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
-
Kristov quote: 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. Not in Orange County and not in San Diego County. I mean, employers will find it easy to live with because they won't have to deal with it. Prevailing wages and inflation have made this whole debate mute. They will never rase it enought to have anykind of real effect on the economy.
I agree that that would not be a good idea. There are better ways to deal with the increasing class devide in this country. Getting rid ogf NAFTA is a biggie.0 -
quote:Originally posted by PanzerSlayer2
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.
I'm not quite sure what information you are using, but minimum wage workers are not paying $2 per hour in Federal taxes, or anywhere close to it.
I would like to see a link for your second statement, please. There are about 145 million working in the US, and the figures I've seen don't support anywhere near 10% of that figure in the immediate ballpark of minimum wage. I suppose it depends on how high you wish to raise the wage, since you could assume an increase that would affect half the country, but that's not going to happen.
Only about 60% of the country works for hourly wages, so maybe the 10% figure is being applied to just that group.[:)]0 -
The solution is to raise the minimum wage to something realistic- say $500 per hour; then since that will put pressure on producers to raise raises, which we don't want- impose price controls. Require a company to pay employees $500 for the hour in which they produce an item that used to sell for $10, and since the producer can't raise the prices, it will still be $10. the problem is that the producer will start having his checks bounce because less is going into the checking account than is going out. Ah, no problem- The governmetn will loan the producer enough to cover his checks, but since there is no change in the cash flow, the money runs out and checks again start bouncing- Ah, no problem- the government forecloses on the business- nationalizes the industry and goes into production. Then they raise taxes to cover the production; so now the employee grosses $500 but only nets $10, with which he buys the $10 product. Simple as that!!! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
quote:Originally posted by PanzerSlayer2
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.
I'm not quite sure what information you are using, but minimum wage workers are not paying $2 per hour in Federal taxes, or anywhere close to it.
I would like to see a link for your second statement, please. There are about 145 million working in the US, and the figures I've seen don't support anywhere near 10% of that figure in the immediate ballpark of minimum wage. I suppose it depends on how high you wish to raise the wage, since you could assume an increase that would affect half the country, but that's not going to happen.
Only about 60% of the country works for hourly wages, so maybe the 10% figure is being applied to just that group.[:)]
Don't have a link as it was part of a presentation given to our county state officials who were considering a wage hike here.
I know that those making minimum dont pay 2hrs in taxes but the point was that the government would never make a decrease and lose revenue when they can increase it and still take a cut.0 -
Since my last post in this thread I've been thinking and did a little asking around. I was trying to think of employers who pay minimum wage and couldn't think of any! Made a few calls and found out even "Mc Jobs" pay more. If everybody pays more than the minimum this point is moot! 0 -
When there is sufficient supply of employers, the competition between them will result in wages equaling the additional products produced by the employee. Regardless as to the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is lower than productivity, actual wages will be higher. If the minimum wage is higher, then either the employee won't be hired or their will be some exemption such as "trainee" or part-time to pay less. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
36 comments