This is so true, in fact there is a McDonalds right around the corner from CVSIN and I. There is an 80 year old woman who had to come out of retirement and she is working there now at the cash register. She makes the minimum wage. I love seeing her, she is a doll.. and is quite a character. But I am seeing more and more elderly people coming out of retirement because their retirement funds were slashed or cut back by government. Or illness struck or some tragic event and it forced them back into the work force. Because of their age and physical ability most are only able to perform menial tasks.
This is so true, in fact there is a McDonalds right around the corner from CVSIN and I. There is an 80 year old woman who had to come out of retirement and she is working there now at the cash register. She makes the minimum wage. I love seeing her, she is a doll.. and is quite a character. But I am seeing more and more elderly people coming out of retirement because their retirement funds were slashed or cut back by government. Or illness struck or some tragic event and it forced them back into the work force. Because of their age and physical ability most are only able to perform menial tasks.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Then your hometown has a depressed economy. In my hometown, the minimum wage is $7.50, McD's and Wal-Mart pay $9.50, and telemarketers start off at $12. Hell, gas station attendants (yes, I'm talking about Oregon) make at least $10.
Here's an idea. Because your hometown is the place with the employment problem, why don't you propose a local law regulating the minimum wage and leave the federal alone? I'm willing to bet that your hometown, with its lower wages, probably has a lower cost of living than mine. Hmmm.... wow... marketplaces... amazing!!
Oh we don't want that! Why do the poor need an increase anyway? After all, all the offshoring of American jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy, and increased energy costs have made goods Cheaper than Ever! (tm). The working poor making $5.15/hr only needs to work three jobs, shop at Wal-mart, and look for the "MADE IN CHINA" logo. Its Cheaper! (tm). Oh, and vote Republican!
I am willing to bet they are coming out of retirement because they are bored with sitting around the house waiting to die. 2 of my grandparents worked at McDonalds or odd jobs well into their 80s because they found retirement to be boring and wanted to get out of the house, not because they were strapped for cash.
Oh I ASSumed you knew we were talking about "income" tax cuts for those evil tax paying rich, silly Dullard.
Bottom 50% of this country accounts for 6% of federal tax recipts. In essence they pay no federal income tax and when tax cuts are imposed and rebate checks sent, the people paying the taxes will see the biggest rebate checks or reduction in taxes.
Majority of retail around here is 6.00-6.25/hour at most (many are even below that). Even seniority doesn't get you much more.
As Congress considers raising the federal minimum wage from its current level of $5.15 per hour to $6.15, it is important to understand who will benefit from this increase. An analysis of low-wage workers shows that the main beneficiaries of this one-dollar increase would be working women, almost one million of whom are single mothers. In fact, of the 11.8 million workers who would receive a pay increase as the result of this higher minimum wage, 58% would be women, simply because, as a group, they earn lower wages than men. As a result, a minimum wage increase would help to reduce the overall pay gap between women and men.
Since the minimum wage is not indexed to inflation, when Congress fails to raise the minimum wage, these workers' purchasing power declines, as was the case over the 1980s. Even with the two increases thus far in the 1990s, the minimum wage remains 19% below its inflation-adjusted 1979 level. This decline in the minimum wage helps to explain the growth of wage inequality and the diminished earnings of low-wage female workers over the last two decades.
In 1979, a woman working at the minimum wage earned 70% of the hourly wage of the median female worker (the woman right in the middle of the female wage scale). By 1998, that ratio had fallen to 52%. Similarly, in 1979 a single mother working full time at the minimum wage earned enough to lift a family of three (herself and two children) above the poverty line. By 1998, however, the same family would be 18% below the poverty line. [1]
Table 1 shows the number and the share of working women in 1998 - nationally and in each state - that would benefit from the proposed increase. About 7 million women nationally - 12.6% of all working women - earn between $5.15 and $6.14, the wage range that would be directly affected by an increase in the federal minimum wage. [2] In lower-wage states, the share of women that would benefit from the proposed increase is typically higher than the national average. For example, one-fifth or more of working women would receive a raise after a one-dollar increase in the federal minimum in the following states: West Virginia (22.5%), Arkansas (21.9%), Mississippi (21.1%), Montana (20.8%), Louisiana (20.2%), and Oklahoma (20.0%). The states with the largest numbers of working women who would benefit from the increase are: Texas (669,000), California (572,000), Florida (414,000), New York (372,000), Ohio (345,000), and Pennsylvania (338,000).
Table 2 helps provide a clearer picture of the low-wage women who would benefit from the proposed increase (see column 1). The vast majority (75.3%) of these women are adults (age 20 or older). Although most low-wage women workers are white (65.4%), African American and Hispanic women are overrepresented in low-wage jobs. African American women are 13.1% of all women workers (see the last column of Table 2), but 16.2% of those in the range affected by the minimum wage increase; Hispanic women are 9.0% of all women workers, but 14.4% of low-wage women. Close to half (44.9%) of the female workers in the affected range work full time (35 or more hours a week), and another 35.0% work between 20 and 34 hours per week.
The next few rows of Table 2 show the industries and occupations where low-wage women tend to find work. An analysis by industry shows that most low-wage females are concentrated in retail trade, which employs 44.0% of those in the affected range. In contrast, a much smaller share of low-wage women work in the higher-paying manufacturing sector (8.4%). An analysis by occupation reveals that 28.3% of low-wage women are sales workers, with 16.4% working as cashiers. One-third of these women (32.5%) work in service occupations such as food preparation (16.1%). Finally, just under 4% of low-wage women are covered by collective bargaining through a union, in contrast to 16.2% of women earning $7.15 or more per hour.
Table 3 examines the parental and minimum wage status of workers age 18-64. Parents with children under 18 years old represent 32.9% of the beneficiaries of the proposed increase, while such workers represent 40.4% of the total workforce. More than two million married men and women with children would benefit from the proposed increase (and within these families, women are disproportionately the direct beneficiaries). Almost one million (967,000) single mothers would receive a pay increase as a result of a one-dollar rise in the minimum wage. Note that single mothers are over-represented in the affected workforce - they represent 10% of those affected by the increase but are only 5.7% of the overall workforce.
All of the evidence suggests that the minimum wage increase is well targeted, providing significant benefits to poor and middle-income households. Table 4 shows that about 18% of the benefits of a one-dollar increase would go to households with incomes below $10,000 per year; another 32% of the benefits would go to households with annual incomes between $10,000 and $25,000. In total, households making less than $25,000 a year would receive half of the benefits of a one-dollar increase. Among the affected single mothers shown in Table 3, 85% have household incomes below $25,000, underscoring the importance of the policy for these low-wage and low-income families.
Conclusion
Those who oppose raising the minimum wage typically argue that the increase will force employers to fire, or hire fewer of, those workers affected by the increase. The evidence, however, fails to support this claim. [3] Since the last increase, in late 1996 and 1997, employment rates of low-wage workers, and particularly single mothers, have increased dramatically, as the strong economy has bolstered demand in the low-wage labor market. In this regard, one of the main policy lessons from the current recovery is that the macroeconomy is the key determinant of employment opportunity for low-wage workers, most of whom are women. But, as the above evidence shows, the wage that these women receive is very much a function of where the minimum wage is set by Congress. Disregarding this reality can only serve to swell the ranks of the working poor. Raising the minimum wage will help to raise the incomes of many low-income families, especially those headed by single mothers.
by Jared Bernstein, Heidi Hartmann, and John Schmitt
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib133
Since the minimum wage is not indexed to inflation, when Congress fails to raise the minimum wage, these workers' purchasing power declines, as was the case over the 1980s. Even with the two increases thus far in the 1990s, the minimum wage remains 19% below its inflation-adjusted 1979 level. This decline in the minimum wage helps to explain the growth of wage inequality and the diminished earnings of low-wage female workers over the last two decades.
In 1979, a woman working at the minimum wage earned 70% of the hourly wage of the median female worker (the woman right in the middle of the female wage scale). By 1998, that ratio had fallen to 52%. Similarly, in 1979 a single mother working full time at the minimum wage earned enough to lift a family of three (herself and two children) above the poverty line. By 1998, however, the same family would be 18% below the poverty line. [1]
Table 1 shows the number and the share of working women in 1998 - nationally and in each state - that would benefit from the proposed increase. About 7 million women nationally - 12.6% of all working women - earn between $5.15 and $6.14, the wage range that would be directly affected by an increase in the federal minimum wage. [2] In lower-wage states, the share of women that would benefit from the proposed increase is typically higher than the national average. For example, one-fifth or more of working women would receive a raise after a one-dollar increase in the federal minimum in the following states: West Virginia (22.5%), Arkansas (21.9%), Mississippi (21.1%), Montana (20.8%), Louisiana (20.2%), and Oklahoma (20.0%). The states with the largest numbers of working women who would benefit from the increase are: Texas (669,000), California (572,000), Florida (414,000), New York (372,000), Ohio (345,000), and Pennsylvania (338,000).
Table 2 helps provide a clearer picture of the low-wage women who would benefit from the proposed increase (see column 1). The vast majority (75.3%) of these women are adults (age 20 or older). Although most low-wage women workers are white (65.4%), African American and Hispanic women are overrepresented in low-wage jobs. African American women are 13.1% of all women workers (see the last column of Table 2), but 16.2% of those in the range affected by the minimum wage increase; Hispanic women are 9.0% of all women workers, but 14.4% of low-wage women. Close to half (44.9%) of the female workers in the affected range work full time (35 or more hours a week), and another 35.0% work between 20 and 34 hours per week.
The next few rows of Table 2 show the industries and occupations where low-wage women tend to find work. An analysis by industry shows that most low-wage females are concentrated in retail trade, which employs 44.0% of those in the affected range. In contrast, a much smaller share of low-wage women work in the higher-paying manufacturing sector (8.4%). An analysis by occupation reveals that 28.3% of low-wage women are sales workers, with 16.4% working as cashiers. One-third of these women (32.5%) work in service occupations such as food preparation (16.1%). Finally, just under 4% of low-wage women are covered by collective bargaining through a union, in contrast to 16.2% of women earning $7.15 or more per hour.
Table 3 examines the parental and minimum wage status of workers age 18-64. Parents with children under 18 years old represent 32.9% of the beneficiaries of the proposed increase, while such workers represent 40.4% of the total workforce. More than two million married men and women with children would benefit from the proposed increase (and within these families, women are disproportionately the direct beneficiaries). Almost one million (967,000) single mothers would receive a pay increase as a result of a one-dollar rise in the minimum wage. Note that single mothers are over-represented in the affected workforce - they represent 10% of those affected by the increase but are only 5.7% of the overall workforce.
All of the evidence suggests that the minimum wage increase is well targeted, providing significant benefits to poor and middle-income households. Table 4 shows that about 18% of the benefits of a one-dollar increase would go to households with incomes below $10,000 per year; another 32% of the benefits would go to households with annual incomes between $10,000 and $25,000. In total, households making less than $25,000 a year would receive half of the benefits of a one-dollar increase. Among the affected single mothers shown in Table 3, 85% have household incomes below $25,000, underscoring the importance of the policy for these low-wage and low-income families.
Conclusion
Those who oppose raising the minimum wage typically argue that the increase will force employers to fire, or hire fewer of, those workers affected by the increase. The evidence, however, fails to support this claim. [3] Since the last increase, in late 1996 and 1997, employment rates of low-wage workers, and particularly single mothers, have increased dramatically, as the strong economy has bolstered demand in the low-wage labor market. In this regard, one of the main policy lessons from the current recovery is that the macroeconomy is the key determinant of employment opportunity for low-wage workers, most of whom are women. But, as the above evidence shows, the wage that these women receive is very much a function of where the minimum wage is set by Congress. Disregarding this reality can only serve to swell the ranks of the working poor. Raising the minimum wage will help to raise the incomes of many low-income families, especially those headed by single mothers.
by Jared Bernstein, Heidi Hartmann, and John Schmitt
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib133
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,048
- 4,695
- 126
I know you hate to hear it, but an entirely free market doesn't work when it comes to employment. With a free market we had slavery, indebted servants, debtors prisons, child workers, etc. There is something society gains by eliminating the ability of free markets to create those conditions.
Minimum wage increases can spur inflation. That is true. But the inflation increase is minimized because minimum wage labor is often a minor cost in the final value of the goods. In fact, inflation rates after recent minimum wage incrases were lowered. Recent minimum wage increases and the following inflation rates (CPI):
[*]Sept 1997 raised the wage. 1996 inflation: 3.3%, 1997 inflation: 1.7%, 1998 inflation: 1.6%. Well below average inflation after the increase.
[*]Oct 1996 raised the wage. 1996 inflation: 3.3%. Inflation plummeted right afterwards.
[*]1990/1991 raised the wage. 1990 inflation: 6.1%, 1991 inflation 3.1%, 1992 inflation, 2.7%. Inflation fell year after year.
That is quite a retort of his theory on inflation. Maybe you should expand it a bit for all to enjoy?
Washington State has the highest state regulated minimum wage in the country at $7.63 an hour. Unemployment is at 5.3% down from 5.9% the previous year. Apparently, businesses are managing to survive in Washington with this oppressive minimum wage law.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
No. This is a straw man. Set up in advance for easy knocking down. What the minimum wage increase does do is spur inflation, promptly erasing the gain. "Ok, we'll pay you more money... but guess what? everything now costs more. You lose."
The long and the short of it is that the minimum wage is a feel-good issue for people who don't understand economics.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
This kind of gets back to that thread DVK617(?) started about nationalizing all laws. The national minimum wage should be just that... the minimum. Since economies in this country vary from state to state (and even inside states they vary from city to city) the minimum wage should be something left to individual communities to decide. And for the most part that is how it works. Minimum in Ak is $7.25/hr which is considerably higher than the federal MW. IIRC the MW in Santa Cruz, Ca is over $10/hr.
The federal MW is fine where it's at. In most comminities where the cost of living is a little higher there is already a premium on the federal MW. I believe this is an issue where a one-size-fits-all federal solution can never work. Like Vic said... the market place will detemine the minimum in a much cleaner fashion than the government ever could.
Ummm... When has the government ever slashed a retirement plan? Or any entitlement program for that matter? Most retired people go back to work because they are bored.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter