Minimum Wage

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel This sucks! Should have been front page, since it affects so many millions of hard working Americans.

When was this vote done? I looked on the web for some time and came up empty for a senate vote on a minimum wage.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Ape See post #15.

Ok, well you are just wrong. This part....

Quote by: Ape As the U.S. is not a socialist nation, and businesses are not social institutions, it is neither their duty nor advisable for them to diminish their profit for any reason.

Sorry pal. You are just plain wrong. There plenty of things that do cost a business money. There are regulations that say you cant sell your industrial waste or sewage as food. That could be very profitable (if you could deodorize it). There are regulations against speeding which slows down the delivery of your product and prevents you from making a lot more money. There are laws against using slaves and children to increase profit. There are all kinds of laws that protect the health and safety of employees (see OSHA) these laws are good for people. It may affect quotas. I know it sucks to be greedy. Tuff shit.

Quote by: Scribbler When was this vote done? I looked on the web for some time and came up empty for a senate vote on a minimum wage.

I looked around and couldnt find it right away...I did find this cool story about a speech by Vice President John Edwards.........oh wait the fascists stole that away from us, didnt they?

Quote by: Scribbler Aren't these things automatic anyway?

I heard Congressman Bernie Sanders talking about this yesterday. The congress pay raise comes up automatically. For a vote. It can be voted down.

Edit to add:
Then theres this from today:

Wash Post Democrats Press Higher Minimum Wage in Ads By JIM KUHNHENN The Associated Press Saturday, July 15, 2006; 11:56 AM <snip> The ads follow a recent nonbinding vote in the House to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour from the current $5.15. The vote urged lawmakers to include a minimum wage boost in a pending job training bill. Pryce and Davis were among 64 Republicans who voted with Democrats. In the Senate, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., has promised to block a pending congressional pay raise until Congress increases the minimum wage. Republican leaders and business groups say a minimum wage increase would reduce the number of entry-level jobs, hurting young and low-skilled workers.

[Scribbler1]

I still couldn't find ANYTHING on the Senate voting down a min. wage increase. I wanted to se if any Democrats voted it down. This guy Hightower must have a better info tool than Google I suppose.

I don't mind discussing something if I could only find some information on it.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Scribbler I still couldn't find ANYTHING on the Senate voting down a min. wage increase.

This bit in the Boston Globe (I offerred a link in my last post) describes it best, I think.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...f_the_richest/ <snip> Though the speech was long-scheduled, Edwards' timing was unerring. On Wednesday, Senator Edward Kennedy's bill to raise the federal minimum wage from its paltry $5.15 an hour to $7.25 won the votes of 52 senators, a majority, including eight Republicans. But the Republican leadership blocked it with a filibuster.

(See underlined)

[Scribbler1]

My fault. I looked at the story but didn't read all the way down. That would explain why it wasn't included in the voting record I guess.
Now if the Democrats have any sense they'll hammer the Republicans unmercifully on this as election time gets closer. I wonder how many people make min. wage and how many of their friends and families are bothered enough by this to vote, hopefully for a third party.

[Chris]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Quote by: Scribbler I still couldn't find ANYTHING on the Senate voting down a min. wage increase. This bit in the Boston Globe (I offerred a link in my last post) describes it best, I think. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...f_the_richest/ <snip> Though the speech was long-scheduled, Edwards' timing was unerring. On Wednesday, Senator Edward Kennedy's bill to raise the federal minimum wage from its paltry $5.15 an hour to $7.25 won the votes of 52 senators, a majority, including eight Republicans. But the Republican leadership blocked it with a filibuster. (See underlined)

Who was it who said "Stick with republicans and you will be OK"?

Was it Apeman or GBA?

Yeah I see that now. Mr Republican, why do you feel it necessary to raise your own pay and at the same time deny it to your constituents for almost 10 years!

Sick

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Scribbler I wonder how many people make min. wage and how many of their friends and families are bothered enough by this to vote, hopefully for a third party.

Only problem with that..........wouldnt the Libertarians be opposed to a Min. Wage? So third party votes would defeat a measure like this.

[Alive]

Quote by: lsbskins1 If you can sell a candy bar for 89 cents and make it for 40 cents, that leaves 49 cents to cover costs and take a profit.

If you can sell a candy bar for 89 cents and make it for 40 cents, then another company will make a candy bar 30 cents cheaper and drive away all your business, because they can still make a 10 cent profit. So yes, an increase in mininum wage necessarily means an increase in prices.

I don't think minimum wage would be particularly relevent in a completely closed society with a control over its money supply; higher wages would lead to higher prices, forcing an expansion of the money supply and a return to the pre-minimum-wage-increase equilibrium. Just a temporary disturbance. But because the dollar has an effect outside the US, a minimum wage increase will basically act as a tax on low-income American jobs...forcing companies to look elsewhere for low-income laborers and thus weakening the American economy. Not good.

I have to agree with tman here. Hopefully neither minimum wage nor congressional pay will be increased.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Only problem with that..........wouldnt the Libertarians be opposed to a Min. Wage? So third party votes would defeat a measure like this.

You're probably right, but I think they would vote on the side of simple realism though.

I think it's probably just another hot-button issue they throw out there to keep us off balance anyway. Like gay marriage and flag burning this seems to be an unnecessarily polarizing issue. From a practical standpoint even a success would be pointless. Maybe you can live in Africa or China on $7.25 per hour but you still can't live on it here so the net gain per worker wouldn't be much. A two income family might fare a little better, but I don't believe by much.

I feel the problem needs a lot more than a bump up in the MW to make a difference. The critics are right in saying any increase will probably be passed along to the consumer. EVERY consumer regardless of income.

The real answer, as always will be out of our reach thanks to Washington, I fear.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Scribbler I feel the problem needs a lot more than a bump up in the MW to make a difference. The critics are right in saying any increase will probably be passed along to the consumer. EVERY consumer regardless of income.

I suppose its unrealistic to ask CEO's to accept $2 Billion per year salary instead of $4 Billion. They have more right to an extravagant lifestyle than the peasants have a right to survival and the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Lets not forget; The Right to Profit was changed to; The Right to Pursuit of Happiness a long time ago. We forget that too easily

Wiki The phrase is based on the writings of John Locke, who expressed a similar concept of "life, liberty, and estate (or property)". While Locke said that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions", Adam Smith coined the phrase "life liberty and the pursuit of property" although that phrase has often been incorrectly attributed to Locke.

The pursuit of profit can be a "dog eat dog" bloody affair, if not checked by the rights of others who only want to pursue happiness. If it is impossible to be happy in a society that requires a minimum expense to be clothed and fed, A Poverty Line........ There should be protection from our leaders to see that those who devote a fraction of their day, be FAIRLY compensated for that portion. Whether the boss has to take a cut in profit, or raise the cost of resale goods and services, so be it.

It is becoming less a problem of rich vs. the poor and more about the 2% mega-rich versus everybody else. We are a nation of debt. Ultimately all wealth will be accumulated int a few hands. The middle class is shrinking to a debted society with no political power. The Republican THINK they are voting in their best interest, but the Neo Cons have them too, over a barrel. They will be pandered to in a minimalistic way, just enough to get them to the polls. But its all an act. They are manipulated by the oligarchy behind the curtain. Pay no attention to the retard puppet, either. He is only a decoy. He's there to take the arrows for the elite ruling class that really rules the world.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: |Chris| Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Quote by: Scribbler I still couldn't find ANYTHING on the Senate voting down a min. wage increase. This bit in the Boston Globe (I offerred a link in my last post) describes it best, I think. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...f_the_richest/ <snip> Though the speech was long-scheduled, Edwards' timing was unerring. On Wednesday, Senator Edward Kennedy's bill to raise the federal minimum wage from its paltry $5.15 an hour to $7.25 won the votes of 52 senators, a majority, including eight Republicans. But the Republican leadership blocked it with a filibuster. (See underlined) Who was it who said "Stick with republicans and you will be OK"? Was it Apeman or GBA? Yeah I see that now. Mr Republican, why do you feel it necessary to raise your own pay and at the same time deny it to your constituents for almost 10 years! Sick

The Democrats only made a big deal about not voting a raise for themselves and Republicans because they have been out of power for ten years and are trying to create positives about themselves for 2006 elections.
Their cut and run politics and anti-military rhetoric isn't going over well with the public.
If you follow their history, they are legendary for passing self raises (despite what the minimum wage is).

Outside of this being a show, Democrats could make a real difference tomorrow by limiting government employee/union welfare because of all the over payments of wages compared to the private sector and with our tax dollars.
I think corporate welfare is bad also unless there is no taxation if the profits go back into building the business directly.

The reason minimum wage is rarely raised and should not be is that you end jobs and could close many small businesses if they are raised. You could throw the nation into a massive recession/depression and greatly reduce tax revenue to the treasury.

A minimum wage is just your beginning wage for a new worker. As a new person you are almost more of a liability in business than you are a benefit.
After a short time if you are worth it you get a raise or go elsewhere to find a better wage. Even without an education you can build a work record and become a far better higher waged employee elsewhere eventually.
FROM THE MARKET. You should have lots of people willing to pay you more if you are worth it.

If there are really dumb people who need a raise in minimum wage to get any raise in their life long job, then if they are that worthless they are not even likely worth their current wage or are illegals.

I think minimum wages for teenagers should be lower yet, maybe $4 an hour so they can pick up some skills while in high school without illegals taking their jobs.

A $2 increase in the minimum wage could easily IMO close lots of smaller businesses, stop lots of future businesses from popping up and would be a great recession/depression starter.

FROM THE MARKET! If they are worth it (as most DO become more valuable), the market will pay them more naturally without Ted Kennedy or a massive recession/depression.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel I suppose its unrealistic to ask CEO's to accept $2 Billion per year salary instead of $4 Billion. They have more right to an extravagant lifestyle than the peasants have a right to survival and the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

I think it's more the extreme disparity of income that makes the problem as bad as it is. But that may be by design as well. I'm not an economist and I'd like a knowledgeable assessment of what I'm about to say, but it might be we NEED such as big difference between haves and have-nots to maintain a balance. If EVERYONE made a pile of cash wouldn't inflation mean that pile would mean about the same as the German Mark in prewar Germany? But if you have a large segment of the population making significantly less than the upper-middle and wealthy then inflation stays low?

[Aeris]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Aren't these things automatic anyway?

No, actually. Congress votes on it every year.

And will a raise to $7.25 do anything? No, its still not even half the living wage. I think that most people don't see that minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage. Its supposed to be low - for people who are starting out. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. People who need the higher paying jobs are either forced into lower ones, forced to stay there or they don't care enough to go further.

But, that being said, I think the governement is going about raising minimum wage correctly - slowly. If we jumped straight to a minimum wage it would upset the economy until companies had their budgets balanced again. Even then, the company would be losing money because of increased production costs.

Quote by: Apeman81 Increased production cost prior to the point of sale, without a corresponding increase in sale price to offset the increased production cost equals a reduced profit. Simple economics. (which makes me wonder why the public school system chooses not to teach economics as other than an elective) BTW, have any poor people been lifted from poverty by an increase in the minimum wage?

Thank you. This is what I mean, but you stated it so much more clearly.

True, the price diffrence for the consumer and the cost for the producer is quite large on something even so cheap as a nail, but stock holders and investors are there for their money. That's all they care about. And if the company caters to the employee more than the stock holders, the stock holders are going to lose interest and the company will lose money. I'm not saying that this is fair by any means - but it is what happens.

So what to do? I care less for business than I do people, but at the same time I know that there is nothing I can do to help the people. Writing to Congress doesn't help - I've tried that. I'm sick of form letters. I think Tman has the right of it: All that is going to come out of this is that minimum wage won't stay the same and Congress won't get a raise.

[Nono]

Quote by: Scribs If you have a large segment of the population making significantly less than the upper-middle and wealthy then inflation stays low?

You mean if everyone made 100 million a year it would be inflationary? To me that's like worrying the sky will fall. Anyway, squeezing the poor to "fight inflation" is an old ploy to protect the swagger of the rich.

Tommy Douglas used to say the difference between the US and Canada was that the US measured success by how many millionaires it had while Canada asked itself how many poor people it had. To me that's exactly right. Work to keep people out of poverty, and if then some people earn a bundle, fine.

[Nono]

Quote by: Aeris If we jumped straight to a minimum wage it would upset the economy until companies had their budgets balanced again.

If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that excuse ... it'd be inflationary.
There may be a few smaller companies in that position, but there are plenty of ways of keeping them out of trouble.

Ensuring people have a decent income is a moral question. In addition, there's an economic benefit: a respectable minumum wage puts money in people's pockets, and unike the rich -- who will buy bonds, take vacations abroad, etc. -- wage-earners can be depended on to spend that money where it counts.

[Nono]

Wow, a triple post.

[Nono]

Wow a triple....

[brien]

Quote by: IdahoSamurai Yes, brilliant. And while we are toying around with this line of reasoning, let's also line up all the poor people and spit on them and throw rocks at them. If you don't think corporate America can shell out a few more dollars to the lowly workers without losing profits, then there is something seriously wrong with you. Just look at the empircal evidence. Has society crumbled every time the minimum wage has been increased in the past? No. As a matter of fact, that's the dumbest thing I"ve ever heard. I'll bet if things were up to folks like you that slavery would still be in effect.

Oh puleeze, cut the anti business rhetoric. You can condemn "big business" all you want but minimum wage affects more than Big business in America. Big Business has already moved to other countries for labor so that is one result of increasing minimum wage. The increase in minimum wage affect the small businesses in America to the point where they can't hire needed employees to grow their business when the minimum wage rises.

Here is your link to the study:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html

From the link:

Our conclusion is simple and direct: to the extent that increased minimums raise the cost of hiring low-productivity workers, fewer of those workers will be employed. Note, however, that our finding of greater job losses for teenagers is due to the fact that a large fraction of teenagers have low wages, and it is not because the teenagers who earn low wages are necessarily more likely to lose their jobs than are the adults who also earn low wages. Teenagers constituted only 32 percent of those earning $4.25 or less in the year before the 1990-91 increases. Hispanic workers constituted 20 percent, blacks 16 percent, and adult women without a high school degree 12 percent of this low-wage population. We have not asked whether increased minimums reduce the employment of low-wage teenagers more or less than the employment of low-wage adults. The question of which workers earning low wages are most harmed by increased minimums is more subtle and demands further research.

Futhermore, from the study on the Clinton increase on minimum wage:

e evidence on minimum wages and employment does not vindicate the president’s view that minimum wages increase employment. But the minimum wage debate has focused attention on the problems of older low-wage workers. Another "new" finding in this renewed debate over minimum wages is that teenagers are a minority of those earning low wages and thus of those most affected by minimum wage laws. While this information is hardly revelatory—teenagers constituted 32 percent of those earning $4.25 or less in the year before the 1990-91 increases and 38 percent of those earning at or below the federal minimum in May 1973—the attention now being paid to low-skilled workers other than the young is welcomed. Secretary Reich has stated that it is now more important to increase the minimum because of the many nonteenagers earning low wages. To the contrary, precisely because a majority of low-skilled, and thus low-wage, workers cannot easily outgrow this condition, it is important to prevent further declines in employment opportunities for these workers. It is not that there are too many low-wage jobs, but that there are not enough jobs for low-wage workers; and minimum wages make things worse.

And finally from the most recent minimum wage BS.

Link:http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6484

From the link:

Increasing the minimum wage may give "liberal" legislators great pride and win them votes, but it does not address the key issue of how to achieve economic growth and thus reduce poverty. Hong Kong has no minimum wage but is one of the most prosperous economies in the world — because it is also the freest.

Economic freedom, not minimum-wage socialism, is the key to reducing poverty, as China is learning. If legislators really want to help the poor, the best thing they can do is abolish, not increase, the minimum wage.

In America, the majority of low-income earners typically move up the income ladder by improving themselves, not because of the minimum wage. Policies that increase competition and choice in public education, reduce marginal tax rates on capital and labor, and protect private property rights would be positive steps toward increasing economic freedom, workers' dignity, and prosperity.


I think it is crystal clear that raising minimum wage is more about votes and "feel good" legislation, than it is about economics in Capitalism.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Nono You mean if everyone made 100 million a year it would be inflationary? To me that's like worrying the sky will fall. Anyway, squeezing the poor to "fight inflation" is an old ploy to protect the swagger of the rich.

I never said it was right, only if my assessment is accurate.

Tommy Douglas used to say the difference between the US and Canada was that the US measured success by how many millionaires it had while Canada asked itself how many poor people it had. To me that's exactly right. Work to keep people out of poverty, and if then some people earn a bundle, fine.

Well, that might be part of the problem in the first place. Not everyone EARNS the money they have. We don't produce much in the way of consumer goods any more, but there is apparently a LOT of money to be made from speculation and moving money around without producing anything. Things like jacking up the price of a barrel of oil because there MIGHT be a problem with supply in the future is an example.
You can't work to keep out of poverty when there aren't that many good jobs around to work AT.

[Aeris]

Quote by: Nono If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that excuse ... it'd be inflationary. There may be a few smaller companies in that position, but there are plenty of ways of keeping them out of trouble. Ensuring people have a decent income is a moral question. In addition, there's an economic benefit: a respectable minumum wage puts money in people's pockets, and unike the rich -- who will buy bonds, take vacations abroad, etc. -- wage-earners can be depended on to spend that money where it counts.

I didn't mean to use it as an excuse, I would like to see the minimum wage higher. I just think that's what would have if we did it too quickly.