Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

phattonez · Jul 12, 2009

Urethra Franklin said:
Pay people a living wage and they will not need to fall back on the state. Let's stop all this crap about poor employers being bled dry. You take on the responsibility of employing people, you don't pay them charity wages.

The responsibility? You have it all wrong. It is a contract whereby both entrants will be better off. The employer gets the product, the employee gets the value of the labor.

It's not as if companies just have spare money laying around.

I'm assumling Roomba is a robot?
Quality dear boy, and the human touch. Our cleaners are worth thousands of your robots.

In terms of quality of work there isn't much difference.

If on a full time wage you cannot afford to lodge yourself decently, to have adequate health care, to feed yourself and clothe yourself without hardship or resorting to a second and even third job, then your full-time wage is not reasonable. That in the same organisation the difference between the lowest and the highest wage can be a hundredfold is obscene.

Decent lodgings - as decided by you. Full time - as decided by you. Adequate health care - as decided by you. Are you noticing a pattern? You're upset because things are not meeting your arbitrary benchmarks. You're looking at it all wrong.

phattonez · Jul 12, 2009

Urethra Franklin said:
World's largest economy, with how many in poverty? How many of your citizens have no jobs and no health coverage? Yet you've got the means to lift these people out of poverty. It's your system that doesn't work.

Compare the impoverished of the 1800s to the impoverished today. It isn't even close.

phattonez · Jul 12, 2009

Urethra Franklin said:
Not double wages, decent wages.
Most supermarkets can afford it. Look at their profits.
You have been fooled into thinking low wages are essential to the functioning of capitalism. If that is true, then the system has failed.

Wages have been raising steadily, what are you talking about? And profits go toward investing in the means of production. Population in this world is growing you know.

phattonez · Jul 12, 2009

Agnapostate said:
'Fraid not, sparky. I'm a socialist. If you have an interest in the preservation of capitalism, however, I'd recommend adoption of a Keynesian perspective.

Keynes that can't explain S&L, the Great Stagflation, nor this most recent crash. The Great Stagflation is most damning since the inflation, according to Keynes, should have made us prosperous.

nerv14 · Jul 12, 2009

At least for my state, I am normally for increases in the mininum wage.

But with high inflation, a weakened dollar and a bad economy we really can't afford the luxury of an increased mininum wage in most states.

I am just happy that this push isn't at the federal level, that way the states that are smart enough to not increase their mininum wage will not be harmed. A federal increase in the mininum wage right now would be very harmful.

Triad · Jul 12, 2009

Increasing* the minimum wage is not an action intended to improve the lot of those who receive said wage(though of course more money in their pockets is more money in their pockets).
The intent is almost always to aggrandize oneself politically with little risk.

IOW average politician pushing this=

"I voted to have those who pay you... pay you more"

Really hard that...
About as hard as them voting themselves pay raises.

nerv14 · Jul 12, 2009

phattonez said:
Wages have been raising steadily, what are you talking about? And profits go toward investing in the means of production. Population in this world is growing you know.

There is some truth to that.

Even though the real medium wages of the rich have increased in America, since the 80s or so, the medium wages for the middle and lower classes have remained stagnant or have decreased.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that because of the increases in efficency and increased wages in the third world, but you just can't say that all wages have been raising steadily.

Since increases in tecnollogy give people better products to buy with the same wages, there is still a semi-steady increase in standard of living. and that is what matters.

phattonez · Jul 12, 2009

Agnapostate said:
Only when referring to the textbook models. You'll notice that I've cited Dickens et al. and Card and Krueger, which should indicate that the appropriate response is corresponding citation of contrary empirical research, if there are any sound examples of it. And I am desperate for rightists to show their mettle here. I'd even accept the inanities of Walter Block.

Card and Krueger was a stupid study. It's another example of the futility of economic research.

Critics, however, argue that their research was flawed.[43] Subsequent attempts to verify the claims requested payroll cards from employers to verify employment, and found that the minimum wage increases were followed by decreases in employment. On the other hand, an assessment of data collected and analyzed by David Neumark and William Wascher did not initially contradict the Card/Krueger results,[44] but in a later edited version they found that the same general sample set did increase unemployment. The 18.8% wage hike resulted in "[statistically] insignificant—although almost always negative" employment effects.

It always went down, though always statistically insignificant IN THIS ONE STUDY!

In 1995, the Republican Staff of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress published a study critical of Card and Krueger's work. They note that it conflicts with other studies done on minimum wage laws within the United States over the past 50 years.[51] According to the JEC analysis, minimum wage laws have been shown to cause large amounts of unemployment, especially among low-income, unskilled, black, and teenaged populations, as well as cause a host of other mal-effects, such as higher turnover, less training, and fewer fringe benefits.

According to economists Donald Deere (Texas A&M), Kevin Murphy (University of Chicago), and Finis Weltch (Texas A&M), Card and Krueger's conclusions are contradicted by "common sense and past research". They conclude that:[52]

Each of the four studies examines a different piece of the minimum wage/employment relationship. Three of them consider a single state, and two of them look at only a handful of firms in one industry. From these isolated findings Card and Krueger paint a big picture wherein increased minimum wages do not decrease, and may increase, employment. Our view is that there is something wrong with this picture. Artificial increases in the price of unskilled laborers inevitably lead to their reduced employment; the conventional wisdom remains intact.

Nobel laureate James M. Buchanan responded to the Card and Krueger study in the Wall Street Journal, arguing:[53]

...no self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimum scientific content in economics, and that, in consequence, economists can do nothing but write as advocates for ideological interests. Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries; we have not yet become a bevy of camp-following whores.

phattonez · Jul 12, 2009

nerv14 said:
There is some truth to that.

Even though the real medium wages of the rich have increased in America, since the 80s or so, the medium wages for the middle and lower classes have remained stagnant or have decreased.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that because of the increases in efficency and increased wages in the third world, but you just can't say that all wages have been raising steadily.

Since increases in tecnollogy give people better products to buy with the same wages, there is still a semi-steady increase in standard of living. and that is what matters.

We haven't had anything close to capitalism since before Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt.

nerv14 · Jul 12, 2009

phattonez said:
We haven't had anything close to capitalism since before Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt.

True. Freedome isn't always good for the economy. (but thats another issue)

But after the US economy became free-er after Reagan, the medium wages of the middle and poor have stagnated. When before this period but after TR, those wages did increase more steadily.

Sergeant Stinger1 · Jul 12, 2009

Gibberish said:
higher-minimum-wage-coming-soon.html: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

24 of 50 states will be affected with the most extreme case being Kansas going from a current minimum wage of $2.65 to $7.25 on Jan 1, 2010.

Can the job market and our economy handle this increase? Will this increase consumer spending by giving more money into the pockets of teenagers, and poverty and borderline poverty level adults?

-
WHAT? Kansas is now paying $2.65 minimum wage?????
That is a disgrace to human beings!!!
Kansas politicans should be sent to the nearest sewer treatment plant and givin the choice of eating the sewage or food that 'Comes from China'.
They are one of the same.

braindrain · Jul 12, 2009

Urethra Franklin said:
Only superpower? China is overtaking you.
Imperialist superpower with years of arrogance in foreign policy behind it. Great achievement!

World's largest economy, with how many in poverty? How many of your citizens have no jobs and no health coverage? Yet you've got the means to lift these people out of poverty. It's your system that doesn't work.[/QUOT

So you are telling me China's system works better than ours. And what great achievements have your country been responsible for latley. The reason we have poverty and people with out healtcare is because of the choices those people make in thier lives not because of faults in the system. It shouldnt be up to those that work hard and make good decisions to pay for those that dont.

Ethereal · Jul 12, 2009

disneydude said:
That would be true if most companies did not seek to exploit the workers for their own selfish greed. That's the biggest problem with a Capitalistic system and why the prior administration was such a failure. The prior administration believed that companies best regulate themselves. We see where that idea got us.

The biggest problem with capitalism is greed? No, the biggest problem with human nature is greed; can't change human nature, no matter how much you "hope" for "change". As for the biggest problem with capitalism...it's that dopes like you don't understand it...:2wave:

LaMidRighter · Jul 12, 2009

nerv14 said:
nerv14 said:

True. Freedome isn't always good for the economy. (but thats another issue)

Click to expand...

Freedom is the best thing for an economy, when you limit options you take the best mechanism for economic growth out, I am not talking about options as far as product A or B, but choice as to what some idiot in Washington decides you may or may not have, or how it will be provided to you in explicit detail, the former restricts segments of the economy by sending them to the black market and the latter increases price, which pushes availablilty out of lower earners reach. 1st law of economics, supply and demand are co-dependent upon each other and they exist because of each other. 2nd law is that human nature is to acquire and use based on need and want, and will satisfy both to the best of ability.

But after the US economy became free-er after Reagan, the medium wages of the middle and poor have stagnated. When before this period but after TR, those wages did increase more steadily.

Click to expand...

This is false, the MW was raised under Clinton, and also again under the final Bush years, it is not that wages are stagnating, it's that multiple factors of inflation and devaluation are making those wages worth less, minimum wage needing an increase is partially because it exists but mainly it is a symptom of decades of poor money policy catching up to us.

Even though the real medium wages of the rich have increased in America, since the 80s or so, the medium wages for the middle and lower classes have remained stagnant or have decreased.

Click to expand...

I believe you are younger than many on the forum, so I'll take it easy on you. It isn't that the wealthy are enjoying a wage increase, more or less they have investments paying off and many have stock options and likewise pay themselves little in actual wages to minimize tax liabilities. The fact is that the market is bringing them up, not the system or some game. And again, middle class and lower class pay has not stagnated, their buying power is lessened by bad money policy allowing the value of the dollar to slip, there is also a ton of hidden tax effects from payroll taxes to unmentioned government taxes, there is a full scale assault, but it isn't capitalism that is doing this.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that because of the increases in efficency and increased wages in the third world, but you just can't say that all wages have been raising steadily.

Click to expand...

See above

Councilman · Jul 12, 2009

Fact Minimum wages have never been sufficient to raise a family out of poverty, if only one member of the family works.

Congress does not raise the minimum wage to keep up with inflation. The period 1997-2007, is the longest period during which the minimum wage has not been adjusted. The minimum wage increases in three $0.70 increments--to $5.85 in 2007, $6.55 in mid 2008, and to $7.25 in mid 2009. The real values after 2007 are projected for future decline in purchasing power.

A review of studies on the effects of raising the minimum wage shows clearly that it has a negative effect on jobless rates. And or that it stifles some expansion in the job market, but a review of those most effected are those who fall below the poverty line to begin with. It either helps them come closer to meeting their personal and family needs or pushes them deeper into poverty and on to welfare rolls.
The major effects will be in states where current wages are so low it pays better not to work and a higher wage could change that view in some who have given up looking for work. It is also possible that companies looking to move from a state like California to one with a lower minimum as a cost cutting measure might well rethink those moves because it's no longer that much of a savings to do so.
Any one living on a fixed income can tell you that every penny increase helps when you look at the cost of living and how it has shot up in the last couple of years and that promises to get get much worse under Obama's Cap and Tax plan as he promised, along with his Careless Health Plan.
What all this means is that it's a major Catch 22 type situation depending on which side of the economic fence you currently reside on. It might help, it could hurt and when all the goofy legislation being considered is factored in it becomes a whole big wait and see what happens next time for many of us.

sazerac · Jul 12, 2009

How do you talk about low income wages for so long without discussing the affects of immigration on wages?

phattonez · Jul 12, 2009

nerv14 said:
True. Freedome isn't always good for the economy. (but thats another issue)

Freedome isn't, freedom is.

But after the US economy became free-er after Reagan, the medium wages of the middle and poor have stagnated. When before this period but after TR, those wages did increase more steadily.

Logically that doesn't mean a thing. I'm not arguing about a mixed economy, I'm arguing for capitalism.

phattonez · Jul 12, 2009

LaMidRighter said:
I believe you are younger than many on the forum, so I'll take it easy on you. It isn't that the wealthy are enjoying a wage increase, more or less they have investments paying off and many have stock options and likewise pay themselves little in actual wages to minimize tax liabilities. The fact is that the market is bringing them up, not the system or some game. And again, middle class and lower class pay has not stagnated, their buying power is lessened by bad money policy allowing the value of the dollar to slip, there is also a ton of hidden tax effects from payroll taxes to unmentioned government taxes, there is a full scale assault, but it isn't capitalism that is doing this.

For clarity we should be looking at PPR since government products are overpriced and to judge government intrusion as a rough estimate we could use government intrusion of the private national product. I can find some data for PPR up to 1983, but nothing on the latter except for the early years of the depression.

nerv14 · Jul 12, 2009

phattonez said:
Freedome isn't, freedom is.

That too

Logically that doesn't mean a thing. I'm not arguing about a mixed economy, I'm arguing for capitalism.

But where is your evidence that a capitalism economy will grow the fastest? ALL economies are a mixed economy, Singapore, Hong Kong and of course America before TR. On the otherhand, there is specific types of government internvention (not pure capitalism) that helped this nation grow.

America had a large tariff, internal improvements and states with government programs. So if you are going to claim that this more free system had stronger growth in wages, then I don't see how you can ignore that wages have been stagnant for the majority of people in the United States since the 80's.

Odviously, it isn't that wages are more stagnant or less stagnant depending on if an economy is mixed or not, but what the specific types of government interventions are.

America's increases in standard of living before TR are partially due to the great policies of government intervention with a tariff at the beggining of the country and then internal improvements to help expand the reach of industry.

phattonez · Jul 12, 2009

nerv14 said:
But where is your evidence that a capitalism economy will grow the fastest? ALL economies are a mixed economy, Singapore, Hong Kong and of course America before TR. On the otherhand, there is specific types of government internvention (not pure capitalism) that helped this nation grow.

I don't use evidence because evidence is influenced by so many variables that it is nearly impossible to use. Deduction is much more reliable.

America had a large tariff, internal improvements and states with government programs. So if you are going to claim that this more free system had stronger growth in wages, then I don't see how you can ignore that wages have been stagnant for the majority of people in the United States since the 80's.

Government spending hasn't really decreased ever.

America's increases in standard of living before TR are partially due to the great policies of government intervention with a tariff at the beggining of the country and then internal improvements to help expand the reach of industry.

If that's true then we should have exploded with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff and the New Deal. The fact is that government spending is always less efficient than private spending. That is why PPR was developed.

nerv14 · Jul 12, 2009

phattonez said:
I don't use evidence because evidence is influenced by so many variables that it is nearly impossible to use. Deduction is much more reliable.

But unfortuantly people can commonly make mistakes about theoris. That is why without evidence in the real world, a theory is pointless.

I also have my reasons for why certain types of government intervention helped the US. And that is why there is some good types of government internvention.

Government spending hasn't really decreased ever.

But there was dereguation under Reagan. By your theory, that would still increase growth in wages, when in fact the opposite occured.

If that's true then we should have exploded with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff and the New Deal. The fact is that government spending is always less efficient than private spending. That is why PPR was developed.

I am the one arguing the every type of regulation or government program should be examined first to determine if it is worthwhile. You are the one that is saying that ALL types of government intervention are harmful.

By definition, since the early tariff helped the country that means that sometimes government intervention has helped the US.... I don't see how you can support something to absolute when the criteria is just how well something helps our economy. Seriously...

you can be against MOST government internvention, but you can't be against all of it for purely economic reasons.

phattonez · Jul 12, 2009

nerv14 said:
But unfortuantly people can commonly make mistakes about theoris. That is why without evidence in the real world, a theory is pointless.

But we deduce from things that we know are true.

But there was dereguation under Reagan. By your theory, that would still increase growth in wages, when in fact the opposite occured.

I told you that real world evidence is prone to lurking variables. Look at government spending.

I am the one arguing the every type of regulation or government program should be examined first to determine if it is worthwhile. You are the one that is saying that ALL types of government intervention are harmful.

Not always harmful, but always inefficient.

By definition, since the early tariff helped the country that means that sometimes government intervention has helped the US.... I don't see how you can support something to absolute when the criteria is just how well something helps our economy. Seriously...

I'd say that our economy grew DESPITE that tariff. Real world evidence doesn't help either of us, but deduction helps me.

you can be against MOST government internvention, but you can't be against all of it for purely economic reasons.

Economic reasons force me to be against all intervention.

lincoln · Jul 12, 2009

Urethra Franklin said:
What their labour is worth is subjective. If you don't agree with the minimum limit set by the state, you're not forced to be an employer.

Not being forced to be an employer is not the issue, being part of the overall economy is. A minimum price for a commodity set by government legislation effects the economy.

phattonez · Jul 12, 2009

lincoln said:
Not being forced to be an employer is not the issue, being part of the overall economy is. A minimum price for a commodity set by government legislation effects the economy.

It sure does. We experimented with price controls in the 70s, it got us gas shortages. You know what minimum wage gets us? Labor shortages.

lincoln · Jul 12, 2009

Kali said:
It is a start! Everyone in this country that holds a job should be paid a living wage and the min. wage needs to be like $10 an hour

Why $10 an hour? Why not $35?

Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

Catholic

Catholic

Catholic

Catholic

Well-known member

Well-known member

Catholic

Catholic

Well-known member

Klattu Verata Nicto

Catholic

Catholic

Well-known member

Catholic

Well-known member

Catholic

Member

Catholic

Member