[el chupacabra]

To $7.00/hr

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...iseminimumwage


I vote

Really it would just mean that all the high school kids that get minimum wage would be getting the same pay as experienced workers..or that experienced workers pay would go down so that the high school kid at burger king could get 7 dollar and hour. I always thought of 5.15 as being the "check you out" pay and if someone is good at their job they will get a raise to what min wage should be which is really 7.50/hr.

Doesn't kerry realize that high school kids don't vote

[Zimphire]

I think this is just one "political promise" like a new "Healthcare" that will never show itself.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
To $7.00/hr

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...iseminimumwage


I vote

Really it would just mean that all the high school kids that get minimum wage would be getting the same pay as experienced workers..or that experienced workers pay would go down so that the high school kid at burger king could get 7 dollar and hour. I always thought of 5.15 as being the "check you out" pay and if someone is good at their job they will get a raise to what min wage should be which is really 7.50/hr.

Doesn't kerry realize that high school kids don't vote

If an experienced worker is getting $7/hour and a newly-hired employee is getting $7/hour then the quality of that experienced employee must not be very good.

If your arguemtn is that raising the minimum wage will bring new employees in at a rate people had to work several years to get, then yes, you are correct. However, what will happen is that experienced employee is going to need to be compensated in some way if they fell slighted about the pay inequality with a new hire. It could be a pay raise, offer of better beni's, increase in vacation time, etc.

Whatever will happen, companies will have to find a way to increase the total compensation to all their employees which I think is a good thing.

[itai195]

You know, there are a lot more people earning minimum wage than just high school kids. Of course, now all the usual suspects wlil enter here and argue that raising the minimum wage will just cause everyone's cost of living to increase. I can't argue against that other than to say I've never seen a study proving that there's such a close correlation.

[Spliffdaddy]

when was the last time your fast food order was prompt, courteous, and correct?

I rest my case.

[Thinktank]

I vote

An increase in the minimum wage will not "trickle up" the food chain... Pay raises, benefit increases, etc. will actually slow down as companies cut expenses to meet the new pay requirements. Even if an increase in the min. wage DID create these "trickle up" effects, it would only spur on inflation, and everyone would be back in the same relative situation anyhow.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Thinktank:
I vote

An increase in the minimum wage will not "trickle up" the food chain... Pay raises, benefit increases, etc. will actually slow down as companies cut expenses to meet the new pay requirements.

Or companies can do what they should do, which is maintain pay raises and benefits but cut into profit margins to ensure their workers make a reasonable amount of money for their labor. $5.15, or whatever it is, is a pittance.

[Thinktank]

Originally posted by itai195:
Or companies can do what they should do, which is maintain pay raises and benefits but cut into profit margins to ensure their workers make a reasonable amount of money for their labor. $5.15, or whatever it is, is a pittance.

Companies that do what they should do are few and far between... Companies shouldn't be exporting labor to India simply because it is cheaper either, but they do it anyhow. Bottom line: if there is someone that can do your job just as effectively, and is willing to do so for less money, you're in trouble.... Supply/Demand is a much stronger force in the business world than morals and what a company should do.

[itai195]

Agreed, I'm just being idealistic

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by itai195:
You know, there are a lot more people earning minimum wage than just high school kids. Of course, now all the usual suspects wlil enter here and argue that raising the minimum wage will just cause everyone's cost of living to increase. I can't argue against that other than to say I've never seen a study proving that there's such a close correlation.

Well I'll study for ya
I live in a small town at the moment of population 25,000 in a state that has min wage 7.50/hr. This is on the border of another state )8 miles away)where the min wage is 5.15, and right on the border of that state is another town of the same size. If you go to the grocery store in the 7.5 state there is a clear difference in prices than if you went to the stores in the other state 8 mile away. Insidently almost all the poor people in town shop accross the border(to the rich and middle class it doesn't matter too much). Many businesses have moved accross the border just to cut costs. So this could be considered a cost of living thing... however at the same time I only notice this price increase with grocery stores and restaurants who are hiring how would you say...the inexperienced types like young kids and stuff. Other businesses that have a higher profit margin such as electronics/appliance stores don't raise their prices any noticable amount.

so here's an example of how this could lead to inflation accross the board. I went to the pet shop the other day (I'm a fish geek) and the mangers were telling me how the price of fish had gone up significanlty due to the higher gas prices. This makes sence to me now but it's something I never would have seen comming or thought of before. Such could be the case in raising minimum wage.

I also think that companies can adapt to higher living costs on their own without these laws. For example in Seattle were the min wage is someone could get a job flipping burgers starting out at $10/hr..well above min wage. And if the company doesn't give enough raises for experienced workers then the worker should take their experience to another company.

[Joshua]

Nope. Minimum wage jobs typically require little if any experience or education, and I don't have a problem with the pay reflecting that.

[daimoni]

.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I think this is just one "political promise" like a new "Healthcare" that will never show itself.

Is this knowledge gained through your mysticism?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by itai195:
Or companies can do what they should do, which is maintain pay raises and benefits but cut into profit margins to ensure their workers make a reasonable amount of money for their labor. $5.15, or whatever it is, is a pittance.

That will happen to some degree. Then guess what. Minimum wage will STILL be mimimum wage and not buy a damn thing more than it ever did.

[Zimphire]

Yup mw goes up, so does the cost of living.

BTW I am bookmarking this thread. Just in case Bush ever raises the minimum wage and the left suddenly decides it's a bad idea.

[itai195]

CA's minimum wage is already set to go over $7 sometime in the next couple years anyway, IIRC. A lot of minimum wage type jobs in the Bay Area pay significantly more than minimum wage out of necessity, but I wouldn't say that this trend is responsible for sharp increases in cost of living over the last 20 years. This is an effect of the increased COL, not a cause. Anyway it's a complex issue and I'm not an economist; as I said I merely feel that $5/hr for a grown man or woman and a full day's labor is shameful.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by itai195:
[B]CA's minimum wage is already set to go over $7 sometime in the next couple years anyway, IIRC.

Well it should rise naturally with inflation. It just shouldn't be jacked with artificially. Shuffling dollar amounts around artificially at one end of the scale does not give those dollars more purchasing power.

[Y3a]

perhaps more people would be getting MORE THAN MINIMUM WAGE if they got some marketable skills. Laziness is it's own reward.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Are my burgers going to be served up with more speed or a bigger smile because Joe Blow behind the counter or in front of the microwave gets more money per hour?

Pay should be a function of skills, merit, and contribution. Pay shouldn't be dictated by a group of bureaucrats.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Well it should rise naturally with inflation. It just shouldn't be jacked with artificially. Shuffling dollar amounts around artificially at one end of the scale does not give those dollars more purchasing power.

In 1980 the minimum wage was 3.10/hr. If you adjust it "naturally" with inflation is should be 7.05 in 2004. A raise to 7.00 over the next few years would still leave it relatively lower than in 1980 -- it'd merely be "catching up" some of what it lost from being completely stagnant at 3.35 for 9 solid years under Reagan/Bush I. Right now, the 5.15 minimum wage is equivalent to 2.27 in 1980 dollars.

[addendum] oh, in 1968 the minimum wage was 1.60 which is the equivalent of 8.61 in 2004. [/addendum]

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:

Pay should be a function of skills, merit, and contribution. Pay shouldn't be dictated by a group of bureaucrats.

That's theoretically correct in a perfect free market system, but in reality, it has little bearing on what people actually get paid. Once when I was right out of college I had a job that was the equivalent of ~44k in today's dollars -- and it was the easiest, most mindless work I've ever done. Far easier than even working at a Fast Food joint. However, the cost of labor (including wages, insurance, benefits etc) for the product we made was about 3% of the total cost of the product. About 92% was the materials used and the balance was extraneous maintenance, management, and R & D. In other words, the cost of labor was piss in a bucket compared to materials -- a 3% increase in material cost (which happened from time to time) was more expensive to the company than doubling our wages would have been.

Point being ... skill, merit, and contribution is definitely not the only factor in determining wages. Look at low teacher salaries, extremely volatile salaries for nurses, and tech worker salaries before and after the dot-com bust and you'll see that simply being in the high-demand industry du jour can have just as much (or more) effect on a person's pay than their skill level at a particular thing.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Wages should be a function of availability of the number of people willing to perform a certain task.

More labor = lower wages, less labor = higher wages.

Basing automatic pay raises on some minimum wage scheme is ********.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Krusty:
In 1980 the minimum wage was 3.10/hr. If you adjust it "naturally" with inflation is should be 7.05 in 2004. A raise to 7.00 over the next few years would still leave it relatively lower than in 1980 -- it'd merely be "catching up" some of what it lost from being completely stagnant at 3.35 for 9 solid years under Reagan/Bush I. Right now, the 5.15 minimum wage is equivalent to 2.27 in 1980 dollars.

[addendum] oh, in 1968 the minimum wage was 1.60 which is the equivalent of 8.61 in 2004. [/addendum]

I didn't say inflation was the only factor. How much was a computer in 1980? And how much does one go for in 2004? I'd rather see an increase in buying power-per-dollar vs. politicians dicking with numbers willy-nilly. Buying power increases with increased availability of goods and services, not by dicking around with just one number in an economy based on a huge number of factors.

All this is far more complex than the usual pandering politician pretense of: "Well, we're paying one group of workers a dicked-with increase in straight dollar amount, let's just pretend that will just occur in a vacuum and there will be no negative effects that need to be addressed, and everyone will simply live happily every after."

Personally I think that minimum wages should be set at the local level based on local economies and cost of living, not dictated from on-high in Washington by know-nothing bureaucrats.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by Y3a:
perhaps more people would be getting MORE THAN MINIMUM WAGE if they got some marketable skills. Laziness is it's own reward.

So students working their way through college need to pay tens of thousands of dollars to get some marketable skills before they can afford to put themselves through said education with no parental help...please

[Krusty]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I didn't say inflation was the only factor. How much was a computer in 1980? And how much does one go for in 2004? I'd rather see an increase in buying power-per-dollar vs. politicians dicking with numbers willy-nilly. Buying power increases with increased availability of goods and services, not by dicking around with just one number in an economy based on a huge number of factors.

All this is far more complex than the usual pandering politician pretense of: "Well, we're paying one group of workers a dicked-with increase in straight dollar amount, let's just pretend that will just occur in a vacuum and there will be no negative effects that need to be addressed, and everyone will simply live happily every after."

Personally I think that minimum wages should be set at the local level based on local economies and cost of living, not dictated from on-high in Washington by know-nothing bureaucrats.

Good points ...
re paragraph 1: true, the minimum wage is just one "number" in the overall equation. However, that number relatively very low in the overall scheme of things right now.

re paragraph 3: That's a good idea since the local cost of living varies wildly from place to place. Y'know, several states have already implemented minimum wages above the national minimum. So, I think that having a national, absolute bottom-of-the-barrel-this-is-the-least-you-can-possibly-pay-a-human-being-and-expect-them-to-show-up isn't necessarily a bad idea (as long as aims at the minimum required to live in places with a low cost of living). States or localities can "adjust up" from there. I can't think of any place in the US where $7.00/hr would be more than bare subsitence. Again, at that level, minimum wage will still be relatively low compared to the 60's, 70's, and 80's The only real problem I see with this is that it would artificially skew some of the natural trends when it comes to the movement of people. Many people move around in this country to places where wages to cost-of-living are relatively higher (to booming towns or regions). If minimum wages were set based on local cost-of-living, it could blunt that "natural" flow of people.

[aside]
True cost of living is a very funny thing all in all. I've lived in places with an extremely high cost of living and places with a low cost of living. The way people get by in those places are dramatically different. Basically, in places with high cost of living, the biggest challenge is keeping a roof over you head, most other things are relatively a LOT cheaper (eg. a computer, an iPod, a refrigerator, a microwave and food cost about the same wherever you live so something like an eMac can look like a fortune in. say. rural Mississippi while it would seem like nothing to someone in, say, the SF bay area). In low cost-of-living places, its a lot easier to keep a roof over your head on low wages, but consumer goods and other things (like airfares) are hugely expensive by comparison. The end result is that you'll see people in low cost-of-living places being "gadget poor" -- meaning they seem to have a lot less "stuff" than people in high cost-of-living places but you see virtually no homeless people like you would see in high cost-of-living places.
[/aside]

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Wages should be a function of availability of the number of people willing to perform a certain task.

More labor = lower wages, less labor = higher wages.

Basing automatic pay raises on some minimum wage scheme is ********.

What happened to merit?

The problem with that view is that you're assuming that workers are interchangeable parts. In truth, they're not. The real economy for labor functions more like the limited monopoly models than the commodity model you're espousing. Why else do employers like to interview applicants?

Not to mention game theory to handle asymmetric information. Both employer and employee have to make a decision based on incomplete information about the other.

Granted, there are labor markets where labor is treated as a commodity, but is it any wonder that those are the $hit jobs? Think of the laborers as bidders on a contract. Putting a minimum on the bid prevents the laborers from selling their services "at a loss" in an attempt to compete with the other bidders. In this case, it's not like competition provides any overall benefit to society in terms of improving the efficiency at which a good or service can be provided. The efficiency at which a laborer can provide his/her services is largely out of that person's hands. The minimum is set by how much it costs to get nourishment, shelter, health care when needed, and transportation to and from the job. People can always spend more on these things than they need to, but they can't always spend less.

Granted, this simplistic view doesn't reflect people benefiting from the care of others (e.g. dependent teenagers working), but it also doesn't reflect people obligated to be caregivers (e.g. parents). It sounds like it may even out.

BlackGriffen

[Dr.HermanG.]

Merit is fine if merit is earned.

But to automatically give people pay raises regardless of time on the job makes little economic sense.

The government simply has no business interfering in the labor market by instituting artificial price controls.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Merit is fine if merit is earned.

if it came down to merit, most rich people would be pushing shopping carts filled with empty pop cans up sunset blvd.

how many wealthy kids would make it through the first round of the "fight club"? - not a single one.

[SimeyTheLimey]

$7.50 is probably reasonable. The problem is really only that it will increase incentives to hire illegal immigrants. But that happens already.

[Lerkfish]

removed by request

[ambush]

raise the minimum wage and we could enter a new inflationist era

[Lerkfish]

removed by request

[typoon]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Ironic. Republicans support Bush's tax rebate because they argue the one-time sum will stimulate economic growth by putting more money in the pockets of americans. Of course, Bush tax breaks benefit upper and middle class taxpayers the most, so its a GOOD IDEA™.
Kerry suggests an across the board increase in the minimum wage (which, by the way is way overdue historically)...but now its a BAD IDEA™ because it puts more money in the pockets of americans. what is the difference>? the class that benefits: the lower class.

Well of course the tax cuts benefit the Rich and Middle class. THEY PAY MOST OF THE TAXES. The lower class don't pay any or very little compared to what the middle class and Rich pay. So if you are not paying taxes why should you get money back?

Putting more money in people's pockets by raising the minimum wage might be good in that it might help people move from the lower class to closer to the middle class therefore also being able to enjoy the benfits of a tax cut then it would be good as well.

Most states and jobs already pay above the minimum wage. I don't think that it should be raised. For one thing that is ONLY the minimum. You can go to your local grocery store and a bagger and or cashier get about 7 dollars an hour. If you raise the minimum then why companies to pay people just starting out more than the minimum. The way it is now companies can pay employees what they want but can't go below that National or state level.

Why not just make the minimum wage 10 dollars an hour or even 15?

[OAW]

This whole minimum wage issue that pops up every few years is just plain silly. It's just political posturing on both sides. Why doesn't the Congress set up a bi-partisan commission to determine what the minimum wage should be given the current economic realities, and then just set it up to automatically adjust every few years based upon the rate of inflation? That way they can move on to more substantive issues. But I suppose that would be too much like right.

OAW

[typoon]

Originally posted by OAW:
This whole minimum wage issue that pops up every few years is just plain silly. It's just political posturing on both sides. Why doesn't the Congress set up a bi-partisan commission to determine what the minimum wage should be given the current economic realities, and then just set it up to automatically adjust every few years based upon the rate of inflation? That way they can move on to more substantive issues. But I suppose that would be too much like right.

OAW

While that sounds like a good idea as the rate of inflation goes up then what would stop it from ballooning to 10-20 dollars an hour or more?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by OAW:
This whole minimum wage issue that pops up every few years is just plain silly. It's just political posturing on both sides. Why doesn't the Congress set up a bi-partisan commission to determine what the minimum wage should be given the current economic realities, and then just set it up to automatically adjust every few years based upon the rate of inflation? That way they can move on to more substantive issues. But I suppose that would be too much like right.

OAW

Because what's good for congress (pay indexed to cost of living) isn't good for everyone else. </sarcasm>



BG

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Ironic. Republicans support Bush's tax rebate because they argue the one-time sum will stimulate economic growth by putting more money in the pockets of americans. Of course, Bush tax breaks benefit upper and middle class taxpayers the most, so its a GOOD IDEA™.
Kerry suggests an across the board increase in the minimum wage (which, by the way is way overdue historically)...but now its a BAD IDEA™ because it puts more money in the pockets of americans. what is the difference>? the class that benefits: the lower class.

In your first example, workers were keeping more of the money they already earned.

In your second example, workers were getting more money out of thin air.

Unfortunately, artificially raising the amount of money people have will do nothing but cause price increases. You'll be back to square one if the minimum wage is $10/hr while Walmart's prices (and everyone else's) have risen 30%.

Your premise is absolute rubbish, Lerk.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yeah, like the record high budget deficit won't do that already.

I know! Lets cut military and intelligence spending! That will balance the budget!

I am sure we wont have any bad effects from it.

At all.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Ironic. Republicans support Bush's tax rebate because they argue the one-time sum will stimulate economic growth by putting more money in the pockets of americans. Of course, Bush tax breaks benefit upper and middle class taxpayers the most, so its a GOOD IDEA™.
Kerry suggests an across the board increase in the minimum wage (which, by the way is way overdue historically)...but now its a BAD IDEA™ because it puts more money in the pockets of americans. what is the difference>? the class that benefits: the lower class.

Raising wages increases the chances of prices increasing on commodities where the profit margin is slim. Restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, etc.

Lowering taxes doesn't result in the risk of increased prices.

Raising wages when the raise isn't based on merit or a decline in available labor is ********.

[Lerkfish]

removed by request

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by OAW:
This whole minimum wage issue that pops up every few years is just plain silly. It's just political posturing on both sides. Why doesn't the Congress set up a bi-partisan commission to determine what the minimum wage should be given the current economic realities, and then just set it up to automatically adjust every few years based upon the rate of inflation? That way they can move on to more substantive issues. But I suppose that would be too much like right.

OAW

Because that wouldn't work any more than debating it and raising it every many years works now. If we were going to establish some kind of integrated mw adjustment systme it would probably have to update every week or so, and thats just opening up another whole can a worms, that could have devastating effects. Ultimatly the only way I see to get rid of the mw debate is to have a system that figures out how much every company is making profit, then have the goverment determine the employees pay based on a percentage of that. But that would be in the direction of communism.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
Because that wouldn't work any more than debating it and raising it every many years works now. If we were going to establish some kind of integrated mw adjustment systme it would probably have to update every week or so, and thats just opening up another whole can a worms, that could have devastating effects. Ultimatly the only way I see to get rid of the mw debate is to have a system that figures out how much every company is making profit, then have the goverment determine the employees pay based on a percentage of that. But that would be in the direction of communism.

That, or have a limit as to how disproportionate the compensation can get. Say, the net compensation of any employee cannot exceed 10x the value of the lowest compensated employee in that company. This leaves out dividends from stocks and whatnot, but not stock options.

Just and idea.

BlackGriffen

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Ironic. Republicans support Bush's tax rebate because they argue the one-time sum will stimulate economic growth by putting more money in the pockets of americans. Of course, Bush tax breaks benefit upper and middle class taxpayers the most, so its a GOOD IDEA™.
Kerry suggests an across the board increase in the minimum wage (which, by the way is way overdue historically)...but now its a BAD IDEA™ because it puts more money in the pockets of americans. what is the difference>? the class that benefits: the lower class.

I don't support the mw increase but I also didn't support Bush's tax rebate. The money should of been saved for a rainy day....such as a war maybe. I just don't see how its so hard to get a good paying job even with little experience, even working fast food someone can get up to 7 dollars an hour, and if not then they need to move out of that town.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually, its an observation on the hypocrisy of the republicans

Which failed miserably as Spliff pointed out.

[Lerkfish]

removed by request

[itai195]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
I don't support the mw increase but I also didn't support Bush's tax rebate. The money should of been saved for a rainy day....such as a war maybe. I just don't see how its so hard to get a good paying job even with little experience, even working fast food someone can get up to 7 dollars an hour, and if not then they need to move out of that town.

Regardless, we need people to actually take those jobs. One of the problems in areas with high costs of living is that there isn't enough labor available for low wage work. While I agree that a national minimum wage probably isn't effective, local governments need to do a better job of setting a legitimate minimum standard and adjusting it for inflation. The mw here in Santa Clara County, for example, is still $6.75. NOBODY can survive here on $6.75 an hour, sorry. Perhaps the federal government's role can be to at least issue guidelines so that cities/counties/states can't continue to ignore the problem.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
no, actually he took a different part of the comparison and argued against that, instead of my point in making the comparison:
That republicans think its a good idea when middle to upper class gets money, but don't think its a good idea when the lower class gets money. His comment merely illustrated my point, as he argued the money to the lower class was a bad idea, while the money to the upper class was a good idea.

Actually, the argument used for the tax rebates was that making the money available meant it would be readily spent and enter the economy as consumer demand pull to increase production. Instead, by returning to middle and upper class, it mainly got reinvested in savings or higher ticket items.
If the same money had been given to lower class, ALL of the money would have been spent, and would have more effectively created a demand-pull economy difference (though I would still argue in the end it wouldn't matter either way)

the hypocrisy is that republican arguments justify it were not because of who deserved it, but that doing so would stimulate the economy. Now that there is another suggestion, because it benefits the lower clase, its viewed on basis of whether its deserved.

How can you give money back to people who don't pay any taxes? What's with all the free handouts? Your arguement is like saying that the top salesman in your shop shouldn't get a higher commission because he sells more but that you should get a commission too because even though you didn't sell anything you work in the same company you should get a commission too.

[Lerkfish]

removed by request

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually, its an observation on the hypocrisy of the republicans...not a premise.

How is is hypocrisy?

Lowering taxes gives money back to those who rightfully earned it in the first place.

Raising the MW simply is a free handout to those who probably don't deserve it. It's a tax increase without calling it a tax increase.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by itai195:
Regardless, we need people to actually take those jobs. One of the problems in areas with high costs of living is that there isn't enough labor available for low wage work. While I agree that a national minimum wage probably isn't effective, local governments need to do a better job of setting a legitimate minimum standard and adjusting it for inflation. The mw here in Santa Clara County, for example, is still $6.75. NOBODY can survive here on $6.75 an hour, sorry. Perhaps the federal government's role can be to at least issue guidelines so that cities/counties/states can't continue to ignore the problem.

Maybe it would be better to try to get the cost of living to go down instead of pushing wages artificially higher.