Unfortunate descision
 

It would seem the Minimum wage increase has been voted down.....along party lines. I simply cannot understand the mentatlity that finds this acceptable, in the climate of our current economy. I was hopeful that this "Might" help somewhat, in halting the destruction of what was once a middle class in this country....Alas, my faith is again slapped in the face.

http://www.wesh.com/helenthomas/5183628/detail.html

Mind you, the article is heavily Biased against Republicans....but I dont see how it could be written any other way.

I'm trying to think about what positive motives you could have for voting against a minimum-wage increase. I think it could be considered pro-business; after all, it's easier to operate in the black if you don't have to pay your minimum-wage employees an extra $1.10 an hour. But it's been 8 years since an increase, the minimum wage doesn't even come close to a livable wage, and I can't view this as anything but disinterest in the lower class.

What constantly puzzles me is the notion that increases in minimum wages will drive small businesses to higher operating costs or to shed workers. All of the small business I have ever worked for or known pay their workers more than minimum wage. The only place I'm aware of that pay minimum wages are franchises and large corporations.

What puzzles *ME* is these guys will still get voted in again next election... or if not them, someone exactly like them.

Individual states set their own minimum wage as long as it is not less than the federal minimum. Washington state adjusts it's mw annually based upon a cost of living formula and in January it will increase to $7.86 (I might be off a few cents).

My point is that state legislatures should be catching some heat as well, if they are merely waiting to be "forced" by the feds to raise their mw.

this defeat boggles the mind. Walmart supported this change.

Walmart.

Yeah...we've officially reached the point where evil is absurd.

Raising the minimum wage would do one of two things. It would either do nothing (in the places or at the jobs that are already being paid above minimum wage) or it would reduce employment for the people recieving minimum wage. The only way to make a minimum wage have the desired effect (assuming the desired effect is to have those on the lower end of the income spectrum receive higher wages without job losses) would be to force businesses to opperate at lower profits. But this would help force more jobs overseas, or force businesses to employ more illegals.

Honestly, I think a petter poverty cure would be to focus more funding on schooling. The economics behind raising the minimum wage don't show it to be an effective anti-poverty measure (past a certain point).

There is a fixed amount of money with which businesses can pay their employees. This amount is not affected by whatever the minimum wage is set at. Thus, raising the minimum wage would seem to necessarily reduce the number of minimum wage jobs available.

That said, raising the minimum wage would certainly increase the number of living wage jobs available: there are just fewer of these better jobs to go around.

Generally speaking, I oppose market regulation (rent controls, e.g.). I am not convinced that minimum wage laws are necessary in the American system because our rate of unemployment is so low. It seems that very few people would be willing to work for less than a living wage. Thus, I sympathize with both sides of the argument and remain personally ambivalent.

As VP of a small business I see voting for a minimum wage increase as a slap in the face to me and a free market economy. Like mentioned earlier, large corporations and franchises are the only ones I know of who pay minimum wage anyway. The company I work for pays nearly twice the minimum wage as a starting pay.

I don't understand how raising the wage bar will have a positive influence on the middle and lower class? They have to absorb the cost somewhere because they also consume the most (I'm guessing).

Also, why the hell would Wal-Mart support this anyway? It makes zero sense. They are asking the government to MAKE them pay more instead of doing it voluntarily. Something tells me the end economic consequences of a minimum wage increase would benefit Wal-Mart more than it would benefit minimum wage employees. Why else would they support legislation for something that they can already do?

While I agree that school funding is the most important area to fight poverty, the truth remains that schooling does not exist in a vacuum. Children in poverty don't only have poor educational opportunities because of poorly funded schools, but also because of malnutrition, lack of access to pre-school programs (which is only partly addressed with the Head Start program), and poor home environments - many times caused by the stress of being one step away from living on the street.

To address the walmart thing mentioned above, I read that walmart supported the wage increase as they already pay above the minimum wage and want other companies to up there payroll. Which they hope would lower there profits and force more companies to go under. Just what I read, true or not true who knows. seems to make sense to me based on what I've seen from walmart as a corporation.

With regards to a minimum wage increase hurting small businesses, that's also simply not true. First of all, money does not have a hardline value - $5 now is not worth the same amount as $5 eight years ago. With that in mind, businesses are actually paying their employees LESS now than what they were eight years ago. That $5 is not only less valuable to the person receiving it, it also has the same lower value to the person paying it. Second, all the empirical evidence points to a higher minimum wage being, at the very least, a "not bad" thing. See this and this. To be honest though, I'm not surprised by this vote. It's not the first time Congress has voted in opposition to what has been shown by numerous studies on policy effects and it won't be the last.

brian has it exactly at why walmart would support a minimum wage increase.

Now, i personally have to agree with smeth and politicophile, smeth for the fact that educational opportunities are not just a product of how much money is spent on schools, but on how many other factors and stresses play into this. Politicophile for the simple assesment that a min wage increase would actually increase the number of 'living wages' jobs, which i think is much more important than bottom line profit margins, but that's just me.

I still find it sickening at how much CEO's/senators/upper/middle/lower management people will get a yearly increase while the poorer get ..well, nothing

If there is a minimum wage increase, and Wal-Mart execs support it because these workers will spend more at Wal-Mart stores, then aren't these workers paying to send their REAL jobs overseas(manufacturing jobs instead of selling junk foreign retail merchandise)?

To me it just seems like a minimum wage increase will hurt the middle class and not help it in the long run. Sure they'll appreciate the temporary increase in wages, but when the only place to work is at a retail store making minimum wage because low dollar retail sent your manufacturing job overseas, that's not good for the economy in the long run.

secretmethod's got it right in regards to the empirical evidence of whether wage increases hurt job opportunities (they don't).

samcol, in regards to whether rising prices due to wage increases a couple things must be mentioned and realized:

1) prices are conditional upon demand, not necessarily cost to produce
I don't dispute that wages are part of overhead, and that overhead must be analyzed before a tenable price is set
it seems to me that if one's profit margin is so low that a rise in wages commensurate with the changing value of the currency would put someone's business in the red, one's business model is inefficient and/or demand is too low for the product

2) regardless of point 1, cost and price increases in one sector do not necessarily result in a rise in prices across the board
if we examine what impoverished workers consume, we can do a pretty good job of estimating the real world impact of rising wages on their cost-of-living
it may be true that raising the minimum wage could conceivably raise the cost of Taco Bell or Kentucky Fried Chicken products (although their prices haven't actually risen very much if you think about it, and minimum wages have gone up over the years, so that's an interesting tangible response to the notion that prices automatically rise and jobs disappear when wages rise), but impoverished workers don't need to buy those kinds of products. They don't need to go out to the movie theators, or to the 7-11, or where else do we imagine workers are being paid minimum wage?

What won't rise are costs associated with groceries, or rent, or vehicles, perhaps gas might be one of the few sectors that would be a necessity that could conceivably rise in price when attendants earn more

What I'm saying is that most of what workers absolutely need is already subsidized and the sectors they consume from: rent, groceries, energy (except gas as I poited out above), government services are usually private owner/operators or unionized and won't benefit from an increase in the minimum wage

Ohio's minimum wage is $2.15. That's what employers have to pay anyone that works in a "tipping or gratuity" job such as waiters, waitresses and even pizza places. These places have to show though that these workers make at least $5.25/hour or adjust.


They use this neat little chart where you claim your tips and to avoid people lieing they take the average of what is reported. So if you have someone who writes to the penny what they get and they show they made say $7/hr in tips the company is then justified in the pay.

What I find pathetic is anyone who supports this. How can ANYONE support people making less than $30,000 a year working 40 hours a week? I feel if someone works 40 hours a week they should make enough to live semi comfortably and not need to worry about bills.

What these geniuses who support these wages don't understand is that by paying people fucking low salaries you need to tax the rich more to make up the differences, you need to use tax money to help these people pay bills (I.E. aid for electric, heating, food stamps, healthcare, etc.). Whereas, if you pay people enough to live on you have a better tax base, you need less taxes to support those aid programs and you in the long run have a healthier and stronger economy.

The hypocritical party line is to cry about how the family is being torn apart because both parents have to work to make it, yet they support wages where both parents have to work to make it.

If you raise wages to where people can make it on 1 income, I think you'll find more "traditional" families with a stay at home parent. That in turn makes more job openings which in turn increases salaries even more, which increases the tax bases and the overall economy.

For the record, $30,000 a year working 40 hours a week comes to a minimum wage of $14.42 an hour.

I do understand your point, the problem is it isn't very realistic.

That's the thing...people said Ford couldn't do the five dollar day (which was a living wage), but it helped redefine the nation's idea of work. that a single full time salary could pay for middle class life. i guess this all just says something about america's culture of work, and how anti-labor it's getting.

That is middle-class wages. We're talking about the very bottom of what people can earn.

but don't you think our social problems are related to the evaporation of our middle class?
what you are saying is middle class should be a minimum in this country--we're certainly wealthy enough to do it
if that became the minimum, the top would have to stretch higher, achieve more, in order to pull away from the pack. it seems raising the standard would have an invigorating stimulus on the whole class structure.

Positives? Preventing Inflation.

Raising the minimum wage may make things look good for a couple of months, but it will do nothing. Businesses wont just absorb the profit changes, they'll just pass it to the customer. What does this do?

Those $.99 burgers go up to 1.29.
The higher end jobs find themselves closer to the no-talent job incomes. Because they are in higher demand (less competition), they get paid more.
Everything costs more in turn. From manufacture to trucking to services. This makes the minimum income required to "live" is raised in turn. So those it's intended to help get no benefit.

Maybe we shouldn't just focus on the low end with minimum wages but also focus on the high end with maximum incomes. If we made a law that the highest incomes cannot exceed 100 times the lowest wages then there would probably be more support to raise them. Yeah, that's the ticket. :)

I don't think it's realistic to think that education can cure us of poverty. As a result, I don't think it is usefull to make sure that everyone goes to college. There are loads of good-paying jobs out there that require no education whatsoever.

When CEO's can make more in comparison than the worker in any other point in the last 100 years and people are complaining that laborers raise in wages would inflate costs there is something pathetically wrong in the way people think.

I agree with Smooth put a maximum on what the CEO's and upper management can make and see how fast wages rise.

Our middle class is going fast, personal credit is getting outrageously dangerous and the upper managements make more and more and more while they continue to try to cut wages and benefits.

It's pathetic and not what this country is about. Even Henry Ford said "you pay a worker enough to afford your product and you will always have a customer. People don't buy imports because they are better made, or because they want to, people buy imports because they know they can maybe stretch that dollar more. However, the imported products are cheaper made and don't last as long as when the US had great workers, wages and pride in their jobs.

You cannot expect to have workers take pride in a job that barely pays them enough to live, while they see the CEO's and upper management making millions upon millions every year. The gap has gotten too large and the greed has destroyed us.

Just as the unions got too greedy, management has now. Somehow, someway we need to find a medium. Problem is the upper management and CEO's are far too greedy and would rather ship jobs overseas than to give up some of their salaries and the government is too weak to step in and try to solve the problem since ownership seems unwilling to.

pan just said everything that was on my mind in a much more articulate way.


seriously, though, nobody mentions how raising CEO's salaries by hundreds of thousands of dollars will drive up the cost of goods, but you raise the minimum by a bit and bammo, the whole economy is going to fall.

Where are they henry fords of the world.

Minimum wage worked so well in the former Soviet Union. :rolleyes: It hasn't worked so far, except in shrinking the number of jobs.

It's really interesting to hear the jealousy and class envy of those who have ZERO understanding of how or why CEOs are compensated.

Above 30k a year for 40 hours a week is some sort of RIGHT? DID someone actually present that here.

I am so taken aback by the reposnses I see in this thread. The arrogance and elitism of the left is astounding. ASTOUNDING. You people actually think you can change the laws of physics, human nature, and economics with your feel good, vote pandering, solve nothing ideas.

-bear

It's interesting that you'd attribute it to class envy, when everyone whose mentioned it has done so because of other reasons. Methinks perhaps you are projecting a bit. Perhaps you could enlighten with your understanding as to how ceos are compensated.

Arrogance and elitism are one thing, don't pretend that you aren't immune to their appeals. Your problem is that you are completely ignoring any of the points made by any of the critics of ceo pay scales. Instead you choose to accuse everyone of arrogance and class envy. Even if these two things were representative of the feelings of those who have posted(which you have absolutely no solid basis to believe they are) they have little to do with the substance of the various arguments against the current state of ceo compensation that have been made. Perhaps you could address those instead.

Politico and Alan, those are not true statements.

There is not a fixed pool of money that can be spent on the minimium wage jobs. Companies can rebudget, reduce profits, increase or decrease service to areas, hire out from other companies gaining more productive workers. Any economic model which claims that there is a fixed pool of money to hire minimium wage workers, without substantial and massive documentary, theoretical, and statistical support is a dishonest one.

Alan, there are scenarios in which an increase in minimum wage would not reduce consumption of minimium wage employment.

A minimium wage being set acts like the government setting a monopoly price. Depending on the utility curve of employing minimium wage workers, it is possible that employment might not go down. This isn't all that likely -- but it is possible.

It is also possible that it would reduce employment, but significantly less than the % increase in the minimium wage. Which would mean fewer people employed, but more money going to the poorest parts of the nation.

Which "frees" up the now unemployed for government assisted education, ideally, in order to increase their job prospects.

Setting a higher minimium wage is an attempt to say "any job less than this in value is a charity case, not a livelyhood".

It is true that an arbitrailly high min wage would be disasterous. The same is true of an arbitrarially low min wage.

I'm not an economist so any input I can give here is based solely on what I consider to be my own common sense, which might not be very well developed, so consider that before reading what I have to say.

It would seem that these are the following the arguments made so far -

1. Raising the minimum wage will result in increased operating costs for businesses thus resulting in higher costs for consumers, thereby negating any positive effect of a minimum wage increase.

2. Paying CEOs and other executives large salaries is an incentive to produce better products and make for a better company.

3. Raising the minimum wage will lead to an increase in the cost of living, again negating any positive effect of a wage increase.

4. Paying certain jobs a higher amount trivializes the work done by educated workers by paying uneducated workers a salary nearly commensurate with theirs.


Here is where I chime in. Wealth and poverty are relative terms in that they are dependent upon the definition of each other in order to have any real meaning. In order for wealth to exist, poverty must exist. One cannot exist without the other. If we are to decrease the amount of poverty, the only way to accomplish this is to decrease the amount of wealth. This is where point #4 makes sense. If I find that I will no longer make as much money as an uneducated worker, then where is my motivation to become a more educated worker? Some people have an intrinsic motivation to become educated, many do not. With no incentive to get a better education, few will do it. Also, this can have the result of demeaning education since many will realize that they can still make a good wage without one.

On to point #1: If increasing wages will have the inevitable result of increased costs, then wouldn't it stand to follow that stagnant wages should result in stagnant costs? Yet consumer prices on many products continue to increase without the benefit of a wage increase. Consumers' buying power is reduced due to stagnant wages. Wouldn't this have more of a negative impact on our economy?

Point #2: If higher salaries for CEOs is good for business, then why are higher wages for their employees bad for business? I honestly do not follow this logic.

Point #3 is similar to point #1 so I will say refer to that point.

Families making minimum wage often qualify for the Earned Income Credit on their taxes, which some might say could qualify for an increased wage due to the fact that their tax responsibility is nil due to their wages. So, with lower wages, we lose a large tax base and on top of that, use tax money to give them the EIC. This makes no sense. If they are paid a higher wage, they now are contributing to the tax base instead of pulling from it. And this is bad because....?

Someone mentioned envy and arrogance in an above post. I'm certain that envy plays a part in the lower wage earners desire to earn more, but I don't think arrogance plays any part whatsoever.

The envy comes from the lower class. The arrogance comes from the upper class.

It is arrogant to believe that one is more deserving of a particular lifestyle based solely on one's education, which is a major factor in determining wages. There are those struggling in low-income jobs whose character far outshines many who are six figure earners. What would we say if wages were tied to character traits instead and had nothing to do with education.

I sometimes believe that education is a somewhat arbitrary way to determine wages since most jobs and careers train you anyways once you're hired. On the job training is far more valuable than a 4 year degree, in my opinion. Instead of basing employment on education, base it on character then train the best person to perform that particular job. If we're going to use arbitrary means to determine wages, make it one that gives the most deserving character a high salary and leaves the greedy CEOs who will eventually rob their employees' pension funds begging with an empty coffee cup.

I'm currently working on a NPO project with Synergia to help poor students in the Philippines and yes, all those things make a difference and impact the people directly and immediately.

Education takes time, time these people may not choose but raising wages impacts immediately, but trades "free fish now" in place of "learning to fish"

Wrong analogy.

By raising wages you raise people's work ethic. You pay people enough to live on you have loyal workers. Again, I defer to Henry Ford's "Pay your workers enough to afford your product and you have a customer for life."

Look, when I owned my pizza place I paid my workers $7.50/hour in 1995, and those that worked hard (cleaned and what not without being asked) got raises monthly.. Plus they got tips and mileage (25 cents a mile). I kept my prices below the nationals, I used the best products available (usually paying top dollar to the distributor because I only owned 1 shop). And I still made beaucoup profits.

WHY?

Because, my workers knew I valued them, they were part of the "team" . Their friends and families saw a new pride in them and started buying from me. I helped my workers get apartments, gave them advances for their deposits if needed, made sure they made enough to pay the bills and have 1 night out. They paid me back by being loyal, working hard, and helping me increase business by giving me ideas, giving me a good rep and showing pride in the job. My sales increased from roughly $2500 a week when I bought the place to $10,000 weekly in 3 months.

So my business plan worked flawlessly:

- pay more to the workers (who btw got more in tips and mileage because of the business increase)

- use the best quality product

- sell cheaper

- and I donated the entire night's monies to charity every 1st Tuesday of the month.

I was making a very nice salary and had I not gambled it away with my addiction, there is no doubt in my mind, I would have a chain of Partner's Pizzas.

My point is it is ridiculous to claim any CEO is worth millions while paying the worker squat. You don't get company loyalty that way, you don't build a customer base that way and you sure as Hell can't justify it.

I justified my wages because my workers were well paid also and I could sleep at night.

I have watched others pay as little as possible and lose their business even though they had great product, they had lousy service and no employee loyalty.

The problem existing today is people in the upper tax brackets are content to ignore the low wages for fear they may lose something. When in reality, they pay more in taxes because the burden is lopsided and the low wage earners need more and more gov't assistance.

Manufacturing jobs aren't leaving this country by the 1000's because we are more sophisticated and have better oppurtunities, that's f'n neocon BS. They are leaving because the workers can't afford to buy the product. And the CEO's know they can make more money if they pay lower wages in another country.

The problem is we have become to profit driven and we have lost concern about the worker. Instead of moving forward on what our grandfathers built, a nation with the best education, highest standard of living and a country continuously moving forward to better itself.

We have become stagnated, cynical, have an educational system hurting, a standard of living on the decrease, people more in debt than ever and a gap that continues to grow wider and wider between the rich and the poor.

I think this touches on the crux of the ethical argument in favor of a minimum wage above the poverty level. Any labor pool has a maintenance cost (minimally food and rent). Who is going to pay that maintenance cost, the person exploiting that labor, or the public at large?

I would argue that if your business cannot pay that maintenance cost then it is not a viable business, rather it is a charity case.

The raise the bill proposes isn't enough to cause anybody (that I know) to quit college. On the other hand, it would make it a bit easier for somebody to work their way through college because it would cut down the hours worked by about 30%.

Yes, we could start by confiscating all motorcycles over 100cc, and make sure no one is allowed to have anything bigger than a moped.

That has not been my experience. What HAS been my experience is that the more you pay employees, the more time they take off from work, since they have a little extra money.

It then becomes necessary to hire more people just to fill the gaps when someone isn't there, which makes prices go up. I doubt there's a business owner anywhere who hasn't experienced employees that lose their motivation as salary goes up. Professional athletes, anyone?

However, I've always supported a merit or production/sales-based pay plan. In other words, the "If you (the employee) make more, I make more" philosophy is the best of all.

Agreed. First of all, if voting to raise everyone's wages was going to solve poverty, every country would have done it by now. How can anyone be naive enough to think that the cause of poverty is that every government hasn't required wages high enough to stamp it out?

You need look no further than the airlines. The unions make such outrageous demands that eventually, most major airlines bankrupt. Then all the retired employees see their pensions disappear, or at the very least, become significantly smaller.

You can't legislate prosperity.

Your argument doesn't even make sense.
Granting your experience is representative of the population wage earners, and it certainly hasn't meshed with my experience, how would costs increase if you are merely hiring someone to fill a spot someone else left?

Your argument was that people are paid more, then they take time off.
You have to hire someone to fill in that time.
Costs rise.

This argument is bogus.
If you hire someone to fill someone else's timeslot, then your costs remain the same because you simply use the money you would have paid the person who was supposed to be working to pay the wages of the fill-in. Even better, most places I've had experience with pay their part-time workers a lower wage than their full-time workers (and don't give them benefits). So if anything happens other than costs remaining stable, the alternative would be that your overhead actually decreases when the full-time worker goes home and the part-time worker steps in for one or two days per week.

One thing to point out with THIS analogy: Henry Ford also would fire people who he found driving in a competetor's vehicle. He wanted to make sure people could afford HIS products :D

All of this boils down to Socialism vs. Capitalism. Either you believe people should be allowed to make certain amounts, or they should have their incomes decided by the market.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that people would quite because they got $2/hr more...

But people make choices based on wages, I did. I quite going to school because classes were getting in the way of my billable hours, and I consider myself lucky that was the case. I'm sure that there are a handful of people who's class schedule is ruled by how many hours they must put in to make ends meet.

From an economic standpoint, my statement was 100% true. There are volumes of empirical evidence showing this. It's not about there being a fixed amount spent on low wage workers, it's about companies having fixed budgets. If at a certain pay scale comanies demand X labor, when the cost of labor goes up, they will demand less. Its the same as any other good-prices rise, demand falls.

It has nothing to do with utility, it has to do with marginal costs. And if you raise minimum wage, you raise marginal costs of each worker. Now if the minimum wage level still has the MC lower than the MVP (marginal value of production) of each worker, you might be right. But that would never be the case, because MC should always equal MVP (or be as fractionally close as possible). So raising MC would put it over MVP.

And it doesn't work like a monopoly, a minimum wage generally sets up a pure competition model, because all firms become price-takers at the minimum wage level.

Again, neither of these statements disproves what I said, which was simply that raising the minimum wage lowers employment. And also, I'm sure people laid off due to minimum wage increases are happy to know that those who still have jobs are making more.

And your whole idea about freeing up people for gov't programs just seems ridiculous to me. You might as well have said it will give agriculture a boost, as it causes so many people to have food stamps to spend on foodstuffs.

How can you have an "arbitrarilly low" minimum wage? A minimum wage would never go lower than what market forces would demand, which wouldn't be arbitrary. It would be what the job market in that area could bear.

And the problem isn't even really minimum wage work. The percentage of single-earner families that rely upon minimum wage is miniscule. Minimum wage laws always get a lot of uproar, but usually they just end up being much ado about nothing, because they don't affect the lowest elements of society. Minimum wage laws have the greatest effect on middle-class teens. Unless you advocate a much-higher "living wage" which would be better targetted at lower-income groups, but would also have catastrophic effects upon the economy.

Perhaps not, but I've already provided two sources that show it does not. A quick excerpt from the page at the Economic Policy Institute (the first of the two links I provided above):

I know about the pseudo-experiment models, and they aren't entirely without flaw. One of the things they don't take into account is the job changes BEFORE implementation of minimum-wage differences. Many people see the corrections coming when the wage changes are announced, and not actually implemented. So when the actual change comes around, you don't see loss, because the market has already factored in the new level of wages. And that's the problem with pseudo-experiments-they can provide necessary data but it is very hard to isolate any factor, or to show any direct correlation.

It's just really sad to see the country my grandfather fought for in WW2 and worked to make the best nation ever fall apart because of the greed, prejudice and the hatred for the poor. A poor we ourselves make by paying wages noone can live on.

As long as CEO's can look to foreign nations for cheaper labor and materials, a minimum wage hike is like bailing water from a boat with a hole in it. As soon as the hourly worker becomes too much of a problem, then their job will be gone.

Social programs are actually hurting, not helping the poverty problem because companies no longer operate in a self contained entity (United States) like your grandfather fought for. Companies didn't have a control valve (foreign goods and workers) back then to control the pressure that unions and legislation for blue collar workers as they do now.

I don't think minimum wage is a valid argument as long as companies have this option available.

Then why are you in favor of government mandated pay levels? Based on your argument, by being allowed to set the prices for your workers you developed a successful business plan. While others who only paid their employees as little as they could went under. It looks like the market is working and you should be in favor of letting the market dictate the wages.

Also, minimum wage increases are supported by unions more than anyone else. Once the minimum wage increases the unions are able to lobby for wage increases for their members since the lowest wage earners are earning so much more now, then the unions can collect more dues.

And if this minimum wage increase arguement is about a living wage and caring for the poor, why aren't the socialists on this board upsed that the suggested minimum wage increase was only a dollar and change? - if you wanted a truely livable wage, you would stop nothing short of demanding a minimum wage of $17 an hour. If you are not happy with a $6 minimum wage, why would you be happy with a $7 minimum wage? Whats an extra $10 a day going to do for anyone? And you might as well argue that everyone should be taxed 100% on anything over $34,000, and that money be given to those who make less, this way everyone can have the same liveable standards.

Or better yet, build a time machine and travel back to the soviet union, or hell, just move to modern day cuba where a doctor and a janitor make the same measly dollars each month. but now every cuban has the opportunity to buy pressure cookers from the government on credit. But they finally got the pressure cooker, thats the good news.

How can you argue with this? No rationale, no debate, just insults and attacks.....

God save this country from ourselves.

I really have no idea why people are so against others making decent wages for working hard and trying to live the American dream.

If it were up to some on here they would have the market dictate wages and the world market dictates pennies on the dollar while the rich get richer. Makes sense to me.

Keep the fucking poor poor and have the rich pay more and more in taxes to support those people. Instead of allowing them to feel self respect by making enough to live and feed their families on.

As far as what I paid, I paid it because I had a conscience, not because I had to. But had those wages come back to bite my ass I would have dropped to minimum wage and I have no problem having a force dictate how much I as an owner make while making sure my employees make decent livings, it would force me to work that much harder to better my product to increase my profit instead of lowering wages and benefits to the people that make the product that allow me to make my money.

It's easy to not do shit to improve your company and pay your workers less and keep your profit margin the same. It's harder and more work to raise wages, improve product and keep the profit...... God forbid CEO's and upper management actually have to work for their money.

Only the first paragraph was directed at you. What follows was for everyone else. Seems pretty rational to me though, perhaps you don't want to acknowlege that wage controls are not what made this country where it is today and that by campainging for wage controls you are campaigning for socialist economic policies. But the question I raised, is why stop at $7 an hour when in reality what you want is everyone to have a liveable wage? Is $7 an hour a liveable wage? Wouldn't it be more "fair" for everyone to make $17 an hour? Those seem like straight-foward, debateable questions to me.

So answer the question. What is a decent wage? What wage would you be happy being dictated to pay? At what level is the wage you are dictate to pay too much? Are you happy to stop at $7 an hour or would you be happy if it were $17 an hour?

You're right countries like Germany, Sweden, and others that PAY workers decent wages and have far less personal debt and national debt and higher standards of living and better educational systems are far less superior to our country where people are far deep in debt and the division of classes is worse here than in the last 100 years and we want to make it even worse.

Hell, why should someone who works their ass off make liveable wages. FUCK them just let the CEO's keep buying their 10+ million dollar mansions and have their golden parachutes and keep threatening to move their factories overseas.

Why should someone who works 40 hours a week be able to support his family, have good decent schools to send his kids to and be able to pay his bills? Fuck that give me mine and fuck everyone else.

Why should we expect our kids to be able to live better than their parents as our parents and grandparents worked to have us live better...... Fuck that it's all in who dies with the most toys wins, and if I pay people less in wages I'll have more toiys than they will.

Thats not at all what I'm saying, pan. You are the irrational one here. All I want to know is what you consider to be a liveable wage. What do you consider decent? How much is OK for the gov't to mandate an employer pays to his employees? How much is too much for you? Furthermore, at what level should there be a cap on personal income? When (If at all) should people be taxed 100% on what they earn, you know, to "keep it fair". No more sarcasm, just let me know what you think.

If someone is working at Taco Bell as a cashier for their career, is that man going to have any REAL self-respect, or respect of others regardless if they make $5 or $9 an hour?

No. The American Dream is that every American CAN reach their goal. It never said everyone does. People do poorly in school, people drop out of school, these people should know that if you work in a minimum wage job your whole life your lifestyle is going to be minimum.

Everyone HAS a chance in America. If your parents are dead broke you still get a free education. If you can not afford college there are PLENY to ways around the problem. I know, my parents have barely spent a dime on me (because they cant afford to), so I got scholarships, I take out loans.

Those countries also have economies that'd cause an uproar if it happened here. Their jobs are getting outsourced to the point that their unemployment levels are close to what they were during much of the depression (15% is the average at the moment I think).

There is no magic number, we are a product of a beast that we have let out and let go unchecked.

We opened this box where profits and greed are everything and the worker and production costs are replaceable for cheaper and cheaper.

However, in the short term, that works wonders for the CEO and upper management, works somewhat for the middle class (as products are kept affordable), and totally dismisses the lower class.

Longer term the middle class is depleted, tax burdens shift more and more to the upper class and the poor and middle classes have to find cheaper product to make their dollar go farther. The CEO's lose nothing and risk nothing by moving labor to cheaper and cheaper markets, creating more and more unemployment and lower wages and greater personal debt in the base market.

It is a cylce that is only going to end with either a huge depression, a world standard of living wage, or class warfare. (The last 2 highly and seriously doubtful to happen.... class warfare/civil unrest and demand for change is possible but not with the government climate we have today, they favor business far too much.)

So what's the answer? Attitudes and education. Shifting the focus from profit and how much the CEO and upper management can make while everyone else "fuck them", to focus on everyone as an integral part of the company.

People will be taxed 100% if we continue to decrease benefits and wages because where do you think the payment of their bills comes from? Taxes or the debt isn't paid and prices go up to make up for those losses.

At the rate we are going, only the rich will be able to pay taxes and will have to absorb a greater and greater burden.

Look in the 50's and 60's wages were decent, people could afford to live and this country set the standard in education, healthcare, living in general.... today, we are more focussed in profits and making sure the rich are set... we no longer have a united country in mind we have a division where the haves want more and more at the cost of exploiting and destroying those who are just trying to survive.

My call is when the baby boomers retire and start dieing off, we'll see a world depression and those countries we laugh at now and exploit for cheap labor come back to bite us in our asses when they want to collect the debts we have accrued because we refused to pay people enough to live on without having to go into debt.

But that's just a guess. Our nuclear missiles and military will only keep scaring them for so long. And when the poor here have nothing to lose because they have no self esteems and are working just to live with no benefits, their loyalty will be with those that promise a better life. Even if that comes from outside the country.

We have become a product of our own greed and in the end we will be as viable and as important as a Spain.

So in the end, I guess stevo I have no set answer to your questions..... Just the answer that we better be putting people ahead of greed or we are doomed.

So what does any of this have to do with all the belly-aching because the federal minimum wage wasn't increased by a buck? We would still be in the same boat, no?

i have to say that i find it baffling that anyone would actually oppose raising the minimum wage. and i do not see anything lilke a compelling argument presented above that would outline the reasoning behind such opposition: could someone provide an account of why it makes sense to view a higher minimum wage as a bad thing?

Do you honestly believe this (the part about everyone having a chance, esp because of access to education)??? I don't know where you're from, but in Chicago (just as an example, this is true in most urban areas) the majority of people attending Chicago public schools are non-white. Many of the schools rate *TERRIBLY* when comparing test scores, drop-out rates, avg grades, etc, especially when compared to the public schools in the mostly white suburbs. This is the case all over the country - public school systems with predominantly minority students, most especially urban public school systems, compare terribly to their counterparts. You have one of two stances to take based on this: either you think minorities are biologically and/or culturually incapable of success, accounting for their higher drop-out rates, lower performance, and so forth - perhaps you think there is a black laziness gene? - in which case I have no qualm about calling you a racist, or you acknowledge that everyone does NOT have a chance in America.

On top of that, aside for the kids who are fully capable but will never get a chance because they were simply born to the wrong family in the wrong neighborhood, what about the kids who were REALLY born to the wrong family - let's say the kid who has developmental problems because of childhood malnutrition since the family couldn't afford to feed her, or perhaps one who has poor development because of drug use during pregnancy - where do they get the same opportunities? Free education does not necessarily mean good education. I got a free high school education - went to the public high school in my suburban neighborhood, which happens to be predominantly white - and I can tell you right now, with absolutely no question about it, my free high school education was - and I am not exaggerating here - *1000x* better than any public education your average minority kid in the Chicago public school system could EVER hope for.

There isn't a question about it. It is a simple FACT - everyone does NOT have a chance in America. I have not seen a SINGLE reliable study which suggests otherwise with regards to educational opportunities and poverty - and I should know, it's essentially what I've been concentrating on for the past 18 months of my life. Now, either you think education is worthless and want to reject what amounts to an essentially unanimous finding in academia - in which case, your argument about a free education is moot anyway - or you accept the fact that not everyone in America has the same opportunities - or, for some, any realistic opportunities at all.

It's one thing to argue that raising the minimum wage will hurt the economy. I don't agree, but it's not an unreasonable argument. There's a certain amount of logic behind it at least. But to honestly argue that everyone in America has an opportunity, and especially that they have an equal one, is simply incomprehensible.

That's very true. Poverty takes a different face in different cultures though - it's more than simply how much money you're making. Just as the economies of those countries would cause an uproar over here, our economy would cause an uproar over there. To us, 15% unemployment is absolutely disasterous. To them, giving people income below what one can reasonably be expected to live with is unacceptable. They both have their problems. With a 15% unemployment rate but government subsidies to ensure people live reasonably well, you run into problems such as depression, loss of motivation, etc - all things which unemployment, or a lack of purpose, can bring to a person. The problem shows its face in a different way here - people growing up in a materialist culture that tells them to get the flashiest, biggest, and most expensive of everything when they can't even afford to own a car that gets them to work reliably for example. It sure feels pretty crappy when you feel rejected by your own culture. Again, a source of major depression and stress. The point is, neither face of poverty is better than the other - 15% unemployment is unacceptable, but so is having such a HUGE gap between the rich and the poor (and basically no middle class). It's just a matter of two different cultural faces on the issue.

You are obviously in favor of raising the minimum wage. If it were up to you where would you set it? and why wouldn't you set it higher than that?

Stevo,

I do respect you man, but you have no argument. all you do is question you offer no true debate except "this is socialism.... go back to USSR... communist thinking...." etc.You answer not 1 of my arguments such as paying people better would lessen the tax burdens off the rich, such as paying people enough to live on raises their self respect and their ability to live with a minimum of government support, such as the tax spectrum will equalize more thus bettering schools, and communities.

I have more than offered up my views and beliefs. Where are yours besides the old "prices will go up." fearmongering?

Give me a legitimate reason you feel we do not need to pay a person who works 40 hours a week enough to live on at a standard of living that is not at poverty levels.

I have a feeling all you'll come up with is CEO's need/ and or have the right to make millions and millions while their workers live paycheck to paycheck heavily indebt making as little as possible and of course prices will go up.

I live in South Texas, I've seen the TRUELY poor. I've lived within half a block of them (25 people living in a 4brm house), I've grown up with them. I can tell you that the poor are some of the staunchest opposition to the wage increase.

It is not because of some propoganda the right is spewing (it was a Dem. district afterall). It is because they realize that if they do not get ahead in life they will be poor in comparison whether they get $2/hr or $15/hr. The blue collar workers will always make less than the white collar, the less skills required the less they get paid in comparison, no matter what. The more everyone else gets paid the more everything costs no matter what. The only way to advance to become a skilled worker or get educated. This is the way it's been since the world started, and lofty goals will not change it.

I love your logic. I hold people responsible for their success or failure so I'm a racist?

How about being from the poor community, in the Texas school system (ranked among the bottom), in a mostly (re: 90% minority) mexican/black school district. In all accounts I should be working at McDonalds along with half my class. This is not so. Why? because I strive for more, I work hard, and I succeed with my friend (black/white/mexican) who do the same. REGARDLESS of race.

You want everyone to have an EQUAL chance. That's fine, lofty goal which would be ideal. I hail from the school of pragmatism in which I know it'll never happen. I think we should stop pitying people from hardship and showing them examples of those that have risen above it (as I'm trying).

Yes, I see people here at UT driving BMW's, never working a day in their life, while I've been saving since I was 10, have 2 jobs and owe lots in loans. But would you as a parent leave your kids wanting if you had the means? Would you let your kid go hungry for a week because they would otherwise not be able to pay their gas bill (happened on more than one occasion for me), just to pay for some other kids schooling? If you say yes then you're a liar. This is the only way "true" equality in education would occur.

I really enjoyed your second paragraph, you clearly put a lot of thought into it. I enjoyed it till this sentence. I would love to see where the US has "basically no middle class". I agree the rich are getting richer, but so are the poor.

what is a living wage?

enough to keep a roof over their head and food in their stomach?

People in India and the Philippines asked me about the American poor they saw via the news about Katrina. The first they asked me was,"Your poor people are fat. How are they poor and fat?"

I explained that some of the poor have cable TV, TV and VCR, some have cellphones... yes there are some poor that don't have those things, but there are far more that are on social service programs that do.

Processed food has become cheap in America...money cheap, but especially time cheap. For wager earners on multiple jobs...this is often the ruling factor.

I'll answer your question Stevo; at least I will take a stab at it.

I think the "living wage" varies from place to place - it would be very different from LA to say Bismark (I'm guessing).

The last statistic I read to make a living wage in Los Angeles:
- $13.75 /hr

To afford the median home in the Los Angeles area (home price - $435,00 for 2BD/2BA condo):

- Household income must be at least $119,000 (at 30-year mortgage. 6%)

So I think it may be more of a cost of living versus standard of living.

In Los Angeles, the cost of living is way disproportionate to the standard of living.

So, I don't think a minimum wage would do much to help here. In fact, it may make things worse. Jobs could potentially leave the area (as many film jobs already have), further diminishing the tax base reducing social goods and services (I'm talking basic ones like road repair). Because a ridiculous amount of people insist on coming to LA already, any artificial wage set would (I think, but not sure) induce even more people to come to LA (EX: $13.50 for a cleaning job or something) further straining the city.

I'm not an economist but I do understand basic market economics and supply/demand. What I don't understand is how come in lean times workers are laid off and CEO etc get raises. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. Or when CEOs are laid off they get $150 million to leave. Hell, pay me $100 and I'll leave my sh*tty job right?

Perhaps there is another phenomoneon at work:
These "low wage" jobs - after the war, weren't they designed as part-time gigs for high school kids lookin' to make an extra dollar or two or houswives with some time as opposed for anyone to actually "make a living" off of? Additonally, the "part-time" nature of these jobs meant no benefits etc. The main benefit was low prices on consumables - products everyone could afford and keep inflation in check.

But then "something happened" and more and more people became reliant on these type of jobs for subsistence. Maybe the oil shocks? created demands for more imports, home grown companies can't compete so start looking for solutions, one of them being moving manufacturing abroad.

Wasn't there a time (post-war)when a family of four only needed one breadwinner? And that could be a postal job, and they could afford a house with a yard and picket fence and one car? Could this be a false or artficial construct - meaning, post war, many GIs bought affordable houses with their bonuses/benefits which isn't real representative of living cost or price of goods. I always wondered about this. It seems like things were way different back then. Or did we pay for it because it was all debt?

As far as the Ford model, didn't he have to revoke the wage he set cause it ended up costing too much? I can't remember but I'll look it up next week after midterms (not trying to antagonize you Pan, just trying to analyze this issue further and stuff).

As for my personal opinion, I like to think we are better than that or this. I don't think we need to go socialist, but I do think for such a powerful and wealthy nation, our bottome line or "lowest" level should be higher than it is. Meaning, our "poverty" should be modest, but not destitute. "Poverty" in America should mean a real basic lifestyle - modest shelter, basic food needs met, modern plumbing etc. No cable, tv, or internet should be subsidized etc (in my opinion). Anything else, well, go out and compete for it. Get an education, learn a trade, etc. If you want that plasma tv, well, you gotta work for it. We need real welfare reform too. Redistributive economics isn't the solution in my opinion. We still need to be incentive based (at least for now until we evolve). But that doesn't mean we should trample people into the ground. I still beleieve our private sector oes better than the public sector even in charitable works. I think big business should decide for themselves. Like Pan did. He ran a successful business based on his ideals and stuff. There are a few corporation like that (at least in my opinion). For example, I like Starbucks: I think they are a good, socially conscious company (no I'm not naive, I mean in a relative way). Southwest Airlines seems to be pretty good too as is UPS (or was it FedEx?). I guess basically, while minimum wage is well-intentioned (and I appreciate that), I just don't think it works well.

Anyways, just my opinion.

jorgelito,

it wasn't all debt.

manufacturing jobs did pay "living wages" (wages commensurate with the cost of living)
GIs had huge incentives to go to school and buy homes -- through government subsidies (pan has written about this in numberous threads)
there was enormous social support for a working/middle class


For people preaching self-sufficiency and personal responsibility, they sure demonstrate a complete lack of either when it comes to debates in these forums. For example, get off your own lazy asses and hit the library. Luckily for you all, a wonderful tool is at your disposal: google

so off on a lil lesson regarding research (luckily for you, as well, a number of bonified social scientists frequent this board and we're going to give you the terms you would need to do some of your own research)...

Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

type 'working class shrinking empirical evidence' into google and get this:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...rical+evidence

click on the first link, titled 'Empirical evidence on income inequality in industrialized countries'
here: http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q...liswps/154.pdf
or here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...rical+evidence

You can read through that entire scholarly study or skip to page 60 and compare our Gini coefficient against other nations'

I have some books laying around but I can't quote them because I stopped digging through the piles.
But readily available graphs exist clearly demonstrating the middle class shrinkage.

google hits: 'is the middle class disappearing'
1st link: http://www.newwork.com/Pages/Opinion...e%20Class.html

4th link: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...13meyerso.html

If you'd like to do this manually, the data are available at: http://www.census.gov/
you'll want to search for income by 'quintiles' (cut into fifths) and 'median income' (household/individual) changes over time (say, 1960 to current)


that should be plenty to chew on for a while
somewhere deep in this board's archives, I've posted numerous articles and textual references on this phenomena. You are welcome to run a search on my handle.

That's it. I vaguely remember reading a whole bunch of articles similar to that one in the past. It's pretty dense stuff - lots of material to glean through. Thanks for posting it. I definitely think there's a polarization between the rich and poor - The disappearing middle-class. But as usual, there's conflicting reports everywhere contributing to the confusion.

However, I'm not sure what part of my post offended you but I really didn't appreciate your snide retorts. I'm hardly lazy and yes, I am self-sufficient thank you very much and I am perfectly capable of doing my own research. What I like about TFP is it's supposed to be place where we can disscuss, analyze, explore various topics in a mature and even meaningful way, without resorting to underhanded insults at other membes. I certainly don't need your condescending attitude on a message board.

jorgelito,
I wasn't replying to your post.
I was replying to comments like these:
And that's why I posted the remark about people, like Seaver does regularly, upholding the notion that everyone is responsible for his or her own success (and hinges that to education), yet doesn't seem willing or capable of doing some rudimentary research before discounting the carefully researched positions of long-time members here. Jorgelito, if you search on this topic and/or these handles (mine, seaver's, pan's, secretmethod's, roachboy's) you will see this same topic discussed ad naseum. The interesting thing is, the same points are recycled by all the participants. Yet, for some reason, the people who come to the table without any evidence continue to refute the one's who do come to the table with evidence time after time after time...they just wait a few months and then regurgitate their tired arguments...as if new members won't know or long-time members will have forgotten that they've already posted a host of documentation for the opinion-oriented members to peruse over. Usually that evidence is just ignored....we'll see in a few months.

Sorry you had trouble understanding it. It certainly appears that you're not an employer.


I shouldn't have to explain this, but....

Depending on the size of your company, the additional time off can easily reach a total equal to the annual hours of one or more full-time employees. It's not a matter of simply finding one part-timer.

If that isn't enough, in some lines of work, it is difficult to find people who only want part-time work. Even when it is possible, there are a great many costs that a business incurs that are in direct proportion to the number of employees, both part-time and full-time:

1. Health insurance (!!!!!)
2. Uniforms
3. Training
4. Continuing education
5. Paid holidays
6. Paid vacations
7. Sick days
8. 401 K matches
9. Employee discounts on the company's products
10. Employee-specific protective clothing/accoutrements
11. Bonuses, both production oriented and holiday
12. Background check expenses
13. Down time in which to conduct interviews
14. Down time to check references
15. Advertising for employees/employment agency finder's fees
16. Payments to temporary employee agencies
17. Additional fees to payroll processing companies

The above are some of the reasons it is cheaper for many companies to pay overtime routinely, rather than hire more employees.

FWIW, it would be easier to write non-sarcastic responses if the tenor of your response were a little more civil.

EDIT: (Since Marv whined I "didn't read" his post and implied I'm not a "sophisticated reader," I needed to spend some time deconstructing his "argument"
hahaha, ok, that's rich. Perhaps you can enlighten all of us non-"sophisticated readers" how you think your argument holds any water with something approximating evidence rather than personal insults on my reading abilities--in fact, why don't we look at your writing ability...

If the total time off reaches a full-time employee's yearly income, then that frees enough overhead to pay the salary of an extra full-time employee (your own operational definition hinges on that being true). Time correctly, if you have a rotating worker filling in during the off days of your "regulars", that person can end up working five straight days--or less. Some people even desire split shifts and it wouldn't be difficult to find someone willing to work "on call."

You almost raised a valid point in all of this, up until now I didn't address the overhead associated with training new employees. The reason I didn't do so is because I was under the assumption, because you said so, that you knew what the hell you were talking about.

As any "sophisticated reader," "employer," or anyone who has a grasp of the data on this issue or real-world knowledge associated with small and large business management knows, the cost of training one additional full-time employee pales in comparison to the costs associated with extremely high turnover rates within the minimum wage sector or compared to the cost of burnout by their salaried employees.

It's not difficult to find someone to work part-time. Which version of the US states are you witnessing? It can't certainly be the same one we have hard numbers on because those numbers describe a picture where part-time jobs continue to rise, full-time workers continue to lose benefits and jobs, increasing numbers of US citizens are taking multiple part-time jobs to make ends meet, and salaried workers continue to work longer hours than any other industrialized nation.

The service-oriented sectors hire multiple part-timers because it's cheaper. It's cheaper because they aren't required to contribute to pension plans, pay for health insurance, grant paid or unpaid vaccations, pay for sick days, allow for sick days, pay for uniforms (what jobs are we discussing here; low-wage service or corporate jobs--because the former recycle uniforms and the latter pay for their own suits), continuing education (just where the hell are you working to be getting all of these benefits? Who believes this?), employee discounts (these are a 'cost' of doing business now? LMAO).

Corporate sectors salary their employees (and a number of low-wage corporations are following suit). If your hypothesis were accurate, we would see it operate among salaried workers because it would make most sense for a salaried worker to work less than 40 hours whenever they could. Except we don't, in the article you completely glossed over below, our salaried workers are working more than they would in any other industrialized nation on the planet. Wages have increased over time. As wages have increased, so have hours worked. The evience directly contradicts your hypothesis.

Sometimes I wish some of you were trying to run a small business. Perhaps that should be a exercise in highschool or the like.

I was once told (by a union official I know personally) that the main reason the democrats (unions) were in favor of every minium wage increase they could get was that it created the baseline for where unions could set their wages. After all if UNSKILLED labor gets X then highly skilled Union labor should get X+Y at the very least. I haven't seen anything that would make me think he was wrong, as the concept of a minium wage is economially stupid.

It's interesting, if higher paid workers take more days off, why do our highest paid workers put in more hours than any other industrialized nation?

Even if your hypothesis is correct, although the empirical evidence (which neither you nor any other person reciting this comment in this thread have bothered to muster up) certainly doesn't support it, the following seems to argue that workers taking some time off might not be such a bad idea for the workers and their employers...

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/.../30/ilo.study/

You know, that's not a bad idea. I think some places already do that.

I remember in my high school econ class we had to "run" a corporation. There was another exercise in which we split up into 4 groups and had to represent 4 different "interest" groups in a case study involving development of beachfront property:
1. endangered piping plover (a sea bird)
2. local community
3. developers
4, I can't remember - maybe the govt?

Anyways, it was a great exercise cause we had to research and discuss then we had a "town hall meeting" and made presentations.

In our business class in high school, we had to submit business proposals including bdugets and stuff.

In any case, it's always a good idea to sort of let kids (or anyone for that matter) have or experience a sort if hands on experience.

You know in health class they have one project where they have to take care of an egg up as if it was a baby?

Well why not run a small business? I think it would be a great learning experience. Plus write about it etc...

Maybe the unions need reform. I don't think they started off or were intended to veer of course like this.

Um, why would the democrats get an increase in wages? Or do you mean unions?

If you had read my post, you would see that I specifically pointed out that part-time hires are not always feasible. I also never said it was MY place of employment, but apparently, I am familiar with more businesses than you.


It may not sound true to someone whose best job has been burger flipping at MacDonalds, but I'll let the more sophisticated readers decide on its veracity.

The concept of ignoring the will and the wishes of the majority of your constituency certainly parallels your description of the concept of a minimum wage......
Wake the "eff" up, Ustwo. The perception of voters in Florida, a state where a constant stream of low income families from other states, migrates to in search of "a better life", was that Jeb Bush and his republican party controlled legislature did not represent them in their pursuit of one of their most important issues. These voters went around Bush & co., by an overwhelming majority.

The writer of the above article, Caldwell, senior editor of the Weekly Standard, is one of you, and he "gets it." The minimum wage is a political issue. So was the bankruptcy bill. It was understood that it's passage into law, if it ever was to pass, was that an increase in the minimum wage would be a "quid pro quo", in exchange for the support of democratic party affiliated legislators for passage of the bankruptcy bill.

The republicans, combined with democrats whose votes were influenced by the thousands of new (and older) lobbysists who have come to Washington in the last five years, were able to pass the bankruptcsy bill while resisting the passage of the minimum wage bill.

Short term, the political cost of not passing the bill will probably be felt by republicans in the mid-term election a year from now. Longer term, as Caldwell mentions at the end of his article, the next step will be via other referendums that mimic Florida voters "end run" around their governor and their own legislative representatives, and eventually, via disruption of "social peace".

The surest way to experience the loss of "social peace" in America, and the associated costs of the collateral damage that the lack of "peace" will cause, along with the cost of attempting to restore that social peace, is to oppose an increase in the minimum wage that attempts to accomplish the same goals that congress intends when it votes to increase it's own compensation. People support the "peace" only as long as they are convinced that they have something to lose by ending their support for maintaining it.

Time to breath in here
 

Lets try to get away from the personal attacks....shall we

You know who you are

I did run a business and documented it on this post how I paid more than minimum wage and how I grew and why.

As for unions, I'd like to know where these unions are that can demand higher wages considering every union out there is struggling just to survive. Any airlines union, UAW or steel their companies are looking for ways to declare bankruptcy to get out of paying the retirees benefits.

Because it is not for the government to decide how much a business should pay its employees. Wages should be set by the market, determined by the supply of willing workers with certain skill sets and the demand for them. I know that the McDonalds near my house starts it's new employees at $7 an hour, which is higher than minimum wage. I know that walmart pays its lowest wage-earning employees higher than minimum wage. I know that the senior partner (my boss) at my firm pays our lowest wage earning staff $7.50/hr, (but they know this is not a full time job and work is dependent on projects) All these prices are set by the market, not by the state of florida. It is not for the government to tell business owners how much they have to pay their employees. Whats next, telling employers they can't pay more than a certain amount to their top executives? Telling walmart that they can't sell this item for more than a certain price? The government was not created to run a business.

To further my arguement I pose the question, at what price should the gov't mandate employers to pay their employees? Jorgelito says a living wage in LA is $13.75 an hr. So why would a proponent of minimum wage be satisfied with any government mandated price floor less than $13.75 an hour? What's the point of raising the minimum wage by $.50 or $1 an hour?

As I mentioned earlier and Ustwo also posted, but seems to be ignored roundly, is the union aspect of the minimum wage increase. So in effect, the minimum wage arguement is just a power grab by unions. Most of the bottom wage earners still make more than minimum wage, regardless of what it is set at, but unions are the main proponent of it so they have a baseline to argue for higher wages for their members.

Finally, the minimum wage was never intended to be a liveable wage. It was never intended to be a wage at which a single mother raises three children on. Thats not what the minimum wage is. It is an entry level wage for first time workers and teenagers. If you are still making minimum wage in your 30's you probably don't even deserve to be paid that.

Minimum wage was an idea lobbied stronly by union leaders, and to the average person, like host points out, seems like a good idea. It has gained popularity politically, but still holds not economic merit. Its bad policy and belongs no where in a free market.

God I just LOVE this thread.

First I'm a racist, now I'm reduced to simply a mouthpiece that doesnt have an opinion.. just throws up on everyone.

However I do admit when I'm wrong. And in the case of income distribution I am wrong.

Done by the US Census. The poor have gotten *slightly* poorer on average ($54 dollars is not much when spread out through a whole year), while the rich have gotten much richer. The trend also shows the middle class lagging behind.

I can tell you around here exactly what they pay. As Hoover and other companies that paid decent wages close and layoff (with no intention of ever rehiring) the plastics companies all pay starting wages at between $6 and $7 and they go through the Temp companies so they don't pay benefits or overtime. And as far as temp - f/t getting better, doesn't happen. Take North Canton Plastics, they go through Ryan Temps. they pay $6.50 and after your 90 days when they are supposed to hire you as F/T they say there are no positions as they only keep 10 employees (including fronmt office secretaries) as F/T. But Ryan give you a raise of 25 cents 2 times a year.

As for GOJO, they pay $7 -$7.50 an hour depending on shift and offer benefits but the benefits come out of your paycheck so that $7 - $7.5 an hour turns into more like $6, try living on $240 a week with 3 kids.

Most places around here pay about $7 and how do you tell someone that made $18 at Hoover to pay their mortgage, car loan, kids upkeep on $11/hour less and that they are lazy asses who have no desire to advance in life because there are better jobs out there. How do you tell these people that are selling their houses and barely paying off their loans with the sale (because the housing market has fallen) that $7 is all they deserve.

How do you rebuild communities where the tax base has fallen to near zero? How do you expect schools and public safety to run?

IF there are areas paying higher wages on average I'd like to see what the cost of living is in that area.

You let the market determine the wages...... well then our wages are pennies on the dollar and we all go bankrupt.

There comes a time when things have gone too far to one side. Unions went too far now ownership has.

You say manufacturing jobs are a thing of the past? That's an excuse to put the burden of wages on the worker and not the owner.

Well where are those golden higher paying higher skilled jobs??? EB Games, Wal*Mart, Giant Eagle, or maybe the gas stations?

SEAVER (I capped so you wouldn't miss it),

I truly appreciate you admitting the stats and I appreciate your argument, but did your stats tell you the %ages of people living in those sections? My guess is that each lower section gained people each year.

And I do understand your side of the argument. Government should not be needed here BUT unfortunately it is, if owners would pay decent wages on their own then the keep government out would make sense.

I just don't understand how the rich can keep demanding lower taxes, yet supporting lower wages, when the tax burden is definitively being shifted onto them because of the lower wages.

What do we do with cities and states that have cut and cut and cut .... and still are in the red because the workers don't make the tax money. Start cutting emergency services? Start cutting wages to cops, teachers and firemen? Start outsourcing those jobs?

So, you say, move to where the jobs are. On what money? And where are these jobs?

We are moving backward and not forward and it should scare the fuck out of anyone who truly cares about this country.

It's not going to get better and we are not going to move forward again unless 1 of 3 things happen.
- Government starts requiring better pay not just in the US but by all companies doing business in the US,
- or by ownership deciding people come first and raising wages on their own,
- or by a social revolution much like we had when unions started.

I don't see the government doing much because the money controls the politicians and they are bought and paid for by big business and people who have no desire to lose their place or power.

I don't see ownership doing it, there's too much competition to see which CEO can afford the next 10+ million dollar home. To much fear that if they raise wages their competition will just outsource to a cheaper labor market and undercut them.

And I don't see a social revolution yet because there are no true crusaders out there and the ones that are trying are personally attacked and silenced.

So where does that leave us?

As a country we are on a serious decline, if you think your children will have it better than you then you are fooling yourself or you are ultra rich and taking advantage of the market right now buying up as much as possible in Sheriffs auctions and making investments and have the money to do so and not worry.

I can honestly say I don't have it near as good as my parents did, and in retirement they won't have it as easy as their parents did, and my children will not have it as easy as I did. And in the US that is sad because this country was built on bettering the next generation.... and somewhere we lost that vision.

There exist goods for which a rise in prices causes a rise in demand. They are not common. However, your universal statement that for all goods a rise in price causes a drop in demand is not true.

If you look at the sellers of minimium wage labour as a block, the total money going to them can vary with the price of minimium wage, depending on the elasticity of demand of minimium wage labour. Setting a minimium wage is a form of monopoly pricing -- and quite often it is benefitial for a monopoly to price the good they are selling (in this case, minimium wage labour) higher than a free, competative market would.

This assumes there are no "income effects" from changing the cost of labour.

You do realize that almost every little economic maxim you have memorized has a metric tonne of "the following things must be true in order for this model to hold", right?

I am talking about the selling of labour by people, not the purchasing of labour by firms. Setting the minimium wage is a monopoly pricing act on the part of labour.

People who are doing minimium wage labour do not have free time to learn new skills. If you had government programs that trained the unempolyed for higher skilled jobs, having fewer people do minimium wage jobs and training the rest for higher productivity jobs makes sense.

If you set the minimum wage at 0$/hour, this would be pretty damn low. It is possibly nobody would work for that much. If you prefer, I could state "the legally required minimium wage" instead of "minimium wage". Given that this thread is about the US federal government setting the "legally required minimium wage", I figured saying "minimium wage" would be clear enough. I apologize if you did not understand what I meant.

Because the lack of middle-class teen labour would have a catastrophic effect on the economy?

Changing the minimium wage should tend to increase the price of non-minimium wage labour. If only to allow companies to hire and keep better than average workers, or more qualified workers, or to hire people to do less enjoyable jobs...

This statement is certainly true. It would be true here in the United States as well if we had a free market. Since the rich are getting richer by minipulating the system through political corruption, why not minipulate it to throw a few bones to the lowest paid poorest workers as well?

It would probably be best to have our markets free but I don't see our corrupt polititians (Democrats and Republicans) and business leaders letting that happen anytime soon since they cannot seem to ever get enough money to satisfy themselves.

The minimum wage does not hold economic merit but our present system with the wealthy feeding at the public trough does not either. I know that two wrongs don't make a right but what the heck, might as well give the poor a little or they just might vote themselves a truly socialist system.

Seaver,

I never said you didn't have an opinion. I'm not sure where you pulled that from. What I was commenting on was the persistence of people to continue to spout their groundless opinions, despite the evidence, repeatedly.

The post immediately precending yours is an excellent example. Both stevo and ustwo walzt into the thread, declare they personally know a union leader, and that they have knowledge that unions always support minimum wage increases because they can demand more money for their workers (usually these two are bitching about unions not doing shit for their members, so this twist is odd to say the least). They move from those factless assertions to additional factless claims: that places down the road, they know for a fact, pay more than the federal minimum wage and somehow this morphs into an empirical basis for their claim that the bulk of entry level positions pay more than the federal minimum wage. Then conclude that all minimum wage arguments are really just union grabs for power...vote pandering as it were.

Inconsistent argument layered over inconsistent argument, a complete disregard for the objective evidence, and regurgitation of talking points repeatedly despite being shown evidence to the contrary all coalesce into an annoying trend on this board.

To your credit, you actually capitulated on a point some of us made that is backed by solid empirical evidence. The part of my post you quoted was pointing out that people like you, who argue for self-sufficiency, should at least take the time to research a point before you start telling other people they are wrong. And if you aren't going to take the time to research a point, you should not build entire arguments around baseless claims (as stevo and ustwo did above).

Now, you'll notice that I have never denigrated you for your ideological stance: that government should not regulate wages. If your personal belief is that the market will take care of wages, there is a debate to be had over how or whether it can actually best do that without government intrusion. But that debate should be held within a context of facts. But I have NEVER made fun of you for being a free-market propoent. But if your basis and best argument is that you talked to someone down the road, and they aren't upset about their wage, and therefore you can speak on behalf of the rest of the minimum wage earners in this country, then I will certainly poke a hole or fun in that statement.

Or lets suspend disbelief for a minute and actually think that ustwo has a union leader as a friend. And that this union leader told him that all unions favor minimum wage increases because it empowers them to make demands for their members. Well, now we have some contradictions, workers (from your anecdote) are not supportive of minimum wage increases, yet union leaders (from ustwo and stevo's anecdotes) support them and are basically the political pressure behind increases.

Well, at this point it seems out of one of you three, someone should be able to actually post some kind of factual basis for those claims. A representative survey of workers' attitudes, a graph comparing union wages to minimum wage increases,...something. Yet, not one single point is supported by anything other than referring to one another's comments. And this thread will die eventually and one of you guys will start something like it back up months from now and the same people will trot out the same arguments that have already been refuted by empirical facts. Given those trends, it appears to be a fair assessment that a number of people in this thread are regurgitating points instead of taking the time to look at the actual facts of the issue before deciding and telling other people that they don't know what they're talking about.

Seaver, holding people responsible for their OWN actions isn't racist, obviously - I said that believing blacks are inherently less capable of success is racist, and it is. But, the fact is minorities fail a LOT more than white's in public education, and they are much more significantly members of failing schools. Now, either minorities have some inherent trait that makes them fail more or it is the result of structural inequalities - the statistics and research leave little room for placing the blame squarely on personal responsibility. In 2003, the poverty threshold for a household of 4 was $18,850. Ignoring the fact that it's ludicrous to expect $18,850 to adequately house, clothe, and feed a family of four, with thresholds like that 8.2% of whites were considered to live in poverty in 2003. By contrast, 24.4% of blacks were living in poverty. Either that shows blacks inherently make poor choices, or there is something else creating and sustaining these inequalities.

I commend you for your success. Really. But it's unreasonable to expect every child born in poverty to be exceptional - it's much more reasonable to expect them to be normal. There's a reason people who do what you say you are doing are held on a pedestal: it's because they are the exception and not the rule. Normal people have a much more difficult time lifting themselves out of situations like that.

Now, you say that it's a lofty and ideal goal to seek equal opportunities. To a certain extent I don't disagree. You're right in that it will never be the case. However, it's silly to not minimalize the problem and do what we can to fix it. In 1969, less than 3% of children lived in poverty. In 1993, around 20% of children lived in poverty. In 2003, it was about 17%. Even more interestingly, the percentage of black children living in poverty in 2003 was 34% in contrast with about 10% of white children living in poverty. You're not going to tell me the rise was unavoidable and is unfixable - at the very least across racial lines.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding the "only way 'true' equality in education would occur." I think you're implying that seeking more equality in education would put more people in poverty, but I'm not sure where you get that idea. Bringing this response closer to the original thread topic, between 1979 and 2000, the bottom fifth of wage earners saw a meager 9% increase in AFTER-TAX income ($1,100) compared to a 255% rate of inflation (the equivalent of $100 in 1979 is $254.99 in 2000). By contrast, the top 1% of wage earners saw a 201% increase in AFTER-TAX income between 1979 and 2000 ($576,400). Neither has kept up with inflation, but the top 1% has seen 20x more increase than the bottom fifth relative to their respective 1979 wages. Looking at the raw numbers, the average income of a wage earner in the top 1% has increased 524x that of the average in the bottom fifth. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the poor are getting richer along with the rest. Oh, and lest you think I'm finding these increases through statistical manipulations of some sort, these are directly from your very own government's Congressional Budget Office.

EDIT: Just read your later post admitting being wrong about the poor, consider this a broader supplement to that then.

Here's one poll of many; there are several more recent with basically the same numbers but this is the most recent one I can find with a demographic breakdown.

Overwhelming majorities of people in the U.S. favor increasing the minimum wage. In fact, a majority of republicans or conservatives favor increasing it.

Didn't notice this tidbit at first (from the poll I posted above):

Interestingly 31% of non-union households think an increase is "vital," as compared to 24% of union households, with a large enough sample size to be a significant difference. But the overall sum in favor is hardly different in the two groups.

Raising the minimum wage by a buck isn't going to do diddly to help poverty. If you really want to fight poverty you should advocate for a minimum wage of, what was is, $13.75/hr. With all this talk about poverty this and poverty that in the midst of a minimum wage arguement, I haven't seen one of you libs argue to increase the minimum wage to such an extent. You are either for these poor people or against them, right? So why do you only want their minimum wage to be increased to $7 and not $14? Someone answer me pLeAsE!!!

Actually I have argued in past threads that the government should do 3 things to "Band-Aid" poverty for a maximum of 10 years a minimum of 5 and see if it truly helps. If not we can always return to the current system, and the rich have lost 5 years of paying shit wages and making millions.

Those 3 things are:

- Increase wages to a liveable wage (for here we'll use your $13.75, even though that is still only $28,600 a year and for a family of 4 that is sad) and either nationalize healthcare (using a sliding scale fee or make it mandatory that employers pay for F/T employees and their families. These wages and benefits are the very minimum to be paid to ALL EMPLOYEES OF EVERY COMPANY DOING BUSINESS IN THE USA. Therefore there is no "outsourcing jobs" to China, Taiwan, Indonesia, wherever, for cheaper wages. P/T under 40 hours make the same, unless under the age of 18 and still claimed as dependants, then they make 1/2 the wage but the minor working laws remain in place ... again regardless of country).

- A price freeze ON ALL GOODS for a minimum of 1 year, a maximum of 2 years. This allows people to catch up to their debt. As for small business and businesses that show TRUE economic hardship, the government offers grants and tax write offs to help them counterbalance the wages. After the time period you reevaluate the companies and allow price increases but they have to be justified.

- Finally, you put a maximum wage on CEO's. They can only make the maximum payroll of all employees combined. So if you have 100 employees and they make a combined $2,860,000 ($13.75*40*52*100) a year you recieve a $2,860,000 max for your salary.

Yeah, it may sound "non capitalistic" and not what neo-cons want, but with this version of "capitalism" we are seeing the top getting richer and richer and everyone else going farther and deeper into debt.

If we do not do something drastic to help relieve the debt and allow people to make more and not have to go into debt, then we'll drown in mediocrity and countries like China, Taiwan, Indonesia, and even Mexico , those countries we ship our cheap labor to will own us because of the trade deficits, and consumer debt we have accrued because people refused to see that our system is fucked up and promotes a rich and poor and no middle class.

Of course, I'm a radical, a dreamer, and this always gets laughs and very nasty assed comments so I shut up and watch us fall deeper. But Stevo, you asked so........ there it is.

BTW, I truly believe there are companies out there that tried very hard to maintain good wages but were decimated by their competitors cheaper labor practices and places like Wal*Mart.

Whenever you get the chance read what Wal*Mart did to Rubbermaid.

Thats all I wanted. Thanks.

Is that it, no other comments? No debate on my suggestions?

I noticed you clipped the main portion.

Why do you think this system that we have should not be changed or we should totally do away with the minimum wage?

What is it you believe would better our country and why?

I showed my cards. It's a simple proposal my points. If we do it, and there are those that still go heavily into debt or don't work then we can say we gave every possible chance to everyone and drop the whole issue for good.

However, I believe that people will save more, get out of debt, the economy will still move forward and tax revenue will go up while the burden is spread out more evenly, less services are needed, less failures to pay on debts that are eaten by companies and passed on to purchasers and so on. So in the end the rich pay less taxes, and quite possibly make more because of the growth and their holdings in stocks, bonds, munis and so on.

I see it as a win - win situation. The rich still stay very rich, but the middle class and poor now would have legitimate chances to advance and move upward. But again it would be up to the individual to take advantage of the 5-10 years that this was in effect. My belief is it would work and there would be no need to return to the system we are in, however, if we did at least we had a period where people could truly catch up.

Of course I'm not going to agree with any of your points - not to insult you, but they are more suited to the old USSR than America. But skipping ahead #3, what if I have a consulting business, where my wife and I are the owners and we have no employees. We have annual revenues of $1,000,000 and together we pocket $500,000 a year in profit. Now we want to hire someone to do some basic data-entry and report proofing. This position only requires 20hrs a week. We decide to pay this part time employee $30,000 a year to work 20 hours a week entering data and proofing reports. (a very very generous deal) So are you telling me my wife and I can only take home $120,000 combined for the year. Don't you see how preposterous your suggestion is? I would be better off not hiring someone than to hire them.

On to point 2 Now what happens if there is a natural disaster, like a hurricane in FL that wipes out the tomato and pepper crops. The farmers that own these crops only have a limited supply left and it will take at least 2 months to get more product to market. But the demand for these crops remains steady. The laws of supply and demand tell us that the price for tomatoes and peppers will increase for a limited time until the supply returns to normal. Are these poor farmers supposed to suck it up and take it because of a price freeze on all goods? What about the farmer? its not his fault a hurricane wiped out his crop, but shouldn't he be able to sell what he has left for the most he can? After all, they are his peppers and tomatoes.

Do we really have to discuss what will happen to the number of employed people in this country if the minimum wage was increased to $13.75 an hour? Do we? Do we really?

Its good to dream, pan, but its better to be practical. I'm not for equality if it means we are all equally poor.

In general I hate the idea of the government dictating to private industry what the payroll should be. It seems like the more power our government has the more our polititians and their (families, contributors, friends) feed from the public trough.

If we are going to raise the minimum wage to such a high level then we may as well throw in the towel and implement a full scale socialist system, which doesn't seem right to me. Although I could just be short-sighted and trying to avoid the inevitable. Even though the economic principal may be wrong what is wrong with giving the working poor a few bucks?

The more I think about it, Maybe the government should just give the wage increase to them instead of forcing the businesses to. The polititians should have no problem coming up with the money from the billions that they and their cronies are raking in through corruption. After all it is in their best interests to keep the working poor and middle class half way placated or they just might destroy the system and have to work for a living instead of taking their wealth from us.

The minimum wage increase does seem like a minor gesture like throwing a few scraps to the working poor. What solutions do you have to the growing gap between our rulers and their connections to the rest of us? Or do you think that things are fine the way they are and the situation will straighten out on it's own in time?

Cleaning house on the political side of things and implementing strong legislation that corrects the pork-barrel money wasing that goes on day in and day out. If the legislature would streamline its processes and cut spending taxes could be lowered even further. There are a number of things that can be done, its just that the people that it would affect the most are the people we have put in charge of making these changes. So the first step has to be cleaning house, while the second step would be re-writing some legislation. From there it can only get better. But I do agree with your last question - that the situation will straighten out on it's own in time. - perhaps by a sort of the process I described above. But as you know - socialist policies will not solve anything.

For smaller proprietorships such as your example, there could be ways to get around it, such as it's privately owned and the profit is yours. Just as in any small business. When I owned my pizza place I had a set salary I paid myself, but I also had unlimited access to the profits. I had no shareholders or partners to answer to so those profits were in essence mine to do with as I pleased. Same as for you and your wife in your example.

Ah yes the USSR reference....lol. They had the same problem we do now, in different ideologies but exactly the same. Business and government are one and the same. The ideal of Communism in a pure form can work on small local levels and had worked for many places for hundreds of years. However, on a national scale, it develops problems because eventually it leads to a government of totalitarianism and dictatorship.

Our problem is not leading us down that road (some could argue it is and I agree to some degree) however, we are allowing business to dictate what powers and what abilities people have. I truly believe pure capitalism can work but not on the global level that we are dealing with now. It destroys democracy and the middle class. Because in order to have democracy you cannot have a 2 class system it won't work, eventually you fall into the feudal/monarchial positions.

True and that would fall into what the government does now and that is subsidize and help the farmers, what few there are. If you look at labels more and more of our fruits and vegetables are imported anyway. I defy you to find more than just a very few companies that have labelled "all oranges/apples/ etc from the USA".... The only 1 I can think of is Florida's Natural Orange Juice, everyone else says product of USA/Argentina/Brazil/ etc. So, while I see this could be a problem I think there could be measures to help this.

Big business and the rich control what 95% of the wealth and thus control who has the money to run for any office. As we are seeing in Ohio, in Texas and so on campaign finances can turn an election totally around.

And while my ideas bring government control into the mix it could be short term, and I guarantee the rich will still be making their millions. But the playing field and buying power will be a little more level.

Why so hostile? That is what this thread is about? I have a feeling instead of debating you would rather call names and not even consider the issues brought forth.

I showed my arguments above, that it would be short term, tax revenue and economies would boom and not spiral (sorry we don't spiral we go up hit a peak then bottom out, then go up but not as far then bottom out.... and so on.... to where we are just flatassed bottoming out now, with upward spikes that barely register and their length is somewhat inconsequential.

We would not all be equally poor. the rich would still be rich as there is no limit on what they can own and how much dividend a company can pay stockholders. So the desire for a company to profit would still be there.

As I said there will be those that take advantage of the situation save and are able to move forward, there are those that won't. But we'll be able to say we did everything we could and move on.

If we sit here and do what we are then we are losing the battle fast and within a generation or 2 this nation will be nothing except a scary country with dictatorial leaders who threaten to nuke anyone into submission. And we're even going to lose that option when the debts come due. What are we going to nuke China because they want to collect on the trade deficit and the T-Bills and Bonds they bought from us? Are we going to go to war so we don't have to honor the debts we accrued? How is that better than my idea?

Also, as I said after 1-2 years, McDonald's can go to the government show exactly why that hamburger is now going to cost $9.00. I seriously doubt it will.

I am a firm believer of the opposite of what is happening. I believe you pay people more the demand on goods eventually goes up with less debt and therefore the economy truly moves forward. as it stands now, we pay barely enough to live on extend credit to the max and pray the people can pay and pray noone comes to collect the debt all at once.

But luck will end, and someone will want to collect their debt eventually and then everyone else will have to collect their debt to pay the debts they have. So eventually (and like I said I predict within 1-2 generations .... that is in our lifetime, God willing) we'll all be dirt poor and have lost everything.

At least my plan ( with adjustments by professionals that could truly work with it and figure out exactly how to make it work) we give people a fighting chance.

If it were up to me there would be a world minimum wage so as to wipe away any of these cheap offshore labor jobs. But soon we'll be in that situation, where we'll be Indonesia and China and the Phillippines, with low wages, a standard of living that is pathetic and no chance for class advancement.