Minimum Wage increase

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
A little bit of quick math reveals that spidey's $70K figure is entirely bogus...

At $17/hr, slightly higher than median wage, base pay is only $35,360/yr- it'd take over 26 hours per week, every week, of time and a half for that worker to make $70K...

At $20/hr, base pay is $41,600, so making $70K would require over 18 hrs of time and a half per week, every week, for every worker to get it...

The sad truth is that most manufacturing workers only wish they were getting $20/hr- BLS statistics for 2005 indicate that median manufacturing wages for union employees, the most highly paid, averaged only $750/wk, $39K/yr, which includes all the overtime they could stand....

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t04.htm

So? Work overtime. Work dammit!

All the "overtime they can stand"? Work. Wanna make money? Then freakin' get to work!

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Vic
How much the rich might have received in a tax cut has nothing to do with what they actually pay, nor anything at all to do with a small increase in the minimum wage. Taxes aren't charity, the rich have still gotten richer despite almost 100 years of progressive income taxation. Why? Because being rich is about assets as well as income. Thanks for trolling though, marin...

I was responding to a poster that said "Name one bill that was a tax cut for the wealthy. Name one. I dare you. The rich pay so much in tax it will make your head spin."
So I pointed out a tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthy.
You're the one who is saying the minimum wage increase is " one of those feel-good-while-doing-nothing kind of agendas". To the people making the minuimum wage-yes this is a feel good measure, they are going to feel good when they get a larger pay check.

quote: "I am so happy, however, that Jhhnn and Craig234 have decided to baselessly insult everyone here who dares to question the actual value of their little feel-good agenda. Heaven forbid they actually get off their lazy asses and do something truly helpful for the poor, they'll just demand that others give them a pathetic little bump in the minimum wage and then wash their hands of it. Oh... but don't tell them that's all they're doing, their massive senses of self-denial will explode into rabid insulting pompousity"

I suppose another tax cut and more welfare "reform" would help the less fortunate in your libertarian fantasyland.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Vic-

"So why aren't you being true to your claimed agenda and demanding an increase in the minimum wage to $20/hr.?"

That's all you've got? Trollery?

From Spidey-

"So? Work overtime. Work dammit!

All the "overtime they can stand"? Work. Wanna make money? Then freakin' get to work!"

A truly pathetic dodge- outright denial of the most complete kind... I doubt that any offered overtime wasn't worked by somebody...

 

[xenolith]

The real reason why the Dems want to raise the federal minimum wage is because all sorts of union contracts in both the public and private sectors use the minimum wage as a baseline for setting wages for their members. So if an union contract says that the lowest wage a member can get is twice or three times the minimum wage, then a $2 or 3-dollar increase in that wage translates into $4 or 6-dollar increase for the union member. This, in turn, will result in an increase in collectible dues for the union and their PACs, which in turn, will result in increased campaign contributions to the Dems.

And there you have it, the Democratic Circle of Life.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Vic-

"So why aren't you being true to your claimed agenda and demanding an increase in the minimum wage to $20/hr.?"

That's all you've got? Trollery?

Hardly a troll. You refused to answer my questions from my earlier posts.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Vic
How much the rich might have received in a tax cut has nothing to do with what they actually pay, nor anything at all to do with a small increase in the minimum wage. Taxes aren't charity, the rich have still gotten richer despite almost 100 years of progressive income taxation. Why? Because being rich is about assets as well as income. Thanks for trolling though, marin...

I was responding to a poster that said "Name one bill that was a tax cut for the wealthy. Name one. I dare you. The rich pay so much in tax it will make your head spin."
So I pointed out a tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthy.
You're the one who is saying the minimum wage increase is " one of those feel-good-while-doing-nothing kind of agendas". To the people making the minuimum wage-yes this is a feel good measure, they are going to feel good when they get a larger pay check.

quote: "I am so happy, however, that Jhhnn and Craig234 have decided to baselessly insult everyone here who dares to question the actual value of their little feel-good agenda. Heaven forbid they actually get off their lazy asses and do something truly helpful for the poor, they'll just demand that others give them a pathetic little bump in the minimum wage and then wash their hands of it. Oh... but don't tell them that's all they're doing, their massive senses of self-denial will explode into rabid insulting pompousity"

I suppose another tax cut and more welfare "reform" would help the less fortunate in your libertarian fantasyland.

To the first part, no... you originally trolled that issue up and got spidey07 to take the bait. This threads are not verbal conversations, so don't act like they are. The posts are even time stamped.
Next, just as long as their paychecks are not as big as yours, right?
Finally, I like the "fantasyland" dodge. It reveals how pathetic you are. For one thing, I didn't bring up any support for such items, nor are they relevant to this discussion. For another, when you take into account the fact that I rubbed your nose into the reality that your little feel-good measures do little to nothing to actually help the poor, and you still refuse to even address that, it really shows just who is living in the fantasyland, now doesn't it?
You want to help people, then help them. This isn't it. Do you make $15,080/yr? Could you survive off that? In the meantime, I think we've had enough of the pompous false nobility here.

 

[Jhhnn]

"Hardly a troll. You refused to answer my questions from my earlier posts. "

The "question" in this post?

"Raising the minimum wage is one of those feel-good-while-doing-nothing kind of agendas. The existence of the minimum wage itself is a good thing, as it protects low-scale adult workers (who need what little they get to survive) from unfair competition with teenage workers (who are working more for the experience than for the income), and it protects all workers from hourly wage abuse (by enforcing regulation, oversight, and documentation of wages earned vs. hours worked).
Believing that the minimum wage should be a "living wage" or any similar such notion, however, is completely ridiculous, ignorant, and even counter-productive to its actual intent. If that were actually true, then this meager raise is a slap in the face to those who actually do struggle to get by on low wages. Why do you not call for an increase to $20/hour?? ($20/hr., or $40k per year, is the current average hourly wage for American workers).

I am so happy, however, that Jhhnn and Craig234 have decided to baselessly insult everyone here who dares to question the actual value of their little feel-good agenda. Heaven forbid they actually get off their lazy asses and do something truly helpful for the poor, they'll just demand that others give them a pathetic little bump in the minimum wage and then wash their hands of it. Oh... but don't tell them that's all they're doing, their massive senses of self-denial will explode into rabid insulting pompousity."

It's the only question you've asked addressed to me, and it, too, was simply a troll, rolled into a series of presumptuous false attributions. I haven't used the term "living wage" in this discussion. The accusations from other posters previous to your one, above, as to the effect of this increase on the price of anything were false scaremongering and spidey's wage claims about $70-80K for median factory workers and the "racist" nature of minimum wage are pure fantasy. You know these things to be the truth, and yet still find it necessary to engage in some personal attack agenda.

But let's look at the "question", anyway-

"Why do you not call for an increase to $20/hour?? "

Because that's completely unrealistic, which you knew to be true before you trolled it out... Getting it up to $7.25 has been an uphill fight, what with the scaremongering on one side and the easy dismissals, like your own, on the other... It's better than nothing, which is all you've offered.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"Hardly a troll. You refused to answer my questions from my earlier posts. "

The "question" in this post?

"Raising the minimum wage is one of those feel-good-while-doing-nothing kind of agendas. The existence of the minimum wage itself is a good thing, as it protects low-scale adult workers (who need what little they get to survive) from unfair competition with teenage workers (who are working more for the experience than for the income), and it protects all workers from hourly wage abuse (by enforcing regulation, oversight, and documentation of wages earned vs. hours worked).
Believing that the minimum wage should be a "living wage" or any similar such notion, however, is completely ridiculous, ignorant, and even counter-productive to its actual intent. If that were actually true, then this meager raise is a slap in the face to those who actually do struggle to get by on low wages. Why do you not call for an increase to $20/hour?? ($20/hr., or $40k per year, is the current average hourly wage for American workers).

I am so happy, however, that Jhhnn and Craig234 have decided to baselessly insult everyone here who dares to question the actual value of their little feel-good agenda. Heaven forbid they actually get off their lazy asses and do something truly helpful for the poor, they'll just demand that others give them a pathetic little bump in the minimum wage and then wash their hands of it. Oh... but don't tell them that's all they're doing, their massive senses of self-denial will explode into rabid insulting pompousity."

It's the only question you've asked addressed to me, and it, too, was simply a troll, rolled into a series of presumptuous false attributions. I haven't used the term "living wage" in this discussion. The accusations from other posters previous to your one, above, as to the effect of this increase on the price of anything were false scaremongering and spidey's wage claims about $70-80K for median factory workers and the "racist" nature of minimum wage are pure fantasy. You know these things to be the truth, and yet still find it necessary to engage in some personal attack agenda.

But let's look at the "question", anyway-

"Why do you not call for an increase to $20/hour?? "

Because that's completely unrealistic, which you knew to be true before you trolled it out... Getting it up to $7.25 has been an uphill fight, what with the scaremongering on one side and the easy dismissals, like your own, on the other... It's better than nothing, which is all you've offered.

Please learn to use the quote feature.

An "uphill fight" and "it's better than nothing." Ridiculous dodges. I have offered a lot better than that, but apparently any actual personal effort on your part is far too much to ask for. Better we just pass some legislation and slap ourselves on the back.
And I would have you read the thread again. You and Craig began the "personal attack agenda" long before I entered the thread. For the millionth time, this is not a verbal conversation. The thread is documented and the individual posts time-stamped. You fool no one but yourself there.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

seeing that the government does so little very well it is amazing how many people think they should be able to dictate wage policy.

working at minimum wage is an encouragement to get a better job.


for those saying that many min wage earners cannot get a better job, well if thats true then why force people to pay for such incompetence?

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
This will not help the poor very much. Only 18% of those affected by this increase are in households at or below the poverty. The minimum wage increase would increase workers' wages whose hourly income is between $5.15 and $7.25 by $11 billion. A CBO study found that only $1.6 billion (15%) would go towards households at or below the poverty level.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The EITC is much more effective in helping people get out of poverty because that is exactly what it targets. Here is a couple scenarios the CBO looked at:

[.

EITC is a crime.

They had an article in the paper where they talked to many people who QUIT working so they won't lose their EITC... even though they would make more money if they kept working.

EITC is taking money from my pocket and giving it to someone else who got themselves into a lifestyle they cannot afford. Sorry, the cell phone, cable bill, and other luxury items should be required to be turned off if you need such assistance.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Craig234

But you think that 5% more on the investments will make them invest when they woudn't have.

You have a $1 million pile of money you choose the best stocks you can for. Then you say that you will instead keep it in a box under the bed unless you get 5% more tax cut?

I don't think so. You invest it either way, because either way that's how you get the most for it.

.

Yes it does Craig, and your right, you don't think.

My parents took the capital gains tax cuts to move money around more efficiently, some went into a REIT (to build a local shopping area) and others new investments. Before the Bush capital gains tax cuts they just left in the market and bonds, helping very few except themselves.

Now the REIT is paying back and they are looking at getting into another before Congress takes away the tax breaks because it only helps the "evil rich"

Got to love a mentality where being achievers is frowned on.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
This will not help the poor very much. Only 18% of those affected by this increase are in households at or below the poverty. The minimum wage increase would increase workers' wages whose hourly income is between $5.15 and $7.25 by $11 billion. A CBO study found that only $1.6 billion (15%) would go towards households at or below the poverty level.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The EITC is much more effective in helping people get out of poverty because that is exactly what it targets. Here is a couple scenarios the CBO looked at:

[.

EITC is a crime.

They had an article in the paper where they talked to many people who QUIT working so they won't lose their EITC... even though they would make more money if they kept working.

EITC is taking money from my pocket and giving it to someone else who got themselves into a lifestyle they cannot afford. Sorry, the cell phone, cable bill, and other luxury items should be required to be turned off if you need such assistance.

It's clear from your post that you don't know exactly how the EITC works. The EITC is not some fixed amount that people qualify for if they don't make enough money. The EITC is a graduated scale so that if you make $1 more, the benefits don't decrease by more than a dollar. While it may make their marginal tax rate higher, it's only slightly higher than it would be. Sure, there are flaws in the program but for raising the incomes of the poorest quintiles, it's the best program for the job. Those people that did that (I would like to see that article, btw) are bloody idiots. The EITC has actually been shown to increase labor participation.

Like it or not, the EITC is a hell of a lot better of an option than a minimum wage hike. Plus you have the added bonus of having the people who voted for it be the ones paying for it. That's in contrast with a minimum wage raise which is the voters shifting the costs onto businesses.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

If the minimum wage increase is such a good idea then why is a company based in Pelosi's district essentially immune to it?


http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070112-120720-2734r.htm

 

[Jhhnn]

An "uphill fight" and "it's better than nothing." Ridiculous dodges. I have offered a lot better than that, but apparently any actual personal effort on your part is far too much to ask for. Better we just pass some legislation and slap ourselves on the back.

You've offered better than that? When? Certainly not in this thread.

I returned spidey's personal attack-

No. Actually raising minimum wage is about the most racist thing we can do. If you support minimum wage then you are a racist.

He called me a racist, and anybody who supports minimum wage a racist, and I replied that I figured he was pretty much whacked out in saying that- Are you agreeing with him?

He also offered that median wage factory workers made $70-80K- are you agreeing with that?

Your opening post was a personal attack, and you've not offered anything constructive since, just trolling rhetorical questions, then vilifying the reply...

As for the quote feature, I find it a little awkward, but I'll grant that it may be easier to follow things in that format, so I'm employing it at the moment for your benefit...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
He called me a racist, and anybody who supports minimum wage a racist, and I replied that I figured he was pretty much whacked out in saying that- Are you agreeing with him?

He also offered that median wage factory workers made $70-80K- are you agreeing with that?

Your opening post was a personal attack, and you've not offered anything constructive since, just trolling rhetorical questions, then vilifying the reply...

As for the quote feature, I find it a little awkward, but I'll grant that it may be easier to follow things in that format, so I'm employing it at the moment for your benefit...

I'm sorry if you just don't get it. Get a job and work. If you don't like it get a better job and work harder.

I am surrounded by manufacturing employees making 80k+ per year, in a non-uniton shop. There is absolutely NOTHING preventing anyone from succeeding. Heck my neighbor works on the line and his house is probably 350K. He's not hurting.

You are racist if you support a minumum wage hike for the reasons I have already listed. It discriminates against minorities.

 

[wetcat007]

Many state minimum wages are already a decent amount higher than federal, it won't effect a very large amount of people.

 

[EXman]

This is a BS Dems helping the little guy out joke.

The wage is for Big Labor that has always supported the Dems. Their pay will all go up.

For me it means the 14 and 15 year olds that work for me will have more nintendo money and the special needs girl that no one else would even hire makes more. Means I tighten up my labor by no more raises for quite some time, cutting hours, not hiring any more 14-15yo's ever they are not going to be worth the wage, and just having less people on the clock to help my customers. Oh I forgot you the public will have to pay more for your food. Great Idea...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

I have offered a lot better than that, but apparently any actual personal effort on your part is far too much to ask for. Better we just pass some legislation and slap ourselves on the back.

You've offered better than that? When? Certainly not in this thread.

See bolded.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's your assertion, Vic, and your obligation to back it up with something other than ongoing insults. You've offered nothing in this thread, nor do I see it as my obligation to search out the seemingly obscure basis for your claim. I have better things to do than research your posting history, even if that's nothing at all...

 

[BlancoNino]

Minimum wage increases are peanuts to the recipients, but for a payroll full of minimum wage workers, it's enough to take a giant hit to a small business owner.

Minimum wage laws do little to nothing to help out the work force. Nobody will work somewhere that pays so little they can't even live there. I would like to see one city that has a high cost of living where the average wage isn't adjusted by the market accordingly.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

JD50 said:

It does not dignify the whole idea of work having rewards, you are giving people a raise for doing absolutely nothing. It just reafirms the sense of entitlement many people in this country have. Working hard and then getting a raise because you worked hard is what dignifies the idea of work having rewards.

Are you claiming it's a basic principle of capital that labor compensation is a function of "working hard?"

Aside from history and basic economic theory, most Americans learn quickly this puritan tripe is the propagana of capital, so they go to college and/or graduate school so they can: Work less for fewer years with less strain on their bodies and get paid more.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

WRT the minimum wage issue. Clearly if nothing is done, the labor costs of the business with sub-new minimum wage employees increases. So the business has three choices

1. have lower profits (if greater sales do not result). However sales for at least some businesses will increase thus possibly negating this result

2. raise prices to compensate for the increased costs. In the Florida for example, the average costs to affected business was estimated to be about 0.05% of sale (ie 1 cent on a $20 purchase)

3. let go of workers to balance the possible shortfall. Many of the theoretical treatises assume a priori that all jobs paying less than the new minimum wage will be terminated, because if these jobs were worth more to the business than the new minimum wage, they would already be paying that much. This then assumes that a business having all minimum wage workers would go out of business rather than raise prices or wait and see if greater volume results, which to me means the assumption is pretty poor.

It seems to me the prudent business man would wait and see the effect on his business with the possibility of a small price increase thrown in. But then, have the "scholars" at places like the American Enterprise Institute ever been accuse of being rudent busninessmen?

Hard core libertarians are supposed to be adamantly against the miniumn wage. But for some it is something they really care little about.

Raise it, keep it the same, lower it. Whatever.

I always ask those that roll out the "Many people will lose jobs!" slogan; When has that EVER happened after a minimum wage increase.

So far he answer has been ...never.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Several posters have noted that we don?t have a free labor market. One additional reason our labor markets are not free actually has to do with the actions of the federal government. As a matter of explicit policy, the Federal Reserve board sets interest rates based on employment levels (among many other factors, of course).

When employment levels drop too low, the Fed will increase the Federal Reserve Rate with the explicit intent of raising unemployment. This is done to keep inflation low, since a tight enough labor market becomes inflationary as employers must pay more for labor as they bid for hard to find labor. I personally think this is a reasonable thing to do, as it provides a benefit to everyone.

However, it has the unfortunate effect of depressing low end wages, and the minimum wage helps compensate for this. It is therefore perverse to argue that we should eliminate the minimum wage in the name of reducing the effect of government on the free market when the government itself takes actions with the conscious intent of lowering wages

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Several posters have noted that we don?t have a free labor market. One additional reason our labor markets are not free actually has to do with the actions of the federal government. As a matter of explicit policy, the Federal Reserve board sets interest rates based on employment levels (among many other factors, of course).

When employment levels drop too low, the Fed will increase the Federal Reserve Rate with the explicit intent of raising unemployment. This is done to keep inflation low, since a tight enough labor market becomes inflationary as employers must pay more for labor as they bid for hard to find labor. I personally think this is a reasonable thing to do, as it provides a benefit to everyone.

However, it has the unfortunate effect of depressing low end wages, and the minimum wage helps compensate for this. It is therefore perverse to argue that we should eliminate the minimum wage in the name of reducing the effect of government on the free market when the government itself takes actions with the conscious intent of lowering wages

That's not right at all. Their intent is to keep inflation under control. Nobody knows the exact numbers for what full employment is so it would be silly to try to target that. We did that in the 1970s and what we got was stagflation.

 

[her209]

Inflation causes prices of raw goods to go up which is reflected in the final price. So every year, employees who earn minimum wage will be able to buy less and less with the same amount of money.