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

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Who actually makes minimum wage? Even kids won't work for minimum wage. McDonald's doesn't pay MW here. Seems to me the market has set the MW for us.

It's not national though, that's local. Here it's great to find a job over $10/hr, and a lot pay minimum wage or just a few cents over. I'm not just talking about my little town either, but the whole region (and possibly the state, though I can't speak for east of the mountains). Hell, I used to make minimum wage working security at a mill where the first thing they showed you when you were hired is where the steel pipes were hidden so you could defend yourself against the workers who liked to jump security. Plenty of us were seriously injured by the dangers inherent in the pulping process and more were injured because of the basically non-existent safety protocols. Walking 20-30 miles a day through the elements - through that danger zone, constantly on the lookout for vengeful mill workers, inhaling all that crap they poured out, for minimum wage and basically no benefits.

That's hardly rare, even among major national companies. You wouldn't believe the things I've done for minimum wage (and was thankful for the opportunity). Been attacked, forced to search businesses and homes for break-in suspects, hundreds of physical fights a year, wrestling with HIV or hepatitis patients covered in blood, bomb searches, safety sweeps for biological or radioactive contaminants, fire fighting, providing emergency medical aid, having urine and feces thrown at you, being spit on, bitten, etc...all for minimum wage or .25 over - and again, with next to no benefits.

My point is that you can't make it sound like every job pays based on its merits (or lack thereof), or pays fair wages, or whatever. Generally speaking in my experience a business will pay the absolute least amount possible, provide as little as possible, listen as little as possible, and so on.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am going to change my name to "Truthfinder"

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

You data comes from an organization that is run "largely" by labor union officials.
It was established by a "who's who" of liberal economists and writers.
1. Lester Thurow "a longtime advocate of a Japanese and European type system with greater government intervention in the economy"
2. Robert Reich, former Clinton appointee
3. Ray Marshall, Jimmy Carter appointee who "As Secretary of Labor, he expanded public service and job training programs, as a part of Carter's economic stimulus program."
4. Robert Kuttner is the co-founder and current editor-in-chief of The American Prospect, which was created in 1990 as "an authoritative magazine of liberal ideas," according to its mission statement.
5. and current president Lawrence Mishel who seems to only be famous for being the president of that group

I would not call the group above the best source of non-partisan information about minimum wage and its impact on the American people.

Notice the "8.3 million indirectly" effected would be labor union members, and since this group is run mainly by labor unions they have a vested interest in making American think that raising the minimum wage is a good thing.
EPI info

Here is some information straight from the government.

According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2005, 75.6 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 60.1 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Of those paid by the hour, 479,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage. Another 1.4 million were reported as earning wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 1.9 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.5 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

and

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth of workers earning at or below the minimum wage were age 16-19. Among employed teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was about 3 percent. (See table 1 and table 7.)

About 3 percent of women paid hourly rates reported wages at or below the prevailing Federal minimum, compared with under 2 percent of men. (See table 1.)

Less than 3 percent of white hourly-paid workers earned $5.15 or less. Among black, Asian, and Hispanic hourly-paid workers, about 2 percent earned the Federal minimum wage or less. For whites and Hispanics, women were twice as likely as men to earn $5.15 or less. (See table 1.)

Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely to earn the minimum wage or less than married workers. (See table 8.)

Among hourly-paid workers age 16 and over, 2 percent of those who had a high school diploma but had not gone on to college earned the minimum wage or less. (See table 6.)

Part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were more likely than their full-time counterparts to be paid $5.15 or less (about 6 percent versus 1 percent). (See table 1 and table 9.)

By occupational group, the highest proportion of workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage occurred in service occupations, at about 8 percent. About three in four workers earning $5.15 or less in 2005 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and service jobs. The proportion of hourly-paid workers whose earnings were reported at or below $5.15 was lowest for persons employed in management, professional, and related occupations and natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations (less than 1 percent for both). (See table 4.)

The industry with the highest proportion of workers with reported hourly wages at or below $5.15 was leisure and hospitality (about 14 percent). About three-fifths of all workers paid at or below the Federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, primarily in the food services and drinking places component. For many of these workers, tips and commissions supplement the hourly wages received

So only 2.5% of hourly worked are at or below minimum wage, and hourly workers are 60% of ALL workers. Therefore, less than 2% of all working Americans make minimum wage.

I can attest to the tips statement above. I worked for 6 years at less than $5.15 an hour in actual pay, but due to tips I averaged over $15 an hour.
U.S. Department of Labor

Well, that's people at 'federal minimum wage' - state minimums are different. So there are more people than you claim working 'at minimum wage'.

Tips are irrelevant because only a few types of jobs can get them. There are tons of jobs out there paying minimum with absolutely no extra incomes whatsoever - and a lot of those jobs have tremendous costs associated with them.

 

[PrinceofWands]

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.

Wow, that's the first time I've heard those two things linked in that way. That's a very interesting proposal. Nice...I have to consider that further.

 

[Craig234]

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

John, I don't converse with people who make such false attacks as your 'sneaky' attack - don't do it again. If you think I posted something incorrect, post the info you think is right.

As for your point on who is the part of the deficit, the following is a nice picture that tells the story of the modern republicans, and democrats, on the issue:

Just look at this chart

I know it'll take a while for the ideology thing for you - you talk about who you 'trust' which is still strongly based out of your ideology, not the facts.

The first step is for you to just maybe doubt your views on the democrats a little. When I ask you a factual question, check the facts instead of posting what you presume.

The best way for a lousy party to keep getting your vote isn't to give up their corrupt practices, but to make you think worse of the other party even more, for false reasons.

That's just where they have you now.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: CPA

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.

Complete the circle Dave. Business must raise prices to meet the new expense demands. Guess who pays for the increse: the same Joe's who just go a minimum wage bump. See how raising minimum wage is NOT the solution. It's pretty simple.

Nope. Cost of labor determines the company's profits, the market determines the what they're willing to pay for the product. A McDonalds BigMac costs ~87 cents to make. A whole basket of french fries (that metal thing they drop into the oil) costs about 10 cents. They can afford to pay their employees far more than they're paying them now.

Bottom line, if a business cannot afford to pay their workers $8/h then they need to become more productive or find another product to produce.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Topic Title: What happens when your state has the highest minimum wage in the country?

It'll obtain the highest cost of living. Budgets will be balanced through higher prices - there is no alternative.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: 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.

I've never really understood why Dave says small businesses that can't afford to pay higher minimum wages should fvck off and deserve to be shut down. That's kind of an indirect support for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart can afford minimum wage increases because their a giant corporation. They may take a small hit to their profits temporarily but they also have less competition in the playing field which is one of the reasons they recently advocated an increase in the national minimum wage.

Our minimum wage in WA is ridiculously high. It does little to reduce poverty and raises the unemployment in rural areas. It doesn't affect urban areas' unemployment much because the vast majority of businesses in urban areas don't have anyone working for minimum wage. However, in rural areas purchasing power is higher which means wages should be lower. Unfortunately, our minimum wage is designed to please the voters in more urban areas and completely ignores the very negative effects it has in rural areas.

Minimum wage is a horrible way to fight poverty. The negatives of a high minimum wage outweigh the benefits. A much better solution to fight poverty would be to increase the EITC. That's what it is there for so why not advocate raising that instead of something as stupid as raising the minimum wage.

 

[Im With Stupid]

Wal-Mart will always massively undercut any small business. The more quantity you sell, the lower your profit margins have to be. Not only that, but the more you buy, the cheaper you get it. That will remain regardless of the minimum wage.

And yes, any business who can't cover their costs does deserve to go out of business quite frankly. Small businesses don't have some God-given right to exist, and if they can't adapt and be competitive, they will end up closing. And being competitive doesn't mean matching the prices of huge companies, it means finding a niche market and offering something that no-one else does.

Oh and in the UK, our minimum wage has gone up consistantly since the current government came into power, and it's coincided with consecutive years of economic growth (about 9 years now I think). Our current minimum wage is £5.05 ($9.50) for over 22 year olds, £4.25 ($8) for over 18's and £3.00 ($5.65) for under 18 year olds.

 

[ebaycj]

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!

That increase amounts to $12 / week, per full-time (40 hours) worker. If you can't scrounge another $12 / week for each employee, you are probably not making enough money with your business for it to be worth your while anyway, and you should fold.

Seriously we are talking peanuts here.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I've never really understood why Dave says small businesses that can't afford to pay higher minimum wages should fvck off and deserve to be shut down.

That's kind of an indirect support for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart can afford minimum wage increases because their a giant corporation. They may take a small hit to their profits temporarily but they also have less competition in the playing field which is one of the reasons they recently advocated an increase in the national minimum wage.

Our minimum wage in WA is ridiculously high. It does little to reduce poverty and raises the unemployment in rural areas. It doesn't affect urban areas' unemployment much because the vast majority of businesses in urban areas don't have anyone working for minimum wage.

However, in rural areas purchasing power is higher which means wages should be lower. Unfortunately, our minimum wage is designed to please the voters in more urban areas and completely ignores the very negative effects it has in rural areas.

Minimum wage is a horrible way to fight poverty. The negatives of a high minimum wage outweigh the benefits.

A much better solution to fight poverty would be to increase the EITC.

That's what it is there for so why not advocate raising that instead of something as stupid as raising the minimum wage.

You're mixing the issues but that's OK, as long as it gets people talking and trying to point to solutions. Businesses I direct that to are predatory businesses anyway such as the OP's business. They have no regard or concern for it's employees which are Americans just like you and I.

Back to the issues, yes, there is a big enough difference between Urban and Rural concerns which points to the bigger problem of the Cities ruling the Countryside folks.

It goes against the grain of the not having the majority act as a tyranny over the minority.

We have a large fundamental problem of the laws and Constitution not being upheld right here in our own backyard while we fight phoney Wars and try to force our broken system on the rest of the World.

You can see it is pretty clear, put a non-career person that acknowledges and wants to correct these grevace miscommings the U.S. has gotten itself into or "stay the course" with the current set of corrupt politicians on both sides of the fence.

The choice is yours, everybody's.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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)

I'm not surprised at all. The cost of living in Hawai'i (at least in Maui anyway) is insane and you can't survive there on $15/hour, at least not with any worthwhile standard of living. My advice to someone who's poor in Hawai'i is to find a way to the mainland.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I've never really understood why Dave says small businesses that can't afford to pay higher minimum wages should fvck off and deserve to be shut down.

That's kind of an indirect support for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart can afford minimum wage increases because their a giant corporation. They may take a small hit to their profits temporarily but they also have less competition in the playing field which is one of the reasons they recently advocated an increase in the national minimum wage.

Our minimum wage in WA is ridiculously high. It does little to reduce poverty and raises the unemployment in rural areas. It doesn't affect urban areas' unemployment much because the vast majority of businesses in urban areas don't have anyone working for minimum wage.

However, in rural areas purchasing power is higher which means wages should be lower. Unfortunately, our minimum wage is designed to please the voters in more urban areas and completely ignores the very negative effects it has in rural areas.

Minimum wage is a horrible way to fight poverty. The negatives of a high minimum wage outweigh the benefits.

A much better solution to fight poverty would be to increase the EITC.

That's what it is there for so why not advocate raising that instead of something as stupid as raising the minimum wage.

You're mixing the issues but that's OK, as long as it gets people talking and trying to point to solutions. Businesses I direct that to are predatory businesses anyway such as the OP's business. They have no regard or concern for it's employees which are Americans just like you and I.

Back to the issues, yes, there is a big enough difference between Urban and Rural concerns which points to the bigger problem of the Cities ruling the Countryside folks.

It goes against the grain of the not having the majority act as a tyranny over the minority.

We have a large fundamental problem of the laws and Constitution not being upheld right here in our own backyard while we fight phoney Wars and try to force our broken system on the rest of the World.

You can see it is pretty clear, put a non-career person that acknowledges and wants to correct these grevace miscommings the U.S. has gotten itself into or "stay the course" with the current set of corrupt politicians on both sides of the fence.

The choice is yours, everybody's.

Well isn't the main reason for a minimum wage to reduce poverty? If so, it doesn't do a very good job at it. Minimum wage jobs are generally taken up by teenagers and spouses who are trying to earn a little money on the side. The majority of the people in those groups may not necessarily be in the poorer quintiles (if anyone has links to stats on that, I would be very interested). It makes much more sense to raise funding for a program (EITC) that is actually designed as an poverty reduction tool.

You may be directing this at predatory businesses but if you're talking about a raise in the national minimum wage, you're going to be hurting people you might not intend to (rural populations, Puerto Rico, etc.). I could see if you were arguing for setting regional minimum wages that have to be indexed to the CPI but it looks like you're advocating a raise in the national minimum wage which isn't quite as surgical as other methods.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

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

John, I don't converse with people who make such false attacks as your 'sneaky' attack - don't do it again. If you think I posted something incorrect, post the info you think is right.

As for your point on who is the part of the deficit, the following is a nice picture that tells the story of the modern republicans, and democrats, on the issue:

Just look at this chart

I know it'll take a while for the ideology thing for you - you talk about who you 'trust' which is still strongly based out of your ideology, not the facts.

The first step is for you to just maybe doubt your views on the democrats a little. When I ask you a factual question, check the facts instead of posting what you presume.

The best way for a lousy party to keep getting your vote isn't to give up their corrupt practices, but to make you think worse of the other party even more, for false reasons.

That's just where they have you now.

Craig, I called your line sneaky because I missed it the first time through. You start talking about a balanced budget and who delivers, and then tack on a comment about highest deficits, seemed like a 90 degree turn from what we had talked about. And I don't think it was an attack, if you want to see an attack read anything Harvey posts in response to me.

Now about that link (you do know that about.com is owned by the New York Times right? Not that any sort of bias would creep into anything they do.), you talk about deficits, but post a link about debt? I know you are aware that those are two totally different things. (BTW: If you look at the chart it appears that we peaked under Clinton 67.3% (post WW2) and under Bush 64.3% we are still lower than that all time high.)

Look at deficits compared to GDP for a better comparison, and more on topic of your original statement.
Page 28 of PDF (government figures)
Here you will see that since 2001 Bush has run deficits that are 1.3% surplus, 1.5,3.5, 3.6 and 2.6% of the GDP (this does not include the 2006 figures which should be even lower than 2.6%)
Now look at historical Deficits vs. GDP Clinton's first two years in office were at 3.9, and 2.9 and then went down from there.
During Bush 41 the rates were 2.8, 3.9, 4.5 and 4.7 MUCH higher than Bush 43.
And under Reagan 2.6, 4.0, 6.0, 4.8, 5.1, 5.0, 3.2, 3.1.
Now in every year I listed (except Bush 43's years) the Democrats were in charge of congress and for every year listed the Deficit as % of GDP was higher than every year under Bush, except for 2.
And overall, in the 14 years congress controlled the house between 1981 and 1993 the deficit vs. GDP was higher than its peak under Bush in 9 out of those 14 years.

So IMO this shows that Democrats in charge of congress over spend Republicans in congress (in strict vs. GDP terms). In fact in the 40 years the Democrats controlled Congress they only balanced the budget 4 times, and three of those four were within their first 6 years of control, from 1961 to 1994 they balanced the budget only ONCE.
Now compare that to Republicans in control of congress, since they took control in 1995 they have balanced the budget 4 times in 12 years, or 1 out of every 3 years.

So it is very clear in my view that Republicans have shown more fiscal responsibility in their 12 years of control than the Democrats did in their 40 years. And since we are voting for congress next month I see no reason to put Democrats back in control of congress. Especially since I have seen no sign that they have ended their tax and spend ways. (One of the first things they will try to do if they take control is to raise taxes, this is almost 100% certain.)

I hope this explains to you why I will be voting Republican next month, any questions about that decisions in regards to budget and spending matters?
Maybe a good Democrat President in 2008 would lead us back to a budget surplus via Republican congress, but I am not holding my breath.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Here's a pretty interesting blog article about minimum wage that was linked from Greg Mankiw's page.

 

[Craig234]

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_gross_national_debt.htm

My gosh, John, you misinterpreted that chart so much it's just astounding.

For readers, here it is again, it's worth a look:

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_gross_national_debt.htm

Here's what the chart shows, John. You look at the trends of the deficits under each president (deficits are more relevant than the total national debt accumulated by all previous president).

It shows that over decades - from the artificial peak in WWII through LBJ you had big, consistent declines in the deficit as % of GDP (your chosen metric). It declined a little more under Nixon/Ford/Carter during the problematic oil problem era.

Then, under Reagan/Bush 41, it shot up, in a constant direction. Then, with Clinton, immediately the direction was moved downward, first reducing the rate of growth and then moving down. This improvement happened all throughout the Clinton presidency - under the 2 years of democrats in Congress and the 6 of republicans. Then Bush 43 shot it up again.

John, you need to stop making the twisted argument by cherry-picking the tidbits to try and say that the republican Congress gets the credit for the good performance. The correlation is clearly with the president, who submits the budgets that are the starting point for Congress.

This is strongly shown by the fact that if the republican party *were* the party of fiscal responsibility, as you allege, then you wouild have seen that responsibility continue or improve when they got the presidency too - and you did not, you saw the opposite. So, you are not able to use that argument again honestly.

As for the balanced budget - you give the republicans the credit for the balanced budgets while Clinton was president. Question for you, if they're the balanced budget party - what is their record of balancing the budget with a republican Congress *and* president? You can even include only controlling the House.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Craig234

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_gross_national_debt.htm

My gosh, John, you misinterpreted that chart so much it's just astounding.

For readers, here it is again, it's worth a look:

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_gross_national_debt.htm

Here's what the chart shows, John. You look at the trends of the deficits under each president (deficits are more relevant than the total national debt accumulated by all previous president).

It shows that over decades - from the artificial peak in WWII through LBJ you had big, consistent declines in the deficit as % of GDP (your chosen metric). It declined a little more under Nixon/Ford/Carter during the problematic oil problem era.

Then, under Reagan/Bush 41, it shot up, in a constant direction. Then, with Clinton, immediately the direction was moved downward, first reducing the rate of growth and then moving down. This improvement happened all throughout the Clinton presidency - under the 2 years of democrats in Congress and the 6 of republicans. Then Bush 43 shot it up again.

John, you need to stop making the twisted argument by cherry-picking the tidbits to try and say that the republican Congress gets the credit for the good performance. The correlation is clearly with the president, who submits the budgets that are the starting point for Congress.

This is strongly shown by the fact that if the republican party *were* the party of fiscal responsibility, as you allege, then you wouild have seen that responsibility continue or improve when they got the presidency too - and you did not, you saw the opposite. So, you are not able to use that argument again honestly.

As for the balanced budget - you give the republicans the credit for the balanced budgets while Clinton was president. Question for you, if they're the balanced budget party - what is their record of balancing the budget with a republican Congress *and* president? You can even include only controlling the House.

That graph shows the debt as a percentage of GDP, not the deficit. If you're looking for deficits as a percentage of GDP, you can take a look at this chart.

 

[ProfJohn]

Better and easier to read chart Debt Chart

Here you can clearly see that the Debt vs. GDP went up during Clinton's first years and it did not show a downward trend until maybe 1996? (hard to tell) And as I said before, the figures under Bush are still lower than they reached under Clinton. Also notice that the chart is dipping downward again.

I think we will never agree, you want to give Clinton the credit for the balanced budget and I clearly believe the evidence shows that the credit goes to the Republicans in congress. Since we can't agree on this basic and all important fact there is really no need for us to continue this discussion, right?

BTW: I don't think we have a large enough data set to say who can and can't balance the budget since it has only happened 4 times in the past 40 years and that was only with a Democrat President and a Republican congress. I think we would have to see it get balanced again in order to firmly make the statement that such and such combination results in a balanced budget. If the Democrats take over and we have a balanced budget within the next 2 years then that would clearly show that split party control can result in a balanced budget.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

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!

That increase amounts to $12 / week, per full-time (40 hours) worker. If you can't scrounge another $12 / week for each employee, you are probably not making enough money with your business for it to be worth your while anyway, and you should fold.

Seriously we are talking peanuts here.

Who are you to say what is peanuts to an employer or not? If you have 10 employees at a small business, then that is 120/week. Which is potentially about $440/month. Hey! That's a whole extra half of a paycheck! So you've just made that employer hire the equivelant of an additional half employee without actually getting any more work done! Now for a small business that doesn't make millions every day, $440 is A LOT of money every month. Everyone on these boards complains about Walmart and how they are destroying Mom and Pop shops. Well guess what, this is going to do a lot more to hurt mom and pop shops than Walmart is.

Now, could you explain to me how an extra $12

 

[fitzov]

Bush I, II/Reagan --> deficit spending

deficit spending --> more overall debt

It's fairly simple.

What's laughable is that conservatives like to point to Reagan as the great president, when during his term, the debt/GDP went from 32.5% to 53.1%.

Under Bush I -- 53.1 - 66.1

Clinton -- 66.1 - 57.5

Bush II -- 57.5 - 67.5 and rising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

 

[Craig234]

Hombre, thanks. I switched the words inadvertantly.

John, there are things we can look at. For example, you want to say there's too little data to say who's better, but you limit the data to look at to balanced budgets when we have decades of single years to look at in terms of who is increasing or decreasing the deficit, who has the larger and smaller ones - and you even tried to use balanced budgets as a measure when you thought it fit your side, and then you say let's not use them when it doesn't.

The deficit trends *clearly* show the democrats with the overwhelming better record at reducing deficits as a % of GDP while republicans increase them - but we don't see one sentence from you acknowledging that simple fact. That make you seem like you are not discussing the issue in good faith, and instead are writing like an advocate for one side.

For example, your summary is that the numbers got worse under Clinton his first few years.

The facts show that Reagan/Bush 41 skyrocketed the deficits, and Clinton began whittling them back *from his first year* and continuing through his presidency. Yes, his reductions did not totally eliminate the republican deficits the first year, just reduced them, so the debt continued to rise, at a slower rate than under the republicans. In your summary, you don't point out how he was better than them, how their deficits were higher, how he reduced them - it's a very misleading summary.

You did not asnwer my simple question, either: when's the last time that a republican congress and president had a balanced budget, since you want to give them credit?

Like Exxon saying the evidence is inadequate on global warming, you argue that the data is inadequate to draw conclusions, but it's not - for example, the fact that there is such a consistent pattern of the republican congress *shooting up* the deficit under a republican president, it's clear that the relevant variable for the reduction is not the republican congress. Since we have 25 years of history basically showing big deficits in 17 republican years and 8 years of declining deficitis with a democrat, it's pretty good data.

The data goes back to WWII if you like, still clear trends outside a few ambiguous years during the oil embargo mess.

John, what is your defense for the following statement:

I clearly believe the evidence shows that the credit (for the balanced budget) goes to the Republicans in congress.

The republican congress continued in power after Clinton - and the deficit shot up. So how can you begin to say that the credit goes to them, when the deficit shot up with them?

Could it be clearer? Clinton = 8 years deficits going down. Bush, still with republican congress = high deficits again.

There *could* be an explanation - there isn't one. You just ignore the facts.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CPA

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.

Complete the circle Dave. Business must raise prices to meet the new expense demands. Guess who pays for the increse: the same Joe's who just go a minimum wage bump. See how raising minimum wage is NOT the solution. It's pretty simple.

Actually they could just pay managemnt less money. Are they really going to quit their job over $20/week?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

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!

That increase amounts to $12 / week, per full-time (40 hours) worker. If you can't scrounge another $12 / week for each employee, you are probably not making enough money with your business for it to be worth your while anyway, and you should fold.

Seriously we are talking peanuts here.

So if you have 8 employees working minimum wage (like where I work), the boss has to come up with an extra $5,000 a year to pay them. That's not reasonable for a small business owner making around $50,000 a year.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Hombre, thanks. I switched the words inadvertantly.

John, there are things we can look at. For example, you want to say there's too little data to say who's better, but you limit the data to look at to balanced budgets when we have decades of single years to look at in terms of who is increasing or decreasing the deficit, who has the larger and smaller ones - and you even tried to use balanced budgets as a measure when you thought it fit your side, and then you say let's not use them when it doesn't.

The deficit trends *clearly* show the democrats with the overwhelming better record at reducing deficits as a % of GDP while republicans increase them - but we don't see one sentence from you acknowledging that simple fact. That make you seem like you are not discussing the issue in good faith, and instead are writing like an advocate for one side.

I'm not sure I agree with you there. The link I gave actually has the info on which party controlled the presidency, Senate, and the House at the bottom. Looking at them, I don't really see any pattern at all. Saying Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility doesn't make that much sense given our current overspending with all branches controlled by Republicans. The same goes for Democrats when you look at the Carter administration.

Saying that Republican congresses are more fiscally responsible doesn't make much sense because Democrat controlled congresses have had surpluses four times over the past 50 years although generally not as high. That's not to say Democrat controlled congresses are necessarily better seeing as how some of our highest deficits have occurred when they controlled congress.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, quickly since it is getting late.

"when's the last time that a republican congress and president had a balanced budget,"
When the last time a Democratic President and Democratic congress balanced the budget? 1949.
We've had 40 years of Democratic congress and 12 years of Republican so your question is not a great question.

Prior to Bush we have to go back to Eisenhower to find a Republican President and a Republican Congress. And to find when a combination balanced the budget we would have to go prior to WW 2.

Prior to Clinton the last time we had a balanced budget was 1969, Nixon.
And then 3 times during Eisenhower.

My defense for the credit going to the Republicans is the often posted fact that prior to the Republicans taking office Clinton had NOT offered a budget that came close to being balanced. His last pre-Republican budget called for 5 nearly $200 billion deficits in a row. The following year with the Republican in place he submitted his first budget that contained a 5 year plan to balance it. I am certain that if Democrats would have kept congress they and Clinton would have kept on spending.

The evidence of the last 50 years shows us that split power is the only time the budget becomes balanced, so maybe we need that again. However, in the middle of this war I do not trust the Democrats with power. Perhaps some strong on defense moderate Democrat will run in 08 and we will have a good choice for a change.

And yes the defect under Bush went up, but in the last two years it has dropped dramatically, in half I believe, so as I have said many times we are going in the right direction.

Enough on this, we are going in circles.

 

[Craig234]

John, you *still* are not understanding the logic problem in your argument I'm raising. Please, read this carefully. This is not about the Clinton budget projections. I'll be very clear.

You assert that the republicans are the party of the balanced budget. You give the credit for the balanced budget of Clinton and the republican congress to the republicans. I'm not arguing the point here about the evidence there. I'm raising the inconsistency that IF you were right you would have to then explain why when the same republican congress continued, with a *republican* president, the budget didn't stay balanced or even get better. The *facts* of that happened - that the high deficits of 12 years of republicans preceding Clinton immediately returned under the republican Bush with the republican congress - disproves your claim. If you were right, the balanced budgets would have continued under the 'party of balanced budgets'. You have no explanation whatsoever for this, and the point you make about the projection under Clinton says nothing about the return to Bush 43 deficits.

Then following that, you also completely ignore the theory that DOES fit the data, the huge correlation between the president's party and the deficit in the last 25 years. I'll grant you that the republican party greatly changed from Reagan forward, and Eisenhower/Nixon were not the same on the budget. I'm talking about the modern republicans.

You can say we're going in circles but we're not: you are not answering the direct, simple fact I've presented about the conflict between the ProfJohn claim of the republicans being the party of balanced budgets, and the fact disproving the claim: that the balanced budget ended with the same republican congress when a republican president took office.