be rendered because the city cannot afford them. The new cities that offer the tax abatements thinking it will booost their economy, see the factories paying poverty wages, having revolving doors of workers, and their citizens paying more in taxes because someone has to pay for the new services that city needs. The companies get away with no benefits by using temp labor, whom can be fired just before their 90 days and new wagers come in, perhaps even cheaper than the old ones. If they do hire, they only offer part-time so they don't have to pay benefits. The unions, well factories have taken care of those also. By closing down and moving to a "right to work" state where government gives employers the right to hire and fire at will, with no cause. That means at the new factory if someone says "union" they can be fired on the spot. Minimum wage is a joke because companies pay just a little more than that to say, "they are paying people more than minimum." But how much more is a joke. what maybe a dollar or 2 more. Let's see a family of 4 live on 2 people making $7 an hour, $560/wk before taxes. So let's say between them they bring home $400/week, or $1600 a month, that's a whopping $19,200 Let's say this family lives on bare minimums also. Rent (2 bedroom townhouse) = $650/month Insurance (2 cars as both have to work) = $125/month Health insurance (a decent plan) = $150/month Gas and car maintenance = $200 Groceries (2 adults 2 kids) = $400/month Phone just local calls only nothing else = $25 No cable can't afford it No internet can't afford it Electricity = $50 That's pathetic. If we, the "greatest country" to ever grace the planet cannot make sure hard working people can make more and live a decent standard of living without worrying about debts, then we are a very sad, greedy nation. I quote Henry Ford, "Pay your workers enough to live comfortably and buy your product and you will always have customers and hard workers." We need to fix the whole wage problem in the USA. Not just minimum wage. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-21-2004, 08:01 PM	#25 (permalink)
Boo Leave me alone! Location: Alaska, USA	You can starve to death in Alaska on minimum wage. I don't believe that teenagers under 18 should receive it, they should get a prorated amount. I also believe it should be indexed to a cost of living index for the area. __________________ Back button again, I must be getting old.

06-21-2004, 09:18 PM	#27 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I see so with college basically out of reach for many nowadays, unless you want to be strapped with $1000's in debt, you should not be allowed to live a standard that others. It's just not fast food, it's the temp services that are paying it, the factories that have moved that are paying it. There are college kids who have degrees that have $1000's in loans and those are the only jobs available. Have you looked at your help wanted ads lately? But ok, the working poor don't deserve anything but to work and barely eek out a living. That inspires hard work now doesn't it? And $7 isn't the minimum wage yet. It's $5.25 and in Ohio if you are a waitress it's $2.15. Yeah I can see how people can live on that. And you have raises of at most 25 cents? These people usually work harder than people who make thousands more. You didn't address one other fact, amazingly, just the money. And say they can't afford insurance and one of the kids has ADD, Asthma or whatever and needs medicine. Or one of the parents gets hurt and cannot work for awhile? They live paycheck to paycheck and people like you only give a damn about what you have. That's ok, but remember this people who don't see a future don't have job loyalty. It costs more to keep training new employees than to keep them. You need to show people a reward for their hard work, not let them barely live. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-21-2004, 10:29 PM	#29 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	I just don't get how sometimes one can claim to care for others yet still say others should get a better life - gee, some are real screw ups, but others really didn't have a choice

06-21-2004, 11:10 PM	#30 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I'm in shock.. I actually agree with Superbelt. The argument for minimum wage is that it is the minimum amout of money a person in an area can live on and keep the minimum living set down by the government. Minimum wage has not kept up to the inflation rate. Now you can say so increase it. Well the problem is increasing minimum wages doesnt just hurt small business, but it increases the price for every single item you can buy. So this in itself increases inflation. Big businesses can absorb this hit (the dip in funds until market prices can balace it. Small businesses will cut back their workers, or flat out close. Sure, increase the minimum wage, in all honesty I dont care because it wont allow them to buy a new car, they'll be in the same spot as they were before. But you cant allow the small businesses to be crushed just because Kerry has yet to find an actual platform other than the not-bush vote.

06-22-2004, 07:57 AM	#34 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Personally what we should do to help wages is top the maximum an executive can be paid in salary (he still can recieve bonuses), install a price freeze for one year allowing goods to increase only by the rate of inflation now and raise minimum wage to $10 an hour. Offer companies that this would hurt tax breaks and incentives to maintain a frozen price. Even IF prices then skyrocket after that 1 year the workers have made and hopefully saved enough to be ready. What I see happening by doing this is people will be out spending money and the economy would be strong as everyone buys more because they are more comfortable. Sounds radical and there are spots I'm sure a true economist could work on but this would be doable, IF the companies worked with government to make sure people got fairly paid. Right now and since Reagan the pay between the top management and the workers has never been worse. Not to sound like a baby, because in life a lot is unfair, but treating workers like this is truly evil. Is it any wonder people are so angry? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 06-22-2004 at 08:01 AM..

06-22-2004, 03:06 PM	#35 (permalink)
Hwed Tilted	Wake up and smell the international markets, bub. The USA isn't the whole world. On one hand, liberals screech at Bush and blame him for menial jobs being outsourced to other countries... on the other, they want to make our domestic workers so expensive that any company that wants to compete has to look overseas!

06-22-2004, 05:15 PM	#36 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Then something needs to be done, eh? We claim this country to be the greatest on Earth yet, companies are willing to exploit their workers by paying as low a wage as possible. If it could work and if enough people would stand up and boycott $1 at cost shoes being sold for $100 things would change drastically. Problem is we have been pushed into corners and told anyone who thinks we can do and pay better is a radical and they are leftist nutcases, so the majority won't listen or they believe they can't change anything. However, this is not only a nation with a proud history of hard workers BUT the world's greatest consumer nation, and I truly feel an across the board boycott of any imported item even if only 25% of the population participated would change things dramatically. I am a firm believer that a nation needs to PRODUCE a majority of their own goods, and if they can't or lack the materials then an international board is set up to help them get industry started . In the end you have got to pay workers enough to have a comfortable life and make sure your country's peoples are taken care of or they will in time rebel. We cannot keep going from one country to another exploiting their peoples for low pay then leaving as soon as they want more. We'll run out of countries and we'll see even greater hatred towards the USA. By the way, who's to say Al Quida can't put some anthrax powder or nerve agent in your shoe or whatever, or spray some deadly insecticide on the produce we import from Argentina. Nice way to really terrorize us, make our consumables deadly. By the time we traced where it was coming from millions would be dead or dying. Outrageous? Yes, but highly possible. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 06-22-2004 at 05:22 PM..

06-22-2004, 06:05 PM	#37 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	No it's not possible because to produce enough anthrax to actually affect everyone it would make McDonalds look like a country kitchen. About your proletariate uprising it's simply not going to happen worldwide, put down Marx and come into the real world please. If big business accross the board increases pay as much as you are arguing for guess what... the prices for their goods to be produced increase exponentially... leading to the final product costing more. What do we call this? Inflation. And other countries not accepting us hiring them wont happen either, they need funds to increase their own economy. Guess what? they want their economic setup so they can do the same we're doing, hold power over other countries through economic routes and will even go to other countries once their own workers demand higher wages.

06-22-2004, 07:28 PM	#39 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Yeah that's me. Expecting companies to share the wealth with their employees and having all countries as independant from imports as possible is Marxist. Yep, you're right I should never expect greedy fucks to share with people who can barely live. And sad thing is most of them (from my experience) call themselves Christians. So Christ must be wondering where his true teachings went, cause he taught love peace and believed a man should be treated as a man and not an indentured slave or paid to where the man can barely live. Yep, that's Marxist allright. What's the quote by Jesus that Christians seem to have forgotten? something along the lines of, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven." Something along those lines. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-22-2004, 08:01 PM	#40 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I see some interesting ideas from a number of people here. My responses are: 1) The minimum wage will primarily affect service oriented jobs. Most of these can't be exported overseas, unless you are going to eat your burger or make your motel bed in India. 2) If the price of a burger or motel room increases to compensate for the wage increase, so be it. The workers aren't buying the burger or staying in the room. This inflation scare tactic will only affect the people buying the product, not the producers or suppliers--just as it should. 3) I have worked for small businesses before. I haven't ever worked for minimum wage at any place other than a large corporation (fast food and retail clothes). I doubt minimum wage will force out wage earners in mom and pop shops, unless we're talking about the 5 and dime (which are already headed out of existence for more reasons than the wages their workers are making). 4) The standard of living has been decreasing in a similar trend to the dollar's value falling. All these programs that people complain about as giving to the poor (actually, the worker bees in our economy, but shelve that small detail for a minute) kicked off one of the largest periods of prosperity for our country. The minimum wage, GI bills, and various other "handouts" for the baby boomers created a huge middle class and spawned our technological growth, rise of corporations (and those "nasty" CEO's), and huge production rates right up until a few decades ago when those programs began to be phased out. Many people argue now, leftists and rightists both, that the New Deal programs saved capitalism. People back then thought it was going to rain fury on the wealth of the elites, too. It wasn't until decades later that the genius of the effects were recognized. If not for those various give-away programs, our economy would have completely imploded and we'd probably look like Sweden, New Zealand, or something right-wingers shudder __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman