Some would say that killing a girl and covering it up is mean-spirited, but "legal problems" does have a nice neutral tone, very well-written.


That's a great question. Especially since starting pay at Border's is already $7 per hour. Maybe you can only get lazy people who don't show up at this rate? Maybe brick-and-mortar bookstores are losing money to low-overhead online stores, trying to woo customers with coffee and couches, but can't really afford to fully staff them? Interesting example, but not one that justifies a $2 increase in the minimum wage.


This is probably true (heck, been to a Best Buy lately?) But why then do you support an increase in the minimum wage? Border's gross profit on turnover is just under 3%. I wouldn't call that "maximizing profit by skimping on labor." I'd call it surviving in a competitive marketplace. I think you oversimplify the customer service issue. It's not just that stores choose to "maximize profit" by providing lousy service. It's that, for those stores, low prices are deemed more important by their customers. Look at the airlines - we all flocked to Southwest even when United and American actually had better service (it's debatable today of course). If customer service is more important, stores like Starbucks who provide a good product and good service will win.

This is twice in the same thread that two posters have referred to Senator Kennedy as a killer. I would suggest if you have evidence that he is guilty of murder that you turn it over to the proper authorities in Massachusetts. Failing that, you are quite welcome to start a thread debating the guilt of Ted Kennedy.

You can despise the Senator because of his past, but what bearing does it have on this discussion? I'll answer my own question. NONE.

Otherwise, I would submit that you are attacking the character of Senator Kennedy because you cannot attack the principle of raising the minimum wage. I would hate for a Moderator to close this thread due to it straying off on irrelevant tangents and character assassination.

But I don't doubt that's exactly what will happen if we don't cool down the hot rhetoric and get back to debating the actual issue that BoF began.

Or it could be that Starbucks has some significant advantages over the Borders coffee bar because:
1) They are a nationally recognized brand and people associate them with Barnes & Noble and assume they will have a presence there.

2) Starbucks is consistently ranked very high in Fortune's best companies to work for list. This would of course involve things like pay, favorable shifts, benefits, etc. The Borders coffee bar is part of Borders books itself and likely an afterthought dreamed up by the marketing department but poorly implemented.

It really is way too complex to chalk anything up to the minimum wage debate. But Starbucks doesn't pay minimum wage and in addition to other things they do is why they are ranked so highly as a workplace.

Here is an article addressing unemployment in Washington, from the same source I used earlier:

source



Wow. Hey, did you know that George Bush is a drunken war criminal? Not to mention, a cocaine fiend?

I really do advise an end to this tactic. Someone brings up an issue, and the GOP wastes no time avoiding the issue and just jumping straight for the jugular of the messenger. How typical of the times. So far, we've got a pretty long list: the Wilsons, Clarke, Byrd, Murtha, Kennedy, Whitman, McCain's 'brown baby,' O'neil, and so on. It is sadly the norm for this administration to attack people instead of addressing ideas. It is sadly too common on this intelligent debate site for people to do the same.

Here's something I've found - not always, but enough to make a generalization: conservatives will often pay lip service to being against corporate welfare in principal, but they rarely speak out strongly about it, nor do they here rally their debate skills and let loose their ire. But let an issue like minimum wage, or welfare for the poor come up, and suddenly, it's all gung-ho time. Suddenly small businesses matter - when the types of tax breaks and subsidies given to the mega-corporations like Walmart are doing far more to destroy small businesses in this country.

The argument that paying an even remotely decent wage to workers will hurt business is specious in any case; but even if it wasn't, is that really a good reason? Are businesses more important than families? The same argument could be used to repeal child labor laws, any regulations about worker safety, in fact anything that companies are required to do to protect their workers from injuries, or to ensure they are not dumping thousands of tons of toxic waste into water tables, is a burden on business, especially small businesses. However, we have decided as a society, and rightly so, that human welfare does matter more than business profits. And thank God we feel that way.

We are off topic, but it seems everyone wants to get the last word. I'll try and resist.


Surely you're not suggesting that "the GOP" has a monopoly on this tactic?


Well, I'm against corporate welfare in both principle and in practice. Please let's stop corporate welfare. And agricultural subsidies as well, since they hurt the real poor, those in the third world the hardest. I'm against corporate taxation of any kind so I don't prefer breaks for Wal-Mart any more than breaks for a pizzeria (even one that features photos of "Italian-Americans only" on the wall).

My thoughts on the matter are based on what I (someone who has business experience) think will actually help people. I have no desire to keep poor people poor, dump toxic waste or do anything else to "hurt poor people." Of course, human welfare matters. Perhaps you could explain why many advocates of the minimum wage in the 30's were racists who wanted to exclude women and minorities, but to oppose such laws now makes one on the side of "business" and not families?

Well first of all there were two sides to the argument amongst supporters (if not more). Many people believed that setting a minimum wage would reduce exploitation of workers, and in that day and age they were certainly right - there was plenty of that going on and numerous laws were passed in that era to protect workers. There was another group that believed setting a minimum wage would hurt women and minorities because who in their right mind would hire a woman or a minority if they could get a white male for the same price? Clearly history proved them wrong and that is no longer a valid point.

So the fact that racists supported the minimum wage in the 30's really isn't germane to the debate. The fact still remains that many companies would exploit their workers today if there was no minimum wage. I could cite numerous very large companies who would likely engage in this practice based on their labor and human rights record both here and internationally. So that group proved to be right. That doesn't mean all businesses would exploit their workers, but some very big ones very likely would.

To those who say that we need people to do those lowpaying minimum wage jobs,
we do indeed need some people to do those jobs. It happens to be that those jobs were meant for teenagers and senior citizens looking to supplement their incomes. They weren't meant for supporting families. And in America, we shouldn't have family breadwinners working those jobs.

It is true that if you work at a minimum wage job, your wage will go from $5 to $6. But what good is that going to do if you live in a $10 neighborhood? Same thing if you happen to raise that minimum up to $6/hr. There's no need to mention what will happen to the unemployment or inflation if you raise the minimum wage up to $10. The point is, the Government cannot legislate poverty out of existence.

You cannot solve poverty with the printing press. There are real problems with America's economy that the minimum wage cannot solve. There's the manufacturing crisis in the midwest. Healthcare and health insurance costs are out of control. Education (job training) costs are out of control. The cost of housing is out of control.

Of course, if you look at the price of toys, then the poor could be considered better off than a generation ago. But what good does a $100 TV set do if you can't afford the basics like a 1 bedroom apartment and transportation for work?

Speaking of off topic how the hell does this follow present-day politics surrounding the minimum wage?

The eugenics program also included birth control, sterilization, and abortion for black women. We used to institutionalize sane people. By your logic, or rather your syrupy attempt to shift focus away from discussing the subject in a meaningful manner, birth control is forever tainted. I should get off it immediately and stop telling my parents my schizophrenic step-brother should stay in a halfway house because decades ago some unfortunate guy ended up loosing half his brain.

Stick with Kennedy if you simply must set up a straw man.

As to the “minimum wage hurts small business” argument, I fail to see how. The minimum wage applies to businesses engaged in Interstate Commerce. Drop into a mom and pop store and ask their employees what they’re paid. The waitress at a greasy spoon really does have to rely on tips, because she is exempted from minimum wage laws.



In whose market?

Some may view color televisions as a luxury. I think that mindset dates back to the ‘50s. I can’t recall the last time I saw a black and white television for sale. Locally, used televisions tend to be left at the curb. They have no market value. I was raised without a television in the house. Not only was I ostracized by other students for not knowing what was going on in the world, my teachers demanded a note from my parents every time I was assigned to watch something on TV and told them I could not. I don’t feel it would be fair to my daughter to deprive her of having it in the house. The monthly cost of cable is less than the cost of going to the movie once a month. Video rentals allow us to drop a buck or two on payday and watch a recent movie.

In the want ads, a used laptop lists locally for generally $200 – 300. A used desktop computer system usually lists for less than $100. Locally, our school system expects that students will have access to a computer at home, as well as Internet access. There was state legislation proposed that would have provided all public school students with their own laptop computer, but it failed to pass. With a child in the house, a computer really falls into the necessity group in today’s world. Maintenance on all 3 of our computers last year was ink cartridges and a new monitor. A couple of days ago, I was shopping for new ink cartridges for my “obsolete” DeskJet 672C printer, and purchased a new laser printer instead. It cost less money.

We are driving a 10 year old car that was purchased new when I was employed. Over the past year, the car has cost me nearly $2,000 in maintenance. It usually sets me back $25 – 30 to fill the tank, so let’s estimate at least $1,500 annually for fuel. It costs circa $100 a month for the state mandated insurance so that I can license it, another $100 a year. That’s not factoring in the esoteric cost of anti-depressants so that I can drive the car without losing my temper.

If I sold all three of our computers, purchased when we were employed, I might hope to bring in $300. My color television, purchased over a decade ago, when I was employed, has no market value. Selling my computers and my television would not even begin to cover the operating costs of owning a car, let alone the purchase price.

If the only value to owning a car was transportation to work, I wouldn’t own one. Bus passes run a few dollars a month. Furthermore, for over 30 years, I always lived within walking distance of my job. A car lets me see my daughter safely to and from school, get her to church on Sunday, and get her safely to and from the houses of friends she has made at school. A car lets me purchase groceries and bring them home, regardless of the weather. A car gives me freedom of choice as to where I live, and where my wife gets treated for cancer.

On balance though… I might see something on TV some day that sparks my interest, causes me to look something up on the Internet, and leads to a career that I can manage from home. My paid for car, costing me $400 a month to operate, is far more likely to drive me into poverty than watching a color TV. I fail to see how selling the computers and the TV so that I could drive to the beach, drive to the movies, drive to the library (where I am denied access to the Internet until I can get FBI clearance), etc. would do anything to allay our current situation. I might raise enough cash from the sales to repair the car's windshield washer. I certainlly could not expect to raise the purchase price of a new car.

In the summers of ’64 & ’65, I worked at a small factory that paid minimum wage. Skilled workers, the welders and sandblaster, got paid an extra 10¢ per hour while plying their trades. I don’t know how much “buying power” it had in terms of today’s dollar, but I recall that I was working with family men whose wives stayed at home, and their were new cars in the parking lot that they had driven to work. My brother and I got a lot of teasing because we had finished High School. The crew I worked with had all dropped out of school at 16 because their elementary school didn’t offer driver training. College as a way out of minimum wage is not always an option. Changing jobs with no High School diploma is not always an option.

Locally, our factories are closing as jobs are shipped overseas. The Chinese are preparing to market a car in the USA for under $10,000. If we have to shut down all the factories, there won’t be any management jobs in the USA either.

Some workers are skilled at computing their value to a company, presenting their data to their boss, and negotiating a raise. Some of us belonged to unions, either by chance or by choice. The unions negotiated our wage/benefit packages. For those with neither an education nor a union, the Federal Government is a bargaining unit of last resort. If that government fails to recognize that these people do need enough money to live on, in return for their labor, I don’t know what to predict. If you are poor, undereducated, and you feel that your government is unresponsive; you might not fall back on writing letters to an unresponsive White House. I think that a Cost of Living indexed minimum wage makes sense. The poor are far more likely to spend any extra income than to save it. Coupled with tariffs and trade barriers to bring jobs back into the USA, such a minimum wage law might help recreate the middle class. It might also forestall a revolution.

Uh, someone said "minimum wage was passed because workers were being oppressed" and I answered "actually it was a little more complicated than that. Which is why I also listed the background of Davis-Bacon.

I hate to be flippant about such a serious subject, but 2 out of 3 of these are right in the heart of the Democratic Party's platform on "Women's Rights."

I certainly didn't want to take us off topic. Just saying that the "Progressives" in the 30's saw very clearly that minimum wage would keep blacks (and women) out of the work force. Yet today people seem to be arguing the exact opposite. Don't you find this interesting?

'Mudge, there is no way you could have ever owned and operated a business with employees and be able to say that.

In fact, I'm challenging anyone here that has ever owned and operated a small business with employees to say minimum wage doesn't hurt.

Operating a small business with employees is incredibly hard work. The overwhelming majority of small businesses fail. Payroll is typically the single biggest expense and the reason downsizing happens. If you get much above 50%, it gets tough to meet payroll after looking at other fixed expenses (rent/lease, utilities, supplies, etc).

In my tool and die shop (I know, pretty weird for an electrical and software engineer), I could only pay a few ( 3 out of 11) competing wages. But I needed them to mentor younger workers and work on the more critical projects.

But most of my employees were entry level machinists. I got them right out of JVS (joint vocational school). Some of them made minimum wage because they were still learning, straight out of high school, and they had no problem with it. Before long, they would get merit increases as long as they progressed normally.

But the problem with JVS students were mistakes. They would spend 3 hours machining a component and when finished, it went to the scrap heap. So, I was on the hook for 3 hours a customer was not going to pay for. It came out of my pocket. What people here on AD are telling me, is that not only should I pay for those 3 hours out of my own pocket, but I should pay some percentage more because somebody somewhere can't survive on what my employees are perfectly happy with. They get to learn a trade and have no problem with the money because they stand to gain much more over the long term. And many did.

Also, I had a retired high school teacher that had no skills (other than education, which I regard as a very, very high skill, but irrelevant to the machining industry), but wanted to be a utility guy. Deliver/pick up parts, make sure scrap ended up in the correct hoppers (so we could get back some money on scrap), clean up, or whatever needed to be done that a skilled employee did not have to be working on. At minimum wage, I could pay for him through some sheet metal fabrication I was a third party on (I'd design and sketch, the other company would fabricate). But I could not get a margin to pay more than what I was already paying the utility guy or the work would have went to a competitor. At that point, the utility guy couldn't work for me because I couldn't afford him.

So, there is no way our good friend 'Mudge could ever know what it takes to run a small business with employees and make a statement like that. But to be fair, that seems to be a prevailing premise no matter how flawed it is. When you think minimum wage, you think Walmart and the like. But that is not the case. Most employers are small businesses and they will be punished because of a socialist idealogy that at the end of the day, does not serve the purpose you hope for. Less people with be hired and more people will be fired because of no "cushion" for imperfection.

Again, my challenge. Who here has ever owned and operated a small business and agrees with Curmudgeon's statement? I'm very, very curious to hear the opposing view and be proved wrong.

That isn't really the case Carlito. There were several groups pushing for a minimum wage in the 30's with varying motivations. You are choosing to paint the entire movement based on the motivations of a group that supported it to keep down women and minorities. That isn't correct.

I really don't know why you are bringing this angle into the debate at all because it is really irrelevant to begin with and doesn't deal with the questions for debate. Furthermore it appears you are only choosing to bring it up in a pot shot type manner when you've already admitted you'd support increasing the minimum wage based on inflation.

UJ...I would also point out that these charges have not been disproved, either. Logic alone indicates that there should be a decrease in jobs with a forced increase in wages...otherwise why wouldn't we set the minimum wage at, say, $1000000/yr? Because there is simply only so much money that businesses can devote to payroll. Further, the burden of proof should be on those arguing for change. So, the lack of evidence indicating this shouldn't be the case is stronger than the lack of evidence indicating otherwise, IMHO....it requires going against both logic and the status quo. At the very least, those calling for evidence that raising wages decreases jobs should provide some for their side of the argument, don't you think? Especially since without such evidence change might actually hurt the very people raising the wage would be trying to help.

Okay. I believe it's relatively easy to prove you wrong, DaytonRocker.

First, in no way do I suggest your experience as a small businessman is invalid. However, as I wrote earlier in this thread, I do believe your experience is limited.

The U.S. Small Business Administration has seen lots of small businesses come and, unfortunately, go. According to the SBA, over 50% of small businesses fail in the first year and 95% fail within the first five years. Why? What goes wrong?

1. Lack of experience

2. Insufficient capital (money)

3. Poor location

4. Poor inventory management

5. Over-investment in fixed assets

6. Poor credit arrangements

7. Personal use of business funds

8. Unexpected growth

Gustav Berle adds two more reasons in The Do It Yourself Business Book:

9. Competition

10. Low sales

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/smallbusiness/a/whybusfail.htm

Nowhere do I see "paying employees the mininum wage" as a contributing factor in the failure of small business.

I am not a small businessman, but were you really required to pay the entry level machinists the minimum wage? According to this site, you are not required to pay the minimum wage to independent contractors, apprentices, students, and learners, as defined by federal law.

http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/a...cid=51&aid=2525

This is not definitve proof that paying the minimum wage does not hurt small business, but doing so is hardly the leading or even one of the contributing reasons why those businesses go belly up.

Questions for debate:

QUOTE

1. What are the pros and cons of increasing the minimum wage?

The “pros” are that some folks who find themselves working for minimum wage for long periods can do this more easily if the wage is higher.

The “cons” IMO outweigh this. As mentioned, small businesses use entry level people extensively. Most businesses do not expect people to stay on minimum wage indefinitely.
The higher the minimum the more incentive a business has to find other ways to do the job without hiring. Raising the min therefore decreases the number of people hired and makes offshore solutions more attractive.

QUOTE

2. Do you favor an increase? If so how much?\

NO

QUOTE

3. Social Security and income tax withholding are idexed to inflation. Do you favor indexing the minimum wage to inflation?

No.

It might be useful to offer something to back up this assertion, just as nighttimer offered information that it may not be the case.

It seems, however, to be the rule with "supply siders" that if businesses prosper, individuals will do like wise. In other times this was called "trickle down" economics. In other words, "feed the horse to feed the sparrow." It may be that at a minimum wage that's remained stagnant for eight years, the horse may not be leaving enough droppings to feed the sparrows.

I see this as a question of whether we support businesses or individuals or can find a poliotical compromise (a seemingly lost art) that does both. The reverse of supply side is that if the individuals make more money, they will spend it and business will thrive. I doubt anyone could begin to make payhments on even an enty level Chevy at the current minimum wage.

What is good for business may be, but is not always, what is good for the country. I think we need a more balanced approach than we've had so far under Bush or had under Reagan.

No, I'm not painting an entire movement at all. There were certainly diverse forces at work in the Progressive movement. Here in Chicago I can walk to Haymarket Square and remember what blood and struggle went into securing an 8-hour work week, for example. But it is still factual that some (not all!) members of those promoting a minimum wage have had racist motives. 2 racist legislators, Rep. Robert Bacon (R-NY) and Sen. James Davis (R-PA) introduced the Davis-Bacon act to combat complaints about a contractor who imported cheaper negro work crews on a job site. This was straight-up racist. Now, we are told that raising the minimum wage doesn't exclude anyone. I find this contradiction interesting. If it priced out marginal labor in the 30's, why wouldn't it price out marginal labor now? Young, uneducated, illiterate high-school dropouts for example?

It's not a pot shot. I've argued that the minimum wage is bad for everyone, but pragmatically have suggested it be tied to inflation to get politicians (and other misguided champions of the poor) out of the topic.

For those of you who argue that higher minimum wages don't affect jobs, please answer Hobbes' query as to why it shouldn't be $1,000,000 per hour. Oh, ridiculous. Well, why not $450 per hour then? Still ridiclous? $60 / hour? $20?

You get the idea. You know it's bad economics, but you just want to "feel" better by raising minimum wage, a misguided policy that creates less entry-level employment. Which is why I agreed to tying it to inflation - take feelings out of the picture. The fact is, if we simply closed the border and regulated immigration, we'd have full entry-level employment for native-born Americans in a heartbeat, because employers would be competing for workers.

But it didn't. Some of the people who supported and passed these laws did so with racist justifications. History shows us that it didn't work, so why are you trying to state that it'll have a similar effect today when history has shown us otherwise.

I just don't really see what relevance your line of argument has on this debate.

But yes it did.



link - national center for policy analysis


You are saying that minimum wage has not priced marginal workers out of the workplace? On what evidence? Unemployment still exists, is highest among teens, and very high among minority teens. Why are they unemployed if not for being "marginal workers" in a minimum-wage world? If you look at some of the graphs here which show unemployment rates by race, you will see that the unemployment rate for black men and black women had a higher spike vs. whites in 1990 and 1991, and again in 1996-1997. These were the years when the minimum wage rates were raised most recently. In fact, when the minimum wage was raised in 1996 and 1997, white unemployment actually fell, which black unemployment rose. Look here and you'll see that minority teenagers still have a much higher unemployment rate.

I mean no offense here, but god I loathe this argument. It is exactly the same as an opponent of Universal healthcare shouting: "Why don't we just give everyone free platic surgury and breast enhancements as well?", as if the argument on the table had ANY link to their way-beyond-the-sane exaggeration.

The answer is, because that would be stupid. Nobody is suggesting raising the minimum wage to 60$, or 20$, they are suggesting raising it to a point where people can afford to keep a house, where minimum wage keeps pace with the rising price of food and housing, where people can actually try and save money, or pay for education or child care.


There is of course an exact opposite to your absurd exaggeration: why not get rid of minimum wage entirely? If people could pay minimum wage workers 1 cent per hour, then obviously this would be great for small business right? Businessess would boom once their annual labour budget was reduced to about $50 dollars. And you seem to maintain that, if people were paid 1 cent an hour, prices would also drop to the point where people could afford things anyways!


That is just as silly as the opposite side, and neither has any place in the debate. The simple reality is, 7$ an hour is still below the poverty line, set by the US government, so we can hardly say they are being paid a luxurious wage. But people can live, and maybe even save money or advance themselves. The vast majority of minimum wage jobs in the US are not Mom & Pop Corner stores, they are megacorporations like McDonalds. And a lot of people on minimum wage jobs are not there because they choose to, they are there because they can't get out, they have a family or kids and have no time to look for work, and few skills to market.

There are valid arguments to be made about the slope of the demand curve for labor. Extending the increase to absurdity helps highlight the argument that artificially setting a price is not generally the best policy. Kind of like how our government artificially sets dairy prices. Price fixing is illegal unless done by the government. And milk costs more. In other words, if a $400 increase is bad, so is a $1 increase, just that it's only 1 / 400th as bad.
The minimum wage where I live is $5.15, yet McDonald's is hiring illegal immigrants with questionable documents at $7.50 to start. I don't think lowering the minimum to 1 cent would change things at all.

I read one study which said that half of minimum wage workers are under 21, and they lived in households with an average income of 2.5 times the poverty line. So you'll excuse me that I don't believe you until you back up your claims in red above?

PS - I'm still waiting for even one poster to tell my how they "can't get out" because they are "trapped" at minimum wage.

I won't say that anyone is lazy, but the reality is simply undeniable. The poor family is poor because in relation to most of the rest, that family has less members working. Raising the minimum wage isn't going to solve that problem, since it seems to me that most of the not working are not working because they have (1) no education and (2) no skills. All that raising the minimum wage will do for them is to ensure that it will be less likely that they get a job, since their putative employer will have to pay just that much more for no education and no skills.

Next item, Molly and the AFL-CIO. Do you think that Molly asked herself why the AFL-CIO wants to raise the minimum wage? Their people don't work for the minimum wage, so why want the increase? The AFL-CIO wants the raise because that will mean that NON-union employees will cost the employer more, making it more likely that the union members will be hired and/or retained. And if that happens, the increase in the minimum wage will mean nothing other than the AFL-CIO members will be hired and/or retain their jobs. So the AFL-CIO isn't doing it for the working or non-working poor.

And the increase in minimum wage will be, as some have noted, offset by a raise in prices. And, as always, that raise in prices will be disproportionately born by those least able to afford it, as there's all those hidden costs, I mean the payroll tax goes up because the worker's salary just went up, the cost of worker's comp and TDI just went up because the worker's salary just went up, the cost of unemployment insurance just went up because the state's average weekly wage just went up, and so on. Which reminds me, when some say that it won't hurt small business, you are aware that the increase in wage isn't simply that, yes? As related, it increases the costs of all those other things. And George Soros and Warren B. can afford to pay for the added on price to pay for all of those things much more than the minimum wage worker will be able to [and so will bear the disproportionate burden].

If we wish to solve this problem, the answer is more productivity. Nearly every study ever done has shown that a rise in minimum wage will mean that the low productivity worker either loses his job or does not get hired in the first instance [the middle and high end workers will just have to work that much harder and longer, and will do so "gladly" since such means that they will get to keep their jobs].

And what about the gal and guy earning $8.00 per hour? They are going to want a raise, yes? Or else they feel that they've been "demoted." And they may be demoted, since unless they are wonder-workers, it's going to be cheaper to fire them and keep the gal and guy whose minimum wage just got raised. With the sick reality being that it won't be the despised rich who take the pain, but the less poor paying for the more poor. And heaven forbid that the increase wage causes someone from a wealthy home who didn't want to work for peanuts to now find the employment enticing and so such persons displace those who truly need to work to survive.

Please see:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba270.html
http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/min...nst/against.htm

And as someone said, what about outsourcing? And what about mechanization [no health care, TDI, work comp, etc.]? Maybe the increase now makes the mechanization the economically wise choice?

I think your choice of links is interesting.

The CATO article was published in 1995, (two years before the last increase) the NCPA in 1998 (the year after the last increase) and the House Report in 1996 (a year before the last increase.) The newest of these links is seven years old and does not address the problem of a minimum wage that hasn't been raised in eight years and has less purchasing power as each and every year passes.

Could it be that with Bush in office, we haven't even had much national debate on the issue? One would think they could at least recirculate the same tired old excuses you have linked us to. Please provide more current information.

1. What are the pros and cons of increasing the minimum wage?

2. Do you favor an increase? If so how much?

3. Social Security and income tax withholding are indexed to inflation. Do you favor indexing the minimum wage to inflation?

So far, the pro-raising the minimum wage side has not answered these questions.

Cube Jockey came closest by referring to rent rates and the fact that a minimum wage earner cannot afford a two bedroom apartment. Of course, that argument ignores the fact that the government already has low income housing for those under a certain level (which is decently high, $24,200 in Ocala Florida where his original newspaper article was from). HUD's Public Housing Program Public housing requires a maximum of 30% of the tenant's gross income and in many cases, less than that. For minimum wage earners, that is rent that is at most $247 per month, not the $550+ level as the article stated.

Quarkhead provided us with some interesting facts, but again no data that hiking the minimum wage helps people more than it harms them. In fact, he points out that less than 60% of the benefits of raising the minimum wage will go to families in the bottom two quintiles. In other words, 40% will go to families who are already doing fine.

Quark then points out that a single mother with two children would have been above the poverty line (by 5%) in 1997 if she worked full time at minimum wage (this calculation included the EITC rebate). Today, she would be 5% below. But it does not consider the fact that if she works for more than a year at the same job, she is likely to get a raise. In fact, it is highly unlikely that anyone who works full time at the same job for over a year at minimum wage will still be making the minimum at the end of the year.

All other responses in defense of the minimum wage amounted to "it's self-evident" with no background material whatsoever.

If we take a look at history and we examine the worst period of economic activity, the Great Depression, we can see the effects of price floors on wages (and other goods) have.

As the economy got worse and worse from 1929 through 1933 (caused largely by the idiotic, interventionist Hoover administration) the prices of goods dropped by 25%. During that same period, real wages dropped only 15%. Hoover, in a series of meetings with business leaders, urged employers to keep wages artificially high even when prices and profits were dropping. Yippee, everyone should be happy. People are now making more money relative to the price of goods.

However, as wages became a higher percentage of the cost of doing business, labor actually priced itself out of the marketplace causing an "increasing circle of unemployment." (This information courtesy of Richard M. Ebeling, “Monetary Central Planning and the State-Part XI: The Great Depression and the Crisis of Government Intervention,” Freedom Daily (Fairfax, Virginia: The Future of Freedom Foundation, November 1997), p. 15.)

When the minimum wage was passed in 1938, it threw 500,000 blacks out of work according to Benjamin M. Anderson, Economics and the Public Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States, 1914-46, 2nd edition (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1979), p.336. Call it racism (I'm sure it was), but minimum wage forces businesses to closely examine those that they employ.

If we look at more recent history, the minimum wage has not risen since 1997. It has fallen by 29% in real terms. However, real wages have risen by 7% since then.

For those in favor of a minimum wage and believe that it has no effect on employment, ask yourself: should Malaysia have a minimum wage? Should other countries where people make goods for Americans at low labor cost? What would happen? The jobs would move elsewhere. If the wage approached the minimum wage for the US, the jobs would move here. So Americans should be in favor of a global minimum wage since it would lead to every American having a job.

If you consider that third world workers are equivalent to those making the minimum and the effect of raising that minimum will employ more Americans and less of those already making low wages, then you can see how raising the minimum actually hurts those at the bottom.

to answer a couple questions here-

I have and do own a total of 5 small businesses- none of which paid my employees anything NEAR minimum wage- I wish LOL (not really, my biz was (and the ones I have now, are based on high skilled stuff, carpenter welder etc- a welder that is worth minimum wage is worth nothing)

Any small business that relies on paying minimum wage or below should not be in business- period. Any Corporation that hires minimum wage earners as a large scale practice SHOULD be driven out of business- if it relies on that practice to make a profit.

Any business that lives and dies by national or local minimum wage standards is poorly managed in the first place and is being propped up by exploiting others unfairly.

Like it was pointed out, Mickey-Ds, burgers are ALOT more expensive now and they haven't exactly massively upped thier wages at the same rate, now have they? Anybody want to guess at what rate the CEOs of Mickey Ds upped thier ante though?

I absolutely believe that we should tax corporations that relocate to third world nations just to sidestep minimum wage issues- like about 90% of our textiles industry.

Labor costs are only a PART of your bottom line- they should not be THE most important component of your business.

I am trying to manufacture items in Russia- if straight labor costs were the entire issue- I wouldn't even try it- but, if I can get around the corruption and total lack of small business in that country- they simply do not know how to do anything but heavy industry it seems- I have to use an engineer there to make the dies and tooling that is paid much more than minimum wage here in American money there- though less than an engineer here by about a third- it is thier cheap university education that I am "exploiting" there (or hope to exploit) - but not a single person I am attempting to do biz with in Russia is make less than US minimum wage - though still cheaper than America overall- because the actual cost of materials and production are far, far less over there (the city I am trying to do biz in has hydro-electric power- so industrial costs are cheaper)

I am totally for "leveling the playing field" for small business AGAINST major corporations- no problem.

And it is not because I want to see some kind of "communist confiscation" stuff righties are always puffing themselves up about- it is because the deck IS heavily stacked against small business- you take away alot of those things- and minimum wage increase as Ted Kennedy ( a far more honorable person than anyone in the current regime, by a long shot ) proposed would not harm small biz one bit- it is the combination of things that harm small biz.

The flaw in your argument, CR, is that big companies like McDonald's and Walmart do not pay the minimum wage.

Businesses that pay the minimum wage are doing work that requires low skill, low quality labor. Believe it or not, there are businesses that need this type of labor. But they don't involve welding or carpentry (one would hope).

Here is a reference to a study done on the Santa Fe labor market after they raised the minimum from $5.15 to $8.50.

You have seen that type of housing right Amlord? It is generally run down and lorded over by criminals. You aren't going to get a luxury penthouse for $550 either but you at least stand a chance of getting an apartment in a relatively safe area. Just ask yourself the question - would you live there with your family?

Do you feel people who make that kind of money deserve to live in those conditions?

It isn't just housing, it is the cost of everything - food, gas and especially healthcare.

So, it's the people making MORE than minimum wage that live there?

What I am saying is that your criterion--that a person making the minimum wage should be able to afford an average apartment--does not compute.

CJ, I think the issue of the housing misses the point. I have already addressed how that issue can, and quite frequently is, resolved without any governmental assistance whatsoever. (I would also point out that this has not been addressed or contradicted anywhere in this thread).

The central issue of Amlord's post, and I think the crux of the issue which remains unaddressed by those supporting minimum wage increases, is what about those displaced from their jobs due to the increase. Logic and evidence support the fact that wage increase causes job decrease. Therefore, in the absence of contrary evidence, there are only two conclusions to draw: either those supporting minimum wage don't care about those losing their jobs, or they are ignoring evidence that indicates this is hurting the very group they're trying to help. It strikes me that neither of these is a particularly appealing position.

I even went so far as to suggest potential mitigating factors in my initial post. No one has taken these up, either, again leading to the only possible conclusion being that wage increases do indeed decrease jobs, and that those advocating increases either don't care or are choosing to ignore this factor. As above, neither of these is a particularly appealing position.

The fundamental problem, which I think those on both sides of this issue will agree, is that the demand for unskilled, untrained labor is decreasing in this country. This trend is just going to continue, and continuing to artificially increase wages paid for this work is only going to prolong the problem. This is simply economic fact. I am curious, then, why those crying out for minimum wage increases aren't taking any steps to address the real issue, which is workers who have no marketable skills? I'll address in advance the likely response that you can't afford to get an education on today's minimum wage. Most college students I knew did just that, so that argument simply doesn't fly. This way, workers then are both more productive, and get paid above minimum wage. Isn't that a better solution?

But CJ, your argument has more than once spun from the "they cannot afford rent" article on numerous occasions...

Let's start by loading up on factual information to begin the argument...
Inflation information...
This shows that there was a roughly 8% increase in costs between Nov 97 and Nov 05...
How about another source?
Inflation Calculator

How about disposable income?
Disposable Income

What about median income for 4-person homes?1997...
1997 Income

Median 2004 household income...
2004 Median income

Ok, so basically as we take some time to compile all the meaning of these statistics, you can easily come to the conclusion that median income and buying power are relatively static. There is nearly no difference in purchasing power of Americans due to the lack of increase in the minimum wage.

The CPI and disposable income, coupled with the median household incomes have stayed relatively constant in terms of true buying power.

IF the minimum wage earners comprised such a significant part of the American economy, it wouldn't take a rocket-scientist to understand that the variances wouldn't be less than 2 tenths of a percent as these charts would reveal. This would ALSO be true if said minimum wage earners were staying in min wage occupations for extended periods of time, as it would skew the median income statistics.

Housing, food, healthcare, etc are all part of the CPI, and there isn't any significant increase in purchasing cost or power of the American family in the past 8 years.

So basically, the argument doesn't hold water that the minimum wage even makes any significant difference in the US economy... and probably doesn't even make a huge difference in the purchasing power (or lack there of) for those that are working for $5.15.

I believe that people in markets where the min wage doesn't make ends meet either take multiple jobs or seek higher paying jobs after short periods of time. If it really was an issue for the United States and millions of Americans "stuck" in these jobs... our lovely local DNC would have garbage statistics hanging from every corner of our television sets during prime time.

I find your reality extremely deniable, KivroHaTaavah.

No education? No skills? And you base that upon what exactly?

I've taken unemployment claims for the state of Ohio for two years on a parttime basis. There are always deadbeats, lazy slobs and jerks trying to game the system because they don't want to work or better themselves.

But those are the exceptions. They are hardly the rule.

I've taken applications from young White men holding a Masters degree and working as construction workers, food preparation, janitorial and changing adult diapers. I've talked with grown men and women crying their eyes out because they were fired, laid-off or forced to resign. These are ordinary hard working Americans who through no fault of their own fell through the cracks. And sometimes when you fall through the cracks it's not as easy to climb out as it is to fall in.

This line that people working low wages are uneducated and untrained who lack drive, initiative and a will to better themselves is a load of crap. No, raising the minimum wage won't create a rising tide that lifts all boats, but you can't even tread water on $5.15. There seems to be this irrational fear that if you raise the minimum wage by less than two bucks it "rewards" unskilled workers for bussing tables and washing dishes.

This is nonsense. There is not going to be a sudden race to the bottom with CPA's quitting Fortune 500 companies to work at Burger King. Nor will the employee parking lot at K-Mart suddenly be overflowing with shiny new Escalades.

Let's address Amlord's point that employers like McDonald's and Wal-Mart don't pay the minimum wage. Absolutely right. But they don't do so out of the goodness of their hearts either.

Ever work at a McDonald's or know someone that has? They work when they're told to work, but rarely do they get 40 hours. Same with Wal-Mart. It's not that the businesses don't have 40 hours worth of work, but if you're not working 40 hours you're not working fulltime. If you're not working fulltime, you usually are not eligible for healthcare benefits, vacation, overtime or anything more than a 10 minute break and 20-minute lunch.

If you read Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation you quickly realize that Mickey D's may be a job that any kid or immigrant can get, but they aren't exactly the friend of the working man.

It's not a coincidence that most of the people you see working in fast food restaurants are either young or newly immigrated to North America. The fast food industry thrives on a high staff turnover and inexperienced workers: these folks often don't have many other career options and will put up with the minimum wage pay and poor hours without complaining.

In fact, from an employer's view it's not profitable to keep the same employee for too long. The longer an employee stays the harder it is for a restaurant to avoid giving him a raise. Sadly, it's more economical to pressure an experienced employee until he quits and then hire a new 14 year old to replace him.

Schlosser documents how the fast food corporations often fight to have minimum wage levels reduced or eliminated. They avoid paying overtime by scheduling more workers less hours each, so that no single employee exceeds the number of hours that requires overtime. Sometimes, however, young workers are pressured into working overtime anyway, unpaid, or are compensated with food instead of money. Managers themselves are young and many have poor people skills and bully their workers. Employee theft is high. Attempts to unionize are quickly crushed, and in the few cases where unions have succeeded the restaurants have been mysteriously closed.

http://www.epinions.com/content_19719360132

And let's not forget that just last month Wal-Mart lost a case in California case that cost them $172 million in damages owed to workers who said the monolithic company had denied them state-mandated 30-minute unpaid lunch breaks. This, from the business that faces 40 other class action lawsuits, primarily for workplace violations.

This debate has been quite enlightening in how well it illustrates the schism between liberals and conservatives. The conservatives seem motivated to protect what is best for the profitability of the business where the liberals are equally driven to creating a climate of social justice.

But not until more politicians are sent to Congress more concerned about social justice than bottom line profit will American workers get the pay raise they deserve.

It has been established that the minimum wage is not enough to afford a wife or husband, four kids, and a two-bedroom apartment on. What is not being accepted by the raise-the-minimum-wage crowd is that most people don't MAKE the minimum wage once they've been in the marketplace for six or eight months. I agree with Hobbes, who wrote:

"I am curious, then, why those crying out for minimum wage increases aren't taking any steps to address the real issue, which is workers who have no marketable skills? I'll address in advance the likely response that you can't afford to get an education on today's minimum wage. Most college students I knew did just that, so that argument simply doesn't fly. This way, workers then are both more productive, and get paid above minimum wage. Isn't that a better solution?"

I realize life is what happens while you're making other plans, but if you're making babies and creating obligations to other human beings without taking the time and effort to learn skills to support those obligations ... well, whose job SHOULD it be to bail you out?

Edited to respond to nighttimer:

You said: "I've taken unemployment claims for the state of Ohio for two years on a parttime basis. There are always deadbeats, lazy slobs and jerks trying to game the system because they don't want to work or better themselves.

But those are the exceptions. They are hardly the rule.

I've taken applications from young White men holding a Masters degree and working as construction workers, food preparation, janitorial and changing adult diapers. I've talked with grown men and women crying their eyes out because they were fired, laid-off or forced to resign. These are ordinary hard working Americans who through no fault of their own fell through the cracks. And sometimes when you fall through the cracks it's not as easy to climb out as it is to fall in."

I can understand your frustration ... and theirs. But people in that position generally have resources that the permanent underclass does not -- they have access to funds, at least through loans, which can be used to take training in vocations or trades that will bring more money than janitorial work and food service. I'm sure it's a comedown for a midlevel manager to go to work as a skilled blue-collar laborer, but if that's what it takes to find work and bring in the money, I think they should consider it. The alternative is crying in your office.

No, I'm not hardhearted, although I probably sound it. But people have got to be more adaptable. The baby boomer generation got sold a bill of goods, that everybody should go to college and they'd all have these nice white collar jobs forever. 'Tain't so, McGee.

Just my two cents.

I think that (again) you are refuting an argument that no one is making. I don't see anyone arguing against "rewarding" people having no skills. My contention (and one with facts and evidence that I haven't seen refuted in this thread) is that a higher minimum wage means that less unskilled people will have jobs.

Your points on part-time work are well taken, but again the minimum wage won't solve those issues either.

Honestly, I wish you'd put your considerable debating skills to work in refuting the many factual, referenced and linked claims that minimum wage hurts the poor and minorities rather than offering platitudes about social justice. No one is denying that people fall through the cracks. Hell, my family has fallen through plenty of times and I've certainly been to the unemployment office in my time. What we are discussing is what type of labor market best helps those people - one grounded in economic reality, or one based on "social justice." If you disagree with the reality, please bring it rather than picking on the occasional statement here that you don't like.

It's not a choice between economic reality versus social justice, Carlitoswhey. Both are possible in our capitalistic system and I firmly believe that. It's not about making everyone a millionaire. It's about making sure that everyone makes a decent wage so they can contribute to society and care for their families.

There's nothing remotely socialistic about that.

As regards to me cherry-picking what I respond and post to, hey, gimme a break. This isn't the only thing I have to do all day, ya know? There's a lot of unemployed people out here in the heartland. Besides, have YOU responded to some of the issues I raised in my initial post in this thread?

Entry-level jobs should be just that. But you can't raise a poor person out of poverty without a decent living wage.

I definitely favor an increase and right now. I'd get the money by cutting the pay of the same U.S. Congress that has voted themselves a pay raise seven times since they last raised the minimum wage in 1997! Congressional pay has gone up by $31,600 while they dole out millions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations. There's definitely "class warfare" going on here but it's being waged against the working poor.

And how the American worker loses out compared to the American CEO isn't a bit funny.

The ratio of CEO pay to worker pay in the U.S. has reached 500 to one. That means the average worker would have to work for 500 years to make what the average CEO makes in just one. An American worker earning the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour would have to work full-time for 1,359 years in order to make $14 million.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ed31_.../rel111005.html

Raising the minimum wage to above $7 dollars isn't going to create economic fairness, but it will indicate that it's not just the wealthy, the corporate bosses and their political pals entitled to enjoy all the good economic news the conservatives crow about

And Vibiana? I haven't read Barbara Ehrenreich's Bait and Switched yet, but I did read the preceeding book, Nickel and Dimed and I doubt from the conclusions she makes after experiencing life as a wage slave that she'd agree with your casual disdain for them.

But we'll have to pick that up another time...

You don't even TRY to address any real issues here, you just slam me for my "casual disdain." Whatever.

The fact is, welcome to reality. If you don't learn the skills needed to be marketable, you're going to be hurting. This is true even if you have an expensive education and were formerly employed as a white-collar wizard. If the market falls apart for the work you do, you're gonna have to learn to do something else. In other words, when the boat springs a leak, you pray to God, but you'd better row for shore too.

I think this debate has become enlightening in that many have made a case for the minimum wage as if it might bridge the gap of inequality and poverty, where as time and time again the facts paint a different picture...

My previous posts (as well as others) have proven that both supply and demand side economics lend themselves to the idea that menial labor and low wages will exist. They live in an existence that can only be offset by government intervention into capitalism, which has no history of success.

It's not that conservatives are concerned about profitability, but moreover that we believe (via factual representation) that the minimum wage should not be changed on a national scale, as it's purely ineffective.

It drives the costs of good sold up for the business, which in turn often leads to either fewer jobs offered or increased pricing. Frankly, in both cases the ultimate Macroeconomic result is that there is a negative overall product for the worker and the economy.

Many conservatives believe that there are many people that are underpaid for their vocations, and definitely believe in helping those less fortunate... but I believe that a logical case has been made that the min wage increase isn't worthwhile, and predominantly counter-productive.

I (we) don't believe that anyone should be deprived of the basic needs for living (and heck, a little extra), but if we were interested in handing it out to people we might just be socialists....

OK, I'll address this one then.

Per-capita personal income is about $33K. (source) Median household income is about $45K (source). Using the lower personal-income figure so as not to skew things, an "average worker" would have to work 500 years to earn $16.5 million. Of course, even an average worker would get raises along the way, but let's pretend otherwise.

Even the AFL / CIO reports that average CEO compensation for a major corporation is under $10 million.

In 2004, the average CEO of a major company received $9.84 million in total compensation, according to The New York Times. link

While I hate to say that a congressional press release may be inaccurate, I have to point out that "average" CEO's don't make anyhere near the millions we see quoted. Even the AFL / CIO comparison is flawed, because it takes CEO's of major publicly-traded companies and compares them to non-supervisory workers.

We may as well compare the average beer vendor salary to that of major-league shortstops. Stop the presses! Average beer vendors make $160 per night, while Nomar Garciaparra makes $80,000! That's 500 to 1!! Most people don't work for Fortune 500 companies, and most CEO's don't earn millions. Even those working for CEO's probably don't have the "500 to 1" gap as their CEO probably makes less than a mil, even for a good-sized company.

Here at salary.com, we see that they make far less:


Sure, runaway CEO pay at fortune 500 companies is a huge issue, there are a lot of reasons for it (including still-felt effects from the dot-com bubble), but it isn't directly related to minimum wage.

*CHOKE-COUGH-CHOKE*....
Do you realize that you're painting a picture that completely negates the fact that small business plays a HUGE role in the American economy? I suppose that the CEO's of the world being overpaid is far more of a social injustice and would outweigh the costs of shutting doors for small businesses... do you know that 99% of businesses in the US have fewer than 500 employees?
Corporate Reality

Let's make a little coorelation in realistic terms. If a moving company in Charleston, WVA business has 50 employees, of which the average wage is $7.25 (some make more, some less), and increasing the min wage causes the average wage to move to $8.00, you just cost a small business owner $78000 annually while only increasing the wages of the employee by $130/month. In order to stay above water, the small business owner's break even point would mean that they'd have to lay off 5 employees... In which case, everyone has lost. Even if the business owner decided to reduce profitability, but in order to stay open they laid off 2 people.... which was the better decision? How many of the 99% of businesses in America would have to suffer for "social injustice"...??? It's purely near-sighted and negates reality in a capitalist economy. You can't cut your nose to spite your face...

I thought I would give a Euro's input on this debate, just for comparison.

Here in Denmark we have no such thing as a legally mandated minimum wage. You could pay a worker $0.01 an hour, if you could find one willing to work for it, and if you are strong enough to ignore the pressure from unions. But I digress.

About the US minimum wage, I am kind of shocked that it is as low as it is. I know gas, food and housing is probably cheaper over there than it is here, but its not that much cheaper. For the last 3 years during my studies at university I have worked part time for DHL Worldwide Express (former US company, now owned by Deutsche Post World Net) in a job that required absolutely no prior skills or that you acquired any special skills. I was paid anywhere from $17 to $21 an hour, depending on the time of day, and I know for a fact, that the branch I was working in was making a profit. Thats over three times as much as the US minimum wage. But lets consider taxes, after all they eat up a lot over here. After taxes I have about $9 to $11 in income per hour. Still about twice the US minimum. If I had worked their full time, I could have afforded to buy my own apartment, and probably even a car (and you really don't want to know what cars cost here, the shock will kill you).

Now, I know we can't compare countries directly, but lets compare some things anyway:

US GDP per capita $40,100 (2004)
DK GDP per capita $32,200 (2004)

So on average an american is making roughly $8,000 dollars more a year than a dane, yet I know of no dane that makes less than $14 an hour ($8.5 after taxes), and they most certainly get a lot of benefits, like paid vacation and such (mandatory).

My point is, that I find it odd that the richest and most advanced country on the face of the earth aren't able to give their lowest-paid workers more than they do, without it resulting in widespread closures of small businesses and rising unemployment (as it is said in this thread). Denmark has about the same rate of unemployment as the United States, and is probably a lot more dependant on foreign exports than the US (we export a lot more than we import).

I may be called a socialist for what I am going to say next (I don't consider myself to be one though), but I think it has to do with a skewed distribution of income in the United States. The people in the top are paid too much and the people on the bottom are paid too little - that is certainly also the case here in my country, but to a lesser degree (although the divide is widening). I am certainly not going to claim that people in higher positions don't deserve a higher paycheck, after all I hope to be in one of those positions someday, but I think a more balanced distribution of income is beneficial to society at large, so everybody can afford a decent living, no matter their skills. And lets be honest: some people may never learn any special skills or make themselves better, for lots of different reasons that have nothing to do with being lazy or lacking drive. Some good people are simply incapable of doing complex things, no matter how hard they try. Shouldn't they also be given the chance to raise a family and live in a good neighborhood?

I don't mean to rain on your parade... but are you saying that you pay 40% of your income in taxes? $8.5/$14= 60.7%

Simply put, that's absurd.

Also, the population of the United States is over 545 larger than that of Denmark, which inherently is going to cause a sincerely different set of problems and economic strata. It causes a lack of cultural homogeny, forces a diversification in industry, and this doesn't even factor in that your nation's government approaches industry in a far different manner.

Finally, you're mistaking Per Capita GDP with income. The US's median household income is roughly $44,000. GDP is a completely different discussion....
Median Income

Nighttimer, I would agree with you that this issue does highlight some of the contrasts between liberals and conservatives, but I would disagree with your characterization of those positions. Ample logic and evidence has been put forward indicating that raising the minimum wa