GOP-Run Senate Kills Minimum Wage Increase

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 22 2006, 01:24 PM) [snapback]275419[/snapback]</div>

Mirza-

Your turn;
What do you think is a fair minimum wage and how should we pay for it?

Assuming a finite supply of money, who or what 'loses' to fulfill your plan?

Walt

 

I think I've said everything I needed to say... I do not have much knowledge other than what has been posted in the thread. I am in support of your latest reasoning, unless there are other factors involved pop up (and if they happen to be in support of raising minimum wage... they might do the opposite as far as I know). I really don't think I have anything else to say.

 

In the last 8-9 years, the UK's gone from having no minimum wage to having a minimum wage of £5.05 an hour (something like $9). This doesn't seem to have done the economy any harm, and it's helped a lot of low-paid workers.

Of course there were all the usual whinges prior to the event by business leaders, who didn't want to have to spend cash on employees rather than their own bonuses, but now it's in place, none of the political parties wish to repeal it. And quite a few arguing for raising it, including the "Campaign for a Living Wage", which may well get it's way with having a £7.05 ($12.50-ish) minimum wage in London.

It's a bit sad reading this thread to see how well the wealthy elite in the USA have brainwashed the masses into believing that a minimum wage will cause economic disaster. A bit like the sorry state of your healthcare system. They've got you all voting against your best interests. Suckers.

 

Well said! Thank for your enlightening post.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Jun 22 2006, 05:55 PM) [snapback]275467[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 22 2006, 01:44 PM) [snapback]275331[/snapback]</div>

Excuse me, but the direct inflationary effect of any minimum wage increase may be "old" as in an enduring fact as I and others have already demonstrated to you, but you're hardly shown any evidence to the contrary, other than to call it an "old" argument once and "unfair" twice. It is clearly the "inconvenient factor" for you and you have yet to credibly counter the argument.

Nowhere in my argument have I dismissed the fact that health care and insurance costs have gone up substantially as have petroleum products. But those are only certain factors that make up an entire cost of living index. Higher wage costs do also increase the prices of goods and services, therefore is inflationary and inflation is a potential "viscious cycle" type of thing that seems to be best controlled by prevailing interest rates.

I remember when prevailing rates were up in near 20% in the early 80's to try to tame inflation, and eventually, it worked. I was getting huge cost of living increases in pay during that time. It certainly made me "feel good" that I was making so much more money. But also going up were the costs of the product my company manufactured and my rent when up constantly and so did all the goods and services I bought. In the end, I effectively gained NO additional purchasing power through all those raises.

If you are going to argue the point that a minimum wage increase is not inflationary, then I suggest you present some real evidence to the contrary and not whine that my factual argument is "old" or "unfair."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 22 2006, 04:18 PM) [snapback]275413[/snapback]</div>

Wages are (or should be) determined by a free and open market, just like anything else. They should be determined by the value provided to the employer and by the prevailing market (suppy and demand) conditions are for that kind of job. Also, if workers at Walmart don't like what they make, they can always unionize. If Walmart closes a store because it unionized, all the better, you don't need that kind of employer in town. And if you don't want to find yourself in a Walmart job for the rest of your career, you need to persue an education for a marketable skill.

No one is arguing to repeal sweatshop and child labor laws, and your inserting them into this argument is diversionary. It's quite off the topic. And actually I wouldn't argue to "do away with" the existing minimum wage, I'm only pointing out the direct inflationary effect of an increase to the current minimum wage.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 22 2006, 04:20 PM) [snapback]275414[/snapback]</div>

That's funny. As I remember it, the minimum wage in 1975 when I started working was $1.80 an hour, and yes, I started working at a minimum wage job. But I had and have ambition, and that soon changed as I either got raises or persued better jobs. I remember in the 60's that my mom was making less than a dollar an hour. And now the minimum wage is what? $7 something an hour?

Actually, thank you, Mirza, you've just proven my "old" and "unfair" but nontheless factual point. In a very proprotionate manner, no, the multitude of increases to minimum wage over the years has not effectively increased buying power in any way, because of the very fact that increases are directly inflationary causing the cost of living to go up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jun 22 2006, 06:01 PM) [snapback]275499[/snapback]</div>

You just did argue for doing away with the existing minimum wage. You said that pay should be determined by a free and open market, value to an employer and supply and demand. That is an argument for rescinding minimum wage laws.

I think raising the minimum wage would have comparatively little effect on inflation compared to the rising price of gas. Gas minimum wage workers won't be able to buy to get to their jobs. The price of gas taking a larger and larger percentage of a pretty small paycheck. (But hey....let them walk or take the bus. Serves them right for being uneducated, unskilled, unambitious or just plain lazy.)

Wages determined by a free and open market? Value to the employer? When you import labor from another country (as Bush has proposed more than once) that will consistently work for less than American Citizens...no matter how low the wages...... And sorry, but most employers would be more than happy to pay less and less. Between that and outsourcing what is left? In fact, I'm sure plenty of companies would like their employees to pay them for the privilege of working there. Because money and bottom line is everything.

The problem with your supply and demand conditions determining the value of a job is that there will ALWAYS be someone willing to do the work for less. Hence the Walmart $1 an hour example. Allow Walmart to pay $1 an hour and see what happens. The current workers may all quite...but Walmart will still be in business and fully staffed. But better learn to speak Spanish if you shop there. And Walmart won't go out of business. Because they'll lower their prices (but not that much so they'll make obscene profits) and people will still shop their because people would rather pay less. Even if it violates their scruples or personal philosophy or whatever. Even though they know Americans lost jobs. Even if they lost their own job at Walmart, they'll still shop there. For some because they can't afford to shpo anywhere else. For others, because Americans are basically cheap, want something for nothing and think they are entitled to a bargain.

Walmart workers can't Unionize. It's been tried.

Easy to say hey get educated and get a better job. All it takes is money and time that minimum wage workers don't have. I guess that's their punishment for not applying themselves in High School or not being born to parents that could provide them with a college education?

And my statements on sweat shops and child labor are only an extention of the argument.

First it's don't raise the minimum wage. Then it's either lower it or abolish it. I believe your statement regarding allowing a free market to set wages would be the abolish the minimum wage argument. Minimum wage is part of working conditions, that we've already seen eroded. Or perhaps no one remembers a law the current administration passed that said employers no longer had to pay overtime for supervisors. That means your boss makes you a "supervisor" and suddenly you can work a 50 hour week for 40 hour pay. Then you work on getting rid of those mandatory morning and afternoon breaks. Because the government shouldn't interfere and there should be less regulation and if they don't like it they can quit blah blah blah. Soon lunch will be gone or on your own time. I believe Walmart has some shifts where you don't get a lunch break. Because Government regulation is bad bad bad.

Once you start doing away with some protections it's easy to do away with others. And "market driven" is a great justification. No, we'll never have the child labor abuses of the past. But sweatshops and piecework aren't that far of a stretch. Get rid of those pesky regulations. Let the market set the price. Supply/demand, value to employers. You don't think people won't work in a sweatshop if that's the only work they can get? And they'll still be someone willing to work for less than they do.

India here we come.

Minimum wage in this country is dysfunctional at best. Our (lack) of health care is worse. Minimum wage would be tolerable if those people at least had decent health care. (Let's talk about the emergency rooms next.) There are two major areas that beg for some reform. If this country wants to continue to enjoy it's status of the greatest country in the world....maybe it better start acting like it for it's own citizens. Remove our own splinters before we go sticking our noses in other people's logs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Jun 22 2006, 05:55 PM) [snapback]275467[/snapback]</div>

I notice that the UK has two minimum wage rates, one for people under 24 years of age and one for those over. There's a 20% or so difference between the two, or almost $2 difference. If the minimum wage here needs to be increased, I would support some sort of graduated scale like that so that the increase is more targeted at those supporting themselves and a family, not at teenagers working at McDonalds.

 

i see arguments for both sides of the coin here.

first, the federal minimum wage has not increased since 1996. meanwhile, costs of living have increased substantially. currently, it's $5.15 an hour- a gross income of $10712 if you take no days off and work full time.

however, inflation occurs regardless of minimum wage increases. either way, the poor are going to stay poor. everything gets more expensive every year. hell, my cell phone bill gets more expensive every month with the increases in taxes and etc.

a lot of our culture perpetuates the "gotta have it now regardless of consequences" attitude- and that sends more people into more financial burden than they can handle. this is a values issue with our society in general that affects the whole spectrum of income earners, but the lower end much harder than the higher end.

i think the graduated minimum wage is a good idea, however i think 24 is a bit old since i know people in their early 20s who are supporting a family already. my best friend is having baby #2 in october and she's younger than i am.

many of our low wage earners *are* those in high school and college- but the rest are the ones with no real education and no real skills. many in this subset likely don't even have a high school diploma. and well, that's a bad choice they made. on the other side of this argument, it's hard to change your mind and make progress in your life when you're working day and night to keep your head above water.

i think what we could use is some kind of GED assistance program- like a scholarship program or something- to at least give some people who have the initiative to change, a foot up in the saddle to get their basic education. maybe that will get the motivated ones some momentum toward moving on to a technical school or learning some trade skill to improve their lives. of course this is in an ideal situation- and we all know the world is far from ideal.

 

AnOldHouse,

Apparently you did not read the later posts.

-I got 1946 from watching cnn... apparently it must have not been wages but something else... I was thinking about other stuff while watching, and got the wrong idea.

-Here is what I had meant by old... you can doubt what I am saying, but my intention in using the term old referred to the responses that mentioned the inflation argument without explaining the position. THIS IS NOT A BLAME... but I suggest providing more details when giving an argument... some of us, like me, don't have much knowledge on things regarding this matter... but I assure that you did not have the correct idea of my intention in the use of the term old.... anyhow, I will not be contributing to this thread unless I get more knowledge about the matter myself... and leave to those who do know.

Peace.

 

1965-I was 16 and my pay was $1.15: no benefits and I did ride my bike to school and to work. Later, I bought a $300, 4 year-old car from my uncle. Got a loan (dad cosigned) and repaid $19/month...insurance was $600/6 months(!)
1967-big raise!! $1.26, and as I am now a high school 'gradu-eate', I can work 40 hours per week while attending college!! I get to pay my parents some rent, too...
1968-bigger raise!! to @2.35 (wooohoooo!!!!!) BTW: i am now out of the minimum wage scale and on to grocery industry 'career track' as a shelf stocker and fork lift operator..

later 1968-pay cut - I get invited to this long running reality show in an exotic place in Southeast Asia; my personal host is originally the USMC, but their boss (US Navy) intercedes and sends me to Iceland instead. My pay is now $105/month before taxes and I do get some benefits though.
1969 pay raise to $125/month
1970-best damned pay jump of my entire life - $235/month WOWWW

 

I would hope that I would not still be living on minimum wage at the age of 57 years old.

Minimum wage is an artificial number. I started working in 1965, barely 16 years old; 40 years and 2 careers later, I make a bit more...

Mostly due to my own initiative.

Remember, $1.15 was entry level pay; in 1973, UAW wages were $4.25/hr, minus $100 UAW entry dues and the company picked up all medical, dental, insurance, etc. benefit costs.

Cost of gas in 1965 was $0.19 blah, blah, blah.
As I recall, a new VW cost less than $1,700, but no one that i went to high school or college drove a new car; most were lucky to have a 3-5 year-old car.

I found this on the web:

1966 Prices
Bread: $0.22/loaf
Milk: $1.11/gal
Eggs: $1.05/doz
Car: $2,410
Gas: $0.32/gal


House: $23,300
Stamp: $0.05/ea
Avg Income: $8,395/yr
Min Wage: $1.25/hr


2000 Prices
Bread: $0.93/loaf
Milk: $2.78/gal
Eggs: $1.25/doz
Car: $20,664
Gas: $1.57/gal

House: $206,400
Avg Income: $65,500/yr
Min Wage: $5.50/hr

 

Silly question but what do you think the purpose of the minimum wage is or was?

 

Minimum wage increase? What's next? Letting them look you in the eye without giving them a good whipping for it? America has always needed its slaves.

 

The federal minimum wage was first established as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 at 25 cents an hour. Many workers were not covered by the initial Act, most notably those in the retail trade and service industries. The original Act has been amended six times to expand coverage and provide adjustments terms) and the percentage of workers in covered employment have roughly doubled since 1938.

I think it was to establish a baseline of lifeline wages while the country recovered from the depression.

 

I think America needs to stop thinking locally and start acting more globally. Nothing we do is isolated or independant from what is happening in other parts of the world.

Minimum Wage definition Info Please

Minimum Wage: a global perspective

" The minimum wage is used in well over half of the 194 nations of the world. As a look at Google’s news headlines for the minimum wage shows (accessible on the home page for this site), changes in the minimum wage somewhere in the world make the news nearly every day. Since its beginnings in New Zealand and Australia as a measure to protect vulnerable, low-paid workers in a few industries, the minimum wage has grown in both its global spread and its labor market impact, especially since the 1950s.
As Americans view the minimum wage around the world, one of its recognizable features is that it in some countries it is set by national authorities and in others by more local governing bodies. Yet the familiarity is somewhat deceptive: while U. S. minimum wages can be set by both the states and the federal government, in other countries they are set at one level or the other but not both. Vietnam and South Korea are among the nations with a minimum wage for the entire country. Japan and China, in contrast, have regional minimums established by regional administrations. "

"To Americans dulled by the repetition of a narrow range of arguments about the minimum wage at home, reading about the minimum wage in other countries can be refreshing. The permutations of the minimum wage and indeed the very controversy about it in other parts of the world remind us what a valuable, flexible, and widely used tool it has become in the pursuit of social justice and economic well-being."

Minimum wage around the world

"Companies that cry poverty when asked to pay their workers a living wage ought to look at management compensation as a place to trim the fat. While U.S. CEOs make an obscene 326 times the salary of the average U.S. factory worker, they make 27,710 times the average Chinese or Indonesian factory worker! The inequalities are obscene, and pointing this out to shareholders, consumers and workers themselves will be a key component of the living wage campaign."

Time for a living wage- Global Exchange

It's always about money and the bottom line. And since the CEOs set the rules and decide the "value" of their own wages, no way they'll take a pay cut. I guess what they do is way too valuable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2006, 02:29 PM) [snapback]275914[/snapback]</div>

I know the definition of "minimum wage" - please tell me what was/is the purpose of it? And I am less interested in the economic policies of other countries when it comes to it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2006, 01:59 AM) [snapback]275684[/snapback]</div>

You won't get an argument from me there, especially for the unabitious or just plain lazy ones. There are plenty of uneducated and/or unskilled people who have ambition and are not lazy, work hard, live within their means and do very well in life and don't go looking to the goverment to make their lives perfect.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2006, 01:59 AM) [snapback]275684[/snapback]</div>

This country was built on "imported labor" as you put it, including the labors of my immigrant grandparents. In spite of how low the wages might be, they're still far better off coming here.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2006, 01:59 AM) [snapback]275684[/snapback]</div>

Your $1 theory is ridiculous and weakens your argument. If Walmart was only Spanish speaking, few people would be going there. Walmart does not have a monopoly on low-paying jobs. They still have to compete for workers, and thus, wages would not fall if minimum wages were eliminated (which, by the way, I'm still not arguing for that, I think there's a difference in stating a personal philosophy and arguing for the removal of an established regulation).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2006, 01:59 AM) [snapback]275684[/snapback]</div>

There's something wrong with paying as little as possible for something you buy?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2006, 01:59 AM) [snapback]275684[/snapback]</div>

Yes, it was tried at ONE store and the store closed in retaliation. So what? Do you think that the auto companies accepted unions willingly? Unless unions were outlawed, unions are within the reach of Walmart workers and workers for any other company. They just have to want it and be strong about it. Did you ever see the movie "Norma Rae"? It's up to individuals to cooperate and develop a strong common voice, not wait for the government to play parent.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2006, 01:59 AM) [snapback]275684[/snapback]</div>

Plenty of very ambitious but utterly poor people persue educational opportunities that are already made well available by the government.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2006, 01:59 AM) [snapback]275684[/snapback]</div>

Again, I never said that, nor do my views include any of what you just outlined. Again, a weak diversionary tactic on your part that does not really address the issue at hand: minimum wage.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2006, 01:59 AM) [snapback]275684[/snapback]</div>

I'm glad you brought that up considering that many Walmart employees already enjoy one of the most comprehensive and entirely free social medical systems available: Medicaid.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 23 2006, 01:59 AM) [snapback]275684[/snapback]</div>

So just what would you propose a new federal minimum wage would be? What would you propose to counter the inflationary effect that it would undoubtedly have?

What about company-paid-for family medical leave legislation as is now being proposed?

Is there anything that you think the goverment shouldn't either provide or tightly regulate?

What percent of your income are you willing to give up in taxes to have that kind of socialist system?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 23 2006, 02:48 PM) [snapback]275926[/snapback]</div>

Don't you think that information from a website called "raiseminwage.org" might be just a tad biased? No particular agenda there, huh?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jun 23 2006, 03:01 PM) [snapback]275928[/snapback]</div>

U R good!