The minimum-wage charade
The minimum-wage charade
Posted: January 4, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Worldnetdaily
By Jane Chastain
c 2007
Democrats in the House of Representatives have an ambitious list of proposals they will try to ram through in their first 100 hours at the controls. While some are worthwhile, even laudable, others are counterproductive. However, the one proposal that is most likely to pass both houses of Congress and be signed into law by President Bush - raising the minimum wage - represents the worst kind of political pandering.
In the run-up to the 2006 election, the woman who was to become House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, lamented, "In 100 hours, the top CEOs will earn an average of $2 million each. In 100 hours, a minimum-wage worker working 8 hours a day will earn $171.67."
When it comes to class warfare, Pelosi is a five star general. The point she was trying to make - just in case you missed it - is that the poor in this country are poor because our CEOs are rich.
(Column continues below)
What do the earnings of America's top CEOs have to do with minimum-wage jobs? Plenty!
The reality is that many of the CEOs Pelosi reviles began their working careers earning the minimum wage. Furthermore, those minimum-wage jobs gave these people valuable work experience, which they put to good use. That's because a minimum-wage job is the first rung on the employment ladder.
Yes, it is true. The federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, and it has not increased in the past nine years; however, those taking minimum-wage jobs have done quite well without any help from the government.
Ronald Reagan could have been referring to the minimum wage when he told us, "Government is the problem, not the solution." The minimum wage was meant to be a training wage. When an employer takes on a minimum-wage worker, that employer expects to spend extra time with that worker until the worker develops the skills to be fully productive. The reality is that minimum-wage workers who work full time and increase their skills do not stay at the minimum wage long.
Unfortunately, when the minimum wage goes up, those who lack skills and work experience - the ones who need these jobs the most - are the ones who get hurt. When the cost of training a worker becomes too expensive, many entry-level jobs simply go away.
Last June, Sen. Edward Kennedy, another class warfare general opined, "There's no state in America where $5.15 an hour meets the basic needs of a working family. We have waited too long to give these hardworking men and women a raise." Kennedy would have us believe that there are millions of people working to support families that have been trapped at the federal minimum wage for the past nine years. He knows better.
Forty percent of those minimum-wage earners received a raise within four months. Two-thirds received raises within a year. The median increase for those first year workers who began at the minimum-wage level was 10 percent. That increase was more than five times that of other workers.
To be sure, there are workers who stay at minimum-wage jobs for good reasons. Workers in the restaurant and other service industries often make much more in tips than they do in salary. Also, those who prefer part-time work often take minimum-wage jobs, with no thought of advancement, because they like the flexibility.
Statistics show that most minimum-wage earners are students or retirees working part-time and, contrary to popular opinion, they are not poor. In fact, the average family income of a minimum-wage earner is almost $50,000 per year.
Would these people gladly accept a minimum-wage raise? Of course! Who would turn down Santa Claus?
It should be no surprise that the biggest supporters of a minimum-wage increase are unions. Not only do union leaders use a hike in the minimum wage as an excuse to demand even higher wages for their members, they know that minimum-wage hikes tend to block low-wage workers from competing with union members who have higher skill levels.
Yes, the federal government and the states can mandate higher wages, but they cannot dictate who gets hired. When companies are forced to pay higher wages they go for skilled, not unskilled, workers.
The minimum-wage hike is not about helping the poor or eliminating poverty. It's about helping "fat cat" unions get fatter. Why? The unions, in turn, show their appreciation to these bleeding heart politicians in the form of hefty amounts of campaign cash. That's what this pandering is all about!
It's a cheap, dirty political trick. Don't be fooled.
Posted: January 4, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Worldnetdaily
By Jane Chastain
c 2007
Democrats in the House of Representatives have an ambitious list of proposals they will try to ram through in their first 100 hours at the controls. While some are worthwhile, even laudable, others are counterproductive. However, the one proposal that is most likely to pass both houses of Congress and be signed into law by President Bush - raising the minimum wage - represents the worst kind of political pandering.
In the run-up to the 2006 election, the woman who was to become House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, lamented, "In 100 hours, the top CEOs will earn an average of $2 million each. In 100 hours, a minimum-wage worker working 8 hours a day will earn $171.67."
When it comes to class warfare, Pelosi is a five star general. The point she was trying to make - just in case you missed it - is that the poor in this country are poor because our CEOs are rich.
(Column continues below)
What do the earnings of America's top CEOs have to do with minimum-wage jobs? Plenty!
The reality is that many of the CEOs Pelosi reviles began their working careers earning the minimum wage. Furthermore, those minimum-wage jobs gave these people valuable work experience, which they put to good use. That's because a minimum-wage job is the first rung on the employment ladder.
Yes, it is true. The federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, and it has not increased in the past nine years; however, those taking minimum-wage jobs have done quite well without any help from the government.
Ronald Reagan could have been referring to the minimum wage when he told us, "Government is the problem, not the solution." The minimum wage was meant to be a training wage. When an employer takes on a minimum-wage worker, that employer expects to spend extra time with that worker until the worker develops the skills to be fully productive. The reality is that minimum-wage workers who work full time and increase their skills do not stay at the minimum wage long.
Unfortunately, when the minimum wage goes up, those who lack skills and work experience - the ones who need these jobs the most - are the ones who get hurt. When the cost of training a worker becomes too expensive, many entry-level jobs simply go away.
Last June, Sen. Edward Kennedy, another class warfare general opined, "There's no state in America where $5.15 an hour meets the basic needs of a working family. We have waited too long to give these hardworking men and women a raise." Kennedy would have us believe that there are millions of people working to support families that have been trapped at the federal minimum wage for the past nine years. He knows better.
Forty percent of those minimum-wage earners received a raise within four months. Two-thirds received raises within a year. The median increase for those first year workers who began at the minimum-wage level was 10 percent. That increase was more than five times that of other workers.
To be sure, there are workers who stay at minimum-wage jobs for good reasons. Workers in the restaurant and other service industries often make much more in tips than they do in salary. Also, those who prefer part-time work often take minimum-wage jobs, with no thought of advancement, because they like the flexibility.
Statistics show that most minimum-wage earners are students or retirees working part-time and, contrary to popular opinion, they are not poor. In fact, the average family income of a minimum-wage earner is almost $50,000 per year.
Would these people gladly accept a minimum-wage raise? Of course! Who would turn down Santa Claus?
It should be no surprise that the biggest supporters of a minimum-wage increase are unions. Not only do union leaders use a hike in the minimum wage as an excuse to demand even higher wages for their members, they know that minimum-wage hikes tend to block low-wage workers from competing with union members who have higher skill levels.
Yes, the federal government and the states can mandate higher wages, but they cannot dictate who gets hired. When companies are forced to pay higher wages they go for skilled, not unskilled, workers.
The minimum-wage hike is not about helping the poor or eliminating poverty. It's about helping "fat cat" unions get fatter. Why? The unions, in turn, show their appreciation to these bleeding heart politicians in the form of hefty amounts of campaign cash. That's what this pandering is all about!
It's a cheap, dirty political trick. Don't be fooled.
0
-
I hear that the illegals, in the San Diego area, won't work for less than $10.00 per hour. That's take home pay for them not after taxes. 0 -
chollagardens quote: I hear that the illegals, in the San Diego area, won't work for less than $10.00 per hour.
Tu eres correcto amigo.0 -
So lets see if there's a new law... pay for the Pres (VP, Secs of Whatever, etc), Congress, Senate, etc. are all based on a mulitplyer of the minimum wage. Lets say, not more than 10x min. wage. 0 -
I have no problem with a hike in the minimum wage. I think anybody that gets out and works should be entitled to more than $5.15 hr., no matter what their age or level of employment. Not everyone, for whatever reasons, has/had the benefit of a good education/training, connections, etc. Most true minimum wage jobs are filled by teenage students, not adults needing to make a living to raise a family, as even with two incomes at $5.15 hr. that is impossible. Give the kids a break, at least they're showing enough ambition to make some bucks on their own. Some how I don't think they are from well off families. So we'll have to pay 10 cents more for our food at the drive up, big deal. Over the last 30 years I have seen the rank and file American worker come under a relentless assault by business and government to reverse the hard fought gains that made it possible for a man to work hard, buy a decent house, raise a family, prosper, and ready himself for a retirement. Does anybody remember history class telling about the sweat shops, dangerous work conditions, 10-12 year old children working 7/12s for pennys a day, etc.? I've heard it said here that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Sure the unions are not perfect, but imagine some of these work places without them, a lot of these companies and managers are nothing short of greedy opportunists. The last 20 years of my career have been in management and I have had to deal with both sides, labor and owners, and to be truthful, I wouldn't want to be a worker for these guys without union representation, and the vast majority of the union men I've known have been good, productive employees. Even here there are those that bash the unions and think a union worker is some kind of a lazy slob, undeserving of good wages, benefits, and security for his labor. That, to me, is selfish.
As for the CEOs, I'm sure the vast majority of them did not, as Chastain alleges, begin their working life in "Mc Jobs", and they all are greedy, overpaid, elitists. Case in point, Bob Nardelli, the CEO of Home Depot, tendered (under duress) his resignation yesterday. His management was terminated because of the poor performance of Home Depot stock during his reign. Now get this, his severance package is valued at $210,000,000, and he did a bad job! The rank and file Home depot employee makes $8-$10 an hour, with the scantest of benefits, and this guy gets 210 million for a bad job. The total package is SEVEN times the $30 million Home Depot set aside for stores and employees that provide good customer service. Home depot has 2,127 stores and 355,000 employees. Bernie Marcus, Home Depot co-founder, when asked about the huge severance payout, said the sum won't be that big a deal in the long run. "it's like the old story, if the stock goes up 10 points, who's going to care?" Marcus said. Anybody think these guys give a hoot about the workers and their well being?
Sorry Chastain, your "spin" on this subject is elitist rubbish, and you have no credence in this mans eyes.0 -
quote:Originally posted by iwannausername
So lets see if there's a new law... pay for the Pres (VP, Secs of Whatever, etc), Congress, Senate, etc. are all based on a mulitplyer of the minimum wage. Lets say, not more than 10x min. wage.
Yep, I can certainly see why having such a cushy office job would be
worth 10x what someone that works thier arse off for.[;)][:(][:(!][V]0 -
Originally posted by Dak To 68
I have no problem with a hike in the minimum wage. I think anybody that gets out and works should be entitled to more than $5.15 hr., no matter what their age or level of employment. Not everyone
Ha! No matter how much you are worth. the govt should force your employer to pay you whatever you are "entitled" too?
[:D]0 -
The min wage in Oregon is close to $8 per hour, second highest in the nation behind only WA state I believe. It doesn't change anything except prevent small business from hiring enough staff to do the jobs properly. So they stumble along with less people and work them to death. Plus you can never find anyone to help you in the stores anymore and when you do its long, long lines to checkout.
I would rather see some kind of health care offered to cover folks who cannot buy it or are unemployed than this political game of min wage levels.0 -
I just wanted to add that companies have a % of sales number or a % of the cost of the product that they can spend on wages. Guess what that means, It don't matter what the government says they can only spend the set amount on wages and then they stop paying benefits or pensons or 401K contributions, etc.
The gov will never tell you that the increase in min wage will be offset in most cases by a reduction in benefits.[:(]0 -
there you go using logic
quote:Originally posted by sig232
The min wage in Oregon is close to $8 per hour, second highest in the nation behind only WA state I believe. It doesn't change anything except prevent small business from hiring enough staff to do the jobs properly. So they stumble alone with less people and work them to death. Plus you can never find anyone to help you in the stores anymore and when you do its long, long lines to checkout.
I would rather see some kind of health care offered to cover folks who cannot buy it or are unemployed than this political game of min wage levels.0 -
quote:Originally posted by iwannausername
So lets see if there's a new law... pay for the Pres (VP, Secs of Whatever, etc), Congress, Senate, etc. are all based on a mulitplyer of the minimum wage. Lets say, not more than 10x min. wage.
If they were paid what they're worth, they'd owe US.0 -
The MW was changed to $10/hr. in Santa Fe a coupla years ago to reflect the rising costs of inflation, illegal immigration, rising taxes and to give "those working poor" a handout.
Over 15% of food service establishments closed within a month of the law passing; bars, restaurants, and hotels/motels raised their prices an average of 25% to cover their costs.
Since Santa Fe is the Capitol of new Mexico, and a "sanctuary city"; illegals that make it the 250 miles past the border can enjoy all the benefits of American workers without paying taxes. When taxes ARE paid, it's to someone else's SSN, because almost all the illegals have stolen or forged ID (unless they got in before 2006, when the Governor stopped issuing Drivers' Licenses to anyone that wanted one, whether they had entered illegally or not).
All a minimum wage raise does is devalue the years of training and skills received on the job of all the folks that make more than $5.15/hr.
Albuquerque Mayor "Smarty Marty" Chavez claimed success when the idiots in the City Council passed an ordinance which would raise the MW incrementally to $9/hr. by 2008; there are fewer than 10,000 jobs available in that pay range, and most folks here have to speak Spanish at WalMart, McD's, Blakes Lotaburger, Wendy's, BK, Carl's, or to complain at a call center to be understood.
When I started working many years ago, the MW was $1.16/hr., and I worked my tail to the bone humping adobes or shoveling out stalls to pay for my apartment; if the logic holds that "we can't live on the current MW"; what about reparations for all those hours I worked that weren't paid even HALF the prevailing MW?! It's only fair, right?0 -
Minimum wage is for people with minimum brains or knowledge. There is nothing wrong with the scale now. If you want to make more, simply get a better education or learn a trade. If one has no knowledge nor wants to learn anything, they deserve minimum wage. If one is trying to raise a family, they dont need to gripe about what they are getting paid, they need to work on getting smarter so they can find a better job. Wages are based on knowledge and education. If all one knows how to do is flip hamburgers and take out trash, they dont deserve very much in wages. I learned how to do those things when I was 6 years old. 0 -
We wouldn't even be having this conversation if the goverment would not flood the country with imigrants. Some employers are getting rich from the situation while some whop were born here struggle.
I chose the wrong major at the university, so although I am "educated" I find my self competing for those same jobs I had years ago; driver, laboror, etc to make enough to pay rent. Its harder than it used to be.
Raising the minimum wage doesn't really make a lick of difference one way or the other.0 -
There are a lot of people, through no fault of their own, who do not possess the mental and/or physical abilities to be professionals, tradesmen, rocket scientists, etc. It's my belief that if a person such as that has the motivation to get out and work, they deserve more than starvation wages. My God, we pay every penny it takes to live to millions of lazy, worthless, welfare people and their offspring who wouldn't lift a finger for the minimum wage. I wouldn't go out my front door for $10 an hour, and I'm damn sure not going to begrudge a decent wage to those less fortunate who have to. To be at a level of mental and/or physical condition that prevents one from making a good living does not make one a bad person, a bum, or someone that deserves nothing. Strong welfare reform, absolutely, to economically strangle working people, absolutely not. This is a fabulously rich nation, and if it were run properly poverty would be extinct. They can have their minimum wage "raise", they work for it. 0 -
Damn CEO's! Save us, Nancy, because you care...you really care! I feel so much better now. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Dak To 68
There are a lot of people, through no fault of their own, who do not possess the mental and/or physical abilities to be professionals, tradesmen, rocket scientists, etc. It's my belief that if a person such as that has the motivation to get out and work, they deserve more than starvation wages. My God, we pay every penny it takes to live to millions of lazy, worthless, welfare people and their offspring who wouldn't lift a finger for the minimum wage. I wouldn't go out my front door for $10 an hour, and I'm damn sure not going to begrudge a decent wage to those less fortunate who have to. To be at a level of mental and/or physical condition that prevents one from making a good living does not make one a bad person, a bum, or someone that deserves nothing. Strong welfare reform, absolutely, to economically strangle working people, absolutely not. This is a fabulously rich nation, and if it were run properly poverty would be extinct. They can have their minimum wage "raise", they work for it.
I totally agree that being at a level of mental or physical ability that prevents someone from making a good living does not make them a bad person. Now - how does that make an employer responsible to pay them a wage that is beyond the market value of the work output that person produces?
The fact that someone "needs" does not make me liable to provide it. I might be willing to do that, and I do donate well into five figure sums per year, but this is my choice, not a legal mandate.
The idea that poverty can be abolished is patently absurd, it just won't ever happen. If you want an extreme example, just look at how many professional ballplayers declare bankruptcy each year and I think you could use Mike Tyson as the poster child of the futility of saying that proper management of the economy would solve the problem.
First of all, poverty is calculated as a percent of the average family income, so no matter how high the average went, those who fell below that percentage would still be considered poor. Second, welfare benefits are not allowed to be counted as income for the poor. This means that even if you gave each poor person a couple hundred thousand dollars in cash each year, they would still be considered poor, and as having no income.
That's not to try to say that there aren't poor people around, there most certainly are, but the number is not as large as the statisitcs try to show and it is to a great degree a "floating" group with many of the people who swell the numbers beyond the cronic unemployed/underemployed/unemployable group made up of people who are only temporarily poor. Students who graduate and only work a partial year the first year, workers temporarily displaced, spouses who lose out when a job transfer for their spouse costs them a job, people who quit to look for another job, etc. all add to the total. About half the people who make up the "poor" are not in the same category within about two years according to the figures I've seen in the past from the Bureau of Labor statisics, the rest are the cronic poor.0 -
If the government(fed and state) gave a damn about people making minimum wage then there should be no taxes on minimum wage workers. 0 -
Buddyb, there's merit in your words. The government doesn't give a damn about the vast majority of Americans. It couldn't be more obvious. 0 -
Most people are employed in this country by small businesses. It is small business that will be hurt. You know. The guy who risk it all and lives, breathes and bleeds for the small business that he created. He relies upon its profits for his future retirement. He can afford to pay what the market will bear--just like the prices you pay for any given product or service. There's a supply/demand curve for labor cost as well. When you start dictating by law what you pay your employees beyond that which the market will bear, the individual small business owner now loses. The business loses and the employees that do choose to work for him at the new wage will now lose their jobs either to complete or partial failure of the business or unavoidable layoffs.
This isn't about "Mc Jobs". This is about small business--the business that keeps our economy going. Dictating what a business will pay its employees isn't going to help anyone.
Why not raise the minimum wage to $20/hour? Why not make everyone rich and raise it to $50/hour?
It's always interesting how many people are willing to spend other people's money but get ticked off when someone tries to spend theirs.0 -
quote:Originally posted by buddyb
If the government(fed and state) gave a damn about people making minimum wage then there should be no taxes on minimum wage workers.
Just what all taxes are you referring to?
The standard deduction alone runs about $5,000 for a single person, $7,500 for head of household, and $10,000 for married, filing joint return. Minimum wage will earn you just over $10,000 per year working full time.
A thread a couple of days ago advocated a flat tax of 15% for everyone, no exceptions or exemptions. This is a good example of why that tax just won't work well, or at that percent.[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
"I totally agree that being at a level of mental or physical ability that prevents someone from making a good living does not make them a bad person. Now - how does that make an employer responsible to pay them a wage that is beyond the market value of the work output that person produces?"
No, that does not make an employer responsible to pay a wage that is beyond their value, but it does keep employers from paying a wage far below the value of their work.
"The fact that someone "needs" does not make me liable to provide it. I might be willing to do that, and I do donate well into five figure sums per year, but this is my choice, not a legal mandate."
True, though obviously you are not one consumed with avarice.
"The idea that poverty can be abolished is patently absurd, it just won't ever happen. If you want an extreme example, just look at how many professional ballplayers declare bankruptcy each year and I think you could use Mike Tyson as the poster child of the futility of saying that proper management of the economy would solve the problem."
I understand your point, and you do have something here. Maybe a better way for me to put it is that the boundless wealth of this nation could, if managed with the best interests of all working citizens, raise the standards for all who are willing to put forth an effort. I guess the ones who chose to live excessive lifestyles with what they have should rightfully suffer the consequences.
"First of all, poverty is calulated as a percent of the average family income, so no mater how high the average went, those who fell below that percentage would still be considered poor. Second, welfare benefits are not allowed to be counted as income for the poor. This means that even if you gave each poor person a couple hundred thousand dollars in cash each year, they would still be considered poor, and as having no income."
I understand basic economics. Poverty is not a stat or percentage to be calculated, it's a state of existance somewhere below a safe, secure lifestyle. It means that even though you work every day it's near impossible to pay the basics much less prosper.
"That's not to try to say that there aren't poor people around, there most certainly are, but the number is not as large as the statisitcs try to show and it is to a great degree a "floating" group with many of the people who swell the numbers beyond the cronic unemployed/underemployed/unemployable group made up of people who are only temporarily poor. Students who graduate and only work a partial year the first year, workers temporarily displaced, spouses who lose out when a job transfer for their spouse costs them a job, people who quit to look for another job, etc. all add to the total. About half the people who make up the "poor" are not in the same category within about two years according to the figures I've seen in the past from the Bureau of Labor statisics, the rest are the cronic poor."
I learned long ago to view statistics with a very critical eye. In most instances they can, and are, structured to a particular slant, ESPECIALLY Government stats. With the growing "globalism", the U.S. being flooded with cheap illegal labor, wage and benefit slashes running rampant, and on and on, being "temporarily poor" could last a long time for a lot of folks. I've seen a lot of people work the same job for many years with no interuptions and see the dollars they earn get them less and less all the time.
I'm not talking about the chronic poor here, people who WON'T do anything to make a living, I'm talking about the working poor. As I've stated, here in America, THE capital of misplaced values, with the immense wealth at hand, we should be caring and righteous enough to operate a society where all who have the motivation to go out and work for their existance, no matter what their limitations are, can earn enough to pay the basics of modern life, living quarters, utilities, food, transportation, etc. Those that are of higher abilities should naturally be accorded appropriately higher rewards. For those that work and have lesser mental and/or physical properties there is a "glass ceiling", I understand that, though I feel there should also be a minimum standard set so they can make the bare necessities for their labors
Guess I'm an old softy with a little socialist in me.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Dak To 68
No, that does not make an employer responsible to pay a wage that is beyond their value, but it does keep employers from paying a wage far below the value of their work.
And that is a problem is some areas, and is one of the reasons for unions and "prevailing" wage laws
True, though obviously you are not one consumed with avarice.
There are some here who would accuse me of being otherwise, and I have worked hard to make a reasonable amount of money.
I understand your point, and you do have something here. Maybe a better way for me to put it is that the boundless wealth of this nation could, if managed with the best interests of all working citizens, raise the standards for all who are willing to put forth an effort. I guess the ones who chose to live excessive lifestyles with what they have should rightfully suffer the consequences.
A rising tide does tend to lift all boats.
"First of all, poverty is calulated as a percent of the average family income, so no mater how high the average went, those who fell below that percentage would still be considered poor. Second, welfare benefits are not allowed to be counted as income for the poor. This means that even if you gave each poor person a couple hundred thousand dollars in cash each year, they would still be considered poor, and as having no income."
I actually do know how to spell calculate and matter - Oh well!
I've seen a lot of people work the same job for many years with no interuptions and see the dollars they earn get them less and less all the time.
I'm not talking about the chronic poor here, people who WON'T do anything to make a living, I'm talking about the working poor.
Those that are of higher abilities should naturally be accorded appropriately higher rewards. For those that work and have lesser mental and/or physical properties there is a "glass ceiling", I understand that, though I feel there should also be a minimum standard set so they can make the bare necessities for their labors
Guess I'm an old softy with a little socialist in me.
I have no problem with that at all. I don't agree with it, but it is a valid economic opinion and position and has just as much credibility in a different direction as a purely capitalistic one.
The study of economics is like studying colors, you can learn to tell what they are, but the choice of preference is in the eye of the beholder. I choose arch conservative.[:)]0 -
Dlrjj, we are, in a sense, somewhat in agreement.[;)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by idsman75
Most people are employed in this country by small businesses. It is small business that will be hurt. You know. The guy who risk it all and lives, breathes and bleeds for the small business that he created. He relies upon its profits for his future retirement. He can afford to pay what the market will bear--just like the prices you pay for any given product or service. There's a supply/demand curve for labor cost as well. When you start dictating by law what you pay your employees beyond that which the market will bear, the individual small business owner now loses. The business loses and the employees that do choose to work for him at the new wage will now lose their jobs either to complete or partial failure of the business or unavoidable layoffs.
This isn't about "Mc Jobs". This is about small business--the business that keeps our economy going. Dictating what a business will pay its employees isn't going to help anyone.
Why not raise the minimum wage to $20/hour? Why not make everyone rich and raise it to $50/hour?
It's always interesting how many people are willing to spend other people's money but get ticked off when someone tries to spend theirs.
Very well said.0 -
Virtually all economic arguments stem from an interest and desire to move the individual and/or the nation foreward. The disagreement comes from what the best methods might be to accomplish those goals, and just what the definition of foreward might be.
Defining the objective is the first problem.0 -
...Entitled? No. All this PC crap about the MW is hog wash.
WHO do you think is going to be paying for the increase?
ALL of us, if you don't think so, your clueless.
...We will ALL get to pay more for services and products because the vast majority of M wagers decided they liked partying, dope and perfecting the proper use of " YO! HOMIE!" vs studying and getting and education, NOT my problem, THEIRS.
BS that someone cannot "make it", if they DESIRE to do so.
To Increase MW responsibly...
Increase the MW keep/add tax incentives to offset the added cost the employer will incur; OR it is just another feel good lefty liberal talking point "give me! give me!, I'M entittled"...THAT will cost us all...[;)]
..."TWO FEATHERED STOOGES, & ONE MURDERER "
0 -
The reason that the government won't reduce taxes on low income workers by $2/hr is because it will cost them revenue. Don't think that any minimum wage worker getting bumped $2/hr is going to get all that in pocket. Local, state and federal governemt, will get their taxes where applicable. In otherwords they just gained additional revenue but instituting a minimum wage hike.
The Economic Council estimates that 10% of the workforce would qualify for some sort of increase to meet the proposed minimum. They estimate another 5% will get a raise because their current wage would be at or near the new minimum even though they have more experience. They would have to be bumped up to show they are not newbies.0 -
IMHO raising the minimum wage a bit will have little or no effect on wages or prices, except in a very few cases. Its all about bantering political ideologies, so who really cares? 0 -
The MW is just anther hold over from the New Deal that business people have had to fgure out how to live with for 70 years. I seem to recall that the first Federal MW was declared unconsititutional back in 1933, but like many of FDR's pet projects he found a way to get around the Consitiution and get what he wanted enacted anyway. For many people the miniumum wage is also the maximum wage. If someone is willing to work for the absolute mandated minimum pay level then as a business owner I would not see any valid reason to pay them a nickel more than I had to. On the other hand, if I could not get anyone to work for me at the MW then I'd have to pay a higher rate, whether I wanted to or not, if I wanted to keep my doors open. The other option for higher labor costs of course is to leave the United States and take full advantage of the low cost labor which we have available to us in Mexico. My firm has 40 employees but none of them are working for minium wage (though I dream it could be possible to make that happen[}:)]). Never the less, labor costs are the biggest bite in running a business and if it becomes too costly to keep someone hanging around doing entry level work it is easy enough to just let that person go and reassign his duties to someone higher up the pay scale by giving that person a slight pay raise, say about half of the increase in the minium wage. It is a sad fact of life that there is an entire segment of people in this country who either cannot or will not ever be able to do much beyond unskilled/entry level work. No employer should be obligated to pay a person more money that his or her job is actually worth and if someone is currently working for minimum wage then why is he or she suddenly worthy of an increase in thier pay of they have no increased either their skills or their level of production? Learn something useful or work harder and you should get a raise but just sitting around waiting for the folks in DC to decide that you should get more money is not the way that things are supposed to happen. 0 -
I agree with the M/W. It shows the younger people that hard work is worth something. As a person advances, they seee the money in it.
As for the moer money for MANAGEMENT. If you have been a supervisor or manager, you know you are the one that keeps the thing running.
The boss has the fresh ideas and the supervisor has to sell it to the guys in the floor.
I get more money because I both, have a degree and I am in the position to use it.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
36 comments