Talk Elections

What do you all think about this survival issue?

Please, include a post about 'why' you support or oppose the proposed increase.  I see at this moment we have one 'don't support' vote, so I'd love to hear what is your intention:  is it that you believe various capitalist pipe-dreams or that you wish to see the poor eliminated by starvation?

Somewhere between Option 1 and Option 2.

If we raised it to 9 and tied it to cost of living from then on, it would be a good solution, but I imagine Democrats want to keep the issue in their hands for strategic reasons.

Well, if they're all going to be replaced by robots pretty soon...

Don't you have a Hajime Robot Restaurant in Bangkok or something?

None of these options fill my views, but nevertheless I'll try to explain.

I think there should be a yearly increase on the minimum wage based on the level of inflation. I think that could be agreed on in a bi-partisan consensus. My personal feelings are that price floors and price ceilings do not work, and I am backed up by basic economics in 95% of cases, but the minimum wage is something that, frankly, is ingrained and is needed in a society to prevent true poverty from hitting people that are already working.

However, going from 7.25 to 9.00, a 24% increase, is going to be too drastic for those employing people right now for one thing. They aren't going to be as willing to employ people who aren't as experienced. This effects things in a number of ways: its going to be harder for younger and less experienced people to GET the experience they need because employers are less willing, and I think that lowers the work force too much.

Never heard of any robots in Bangkok.

And after all American workers are most definitely not being replaced by robots, but rather by even-more-powerless humans in China and other slave-countries.  The whole robot thing is a myth.

Yes, but $9 is not enough. (http://inequality.org/minimum-wage/)

This pretty much fits my view.

I would prefer some sort of negative consumption tax scheme--guaranteeing at least some basic level of consumption.

As for the minimum wage, I do believe in the capitalistic pipe-dream that this will crowd out certain opportunities that people would take if offered.

Great link!  I have personally always advocated $15/hour, but $21 sounds that much better. 

Support raising the minimum wage to 9 an hour. Something needs to be done to help the very poor in this country but Won't if all the places that pay minimum wage have to pay 9 an hour just raise prices to cover this?, are they really going to eat higher labor costs? I have worked low wage jobs. Heck I'm currently applying for a job that would be considered low wage, but not below 9 an hour.  how many companies will just give less hours and make the remaining 8 employees do the work of 10. 9 dollars an hour would be great but It is less great if I get less hours, do more work and pay more for stuff.

Yes its about right- for now.

Wait so the last minimum wage increase was signed under the Bush administration? Why didn't the Democrats pass another when they had the house and 60 senators. I had thought they did, but the 2009 increase was part of the 2007 law.

That's about right for now.

As someone who has begun searching for employment, $7.25 an hour seems okay to me. However, as I will eventually need to pay for my own house, car, etc. $7.25 is not enough to survive.

Sure, $7.25 is enough for a teenager looking to make some extra cash.

I'm very disappointed that the $9 isn't enough option has dropped below 50%. :(

Exactly. And this ties into the fact that it costs tens of thousands of dollars to attend just one year of college (which is really time consuming) and kids are expected to get jobs that only pay about a quarter of that in a year.

Somewhere between options 2 and 3.

Well, they have whenever they eat in restaurants.  So yeah, not 'significant' contact, but frequent.  The poor are everywhere - like the servile apes in Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

This is deluge material. The GOP is never going to agree to an automatic increase in the minimum wage. They're about as likely to support that as mandatory gay marriage for all Americans.

Bump and goodnight.

A guaranteed minimum income (a basic subsistence level one)+no minimum wage would be far more effective.

Why do you assume your wage will be permanently frozen at $7.25 or whatever the prevailing minimum wage is?

Most people who are at some point working at a job that pays minimum wage either get a raise or get a higher paying job.

Because generally it is. My mom has been working as a secretary for 10+ years at just over minimum wage and has not gotten a raise in 5 years.

I don't think any of the poll options are ideal, the current minimum wage is inadequate, but increasing the minimum wage will only increase the cost of livings. rather than worrying about wages we should be worried about the ever rising cost of living, and we should take necessary efforts to reduce it. Or at least keep it in check.

Inflation is fairly low in America and Europe these days.

raise it to around $15 like it is over in australia and index it to inflation.

This, and moderate inflation is actually quite good for an economy.

That's absolutely correct!  I've been advocating a $15 minimum wage for years.

Economic stats>An anectdote

That's a pretty rude thing to say.

I work more than 50 hours a week just above the minimum wage just to afford rent and an alcohol dependency, so the idea of paying for college tuition or a family is laughable.

Worse yet it is inaccurate.  In fact most people stay stuck at low-wage jobs their entire lives, and a 'raise' is almost unheard of in the new economy.  The only exciting 'change' one can look forward to is being laid off entirely.

Cite?

Edit: 20RP12, if anecdotal evidence and "that's not nice" are the best arguments you have, you may want to rethink your position.

Come on, DC, surely you jest?  What I mentioned was common knowledge.  And after all, why would anyone give a worker a raise unless they had too?  All the major employers - WalMart, McDonalds, etc, top out at about $8/hour.

I actually work part-time at McDonald's and we top out at $9, but that's still not much. I've been working there for four years and have seen some sketchy things as far as wages go. I remember, for instance, a time where a manager actually deleted hours that the closing shift worked after midnight so that it looked like they were done "on time." And then there's the girl who didn't get a raise specifically (I was told) because she didn't smile enough. And there's another friend of mine who didn't get a raise (and this is legit, as strange as it sounds, because I saw it written on his performance review) because "he plays too many video games."

It's mind-numbingly bad in the fast food sector.

Yes.  The physical pain of working in such a place (standing for eight hours) coupled with the dire psychological humiliation of the role (far worse than befalls any prostitute) would be enough to militate for a $15-$20 minimum wage, without even mentioning the obvious fact that employing people at $8-$9/hour actually doesn't solve any problems but rather causes social problems and acts as a drain on society subsidizing the McDonald's corporation.

i'm surprised you didn't bring up how many people aren't getting paid sick days. right now something like 40% of private sector workersdon't get those.  (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-11-28/news/bs-ed-sick-leave-20121128_1_sick-days-care-workers-service-workers)considering all the other horror stories in the food industry i'd imagine it's probably at least that. one of the reasons i rarely eat out anymore, never mind get fast food.

No, unemployment is too high, and I'm against giving any more comparative advantage to big businesses who can afford to pay higher wages.

If it's common knowledge, I'm sure you can find some evidence for this alleged lack of income mobility..

It's not 'anecdotal evidence' and "that's not nice" it's me telling a story that's true for millions and millions of Americans and you rejecting it as 'just one instance' simply because I used it as a personal story rather than a broad declaration of fact.

No; keep it as it is.  I don't think we should eliminate the minimum wage (I believe workers deserve to be paid fairly), but if it's too high, businesses that are trying to grow will have to lay off workers, or they will raise their prices until they lose money or go out of business, which will ultimately lead to job losses.  A higher minimum wage may help some workers, but there comes a point that it starts hurting more workers than it helps.  How high is too high?  That's a tough question.  But my problem with raising it too much isn't that I don't care about workers; it's that I do and realize that it does them more harm than good.

Option 1 (normal)

Option 1. It should be set at around its highest historical level (1968), which would make it roughly $11/hour. I'd also index it to the CPI.

 Raising the floor for eligible legal survival only continues the Obama/Clinton progressive crippling of the USA - its ability to create the next/new auto, phone, energy, Gov. and food industries that are not legacy indebted. The older goods and services consumed today are heavily weighted with non-producing cost, hence, why I voted to eliminate the minimum wage, once realized, the 40hr work rule will be oblivious to be not good for the cost living also.

Perfect - falling wages is the prime plank of the Republican Party!

I oppose any and all minimum wage laws, that are not adjusted state by state for the cost of living. I don't like them theoretically (do it the income tax credit way, and avoid economic distortions), but at low enough levels (the Dems have been pretty good at keeping them low and largely irrelevant, except in low wage, low cost of living states), they're basically harmless.

Why in God's name would you pay someone $15 or $20/hour to flip burgers?

Why in God's name would you not? All labor deserves dignity, and no job in this country should pay less than what is necessary to be able to live on. Businesses that can't adapt to that reality should go the way of the dinosaurs.

Really? I know plenty of people who can live quite comfortably by themselves on $7.25/hour at 35 or 40 hours/week.

otherwise way too much of their labor is being stolen.

How exactly does burger flipping warrant anything close to $15/hour?

As someone who makes $8.70 an hour and has to spend every bit of his paycheck on gasoline and food, I highly doubt that's the case for most people making $7.25 an hour.

Essentials covered. Be thankful.

What's there to be thankful for if you have no money to save for the future?

how does sitting on your ass warrant a stock dividend?

It can always get worse...

If you want to save, following this guy's example (http://earlyretirementextreme.com/how-i-live-on-7000-per-year.html) would definitely help.

To avoid creating the inevitable and much more expensive social problems which below$15/hour pay causes.  Allowing a 'private company' to pay less than a socially sustainable wage is a subsidy of that company by the State and all workers.

exactly, the tax payer is just paying out welfare benefits anyway for a lot of these people. or going to be asked to at some point. and by now the median age of fast food workers in this country is 28. it's not just teenagers or illegal immigrants doing that sort of work. there are plenty of desperate underemployed people and retirees 'flipping burgers' too.

This is perfect nonsense.  A negative income tax acts as a massive subsidy for low wage exploiters - tremendously distorting 'the market' (a misnomer for State policy) in their favor.  As if it wasn't distorted enough already by private property.

Under no cicumstances should we be paying people welfare who work - either the exploiter should pay a living wage which requires no other assistance to keep their serf alive, or that serf should be allowed to sit idle on a generous dole.  (not as generous as yours, Torie, but you get the idea).

Probably slightly on the side of not enough, however; the transition to that or higher could be just as damaging to the poor and unlike Opebo, I am not out for revenge or something of that sort especially when it comes at the expense of the very people it aims to help.

I probably lean towards supporting the proposal then.

$9 dollars is not enough.

minimum wage should be $15 an hour and it should rise again and again until the heads of companies continue to avoid tax, get shares in companies and non taxable bonuses. the gravy train has to stop.

There's no evidence that a higher minimum wage causes unemployment.

No, just higher prices.

So sorry that you'll have to pay an extra nickel for a cheeseburger so that someone else can eat.

Great headline, on the back page, “progressive tax participation revenue falls”; Obamacare has no more money - special needs & preexisting conditions now suspended…
...which is real?

What

I hope they can find affordable food, because after implementing your $20 minimum wage, grocery shopping will become a very expensive proposition for everyone.

In response to the OP, I do not think the minimum wage should exist. Ensuring individuals have enough resources to meet their most basic needs is in my opinion a responsibility of state when a person does not achieve it on their own. It does not make sense to burden firms with this kind of regulation. I reckon it is better to have a guaranteed minimum income and strong welfare regime.

Nah, they'll just lay off as many clerks as possible and start using machines for everything.

My fear is that businesses would take advantage of that system by paying their employees an extremely low wage, knowing that it doesn't matter because the government will just write them a check anyway. Which could ultimately be even more expensive than our current system.

This is actually one of his more easily-decipherable posts:
"That would make a great headline. And on the back page: 'Tax Participation, Revenue Fall; Obamacare Special Needs and Pre-existing Conditions Provisions Suspended.'
Which one seems more realistic?"
I'm not sure what that has to do with what you posted, though.

I took t_host1's post to mean strong, almost sycophantic support for what I had just posted.

The minimum wage in Washington is $9.19. It seems to work fine.

For the millionth time, non minimum wage plus guaranteed minimum income is the way to go.

I'll copy and paste my response to Redalgo when he proposed the same thing earlier in the thread:
My fear is that businesses would take advantage of that system by paying their employees an extremely low wage, knowing that it doesn't matter because the government will just write them a check anyway. Which could ultimately be even more expensive than our current system.

That's a lot more socialist sounding than having a $9.00/h minimum wage.

It's what they do already. The EITC is a MASSIVE subsidy to low-wage employers. A negative income tax or GMI will only encourage low wage employment.

My objection to the minimum wage is based on the economic distortions it creates. Besides, my blue avatar is due to my reactionary social conservatism, not my fiscal views.

So why do you propose an alternative (guaranteed minimum income) that is enormously more distorting economically?

Point taken.

Of course there is.  There may be evidence to the contrary as well, but to claim there isn't any evidence for an association is just silly.

This is why coming to an informed conclusion on issues like this is near impossible.

A proposal in the MN legislature would raise the minimum wage in the state from $6.15, below the federal minimum, to $9.50/hour.

The local Chamber of Commerce president sent a survey to area businesses asking whether such a rise would impact them.  3/4 of businesses said it would not.  Half of business owners said it would impact the community positively.

It's time to raise the minimum wage.  During the 1960s, the minimum wage was increased numerous times... and the '60s were a decade of prosperity and robust economic growth with low inflation.

When you put more money into the hands of poor workers, it better ables us to take care of those who might lose their job or see their hours reduced as a result in the rise.

What we could really use is for two very similar states to enact substantially different minimum wages and watch what happens in each.

From a liberal prospective, I thought it was pretty good how taking off the training wheels becomes a time of political hysteria, framed rather well.  Liberal instincts of survival will be hard to overcome that the next growth economy will require.

I earned $18/hr to do that (US equ. $18.10/hr).

If you don't think that it's worth paying someone a sustainable, living wage to work for your business, why in 'God's' name would you have employees?  Get real, big fella.

But aren't prices in Australia equally as high?

If you can show me any people flipping burgers with similarity of location and lifestyle in the US, I'd be happy to move back :P

In all seriousness, no.  While the cost of living is higher here (especially in my particular instance, with my preference towards alcohol and tobacco, which are taxed according to their public health effects), $18 is above the legal minimum wage and less than what you will get as an adult working for McDonald's.

I don't recall saying it did. But I am sure if you jack them up high enough, quickly enough, common sense alone would say that employment would be impacted. Of course I doubt that such a scenario has been tested. I for one, don't want to find out by actually trying it. Which is why I support the proposal.


You mean the state level statute, correct? For some reason I doubt that Minnesota would have a exemption from the federal rate, even if such were possible. Call it a hunch. ;)

And yet it is time. Had it been risen more aggressively in the 2000's, perhaps some things would have been different and we might be at $9.00 by now.

This is an important point that many here don't understand - the standard of living, regardless of legal minimum wages is much, much higher in Australia and many European countries than in the United States. The pro-rich anti-worker policies of the Bad Place have had an incredibly pervasive and indisputable destructive effect.

Yes.  $6.15 is the state minimum wage.  Only businesses wholly contained within the state are allowed to pay that rate... along with tipped employees, since the federal wage is so low for tipped employees and MN doesn't allow any wage under the state minimum.

This graph is interesting.  If we tied the minimum wage to productivity, we'd be much better off today.
()

Instead, the right thinks it's alright to pay people less money to do more work.  That a falling standard of living is a-okay as long as profits are high!

Its extremely bizarre to hear an argument that basically promotes feudalism, but I think if the Tea Party types had their way then that's where we would be. Economically and culturally feudalist.

The inequity, if it exists in any significant amount, certainly would have grown under Reagan much in the same way Snowguy's data shows. The US created real problems adopting Reaganomics and if we continue to affirm those policies we won't be doing ourselves any favors.

Could you link some evidence please?

Graph of the relative income distribution in Australia, Germany, Sweden, Brazil, United States and Thailand. (http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/visualizations/income-distribution/#country=au:br:de:se:th:us)

Minimum wage is over $10 here now. One of the few good things the McGuinty government did, although it was the NDP's idea. The minimum wage should be fixed to the poverty line.

Well then it would be around $8, but i absolutely agree that it should be fixed there, meaning increasing to inflation.

Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but I thought this (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/22/1626831/chicago-wages-gun-violence/) should be posted.

Eighty votes is pretty good...