California set to raise minimum wage to $10

[King]

Some of you aren't even being realistic. $20 an hour for a minimum wage would kill our economy because of the huge surge in prices that would necessarily follow. The prices of goods would necessarily skyrocket.

We've had decades of stagnant minimum wage and prices skyrocket annually.
We've had decades of tax cuts and credits for business owners and prices skyrocket annually.  We've had decades of money supply influx and prices skyrocket annually. 
There is no correlation.

If prices are going to keep rising, might as well require the money go to someplace useful.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $10.74 an hour in today's dollars. Enough said.

http://www.nationofchange.org/40-percent-americans-now-make-less-1968-minimum-wage-1361362370

How about this little blurb!

“If the minimum wage had risen in step with productivity growth [since 1968], it would be over $16.50 an hour today. That is higher than the hourly wages earned by 40 percent of men and half of women.”

Ah yes!  Such a mystery to why it is we have this absurd income gap.  I think this little image is completely relevant to the subject at hand.  

[barfbag]

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $10.74 an hour in today's dollars. Enough said.

You mean for federal employees?

[King]

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $10.74 an hour in today's dollars. Enough said.

You mean for federal employees?

He means for everyone.  The minimum wage was $1.60--$10.74 in 2013 dollars.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

The inflation adjusted minimum wage has been on a steady decline for 35 years.

[Sbane]

The Democrats should raise the minimum wage and then index it to inflation. Of course they won't because they want a campaign issue.

[King]

The Democrats should raise the minimum wage and then index it to inflation. Of course they won't because they want a campaign issue.

It shows a lack of conviction in their own beliefs if that's the case.  You will never lose another election if your policies actually work.

[DC Al Fine]

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $10.74 an hour in today's dollars. Enough said.

You mean for federal employees?

He means for everyone.  The minimum wage was $1.60--$10.74 in 2013 dollars.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

The inflation adjusted minimum wage has been on a steady decline for 35 years.

There's also considerably more downward pressure on unskilled workers' wages than in 1968; higher female labour force participation, globalization opening up competition from 3rd worlders, increased use of technology in low skill jobs etc.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The Democrats should raise the minimum wage and then index it to inflation. Of course they won't because they want a campaign issue.

Eh, not necessarily.  If that were the case, then the Democrats probably wouldn't push so hard for gay marriage in their states.  The problem is most likely that there are too many Democratic legislators who feel uneasy about indexing the minimum wage to inflation.  Besides, right now would be an especially bad time to push for a federal policy since they can't even get the Tea Party House to support a modest increase.

[barfbag]

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $10.74 an hour in today's dollars. Enough said.

You mean for federal employees?

He means for everyone.  The minimum wage was $1.60--$10.74 in 2013 dollars.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

The inflation adjusted minimum wage has been on a steady decline for 35 years.

Ok I took it too literally. Democrats don't want minimum wage increases though because then it wouldn't be a campaign issue. They don't want equal civil rights either. What kind of talking points would that leave them?

[Sbane]

The Democrats should raise the minimum wage and then index it to inflation. Of course they won't because they want a campaign issue.

Eh, not necessarily.  If that were the case, then the Democrats probably wouldn't push so hard for gay marriage in their states.  The problem is most likely that there are too many Democratic legislators who feel uneasy about indexing the minimum wage to inflation.  Besides, right now would be an especially bad time to push for a federal policy since they can't even get the Tea Party House to support a modest increase.

Then they shouldn't even raise it and just index it to inflation. If the tea party retards don't go along, then they should put the indexing of tax rates to inflation on the line.

[King]

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $10.74 an hour in today's dollars. Enough said.

You mean for federal employees?

He means for everyone.  The minimum wage was $1.60--$10.74 in 2013 dollars.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

The inflation adjusted minimum wage has been on a steady decline for 35 years.

There's also considerably more downward pressure on unskilled workers' wages than in 1968; higher female labour force participation, globalization opening up competition from 3rd worlders, increased use of technology in low skill jobs etc.

No, not at all.  The labor force participation rate had already broken into the 60%s by 1968.  Globalization doesn't really matter as manufacturing was and never will be a minimum wage job. 

Minimum wage work cannot be outsourced and if it can, that's a good thing.  If raising minimum wage means technological replacement, then it should be even more embraced as low minimum wage, thus, must be slowing down our technological process as a nation.

Everything we "risk" losing in these minimum wage hike debate sounds like awful detriments to our society.

[krazen1211]

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $10.74 an hour in today's dollars. Enough said.

You mean for federal employees?

This is also known as picking cherries. 1968 is of course a completely random and arbitrary year.

[Miles]

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $10.74 an hour in today's dollars. Enough said.

You mean for federal employees?

This is also known as picking cherries. 1968 is of course a completely random and arbitrary year.

Of course, if you looked on the Department of Labor's site and looked at minimum wage by year, you'd see that their chart starts in...1968.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $10.74 an hour in today's dollars. Enough said.

You mean for federal employees?

This is also known as picking cherries. 1968 is of course a completely random and arbitrary year.

I was pointing out how much higher the minimum wage was then. By the time California raises it to $10 an hour, 1968 would be around $11.50 in current dollars.

In October 1949, a bill was signed almost doubling the federal minimum wage. So how did October 1949 - September 1950 do in terms of jobs? A 6.1% increase. The best year since then managed only 5.1%.

[barfbag]

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $10.74 an hour in today's dollars. Enough said.

You mean for federal employees?

This is also known as picking cherries. 1968 is of course a completely random and arbitrary year.

I was pointing out how much higher the minimum wage was then. By the time California raises it to $10 an hour, 1968 would be around $11.50 in current dollars.

In October 1949, a bill was signed almost doubling the federal minimum wage. So how did October 1949 - September 1950 do in terms of jobs? A 6.1% increase. The best year since then managed only 5.1%.

So the correlation is that the more of their own money companies have to give employees, the better more money they have left to hire more workers? Look I'm not a rocket scientist or anything, but if I have $1,000,000 in profit each year and give back $100,000 in wages, then a minimum wage increase would mean that I'm losing money. In this scenario I'm paying my workers minimum wage to hand out menus. Now with a doubling of the minimum wage I'm losing $200,000 each year. I've lost money and now have to charge more for my products in order to get back to where I was or lay off an employee or two. Losing money is the opposite of making money. My employees will have more money, but it won't be enough to start their own business or grow the economy. Also, in your theory, it would take longer for jobs to be added as a result from a change in economic policy. What would've happened is a decline in the value of the dollar.

[krazen1211]

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $10.74 an hour in today's dollars. Enough said.

You mean for federal employees?

This is also known as picking cherries. 1968 is of course a completely random and arbitrary year.

Of course, if you looked on the Department of Labor's site and looked at minimum wage by year, you'd see that their chart starts in...1968.

How amusing to cherry pick a single chart from the department of labor that is already cherry picking! I guess you have to cherry pick the single year of 1968, when, naturally, the minimum wage was greatly out of line with the remaining 74 years of the minimum wage's existence.


The prior chart linked starts at 1955. The federal minimum wage chart starts at 1938, which is incidentally when the minimum wage was first implemented. Either year, of course, would be just as valid as 1968. The current minimum wage is of course right in line with the past 30 years.

[Zioneer]

Ah, but barfbag, you forget one important fact; minimum wage workers spend much of their money at the same business they're working at, and at other minimum wage businesses. A worker at Walmart, even with a higher wage, will shop at Walmart, and a worker at McDonalds will eat McDonalds.

[King]

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $10.74 an hour in today's dollars. Enough said.

You mean for federal employees?

This is also known as picking cherries. 1968 is of course a completely random and arbitrary year.

Of course, if you looked on the Department of Labor's site and looked at minimum wage by year, you'd see that their chart starts in...1968.

How amusing to cherry pick a single chart from the department of labor that is already cherry picking! I guess you have to cherry pick the single year of 1968, when, naturally, the minimum wage was greatly out of line with the remaining 74 years of the minimum wage's existence.


The prior chart linked starts at 1955. The federal minimum wage chart starts at 1938, which is incidentally when the minimum wage was first implemented. Either year, of course, would be just as valid as 1968. The current minimum wage is of course right in line with the past 30 years.

1968 was a peak, but the inflation adjusted minimum wage was higher from 1956-1985 every year than it is today. 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

[barfbag]

Ah, but barfbag, you forget one important fact; minimum wage workers spend much of their money at the same business they're working at, and at other minimum wage businesses. A worker at Walmart, even with a higher wage, will shop at Walmart, and a worker at McDonalds will eat McDonalds.

Isn't that great though? I don't understand what your point is? I'd do all I can to keep my workers spending money at a place I own. You don't want your workers and non-workers for that matter benefiting you?

[King]

WalMart could always over $3/hour in store credit on top of the minimum wage... that would be helpful.

[Person Man]

Is it just me or do the business concern of these sort of laws seem to only effect those who probably can't afford to be in business anyway?

[All Along The Watchtower]

"mom and pop stores" evade min wage and other labor laws, as a rule

And there aren't as many left. The more typical "small business" is a franchise store.

Anyway, Brown signed the increase today.

[barfbag]

"mom and pop stores" evade min wage and other labor laws, as a rule

And there aren't as many left. The more typical "small business" is a franchise store.

Anyway, Brown signed the increase today.

Good soon prices will rise to make up for it and you'll be right back where you started.

[Lief 🗽]

That would be true if labor costs were 100% of the price of goods and services. But they aren't, so it's not.

[barfbag]

That would be true if labor costs were 100% of the price of goods and services. But they aren't, so it's not.

It's very simple. If I have to pay someone x amount more an hour, then I lose x amount of money each hour. I make up for it by charging y on top of what I already charge for my service.