What happens when your state has the highest minimum wage in the country?

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Whooz wrote:

NOBODY WORKS FOR MINIMUM WAGE.

The facts:

An estimated 14.9 million workers (11% of the workforce) would benefit from an increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 by 2008. Of these workers, 6.6 million would be directly affected and 8.3 million would indirectly receive raises due to the spillover effect of a minimum wage increase. Of the total affected workers, 80% are adults and 59% are women. Over half (54%) work full time and another third (30%) work between 20 and 34 hours per week. More than one-quarter (26%) of the workers who would benefit from an increase to $7.25 are parents of children under age 18, including 1,395,000 single parents. The average minimum wage worker brings home over half (58%) of his or her family's weekly earnings.

Link

Your statistics are misleading. The most glaring statistic is the one that's missing; the number of people who work for minimum wage. All of your stats relate to how many people would see a raise, either directly or indirectly by raising the MW to $7.25. That's different.

What's more, I get the feeling that you think I'm against raising the MW. That's actually not the point I'm trying to raise. My point is that people just don't work for minimum wage. Maybe for the week they are in cashier training at Wal-Mart... but not more than that. With the employment rate in this country sitting at around 96% workers are at a premium. What's more, the vast majority of people who work near the MW aren't trying to raise a family. They are kids. Are there some adults? Sure. So whatt?

Raise it all you want. The people at the bottom of the wage pool will still be at the bottom. Goods and services will be more expensive to cover the added employee expense and you'll be right back to where you started... The only way to stop this is to make sure that everyone makes the same... or enough of them make exactly the same. But that sounds a little... hmmm... socialist to me.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Dave, I run a business. On occasion I have to hire employees. I can NOT hire ANYONE for the minimum wage. ($7.25) I can barely get a sniff for $9/hr and at that I'm scraping the bottom of the workforce barrel. McDonalds pays more than that. Home Depot and Wal-Mart start at $9.65 an hour with scheduled raises, tuition programs, medical and other bennies.

So, what do you do? Do you hire the bottom of the barrel employees or do you pay more than $9/hour? In your business is it better to pay more for a higher quality employee and do you find that paying is worthwhile and ultimately more profitable?

All I need is a guy who can hold up the other end of the TV and get to work on time. It's not rocket science. And I can't get anyone for less than $10. I had an interesting conversation with a guy in Hawaii last month. His wife owns a candle and lotion girly kind of store. He said that she can't keep anyone for less than $15/hr. Working a cash register in a candle shop isn't what I'd call skilled labor but if she wants an employee... that's what she has to pay.

Maybe it's just where I live... I dunno... But I couldn't find a MW job here if my life depended on it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Dave, I run a business. On occasion I have to hire employees. I can NOT hire ANYONE for the minimum wage. ($7.25) I can barely get a sniff for $9/hr and at that I'm scraping the bottom of the workforce barrel. McDonalds pays more than that. Home Depot and Wal-Mart start at $9.65 an hour with scheduled raises, tuition programs, medical and other bennies.

So, what do you do? Do you hire the bottom of the barrel employees or do you pay more than $9/hour? In your business is it better to pay more for a higher quality employee and do you find that paying is worthwhile and ultimately more profitable?

All I need is a guy who can hold up the other end of the TV and get to work on time. It's not rocket science. And I can't get anyone for less than $10. I had an interesting conversation with a guy in Hawaii last month. His wife owns a candle and lotion girly kind of store. He said that she can't keep anyone for less than $15/hr. Working a cash register in a candle shop isn't what I'd call skilled labor but if she wants an employee... that's what she has to pay.

Maybe it's just where I live... I dunno... But I couldn't find a MW job here if my life depended on it.

I spent 14 weeks in Hawaii, the job market is tight as hell. Lowest unemployment in the country at 2.5%.
EVERYWHERE you go there are help wanted signs. They are to the point where they might have to start flying people in from the mainland and provide them places to stay in order to get labor. (I came close to staying there, but it is insanely expesive to live there, and would have had no car, furniture etc etc)

Note: Disney does this in Orlando, they have 2 'apartment complexes' filled with college students who work cheaply for a semester, pay for the room right out of their pay check, and take some Disney management classes and I assume get college credit. This provides Disney with a stream of "fresh" and happy faces and gives the college kids a great change to experience some of the best hospitality management in the world and PARTY all the time.
(The one apartment area is called "Vista Way" but is also known as "Vista Lay" because of all the hook ups.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I spent 14 weeks in Hawaii, the job market is tight as hell. Lowest unemployment in the country at 2.5%.
EVERYWHERE you go there are help wanted signs. They are to the point where they might have to start flying people in from the mainland and provide them places to stay in order to get labor. (I came close to staying there, but it is insanely expesive to live there, and would have had no car, furniture etc etc)

Movin' to Maui in February.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: lyssword
BlancoNino, so do you work for minimum wage?..... Thats what I thought..

No, he manages minimum wage employees at a dinner that the owner says it's about to go under because paying the low wage scum is too high.

I feel sorry for those employees but they will be better off when that place closes up.

Why!? Because they won't have a job? Everyone is treated fairly where I work.

 

[BarneyFife]

Restaurant jobs are a dime a dozen. I don't think its that big of a deal if it closed down.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Check out the state unemployment rate. Link

National 4.6
Washington 5.3
Washinton ranked 40th in unemployment last year at 5.5%

Of the 10 states with the lowest umemployment last year, only 3 have minimum wages higher than the national wage.

Lower minimum wage may not always equal low umemployment, but it certainly does not hurt.

Where did you find the national wage? I didn't see it so I used the median wage, $5.15.

Of the states that are below the national unemployment rate, there are 27. Of the 27 states, there 8 states above the median. There are 3 states below the median. There are 13 states equal to the median. And finally, there are 3 states with no minimum wage.

Of the states that are equal to the national unemployment rate, there are 2. One at $5.15 and the other has no minimum wage.

Of the states that are above the national unemployment rate, there are 22. Of the 22 states, there 11 states above the median. There are 0 states below the median. There are 9 at the median. And there are 2 without minimum wage.

The states with no minimum wage rank 9th, 14th, 16th, 28th, 48th, and 51st.

What does this mean? I don't know.

I got the minimum wage rates from here: link

 

[Stunt]

As Whoozyerdaddy has pointed out, very few people actually work for minimum wage. Most of Craig234's numbers are based on the "spillover effect" where people assume wages are above minimum wage only a certain amount above the goverment set number. This is complete crap; that argument would endore the idea that if minimum wage was eliminated, people would work for nothing. Even if minimum wage was dropped by $1/hr I will garantee wages will not decline from their current levels.

Income is not set by the government but by the education of the citizens. Median wages have a much better correlation to education than minimum wage.

For example: the states with the top minimum wage (Washington, Oregon, Connecticut, Vermont and Rhode Island) rank 14, 31, 4, 19 and 17 respectively in median household income. Meanwhile the top median income comes from new hampshire with a $5.15 minimum wage.

For those who aren't familiar with basic stats; median = middle. It's not weighted towards the rich like mean is; much more accurate when comparing wealth.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Check out the state unemployment rate. Link

National 4.6
Washington 5.3
Washinton ranked 40th in unemployment last year at 5.5%

Of the 10 states with the lowest umemployment last year, only 3 have minimum wages higher than the national wage.

Lower minimum wage may not always equal low umemployment, but it certainly does not hurt.

Where did you find the national wage? I didn't see it so I used the median wage, $5.15.

Of the states that are below the national unemployment rate, there are 27. Of the 27 states, there 8 states above the median. There are 3 states below the median. There are 13 states equal to the median. And finally, there are 3 states with no minimum wage.

Of the states that are equal to the national unemployment rate, there are 2. One at $5.15 and the other has no minimum wage.

Of the states that are above the national unemployment rate, there are 22. Of the 22 states, there 11 states above the median. There are 0 states below the median. There are 9 at the median. And there are 2 without minimum wage.

The states with no minimum wage rank 9th, 14th, 16th, 28th, 48th, and 51st.

What does this mean? I don't know.

I got the minimum wage rates from here: link

I used the same link you did to determine which states have minimum wage laws higher than the government.

I think the best line of your post is this one "What does this mean? I don't know."

If I understand what you are saying correctly. There are 27 states below the national average for unemployment, of those 1 out of 3 has a minimum wager higher than the national law.

Of the 22 with unemployment above the national average 11 of them, nearly half, have minimum wage laws above the national average.

If that is true then there seems to be a clear correlation between minimum wage and unemployment.
There are 19 states with minimum wage laws above the national law, of those 11, over half, have unemployment above the national average.
There are 32 states with minimum wage laws at or below the national law, of those 11 (only 1 out of 3) have unemployment above the national average. (51 states includes DC)
Chance that your state has an unemployment level above the national average:
If you have a minimum wage law above the federal law 57%
If you have a minimum wage law at the federal law 34%

Raise your minimum wage above the federal law and risk that your state's unemployment level goes above the national average.

(This is based on her209's data, if that data is correct don't blame me if I have reached the wrong conclusions.)

 

[JD50]

Lets just raise minimum wage to $100 an hour for every state, then all of our problems will be solved. My wife will be happy, then she can stay at home with the kids, woohoo!

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Check out the state unemployment rate. Link

National 4.6
Washington 5.3
Washinton ranked 40th in unemployment last year at 5.5%

Of the 10 states with the lowest umemployment last year, only 3 have minimum wages higher than the national wage.

Lower minimum wage may not always equal low umemployment, but it certainly does not hurt.

Using the same statistics on that link...
Of the 10 states with the highest unemployment last year, only 3 has minimum wages higher than the national wage.

Higher minimum wage may not always equal high umemployment, but it certainly does not hurt.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Check out the state unemployment rate. Link

National 4.6
Washington 5.3
Washinton ranked 40th in unemployment last year at 5.5%

Of the 10 states with the lowest umemployment last year, only 3 have minimum wages higher than the national wage.

Lower minimum wage may not always equal low umemployment, but it certainly does not hurt.

Using the same statistics on that link...
Of the 10 states with the highest unemployment last year, only 3 has minimum wages higher than the national wage.

Higher minimum wage may not always equal high umemployment, but it certainly does not hurt.

Read my post showing that states with higher minimum wage laws have a much higher change of having above average unemployment, then get back with me

 

[wazzledoozle]

MW job opportunities are abundant in my area (Burien and Seattle), but mostly teens and part timers work for MW. Raising the minimum wage wouldnt hurt anyone, from my experience it would just lower the turnover rate because MW is moving closer to a standard wage. Of course the arm-chair senators of P&N seem to think otherwise, not even living in the state (luckily for us).

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: JD50
Lets just raise minimum wage to $100 an hour for every state, then all of our problems will be solved. My wife will be happy, then she can stay at home with the kids, woohoo!

Exactly! If higher = better...why not?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: JD50
Lets just raise minimum wage to $100 an hour for every state, then all of our problems will be solved. My wife will be happy, then she can stay at home with the kids, woohoo!

Exactly! If higher = better...why not?

Because higher = better only to a point, something liberals understand and right-wingers don't.

Hey, if lower taxes are better, let's cut them to 0.000001%!

Why do we even talk to right-wingers? We could bang our fingers with a hammer instead.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
INCREASE IT ANOTHER 30 CENTS!!!

http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/Wages/Minimum/default.asp

This is getting out of hand.

$7.93 cents an hour?

What about businesses that are barely breaking even?

Where will the extra money come from?

Only solution is to shut down the small locally owned retailers and let Wal-Mart take over.

More incentives to move jobs overseas!

Hiring/Firing process now becomes more difficult!

Less wage increases for the harder-working higher-up positions!

Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

If they are barely breaking even then they don't deserve to be in business and the state is doing them and the poor employees a favor having them shut down.

A business that barely breaks even, or even has no profits AT ALL (but isn't loosing money), still pays wages for it's employees and contributing to the economy. Business shut = Less workplaces = Shrinking economy. Simple.

It doesn't matter if the business makes thousands of dollars of profit for every employee or few cents, it still pays the wages.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: JD50
Lets just raise minimum wage to $100 an hour for every state, then all of our problems will be solved. My wife will be happy, then she can stay at home with the kids, woohoo!

Exactly! If higher = better...why not?

Because higher = better only to a point, something liberals understand and right-wingers don't.

Hey, if lower taxes are better, let's cut them to 0.000001%!

Why do we even talk to right-wingers? We could bang our fingers with a hammer instead.

Well you're not talking to a right-winger right now, so you can put the hammer away. You seem to FAIL to understand that a higher minimum wage leaves less room for people to move up and get better paying jobs. It creates lazier workers.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: JD50
Lets just raise minimum wage to $100 an hour for every state, then all of our problems will be solved. My wife will be happy, then she can stay at home with the kids, woohoo!

Exactly! If higher = better...why not?

Because higher = better only to a point, something liberals understand and right-wingers don't.

Hey, if lower taxes are better, let's cut them to 0.000001%!

Why do we even talk to right-wingers? We could bang our fingers with a hammer instead.

Well you're not talking to a right-winger right now, so you can put the hammer away. You seem to FAIL to understand that a higher minimum wage leaves less room for people to move up and get better paying jobs. It creates lazier workers.

What??? :shocked: You're as Right Wing as they come.

Those people you are talking about are Americans and they matter just as much as you do, in fact a whole lot more because they value going to work to begin with. You just complain about the "lazy" workers that won't amount to anything in your eyes.

You hate hard working American people so bad I offer you the same as I have offered about others, a one way ticket to any Country of your desire you like better to leave the U.S. permanently.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: JD50
Lets just raise minimum wage to $100 an hour for every state, then all of our problems will be solved. My wife will be happy, then she can stay at home with the kids, woohoo!

Exactly! If higher = better...why not?

Because higher = better only to a point, something liberals understand and right-wingers don't.

Hey, if lower taxes are better, let's cut them to 0.000001%!

Why do we even talk to right-wingers? We could bang our fingers with a hammer instead.

Well you're not talking to a right-winger right now, so you can put the hammer away. You seem to FAIL to understand that a higher minimum wage leaves less room for people to move up and get better paying jobs. It creates lazier workers.

What??? :shocked: You're as Right Wing as they come.

Those people you are talking about are Americans and they matter just as much as you do, in fact a whole lot more because they value going to work to begin with. You just complain about the "lazy" workers that won't amount to anything in your eyes.

You hate hard working American people so bad I offer you the same as I have offered about others, a one way ticket to any Country of your desire you like better to leave the U.S. permanently.

Blanco is a right winger, judging by his posts. He may not self identify as one, but he expresses their views, so I put him in their group.

I note he fails to answer the points I made, but offers some talking points of his own.

His points are merely the right's tired, false, attack points on the minimum wage, which he'd know were wrong if he based his views on facts, not ideology.

The last thing we need to worry about is the 'laziness' of low paid workers. They are generally very hard working, and it's not only unjust, low pay is bad for the economy.

The place to cut is by increasing the taxes on the very top so that while they are earning 500% increases while others are flat, that is evened back out a bit.

Picture a pie with two halves, one half each for the top 5% and the bottom 95%. That's how the wealth was 30 years ago. Now picture a pie with over three quartes in one slice and less than a quarter in the other. That's how the distribution of wealth has shifted since between the top 5% and bottom 95%. I think it's good to shift back.

 

[senseamp]

I think congressional pay should be linked to the federal minimum wage by a fixed multiplier. That will solve the problem.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: JD50
Lets just raise minimum wage to $100 an hour for every state, then all of our problems will be solved. My wife will be happy, then she can stay at home with the kids, woohoo!

Exactly! If higher = better...why not?

Because higher = better only to a point, something liberals understand and right-wingers don't.

Hey, if lower taxes are better, let's cut them to 0.000001%!

Why do we even talk to right-wingers? We could bang our fingers with a hammer instead.

Well you're not talking to a right-winger right now, so you can put the hammer away. You seem to FAIL to understand that a higher minimum wage leaves less room for people to move up and get better paying jobs. It creates lazier workers.

What??? :shocked: You're as Right Wing as they come.

Those people you are talking about are Americans and they matter just as much as you do, in fact a whole lot more because they value going to work to begin with. You just complain about the "lazy" workers that won't amount to anything in your eyes.

You hate hard working American people so bad I offer you the same as I have offered about others, a one way ticket to any Country of your desire you like better to leave the U.S. permanently.

Blanco is a right winger, judging by his posts. He may not self identify as one, but he expresses their views, so I put him in their group.

I note he fails to answer the points I made, but offers some talking points of his own.

His points are merely the right's tired, false, attack points on the minimum wage, which he'd know were wrong if he based his views on facts, not ideology.

The last thing we need to worry about is the 'laziness' of low paid workers. They are generally very hard working, and it's not only unjust, low pay is bad for the economy.

The place to cut is by increasing the taxes on the very top so that while they are earning 500% increases while others are flat, that is evened back out a bit.

Picture a pie with two halves, one half each for the top 5% and the bottom 95%. That's how the wealth was 30 years ago. Now picture a pie with over three quarters in one slice and less than a quarter in the other. That's how the distribution of wealth has shifted since between the top 5% and bottom 95%. I think it's good to shift back.

It's America's upside down caste system. Putting all the burden on the lowest tiers while the royalty sit back and laugh.

The whole tax system needs an overhaul but putting it back getting the burden off the little guy and back onto the big guys is a start.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think congressional pay should be linked to the federal minimum wage by a fixed multiplier. That will solve the problem.

I agree, let's not raise their wage for years either.

Congressmen should get bonus checks based on budget surplusses as well, wonder how fast they balance the budget then.

 

[Craig234]

So, John, you are all for the balanced budget.

WHich party delivers that, and which gives you the highest deficits?

Just another of my efforts to try to help you breat out of the ideology a little.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It's America's upside down caste system. Putting all the burden on the lowest tiers while the royalty sit back and laugh.

The whole tax system needs an overhaul but putting it back getting the burden off the little guy and back onto the big guys is a start.

Dave where did the tax comment come from? This is a thread about minimum wages, not taxes.

Since you brought it up though, please explain to me how the fact that the top 50% of all earners pay 96.5% of income tax (the top 25% pay 83% by themselves) How can you claim that the there is a burden on the little guy when 75% of Americans only pay 17% of income taxes? This bottom 75% earn 35% of all income, yet are only responsible for 17% of tax income. Doesn't look like a burden to me.

Let me show just how asinine your statement about their being a burden on the little guy is.
Go here Page 20 of PDF and look at the "Share of Total Federal Tax Liabilities"
Here is what you will find
Lowest 20% of earners pay around 1.4% of federal taxes
Next lowest 20% pay 5.4% of federal taxes
middle 20% pay 10.4% taxes (this group earns over $50k on average not exactly a poor group)
Second highest 20% pay 18.8% of taxes
And the rich (top 20%) pay the remaining 64% of federal tax liabilities!

Do you get it? 60% of Americans are responsible for only 17.2% of ALL federal tax liabilities!

Please explain to me how you or anyone can claim that the little guy faces a burden based on these facts? Of I am sorry, you don?t like facts. You just like to throw around outrageous claims and then act incredulous when anyone challenges you.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, John, you are all for the balanced budget.

WHich party delivers that, and which gives you the highest deficits?

Just another of my efforts to try to help you breat out of the ideology a little.

Craig, I am 100% for a balanced budget. I am a fiscal conservative more than anything else. Would be libertarian on many other issues (although I get more socially conservative as I age.)

As far as which party delivers that? I have no faith in the Democrats doing such a thing. And little faith that the Republicans will, at least under Bush. However, it is much more of a core value of the Republican Party that we have a smaller government, and therefore by default they are more likely to balance the budget.

I am also for a balanced budget amendment, with only 2 clauses to allow for deficit spending. 1. after the passing of a "war resolution" by congress (which makes the Vietnam, Korea and Iraq type wars without calling them a war less likely to happen) 2. after a two thirds vote in the house to override the amendment (this should only happen during bad economic times, or after major natural catastrophes.)

Maybe one day I'll start a thread explaining how the libertarians could be come a viable third party if they ditched a few of their more radical ideas (legalizing drugs, defense starts on our boarders etc)

(On your sneaky "party of highest deficit line" our current defict is rather low compared to GDP, below the 20 year average I believe)