i know you are going to have a heart-attack here CJ, but yes i agree with you. There is no such thing as a controlled environment which is the point i was making. You can't simply put two graphs next to eachother and say that one thing is proven due to the 'facts' presented in the other...our economy doesnt work that way. What i pointed out in my first paragraph is that both sides are disregarding every factor of our economy when analyzing the data. One side is using data from 1997 to prove one point and the other side is using data from a different year and a different economy to prove their point...it just doesnt work.



Nighttimer's study did exactly what i was talking about. You can't pick a two year period in any old state where there was a minimum wage increase and use it to prove your point. Maybe that state just had a natural disaster or maybe that state allocated too many funds to useless programs instead of ones that helped the state economy...these factors are not taken into account.

EVERYONE is making the debate entirely too simple. The absolute truth is that increment minimum wage increases would work in some places under certain conditions and would fail in other places under other conditions. But it is those conditions that are so important to this debate that it is irresponsible to disregard them.

Lederuvdapac,

There are also factors which would mitigate the impact on jobs...potential price increases, increased sales to the very group getting the wage increase, etc. This is where Vermillions assertion of my hypotheses of what a wage of $1 million dollar/hr would do is a gross exageration is entirely correct. Small wage increases can potentially be compensated for in other areas, whereas large wage increases can not.

I think the statistics cited by Nighttimer are entirely appropriate. If one wanted to study the effects of a minimum wage hike, how would one do it? Well, the only logical way would be to study various indicators before and after the increase. That is exactly what the study he cited did. You could apply your arguments to it, but it's still the only reasonable way to study it. I find the studies plausible. I can see where there might not be many jobs lost, particularly with a very modest increase. Now, there might be some hours cut, which I don't think the study addressed. How would an employer likely address this? Well, by having its minimum wage workers get the same work done, whether they worked the same hours, or slightly less. So, some workers might have to work harder than they did before. I'll bet, though, that if you asked them, they'd all vote for the raise.

The cost of living in San Francisco is so much higher than most other places that your example falls apart.

For example, if I make the minimum wage in Cleveland Ohio ($5.15) then I need to make over $11 an hour to have a comparable living. link. In other words, I am worse off in San Francisco making $8.82 than I am in Cleveland making $5.15.

In addition, despite the fact that Californians have high median family income (over $58,000) California has a higher than average poverty rate (12.9% vs. 12.1 percent nationally). If the minimum wage were a cure for poverty, you'd think it would be lower than the average. The higher minimum wage in the various states seems to have little correlation with poverty levels either way.

Ahhh... your youth is an asset Leder.

The truth is that we're debating that the minimum wage should be/shouldn't be raised nationwide. It's a major sticking point between liberals & conservatives in that this is a genuine states' rights issue.

Frankly, the argument presented in numerous posts with a plethora of statistical information is that as a nation, it wouldn't necessarily have a positive effect.

Local and state governments (as have been presented in my previous posts) have made the decisions in their respective locales to raise the min wage. However, to state that what's good for Alexandria, Louisiana is applicable to Flint, Michigan is beyond irresponsible and completely negates the effects of demand-side economics and capitalism as a whole.

I think Amlord sums it up....
Easy enough if you ask me....

Wouldn't the appropriate solution then be to set the Federal minimum wage as the lowest acceptable standard? Individual states would then have the ability to raise their minimum wage if necessary. States do already have minimum wages of their own. So, the question then to ask is...what is wrong with letting states set their own minimum wage? As shown above, there is certainly ample evidence that this is a much more appropriate method.

Conversely, the argument presented in numerous posts with a plethora of statistical information is that as a nation, the minimum wage has not had a negative effect on the economy as a whole and small business specifically.

Local and state governments have raised the minimum wage due to refusal of Congress to act. What is irresponsible in saying that employers in Alexandria, Louisiana should pay a janitor at least $5.15 an hour just as a employer in Flint, Michigan does?

The minimum wage establishes a floor that wages cannot go below. It's a floor, not a ceiling. The cost of a night on the town in Manhattan doubtlessly varies somewhat from a night on the town in Cleveland, but that doesn't invalidate the need there is a bottom line income that all workers, regardless of their skills or ambitions, should be able to receive.

It would be a terrible idea if all 50 states could set their own labor and wage standards as they saw fit. Why should a employer in a wealthy state like New Hampshire be able to pay their workers one wage with a employer in a poor state like Mississippi paying considerably less for the exact same kind of work? There has to be some kind of national standard set or you'll just have places where there is a minimum wage and others where there is not.

It's called the minimum wage and as such, is subject to be revised as economic situations warrant. Everyone would like to make a maximum wage, but whatever that magic number of dollars is, there are no artificial constraints placed upon how much you can earn.

Those who are knowledgeable enough, experienced and trained enough, talented enough, skilled enough and ambitious enough do not need the protection of the local, state or federal government to ensure they are fairly compensated for their labor. It is those workers who do not possess those traits entering the work force or slip back into low-wage work or find themselves in unfortunate circumstances that DO.

They need a minimum wage and that minimum wage needs to be raised.

What the hell, I'm a Cancer, and we're into water. LOL



Yes, I did read "Nickel and Dimed" and enjoyed it. I don't mean to sound like a crabby old broad who wants to see people starve. That's not the case at all. But I *do* think people need to be more adaptable and less dependent on the government to bail them out.

I used to know a group of women who got together and formed a babysitting cooperative when they were struggling to find child care for their very young children. They rented a big house together, and one mom stayed home with all their kids. After a few years, the oldest children were old enough be in charge at home, so the at-home mom went to work. They did this rather than going on welfare.

People can reach out to their church or community groups for help as well. There are options available if you look for them.

Agreed. There are chuches, food banks, shelters, and many other support groups that provide a safety net.

And additionally, when you receive unemployment compensation in Ohio, you are required to be able and actively seeking work to get benefits. Sitting on your bottom and pounding Oreos and watching "The View" until the mailman brings you a check is not an option. Not when you only have a year to collect unemployment (and that is predicated upon your wages over a 18-month span and whether it calculates out to enough to cover an entire year worth of benefits. Frequently, the benefit amount that can be drawn upon expires before the benefit year ends).

But one cannot make the transition from dependency to independence on $5.15 an hour. Maybe you could pull it off if you ate only once or twice a day and eliminated red meat from your diet, but you can't take care of food, housing, health care or transportation for a family on those kind of wages. Everybody wants to make more money. But just saying you should without putting in place the means to do so will never make it happen.

Will $7 bucks magically erase poverty and low-wage work? Of course not. But every dollar helps. It can't hurt. If the United States can afford to spend a billion dollars a week to build a democracy in Iraq, it can withstand a less than two dollar, phased-in raise in the minimum wage without crippling the economy.

Nothing. This is just an example of how a Federal minimum wage should be applied. The question is....how should that Federal minimum wage be set. The logical place would be at the lowest common denominator, as that would be the only level applicable at the Federal level.



Exactly. But the only applicable level to set this at would be the lowest common denominator...ie, whatever level was deemed appropriate in the cheapest locale. The answer to your question is quite simple....the workers in New Hampshire should likely pay more because the cost of living is higher, changing the relative value of whatever wage is set. This is precisely why having minimum wages set at as local a level as possible is a for more prudent solution. I would further add that doing so allows those most closely affected to be the ones voting on the issue.



Absolutely. Is there any doubt that economic conditions in California or Manhattan differ significantly from Mississippi, or Two Dot Montana? This is precisely why it needs to be set at the lowest common denominator.

Before we get too far down this path...is anyone here really arguing that this isn't the case? It is my understanding that this is indeed how minimum wages have been set in the past. This doesn't indicate that the minimum wage should not be reaised (unless the current minimum is already appropriate as a lowest common denominator), but it does go to what level is appropriate to raise it to. I would also point out that, for those really interested in raising the minimum wage, it is far easier for you to enact such change at the local level than at the national level, as your voice carries more weight at the local level. Why not then prefer that path?

No my example does not fall apart because of that. The cost of housing is much higher and the cost of gas is higher, everything else is pretty close to the same.

The relative cost of living isn't the point. You are suggesting that having a high minimum wage leads to unemployment and this city proves you wrong. We have consistently had lower unemployment than the rest of the country and we have a stronger small business community than almost anywhere in America.


We also have a significant portion of pur population that are immigrants, both legal and illegal. So as Leder said, it isn't that simple

Actually... the relative cost of living is the point precisely. If the government based its decisions on a "one size fits all" approach, we'd have to raise the minimum wage nationally, which could be staunchly detrimental to economies in already depressed regions. The low unemployment in San Francisco actually helps to prove the point for Amlord.

Think of it this way, if it costs $8.50 in SF to equal $5.15 in Cleveland, then essentially San Francisco is already paying nearly the national minimum wage and encouraging total-employment. Stronger small business communities ARE going to appear in that it's easier for them to hire at the lower wages (respectively). If you're not seriously considering relativity in this discussion, it's hard to use any objective logic. In order to maintain profitability, there's no way you can actually claim that the cost of doing business in an area with markedly more expensive real estate is the same as in an area that has cheaper rent/retail space. The only way a San Francisco business could maintain profitability via lower/similar pricing would be to have extremely high volume (which could be the case), but in either scenario if the cost of living is 35-40% higher in SF, $8+/hr IS the min wage....

Ok, nighttimer, I believe that you might have missed the point of our statements, posts, and numerous statistical representations.


If you actually believe that the minimum wage increase is going to have an impact on the federal government, as your statement eludes to, you've confused the heck out of me. The war in Iraq costs the Federal Government, but hasn't manifested itself in increased burden on the tax payer (as of yet). In fact, the American public has benefited from the war in the form of expanded industry that doesn't exist during times of peace.

The wage increase has little or no bearing on most areas, but moreover on the small business owner. During this thread I have:
- given numerous factual links to government websites showing cost of living differences
- shown that the vast majority of businesses in the US are small businesses
- given a "real life" example of how this could easily be detrimental to a small business owner
- show a number of state level min wage changes
- given an example of even a local min wage change

But still... people are pressing on that this needs to be national. I'm at my wits end when it comes to this train of thought.

It's not about a night on the town, but moreover the cost of living (gas, food, rent, etc) and its relativity to geography. Let's go one step further... as it is apparently necessary.
If a 3 bedroom house in my hometown (Shreveport, La) costs $650/mo to rent...
Rental home in Shreveport

or a one bedroom apt costs about $400 in the same city...
Apt in Shreveport

Yet in Dallas, the same house costs nearly $1000...
Dallas homes

That's a roughly $400 swing in monthly expense, which over the course of a year costs in the neighborhood of $2.30/hr... and only a 200 mile difference in distance. If you're a small business owner in Shreveport and the national minimum wage increases by the difference ($2.30/hr), and you had a measly 15 employees, it would cost you $71,760... which may cripple that autobody shop, that corner grocery, or insert ____ business type. In which case then you'd have 15 people (or however many it took to stay afloat) in the unemployment line. Small business owners are NOT the CEO's often mentioned in this thread... and as stated, comprise an overwhelming majority of US business.

If the average menial labor worker in Shreveport earns $6.50, the same worker in Dallas would have to earn $8.80 to break even (roughly).

So is a notion of social justice worth economic instability? Is this a conservative vs. liberal spitting contest, or does someone really believe that a wage "floor" so to speak is beneficial on a coast-to-coast basis? Has someone not presented enough documentation to show how that doesn't ring true???

I guess this is one issue, after reading all the posts- that I have to agree that both sides make very, very good points.

So I called around the other day looking for work for my nephew who is out of state right now and wants a job when he comes back- straight out of highschool, needs "walking around money"- I believe our state has a 7.50 min wage.

The main min wage jobs being offered were in retail and wait staff (you know, + tips)- and one very alarming area, the fishing industry. They seem to really, really prey on the immigrant and poor- because they frequently don't pay at all, and run out on the tab, and are never seen again, and the fisherman stranded thousands of miles from home- but I digress.

As a (now) mulitiple biz owner- I do see the side of a min wage increase driving up labor costs in general- but, that dynamic doesn't wash here, because the oil prices have skyrocketed so much, that the labor force is too small already- hard to get anyone to work at a job they don't like without a decent paycheck! - McDs is looking for ADULTS to work for them, and is paying upwards of 50k a year for a store manager- almost enough to make me switch careers- if I didn't know how badly they treat thier workers.

So, after all the posting, Aevens and Amlord make good points about a "one size fits all" deal- leaving the states to decide- to me, this may make the most sense, considering the post-clinton economy is booming in some areas, and very bad in others.

That being said- NT and CJ also have good points- and I believe it to be true- that an elevated min wage will not harm biz, and may stop some workplace abuses of the vunerable.

So in the end- I think it is a very, very good idea to tie a fed minimum wage to national inflation- and allow states to move them upward as they may or may not see fit.

Aevens is really correct in the small business area as far as what is really sustaining our economy- but it is not min wage that kills us- it is health care, workers comp payments (that is a real killer, let me tell you!!!)

I think we could sidestep the min wage issue permanently with universal health care and universal post-secondary education based on excellence i.e.- doesn't matter how much you make, you can take the exam and beat out the others- you don't pay for colllege- and have exams for every type of vocation or study.

As Vilbania pointed out about "no marketable skills"- if we made sure every child had a marketable skill when they leave school, and compulsary education for 14 years vs 12, and every person that wanted to switch jobs and be more mobile so they could "just move to were the jobs are"- free vocational training in a variety of areas would go a very long way to alleviate that.

I am trying to change careers myself- from the health care field to metals manufacturing- welding, machinist and business major. I am 40 years old and have managed my money very, very wisely- but sending my wife and I to school, I am still being needlessly burdened with debt for school loans (for my wife, I am paying mine as I go- I can only afford for one of us to go to school out of pocket- and my wife's education is more expensive than mine)

I think if we took the variable of education and health care OUT of the equation- we would have a much different debate indeed.

It too would actually create a big goverment solution- but so does the conservative side of the equation- which has always been my main frustration of right wing "talking points"- is that, in the end, they are no less big goverment than the liberal equivilent- and even create more problems.

But without the above reforms- the hike in minimum wages is the lesser of the other evils IMHO

It is not that I have "missed the point" aevans176. I do not agree with the point.

Yours and others statements, posts and numerous statistical representations presented in opposition to raising the minimum wage are presented to support your position. Mine and those by Cube Jockey among other proponents are equally factual, valid and solidly reasoned. Both sides can present powerful evidence to buttress our contentions as Cruising Ram has noted.

At the end of the day though, with the exception of Hobbes, I still believe that most of us have not revised our previously held beliefs all that much. I don't want to engage in a liberal vs. conservative spitting contest. That seems like a silly waste of time and energy. But there continue to be some fictions perpetuated throughout this thread that deserve to be challenged.

A common misconception is that low-wage jobs are only found in your neighborhood McDonalds. Yet, fast-food jobs constitute less than 5 percent of all low-wage jobs. Low-wage jobs are nurse's aides and home health aides, security guards, child care workers and educational assistants maids and porters, 1-800 call-center workers, bank tellers, data-entry keyers, cooks, food-preparation workers, waiters and waitresses, cashiers and pharmacy assistants, poultry, fish and meat processors, laundry and dry cleaning operators and agricultural workers. They are jobs in the mainstream of our economy and our lives. Another misconception about low-wage jobs is that they are low-skilled. Most economists, politicians and the media marry the two terms as if they were inseparable. Yet, taking care of a sick parent or educating a child is anything but low-skilled. And there is a misconception about who the 30 million Americans are who work in low-wage jobs. Many presume they are teenagers, illegal immigrants, or high-school dropouts. Yet contrary to these stereotypes, America's low-wage workers are mostly white, female, high school educated, and with family responsibilities.

According to the American dream, if you work hard, apply yourself and play by the rules, you will be able to earn a decent living for yourself and your family. That was the promise of America. Yet today, one in four workers, 30 million Americans earn less than $8.70 an hour, in jobs that provide few basic benefits such as health care, sick pay, disability pay, paid vacation and retirement. These jobs leave little flexibility to care for a sick child or deal with an emergency at school. And these workplaces are often physically damaging and emotionally degrading. If America believes in work, we must honor it. Whether we give basic rights to these workers and ensure that work provides "family-supporting" wages and benefits says a great deal about what kind of society and communities we want to live in.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/wagesqanda.html

Ok, in a very good natured attempt at seeing your point. What would you suggest the minimum wage be changed to and why? What would the parameters be, and how should it be implemented?

It's not that I believe that there aren't low-wage workers in America. I actually have spent a large portion of my professional life involved w/ Call Centers (of which are mentioned in your PBS article).

The sincere apprehension that I have is that I don't believe that a minimum wage increase is going to touch the complexity of the issues that are addressed in this thread.

I personally don't believe that the minimum wage and a non-living wage are government related issues. I believe that it's the ugly face of capitalism, of which the alternatives have some even uglier faces. This is where personal conviction and giving become a part of the solution. However, for the government to continually put band aids on social woes is to negate the very nature of the American economy and its relationship to this discussion.

It's not that I don't understand, as after my father retired from the Army, he's struggled to keep jobs for more than a "liveable wage". This is from a man w/ a master's degree and who gave 26 years to this nation. He even currently earns markedly less than I, 30 years his junior with a fraction of the experience. We just thank the Lord for the pension check (which isn't anything to be upset about), and realize that the economy doesn't equate infantry experience to the world of Human Resources (where his degrees are found).

I'm just preposing the notion, again, that it's not the duty of the government to fix the societal ailments of the US. It's also neither something that they do in any efficient fashion nor something that fits a "cookie cutter" legislation... hence, my objective opinion on this topic.

Nighttimer may have a different opinion but I think that it should be tied to the annual rate of inflation, that's it. It shouldn't be corrected to catch up with the inflation that has happened since the 1930s, the 1960s or any other decade. This would take it completely out of the hands of Congress and it wouldn't be some political football that gets tossed around.

There should be a sunset clause put on it that freezes it at say 5 or 10 years where an independent and non-partisan study must be conducted to determine the economic impact (if any) before renewing it.


An interesting position, why do you support keeping the wages low forcing people to take advantage of government programs instead of supporting themselves?

It could be that Borders in Chicago pays $7.00 per hour, but I just talked to someone who works there and in this area it's $6.00 per hour, 85 cents above the minimum wage.

Employees are eligible for a raise at six months and again after a year. Management of at least one, if not both Border in this area, routinely terminate employees shortly before they become eligible for a raise.

If we raise the minimum wage to $7.00 per hour and index it to inflation, employers with crappy labor policies will still have crappy labor policies. They will have a problem with turnover and employee dissatisfaction. Those who practice worker friendly policies will still do well.

Again, I'm only using Borders as an example.

Gotcha, but how would increasing the minimum wage to be adjusted for inflation change the notion that a wage shortly under $7 (if my calculations are correct) would be markedly more meaningful in Boise than it would in Sacramento?

I would say that I'm not opposed to the min wage increasing incrementally with inflation, but I'm not particularly convinced that each state shouldn't mandate their own wage legislation. I'm having a hard time being convinced that what's good in Champagne is applicable to Charleston.



Of course not. I suppose that was a rhetorical question...
The government sponsored welfare program is so convoluted and ineffective as a general rule, that I'd venture to guess that no program the government has addresses the fact that in a capitalist economy there will be a bell curve-like income distribution. As much as I'm involved on a personal level with poverty (via Church), I'd sadly have to state that even if the min wage were to be increased to $7.50, there are going to be few families of four that could sustain a comfortable life even on two incomes in many parts of our nation. This is a portion of my argument against homogeneous wage legislation. It would be nearly impossible to purchase a home, have two running automobiles, and feed/clothe a family of four on the $31,200 that two $7.50 incomes would produce....
What about two incomes at $8? You're still looking at $33280, which might work in some parts of the country... but as a general rule that would still be scraping by (and probably would still qualify you for gov't aid).

As I said Aevens- I am sympathetic to both sides of this argument- and I don't think min wage will hurt small biz- health care costs which have caused workers comp payment to be so astronomical is far, far more of an issue than some small bump in the min wage, by a very, very large margin. Workers comp insurance for an employee can be a couple times higher than the wages you pay the employee at min wage!

But what I would like you to address is NTs evidence of WHO rely's on min wage- and I did look up some of the jobs he mentioned here in Alaska- and was shocked to find personal care attendents making BARELY above min wage in the private setting- and if you knew the cost of living up here- you would wonder how they survive?

Short of a min wage hike- how would a republican address NTs post?

Less than 3% of workers earn the minimum wage. Of those, half are age 16-24. Only 1.4% of workers age 25 and up earn minimum wage.

Who employs people at the minimum wage? Mostly the retail trade industry where just over 8% earn the minimum. The occupation that earns the minimum is "service occupations" where about 10.5% earn the minimum.

In 1997, when the minimum wage was bumped up, over 4% earned the minimum. Today it is 3%. How can you explain that if businesses are heartless monsters that just want to exploit workers? Why do more people today earn MORE than the minimum?

The percentage of people making the minimum has dropped from around 15% in 1981 to about 3% today. Although women have always been more likely to earn the minimum, that gap is also closing.

DATA: BLS Survey 2003