In Sunday’s local paper, Texas writer Molly Ivins advocated raising the minimum wage. She stressed that it hasn’t been upped since 1997. If we pass through Bush’s whole term without an increase (as we did during the Reagan Administration) that will be 11 years with no guarantee that a new administration would set a priority for raising it. Here’s Ivin’s take on the matter.




http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists...ns/13523763.htm

Questions for debate:

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 idexed to inflation. Do you favor indexing the minimum wage to inflation?

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

The pros are that the American worker is guaranteed a legal floor for wages and can better sustain himself against the problems of poverty for the many working poor in the country.

For me the negatives are that we have so many economic zones in the country. When i lived in Tuscaloosa, AL I felt a two-income minimum wage family could afford to buy a house.

When I lived in Santa Barbara, CA I felt a two income professional household could not afford to buy a house. I believe the minimum is a winning political issue for the Democratic Party and that companies are not presently burdened by the wage.

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


I think we can sustain a bump to $7 hr.

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

While it might be a good idea, we obviously have the tools to measure the real value of minimum wages and they are not keeping up at present. I think the political process can make this mechanism move adequately. But I do not oppose a COLA for the minimum wage.

1. What are the pros and cons of increasing the minimum wage?
Pro - rich politicians would make themselves feel better and give their incumbency an even further boost beyond the current 90%++ advantage they already enjoy come election time.

Con - less jobs for the poor. less jobs for teenagers. less entry-level jobs for those transitioning off welfare. more jobs for illegal aliens and those who are willing to work 'off the books'

2. Do you favor an increase? If so how much?
No. If anything, the states can continue to impose higher local minimum wage laws, as they do today. link

3. Social Security and income tax withholding are idexed to inflation. Do you favor indexing the minimum wage to inflation?
Income tax witholding is indexed to inflation? How can this be? Shouldn't our witholding be indexed to our income and that's it?

----------------
Molly Ivins would find her argument tough to defend here on (as would most right-wing columnists I'm sure.) I couldn't read all of Ivins' column as the link didn't work. But what I see is hilarious. Hmm. I took econ 101 and we called this a "downward sloping demand curve." Kind of like evolution, this is pretty basic stuff. When something (like labor) is priced higher, people demand less of it. Price up, demand down.

The election-fraud specialists at ACORN have been enlisted to help the Democrats sell this issue at the state level. Here is what ACORN had to say about the minimum wage when they filed to be EXEMPT from paying the minimum of $4.25 in California.
Hmm. That sounds like an argument I might make. Funny how obvious it is when it's not a theory and you really have to hire and pay people.

Yes, Carlito withholding is sort of indexed to inflation. Every January an adjustment to withholding is made based on inflation. The standard deduction and exemption amount are also raised so that people don't end up in the hole. My January Texas Teacher Retirement check had about $3.00 less withheld because of this mechanism. Some, including me, would argue that the adjustment does not accurately reflect inflation. Gee, a $3.00 per month adjustment when gas prices have gone though the roof.



http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/Tax_Center/.../Income_Tax_101

While tax rates remain stable, deductions, exemptions and withholding are adjusted annually.

BTW: Here's a link to Ivin's article that works, but you'll have to register. It's free.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists...ns/13523763.htm

One thing I did want to throw out there for consideration is a news article I read about in December. Ocala.com happens to be the first place on google I turned it up but it was published in numerous papers.



I'd like to draw attention in particular to the statements I've bolded. One might consider it common knowledge that someone working a minimum wage job isn't going to be able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment in Manhattan, what you probably didn't know is that same person won't be able to afford a 1 bedroom in middle america either.

There are many jobs out there that require low or no-skilled labor and that is just a fact of our economy. It won't change and those jobs aren't going to be outsourced. Someone has to do them and that someone isn't exclusively teenagers and elderly people. In general you'd hope that people don't occupy them forever but the fact remains that many do and there will always be a need to fill them. If you happen to be that someone whether it is by bad luck, lack of intelligence, lack of opportunity or choice it is a basic human right to be able to provide food and housing for yourself and your family.

These aren't people who are lazy, they are working a full week and usually + some and they can't even afford an apartment. That is absolutely ridiculous. That is primarily what is behind the argument to raise the minimum wage.

1. What are the pros and cons of increasing the minimum wage?
The pros are described pretty well above.

The cons will be economic. Some businesses would have to charge more, some businesses might have to let people go. That is of course bad.

But... there needs to be an economic adjustment. If the price of housing (rental housing at that) is increasing to the point where people can't even afford it then you have problems. Something has to be done to force an adjustment there. I'm not sure if the best way of going about that is increasing the minimum wage, I'm not an economist, but something must be done.

1.) Pros: Personal financial increase.

Cons: Small businesses will suffer.

2.) No. Increasing the minimum wage will result in immediate and possibly irrevocable negative effects on American business and contribute to a direct downward spiral of the economic stability of local/state and even federal government. As income grows, commodities climb in price, as commodity pricing climbs, we see a massive increase in the cost of goods and textiles on the trade market, importing and exporting may suffer, and we see a direct crash of the economy because of a simple increase in the amount of minimum wage... back to the regularly scheduled question. That is a worst-case scenario but we know how American economics never settle for anything less than worst-case.

3.) Yes. If an increase is expected or called for, this would be the most acceptable course of action. Tethering it to inflation exclusively will prevent further political preening or meddling.

1. When I was taking unemployment claims before I signed people up for the State of Ohio's SCOTI (Sharing Career Opportunities and Training Information) job program I would ask them, "What's the lowest hourly rate you're willing to accept for a job?" Invariably, this would confuse the hell out of the respondent. They had no idea how much they would need to live on. Usually, they would come up with a number between $5.15 and $9.00 an hour.

American workers need a pay raise. Especially those in low wage jobs. NOBODY can raise a family on $5.15 an hour. That's $206 bucks a week. Who can afford to feed your kids, buy food, or pay bills on that kind of pay?

And $5.15 doesn't buy all that much these days.

For the ninth year in a row, Congress has turned its back on America's unskilled workers by refusing to boost the federal minimum wage from the paltry sum of $5.15 an hour. Its reluctance to raise the minimum hourly pay has prompted many states to take up the issue on behalf of the nation's underpaid workers.

Indeed, 17 states, including Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia have taken it upon themselves to set the minimum wage above the federal $5.15 rate where it has stood since 1997. It's a shame that the government representing the richest nation in the world does not feel the need or the responsibility to raise the bar for paying the nation's lowliest workers.

Raising the minimum wage has broad public support. Even the chairman of Wal-Mart has endorsed an increase, saying that a worker earning the minimum wage cannot afford to shop in his stores.

http://www.masslive.com/editorials/republi...4740.xml&coll=1

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

2. 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.

3. Perhaps, but if not indexed to inflation, I would definitely tie raising the minimum wage to Congressional pay raises. If the politicians think they deserve a raise, so do the people who put them there.

1. What are the pros and cons of increasing the minimum wage?
If you can raise the wages without raising the prices, you can certainly improve the living standards for the people who have those minimum wage jobs. The downside as others pointed out is that employers would have to employ fewer people.

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

3. Social Security and income tax withholding are idexed to inflation. Do you favor indexing the minimum wage to inflation?
Indexing minimum wage to inflation would be the fairest way to raise the minimum wage without having someone make $25/hr for a $5/hr job.

Here are my 2 cents on this. If we had no minimum wage, every teenager and every college student can get that first McDonalds or Walmart job. And that is very important because without that first job, its very difficult to pay for college or get a good job when you graduate. The problem, as Nighttimer pointed out, is that there are people who have to support families with these jobs.

If America is committed to helping out the working poor, then we need to work on our education system, work on our manufacturing, clean up the corruption and pork barrel spending in Government, and provide real opportunities for the workers. Because no matter how high the minimum wage is, you cannot make a nation prosperous by having people cook each other's meals or do each other's laundry.

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

The pros and cons have been covered by previous posters.

I think the most important factor in this debate is the ability of the wage earner to support him/herself and a family, if necessary. If the lowest wages were always paid to those who did not have to support themselves and lived in Mom and Dad's basement without much hardship being placed on Mom and Dad, that would be one thing.

But for wage earners who have to pay for rent, utilities, groceries, transportation and the occasional trip to the doctor, the hourly amount they make has more serious consequences.

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

Yes, definitely. Seven dollars per hour would help.


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

It makes sense to have the minimum wage indexed to inflation. Look, it might prove to be a hardship to some business owners to pay their workers something closer to a living wage, but what is wrong with having employees more able to meet their living expenses?

With all of the perks and incentives routinely given to upper management, the typical corporate structure is anything but a paragon of altruism. But how about a little pragmatism? An employee who is better able to keep the bills paid will probably have fewer emergencies like car trouble and babysitters quitting, and an employee who can pay the heating bills might get fewer headcolds, so that employee should, in theory, be present more often and more productive.

If the rent and utility bills rise according to inflation, so should the minimum wage. Why demand of those who can least afford it a freeze on their incomes? It's not like they can attend college classes and earn their degrees for free, is it?

Well...umm... actually the answer to your final question is predominantly yes.
Want some links?
Gov't Grants
assorted other grants
What about no-interest loans, etc?
Student aid pages
Financial aid...

The funny thing about the minimum wage is that it's basically meaningless in nearly every metropolitan area of the nation, simply put that if you live in Richmond, VA the cost of living is drastically different than living in Chicago. No rocket science involved there.

Wage economics are dictated in the very same fashion that demand-based economics dictates the cost of goods sold. If a person possesses skills or a work ethic that demand more than minimal pay, they seek employment that matches their skill set. Hence... some people make more/less.

In today's society, race and income are marked determining factors of student aid given. Those less fortunate are far more likely to receive grants or subsidized loans; and /or scholarships from philanthropic or race-based organizations.

If someone is employed long-term in a minimum wage occupation in the US, I believe whole-heartedly it is either based predominantly on a lack of ambitition or restrictive geography. While there are probably cases of people stuck in areas without alternative gainful employment, the majority of the nation living year-after-year at minimum wage probably have an impact on their own financial situation via their own action (or lack there of).

Changing min wages only sets an arbitrary wage increase for those areas that may actually be affected by such action. I don't believe that the idea even has merit... and hence, probably why it hasn't changed in 8 years...

Ah yes, the good old "People are only poor because they are lazy" argument that was all the rage in the 1920s.

Minimum wage is a way of making sure people are not being taken advantage of because of their limited situations. Minimum wage is a way of making sure that the standard American citizen can actually survive on the wages they are being paid, and that a company cannot cut expenses by lowering wages of workers past reasonable levels.

So, is Minimum wage a salary on which a person can survive, or raise a family? No, it is not, and raising it to $7 an hour would allow people to at least survive. Those on the right in this argument seem to think that a raise in minimum wage is some kind of disincentive to improve themselves, or a reward for lazyness. But 7$ an hour is still a very low wage, barely enough to manage. It is undenyable that prioces and costs have increased since 1997, so why is it such a stretch to assume that minimum wage should increase as well?

Minimum wage in Ontario (all of Canada actually) is substantively higher than the national US average, yet there are no signs of the arrmageddon-esque economic collapse that opponents seem to insist will happen.


Yes, it is true that in some parts of the country things are more expensive than others, but in NO part of the country is $5.15 anything but a far-below-the-poverty-line wage. Lastly, who are the major minimum wage payers in the US? Small mom & Pop corner stores? No, massive corporations like Walmart, McDonalds, Burger King, Hotel chains, and so on. These corporations are not going to go bankrupt because they will be forced by law to pay their employees a decent wage. 69% of minimum wage earners are women according to the department of labour by the way. And for those small business that DO have to increase wages slightly, unlike large corporations they depend on local spending and local purchases, which will be made by locals with more money to spend.

Nobody is advocating increasing the minimum wage to $10 or $15 or 20$, which would be silly, but an increase to $7 an hour, which is STILL lower than the inflation rate over the last 7 years, hardly seems unreasonable...

Before putting yourself too far down the "conventional wisdom" hole I'd encourage you to go read that article I cited in my previous post about rent prices being unaffordable in the entire country for a one bedroom apartment if you are making the minimum wage.


That isn't an argument at all. Quite simply the minimum wage hasn't changed in 8 years because the Republicans have been in power since then and they'd sooner die than raise the minimum wage.

Just because that is the political reality doesn't make it right so you are going to have to do a lot better than that.

Good job w/ jumping aboard the Rhetoric Train, CJ, but you can let go of the whistle...

The reality is that you haven't heard cries from DNC stalworths like Howard Dean or Hillary asking for the min wage to be changed on Nightly News either. Why?? Because they understand its irrelevance.. It's not a partisan issue. It doesn't even make the platform....

You also don't mention that the minimum wage can be changed at the state level to better reflect the true needs of the citizens if they so chose. Consider Santa Fe, NM. NM Wage increase
The frank nature of this topic is that it assumes that the Federal Government knows better than our communities and citizens do. I believe that if it's not worth going to work for ___ amount of money, frankly it's my decision to work for said amount of money. If you own business x, in community y, you can only employ people at the rate they are willing to work for... which undoubtedly will vary based upon the circumstances in that area. It's still a personal choice to do so.

The article discussing rent prices and minimum wage have nothing to do with demand based economics. It also has nothing to do with the fact that if states believed that the min wage should be changed in their locale, they could choose to do so accordingly. There are currently 14 states w/ wage minimums higher than the Federal rate.
state laws

I suppose that would settle it completely... but one last thing. If it costs less than 1/3 as much to live in Little Rock, Arkansas than it does in San Francisco...why should the US government dictate the same rate for both places?
Cost of living index

Sarcasm aside Carlito’s missing one pro: the people on minimum wage would receive a boost. I agree with the rest of what he wrote here. The problem with liberal policies (politically speaking, not economically, mind you) is the erroneous assumption that in the pursuit to even out the playing field we assume we can gloss over the first step to economic independence. The result is an attitude that diminishes the importance of the value that entry-level jobs provide to entry-level workers. The problem with conservative policies is a belief that economic policies affecting the highest percentile exist in a vacuum. And the problem with a libertarian approach is the belief that you have a right to starve to death.

I’m more interested in reversing the trend that minimum wage should follow/keep pace with the successes (or excesses) of the highest earners and taking measures to lower the cost of living for lower- and middle-income families. There is no simple solution for this, like raising the minimum wage. Perhaps a viable solution shouldn’t be as simple.

The answer to my question is still predominantly no--higher education still isn't free, and wage earners still have to work to support their families while they attend school. While these grants and scholarships can help, in no way do they provide the things that a family needs while the breadwinner is attending college. And while a job under $7 per hour is better than nothing, it is scarcely so when it comes to paying the bills.

Thanks aevans, I realize that some states have taken it upon themselves to increase it. In fact I live in California and it is one of the states, so that isn't breaking news.

The rent article is absolutely not irrelevant, it is the point. This issue isn't about demand for labor, if there were no controls I'm sure that the wage for these jobs would be even lower if the business practices of Wal-Mart towards their suppliers are any indication. But then we'd be in a race toward the bottom and that really wouldn't be very good for our society.

People have a basic human right to provide food and housing for their families. If someone making minimum wage can't even afford to rent a one bedroom apartment that is a serious problem.

We should look to examine the wages a long with otehr factors to try and fix this problem. You should be applauding these people for trying to work instead of relying on the government, that is the conservative mantra right? If they are working hard and it isn't enough then what? Too bad?


Once again a bogus argument. It is called priorities and the DNC certainly ones a lot higher than this right now. So just because the media isn't covering it and the DNC isn't pushing it doesn't make it a non-issue.

Also, point of fact, Ted Kennedy (who champions this issue) has introduced a bill every year to raise the minimum wage. Each year he is shot down, the last time he was successful was in 1997 when the Democrats had significantly more power in Congress. Go look it up on Thomas.

Ok... working backwards, I mentioned the DNC because you said:

Guess Ted Kennedy is the poster-boy for Democrats?? (*tongue in cheek...*)

The point is that choice is the control. Why on earth do you think doctors make so much money? Because they are in short supply and in order to keep them from leaving, the hospitals must pay more. The reverse is true for most cases of min wage occupations. It's easy to find someone else to take the position, generally due to the minimal training needed to fulfill the requirements. If said employees don't care for their situation, they must find alt employment or upgrade their skill sets.

I wish someone would write a book called "Why liberals hate Walmart"... and the subtitle would be because they don't believe in capitalism...
Simply put, no one has to shop or place their products on Walmart's shelves. The same is true for jobs. Every day as we drive to the office.... it's a choice we make. That's the beauty of capitalism...

I really have no idea what you are talking about. He has championed this for a long time, how is that comment relevant to the debate?



Once again, minimum wage jobs are a requirement in our economy. They have always been there and they will always be there. Someone has to fill them and that someone is very frequently not a teen or an elderly person. I could go into this more but then I'd be repeating my previous post verbatim. So I'd suggest heading back up the page to do so.

No one is arguing that people with skills shouldn't make more money, no one is arguing that people should strive to move up - but what about those people that don't? They are doing a necessary job and working hard to do it. You pretty much dodged the core questions in my post and chose to instead make some strange remark about Ted Kennedy.

My comment about Ted Kennedy wasn't strange, but rather the idea that you'd allow a drunken murder to be your champion is interesting in itself....

However, I didn't dodge your questions, but rather gave logical lessons in demand-side economics that you apparently neither understood nor chose to acknowledge.

The point is that commodities, regardless of the nature, are always priced in agreement with what the market will bear. This as true with steel as it is with labor. I understand the bleeding heart mentality, and admire anyone that takes a less than auspicious occupation (I worked @ UPS in La during college... I understand hard labor). The fact of the matter is that when the government intercedes in commerce, there are few positive long-term ramifications.

Speaking in rhetorical statements about min wage workers not being able to pay rent is arbitrarily negating the nature of a capitalist economy. The reality is that the very bottom of the economic strata will most likely always have a hard time making ends meet. This is a naturally occuring and common phenomenon among industrialized nations. I'm not sure how rent statistics negate economics....it's a less than warm/fuzzy reality, but sure as heck beats the alternatives.

I suppose once we get the rent situation fulfilled (which is interesting, because if they can't afford rent right now... where do they live?), will we move on to cable tv and cars?? Need we discuss how many have cars, cable tv, and microwaves???
... the truth about poverty in US

It is true that there will always be jobs where little experience and fewer skills are needed. I think the moniker "minimum wage jobs" to describe these tasks is wrong, since there has not always been a minimum wage and so by default there have not always been "minimum wage jobs". (The minimum wage is yet another of the New Deal policies of FDR).

I related in another thread how an increase in the minimum wage caused me to quit my first job. It seemed patently unfair that after working to get above that minimum line, that some newbie could come in and suddenly be worth the same as I was.

Minimum wage increases obviously help those that get them. The current proposal (raising the minimum to $7.25) would directly effect 7.3 million workers according to the Economic Policy Institute. The EPI does not explain why, but it claims that another 8.2 million workers who make between $7.25 and $8.25 would gain "spillover" benefits. From my experience, this is dubious at best.

I will assume that EPI's number of 7.3 million making under $7.25 is correct. That means that 7.3 million out of 147.5 million in the US labor force make the new minimum. 5.1% of the population will benefit.

I'm not sure where the Congress gets its authority to implement such a law, but that's probably better left for another debate.

So in the PRO column, we have 5.1% of the population making more money.

What about CONs?

Well, we have seen it proposed that higher minimum wages result in higher unemployment. Can we check this theory? Of course we can!!

Washington state current has its own, indexed minimum wage. It started in 1998, equal to the $5.15 federal minimum, but has increase every year since then. Today it stands at $7.15 per hour.

If we look at unemployment data for Washington state and compare it to the national figures, we see that Washington state has had higher unemployment (to be fair, it has always had slightly higher unemployment). During periods of economic hardship, however, the unemployment rate skyrockets quickly and far outpaces the national average. Washington state employment perfectly mirrored the national average in 1997, but if you look at the data: Washington state unemployment National unemployment we find that after the implementation of the indexing minimum wage, unemployment in Washington exceeded the national average in every year, by an average of 0.93% (the worst years were 2002 and 2003: the national unemployment rate never exceeded 6.2% while Washington's rate exceeded 7% for each month in these two years, maxxing at 7.7%.

Washington state is currently proposing a study be done to determine the exact benefits and harms caused by the state's law: Bill would study whether state's high minimum wage is a good thing. It isn't surprising that some are against such a study being performed.

So, does Washington state's enlightened minimum wage standard keep people out of poverty? Not according to to the stats:



I find that last sentence a bit odd since two adults working full time would make over $30,000 per year. Under the federal guidelines that means the household must have more than 7 family members to be considered poor.

Certainly if you lose your job because of a minimum wage increase, you don't benefit. In fact, it might hold you out of the workplace longer since employers have to risk more to hire you back.

Case Studies on the Minimum Wage
This employer tells us why increases in the minimum wage over the years has caused him to cut employment, or at least consider it.

This article explains why some jobs which appear that they should be minimum wage jobs (stand in line??) aren't.

The article doesn't mention one important reason why standing in line might be important: attendance!! Those employing these people want to make sure they show up and that they are there the whole time.

As a side note, there is this Money Central article out today: Poverty now comes with a color TV These people own more stuff than I do!!

The Economic Policy Institute Has a lot of very interesting information about the minimum wage.


source, refuting an August WSJ editorial

Here is a table showing the characteristics of workers who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.

They also have a great FAQ about the minimum wage here.

A few bits of data from that:




This is far, far too simplistic. Nurses are in higher demand than doctors - why do they make less money? I think using doctors is a bad example, because the issue of their wages is too complex to be reduced so baldly. Is it because of the high cost and time of their education? No, because people who spend lots of money and time earning PhDs in literature don't often get paid as well for their work. Is it because of the value we place on doctors? Partly. Is it because the AMA is such a powerful lobby? Partly. Plus, you can't really say that doctors make uniformly high salaries. Working in a general hospital in the inner city will not make you half as much as working in a private practice that caters to the upper-middle class. Working in a free clinic will net you less than doing brain surgery at John Hopkins.

As for the second part, it is also too simplistic. Most minimum wage jobs do require some training, though rather than skills being learned in a classroom, the skills are taught by the companies - how to run the fry machine might be an example, so would picking vegetables. These businesses benefit from a more stable work force, from not constantly having new employees that must be trained at a cost to the company.



This is just silly. First, most liberals don't "hate" Walmart. Second, those who do have a problem with companies like Walmart, usually have much better reasoning than "oooh, capitalism is bad!" Walmart has been cited for numerous violations of worker protections, anti-unionism, taking out insurance policies on elderly workers, not paying people for overtime hours (to the point of locking workers in stores, and making them work on restocking after they have punched out), and for encouraging third world factories with horrible conditions and draconian worker safety laws. Now, if you want to say that all of those things are examples of capitalism at work, then yeah, capitalism sucks!

If you want to see a great vision of capitalism which is socially responsible and sustaining, read Adam Smith, not Hayek or Friedman!

And part of what's ugly about capitalism is the way some of us dump all over people in low wage jobs and worship at the altar of CEO's and business moguls who rake in millions in compensation and golden parachutes even as their companies fail.

This may be a hard thing for you to believe aevans176, but there are people who wait tables, wash dishes, empty bedpans, clean up dog-doo, deliver newspapers and take orders at the drive-thru window at Mickey Des because they actually like their jobs. The jobs aren't meaningful, important or something most kids say they want to do when they grow up, but SOMEBODY has to do it. And thank heaven they do. Those of us who look down our noses at others for not sharing our ambition should ask ourselves first what would WE do if had to put food on the table and our options were limited to service economy work?

If people chose to snicker and sneer at the waiter who's been taking drink orders for ten years at the same restaurant for a lack of drive, that's their own ugly ego coming out. Personally, I'm just glad there's someone to take the order and takes pride in doing it well. I have no problem with those in humble professions making a few more dollars. Nobody ever tells Tom Cruise he's not worth $15 million for one movie.

Nobody in this thread has suggested the guy making french fries at Burger King should be compensated equal to a heart specialist at Mount Sinai. Working minimum wage gigs is hardly limited to a matter of choice. Not everyone can pull down a paycheck like Johnny Damon and his four-year $52 million dollar deal. And not all of us can be fortunate enough to have it so good we can wag our finger at those who don't.

It is easy to blame individuals for personal failure when they are in low-wage work. It absolves us from having to looking too closely at the failure of a economic and political system that keeps many trapped in these jobs. But if the working poor must shoulder some blame for their lot in life, does that mean our capitalistic philosophy is blameless?

Then again, I'm not at all surprised by some of the wheezy polemics and tired homilies being put forth by the critics here to raising the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage is an issue driven by economic inequality and basic fairness. Two issues that too many conservatives demonstrate a complete lack of interest in.

Which only reinforces the truth of John Kenneth Galbraith's statement, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy, that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

While it's easy for liberals to look down their noses at conservatives as if we're all boorish and smug about our lots in life, I believe you've negated to acknowledge the point that I've attempted to make in no less than obvious fashion.

It's not a stretch to say that in Capitalism, there are inherent flaws. There will be issues in any economic strategy. The frank reality is that the minimum wage hasn't been proven to make a sincere change in "poverty stricken" America for much other than a temporary fashion. If a burger joint that employs 20 people at $5.50/hr has to pay $7.50/hr, that's an over all increase of over $83,000 in yearly direct labor cost. In order to maintain profitability for a small business owner... what happens? Prices increase. This is an economic lesson for the 200 level course (* *), but the reality is that it causes purely artificial inflation over the course of time, and then the wage becomes meaningless in the long run.

I've worked manual labor jobs, supported/paid my way through college, and even worked two jobs in the beginning to get by. It's not that I don't understand, but rather that Capitalism is a lesser of evils. America allows every single person the choice to walk through the door of the office every morning. If you work in an industry that pays less than what you believe the market should dictate, you have the choice to affect change by leaving and/or positioning yourself to be less-dispensable.

Ahhh... here's where I think I can move in for the kill. Simply put, we're going to equate why doctors make more $$$ than Nurses or PA's, and why the coorelation works for the matter at hand.

Nurses are in short-supply, which increases pay for said occupations on the short term. However, they are not in higher demand than Doctors to hospitals. This is a basic premise that revolves around the skill sets that Dr.'s possess in that they are licensed to a different set of functionality. There are a higher number of nurses required, but they are not in higher demand in reference to a hospital functioning, per se. Doctors can handle the tasks of a nurse, but never vice versa. If a nurse leaves, taking vitals or monitoring dialysis (my wife is a dialysis RN....go figure) can be legally filled by the Doctor present, but a nurse cannot write orders or prescribe medication, for instance. The hospital demands that prescriptions be written and diagnoses be given, while also vitals checked and meds administered, of which nurses only fill the latter while Doctors can be utilized in all areas. This is all coupled with the distribution of wealth theory. MD's know that they're the revenue earning arm of the hospital, and in the case of health care, there is a large amount of revenue to be earned. Finally, the doctors are ultimately for the orders being written and carried out. They prescribe the medicine, do the surgery, etc. Without MD's.... get the drift?

This equation would relate to a chain store (i.e. your buddies at Wal Mart) in that maybe an assistant manager may make more money, but not be actively recruited in the same fashion as a stocker. There may be ads placed and signs hoisted to bring in stocking help, for instance. This often is because they are the labor-producing arm of the store (i.e. why there are more privates in the Marines than Sgts, and more Sgt than Capt, etc) The Asst Mgr may have procurement, scheduling, and merchandising skills that also are in addition to the stocking skills. If the Asst Mgr is responsible for ordering product to be stocked, the store's success is dependant upon his capabilities, while if the stocker leaves, said duties can be filled in by an Asst Mgr until another stocker can fill in. However, if no one knows how/where to order from... no product is ordered and the shelves are bare.

Demand-side economics in short, relating to direct labor. I know I'm not a professor of theory, so please excuse my delivery.

However, wages are often dictated by those skill sets most easily or least easily replaced. If it takes a Wal Mart 30% more in direct labor to keep an efficient Asst Manager, then that's what they pay.

Why doesn't a college professor get paid as much as an MD? Simple economic theory my friend. Colleges aren't set to turn profits in the fashion that health care providers are. Phd's teaching at colleges do, however, earn more than educators in secondary schools for instance. Why?? Because they're harder to replace and turn more revenue....

I just have a simple question for Aevans, then I'll move on... if what you say is true, then there would be evidence to support you following previous minimum wage increases. Do you have any?

I think there are larger principles here than economics. That is certainly an important consideration to take into account before taking any action, but it isn't the only consideration as both Amlord and Aevans are suggesting.

The bigger issue is the fundamental human right to be able to provide food and housing for your family. Anyone here disagree with that? Please speak up if you do.

Given that (and I'm really doubting anyone disagrees, but I could be surprised) there are a few ways to handle it. People can support themselves by making a living that actually pays for expenses, the government can support them, or it can be some combination of those two. There isn't another option.

So if we take a look at the typical conservative/GOP philosophy they hate social programs and they think the government shouldn't spend a dime helping people out. You hear lots of talk about "personal responsibility" and "getting a job", etc.

So how exactly does that measure up the fact that you can't live on minimum wage and the fact that minimum wage jobs are necessary to sustain our economy and our society.

So which is it going to be? Are people going to be able to support themselves with a minimum wage or is the government going to help them out? You can't have your cake and eat it too.


This is hardly reality. When you have a family you have obligations and you are locked into your choices to a certain extent. If you have a couple of kids and are already struggling to make ends meet you don't have the option of coming home one day and saying "Forget this I'm quitting and going back to college" and you don't have the option of running around to interview when you are at work all day. You put food on your table and keep your bills paid, period. That isn't to say it can't be done, but that picture you are painting is a fantasy for most people. It is capitalism in a vaccuum.

I'll take the bait. There is no fundamental right to being able to provide food and housing for your family. We all have a fundamental responsibility to provide food and housing for our families. There is a difference. We also have the right to fail. I take your points about having to either earn it, or the government has to provide it. We do have safety nets, but assuming minimum-wage worker has a family to support is a bit of a stretch. These jobs should be done by teenagers, immigrants, entry-level workers, part-time workers, etc. If you have a family to support and you choose a minimum wage job that offers no increases over time then you aren't being responsible. Plus, someone please find me this fictional job where you work for $5.15 and actually show up every day and you're not making $8 in a year or so. These are rare birds indeed.


You do realize that this is a minimum, right? It's not a sentence, it's a job. As to your mystification about the cost-of-living in California, you can look straight up to Sacramento and 30-odd years of liberal self-governance. All of those zoning and environmental laws don't exactly make housing cheaper.

And, just to ease anyone's confusion, I am not "looking down my nose" at minimum-wage workers. There is a place for entry-level work. I worked for the colonel frying chickens and made $3.35 back in the day. But if you're a breadwinner for family of four, you have to do better. And most waitresses, bartenders, landscapers, and "take the order at the drive-thru" do better. They are not making minimum wage in most cases.

If someone can't survive on $6/hr, would that extra dollar per hour make as much a difference as opposed to say, health benefits?

So, why raise the minimum wage? Why not raise the benefits provided instead?

If an employer could not find people to work for a given salary, he'd raise it to the level to get people to work. But by forcing employers to pay more than what people would accept, we are forcing employers to subsidize families.

So, if we're going to make employers subsidize, why not make it something far more useful? In fact, I'm sure many have trouble finding the job, so why not force employers to pick people up they want to interview and take them back home? Maybe limit the workweek to 45 hours per week. Heck, why not make them pay child care expenses?

Minimum wage is a bad idea. We are rewarding people who have no marketable skills and/or experience. If you have to support a family while having no skills or experience, in my opinion you're an idiot. It's one thing to get out of high school and have no skills or experience, But it's no accident to be in that position if you have a wife and kids. You have to be a serious underachiever. Minimum wage rewards that.

I don't really look at it that way DR. The world needs people to work in fast food joints, wait tables, scrub dishes, bag groceries, stock shelves, pick fruit and hundreds of other things. These positions are not filled exclusively by teenagers, college students and elderly people. If you don't believe me just start paying more attention to the people serving you.

This is sort of related to the topic but you really ought to watch A Day Without a Mexican.

Not everyone can go to college and get a nice white collar job and claim "marketable skills". Not everyone has the intelligence to go to college in the first place. Plenty of people knock up their high school girlfriend and get married. There of course also those that run and where does that leave the mother?

It seems that some of you have some misconceptions about poverty, and low wage positions.

I went over to wikipedia to check out this topic and they have some good information on both sides. I did want to call attention to this:


So getting back to the economics it isn't an open annd shut case there.


I have no mystification as to the cost of living in California and I don't believe I mentioned that once. What I have said, for the third time now, is apartment rents for the entire country are becoming unaffordable to those on minimum wage. I'm not talking about metro areas, I'm talking about flyover country.

And as far as your liberal self governance comment goes, CA has had Republican governors for the majority of the past 50 years including people like Reagan. And if zoning laws, building codes and environmental laws are liberal then sure I'll claim them because I prefer not to have a polluted water source and be living next to a factory.

Can you provide an example of legislation that was introduced or a statement made where a Republican suggested we completely abolish all programs that provide assistance to those in need. Or was this just rhetoric?

It's statements like these that really annoy me. We are not evil people Cube Jockey. We just don't believe in throwing money at problems(except Bush who is NOT a fiscal conservative). You need to tone down your rhetoric making statements that conservatives don't want to "spend a dime", when you know for a fact that is not true. You will always need social programs to assist those in need. But there is a place to draw the line.

What does college have to do with marketable skills or minimum wage? You've framed the debate as no college = minimum wage and that's completely bogus. I can promise you I make as much as most on this board and I don't have crap for formal education. I barely got out of high school. But I sucked it up, joined the Marines, learned a trade, and created opportunities. If I can do it, anybody can do it. Failure to better yourself is a bad choice.

Walmart pays at or slightly above minimum wage to start. However, the average worker gets $9.60/hr and all they did was show up for work. Almost all of management came up though the ranks of Walmart and make decent money. It doesn't take college to do well.

Minimum wage doesn't last long if you are a hard worker. Anybody that needs the minimum wage raised to support a family is simply irresponsible.

Perhaps you should take that up with your party then because the history here is long and rich. It is at the very core of the party platform to bring down programs like welfare, social security and affirmative action. The party is responsible for ensuring we haven't had a minimum wage increase in 8 years. This stuff is general knowledge and going into detail on it would take this far off topic. If you'd like to go ahead and browse this article which talks about the fight against welfare which was taken up by people like Reagan as bread and butter legislation.

Or perhaps we could go with a little more recent history where it took quite a thrashing in the media to get Congressional Republicans onboard with helping out Katrina victims. Even now it looks like some are more interested in exploiting them than helping them and I have started a topic on that.

But discussing that much further here is completely off topic. You asked so I answered, if you'd like then start a topic.

DaytonRocker, I respect you as a free-thinker who is not wedded to conservative ideology, but I'm afraid on this subject you're badly off the mark.

It's difficult to resist the urge to lapse into anecdotal stories, but in the real world, the statement "If I can do it, anybody can do it," is not a realistic example for others to emulate.

Your circumstances are unique to yourself. Everyone else has their own and they may differ drastically from your own life story of how you escaped the minimum wage trap. That's fine for you, but what about all those who for reasons beyond their control fall through the cracks?

When I was taking unemployment claims I received too many calls from people whose birthdates were in the Forties, Fifties and Sixties, who were filing their first claim and were absolutely ashamed, embarrassed, angry, confused and depressed about losing their jobs. For many of them the option of picking themselves up by the bootstraps and soldering on was not a viable one.

No, they didn't want to go from a good job with benefits and security to some lousy job with neither, but unemployment in Ohio usually only pays 50 percent of your weekly gross income (as long as it doesn't exceed the state maximums) and then only for one year. After that, you're out unless you've had some other employment over a 18-month span.

Seven dollars an hour is not going to turn a poor man into a rich one. But $5.15 is a joke in a country as wealthy as this. To keep the minimum wage frozen at it's present rate is nothing more than a Republican Congress not doing so because the business lobbyists on K Street don't want them to.

Being poor is a sin in this country and too many times we treat them like they've got a disease we don't want to catch. The funny thing is that many Americans deep in debt and with no savings are only a missed paycheck or two from joining the minimum wage warriors.

I'm always amazed how people who don't bat an eyelash at billions of dollars being thrown at the problems in Iraq go into fits of rage at the notion of an extra $1.85 for Americans trying to transition their way out of dead-end jobs.

I don't disagree with Sleeper that conservatives and Republicans are not evil people. It just strikes me as darned odd how they will go to any length to put millions back into the pockets of millionaires who don't need it, but throw nickles around like manhole covers when it comes to doing jack for the working poor.

Needing the minimum wage to raise a family isn't irresponsible. It's sometimes just a matter of Bad Timing, Bad Breaks, and Bad Luck. And if all that stuff Jesus Christ said about, "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God," holds any weight, we should be a bit more charitable to those less fortunate than we warm, well-fed, computer literate types here on America's Debate lest we find our own Bad Karma coming back on us.

Well, it's nice to know that Republicans cannot be liberals. If you think that your republican governors, legislature and local city councils are not liberal, that is good to know. If it makes you feel better, feel free to believe it.


You forgot to mention CEO salaries. The government spending millions on whatever has what to do with minimum wage exactly? Or did we elect a socialist government and I missed it?
You and I agree for the most part. I'm as charitable or more as the next guy. What I see is the paternalistic tone of posters here while those same posters assure me that the minimum wage is the end-all be-all of income redistrubution. Feel free to avoid the mirror, but don't dismiss me when I point out that not a single poster here earns the minimum wage.

This is the fundamental argument behind raising the minimum wage, and I find it flawed. You CAN indeed support yourself on minimum wage...even while attending school. In fact, many college students do indeed do so ( I was one of them, in fact). CJ, you make much of what rent costs. What do almost all college students do to resolve this dilemma (and many outside of college)...they get roommates. Voila! Problem solved, and it didn't take any government intervention at all.

This being said, I am not really against raising the minimum wage. I find it definitely against my belief in the free market system, yet I find little to no evidence of the gloom and doom scenarios painted by the right, either. I do think there might be something to the scenarios about fewer jobs being available. Which is why this is indeed an economic issue. While its certainly easy to feel good about helping those at the lower end of the economic spectrum get by...if the actions taken actually make such jobs fewer and harder to get, is that really helping them? Is it better for 8 people to get $7/hr or 10 people to get $5.15? What about the two left out (making up numbers here, but you get the gist)? Is this really the outcome preferred by those favoring the minimum wage? If you disagree with the scenario, do you have any evidence stating it wouldn't be the case? I can see where raising the wage might increase money available for spending at these same establishments, mitigating this effect (remember Henry Ford paying all his employees enough to buy one of his cars?). However, in the absence of contrary evidence, I think the assumption of fewer jobs available stands. Is that desirable?

I also think its worth pointing out that this is never ending cycle. If minimum wage is raised, more people will have more money available...removing the floor holding down rents, etc. So, COLA will increase, taking away much of what would have been gained from the wage increase to start with. I'm really more interested in discussing the previous point, but thought I'd throw this one out there as well (obviously, those in favor of raising the minimum avoid this argument, as it is solved quite simply by continuing to raise it).

How do you know this? Because you don't have personal testimonials posted here?

You know, not everybody starts out and remains in deplorable financial circumstances; some of us acquire them when catastrophic illness affects our family. That's true in the case of my family. I am unemployed because of my health circumstances: just who is going to hire a 52-year-old cancer patient when some robust 18-year-old can fill in and will probably be in attendance at the job more consistently than I would be?

And Amlord, do you take it as a personal offense that I, an unemployed person, own a color television purchased when we did make more money as a family and weren't living only on Curmudgeon's Social Security disability and pension? So are we supposed to get rid of the color television set to garner your sympathy?

But the assumption that people who have computers do not make only minimum wage might be more valid inasmuch as computers aren't cheap, and many of the poor cannot afford them or to keep the ones they have upgraded. It might well prove that computer ownership is a form of elitism in our society. In that case, who is left to plead the cause here of the working poor in our society when so many of them do not have access to the Internet? It makes it easier to ignore their plight, doesn't it?

I am really disgusted by those who assume that low-wage jobs are only relegated to those who are wilfully undereducated and/or lazy. Sometimes that low-paying job is all that is available in a community, especially one where skilled workers are permanently laid off due to the company moving its operations to a country where it can pay workers less with impunity.

Three things:

1) All workers should be treated with courtesy and respect, not disdain, for the jobs in which they are employed. It's the Golden Rule stated in specific terms.

2) Not everyone is in a low-paying job because s/he is undereducated or lazy.
Even God doesn't judge people regarding their abundance or lack of job skills, why do we think we should?

3) The Bible states that the laborer is worthy of his wages, and even dictates that oxen are not to be muzzled when they tread the grain.

And one more point: What makes anyone think s/he is more worthy than another person to ask for a raise because s/he has more skills? Doesn't it put a burden on any given company to ask for more? And if it makes the difference of someone being able to purchase health insurance or a set of tires to replace the bald ones on the car, why shouldn't a minimum-wage earner hope to get a little more in his/her paycheck?

You're allowing the exception to rule.

Nobody is denying there are unfortunate circumstances - beyond anyone's control - that cause some people to be denied a fair shake. But we already have subsidies for that. If someone has a family with no job, we have government programs to help. We count on society via taxes with this type of help.

But forcing employers to pony up additional expenses to all because of how tough it is for some is patently unfair. This debate is framed as if minimum wage never changes for anybody working for it, the lack of college ensures minumum wage, while none of this is the case.

Hard workers are difficult to find. That's an undeniable fact. If you want to find out how hungry people are for jobs, start a business. I can promise you will be severly disappointed. However, when you find someone who works hard and shows up everyday, you will reward him/her best you can to retain that help.

We don't need minimum wage to help workers. We need workers to give a crap about their jobs and try to succeeed. Given that, minimum wage will be a distant memory. For every person that benefits from a buck or two extra per hour, there will be 10 who could care less and wouldn't affect one iota.

I'd say get rid of minimum wage altogether. If you don't want to work for crap, keep your nose clean and work hard. Let's not reward people who refuse to help themselves.

The minimum wage was instituted because of employers who exploited their workers, and their workers could not make a living. Do you dispute that?

You know, we need workers who "give a crap about their jobs and try to succeed" in every stratum of the workforce, not just the lowest. Surely you know of people who command much higher salaries who don't work as hard as others doing comparable work.* So I think it is unfair to blame those who are being paid the least for their circumstances; you're painting them with entirely too broad a brushstroke.

But as I look at it, I begin to understand why so many so-called Conservatives don't want tougher illegal immigration laws and enforcement--they don't want to take responsibility for the crappy wages that the illegals make and are afraid to complain about due to their immigration status. Well, these rich people end up paying for it, as do those of us who are not rich, by paying higher taxes for the health departments to take care of the illegals and their American-born babies because they can't afford to pay for the health care themselves. What goes around really does come around.

*The former FEMA director comes to mind.

Welp. DaytonRocker, Carlitoswhey, aevans76, you may never have thought you'd see the day, but Vibiana is with you on this debate. LOL

Having just read Barbara Ehrenreich's new book, "Bait and Switched," which follows the struggle of unemployed white-collar workers to find jobs that will keep them in the middle class, I suppose I should be pointing out that plenty of mid-level managers might be reduced to working at Burger King these days. I'm not sure, though, it they actually are doing so.

There's just enough rock-ribbed conservative in me to believe that any job is better than no job, which of course is easy for me -- an unmarried and childless person -- to say. But there's also enough liberal in me to believe that part of the problem with American society today is that we are being seduced by the consumer culture. We want too many things, obscenely huge houses and expensive vehicles, electronic toys, etc., which leads to competitiveness and a ratcheting up of standards in society.

The fact is that minimum wage was never meant to support a family on. Yes, there are people in tragic situations who wind up trying to do this. Such people need help, and the government does provide some in the form of job training programs and loans or grants for education. I don't know how much more the government should be charged with doing.

When young people make thoughtless choices -- having children in their teens, for example, or dropping out of school -- it costs them later, in ways they don't want to think about when they're young. This is a cruel fact of life. But the government is supposed to provide a safety net -- not a leisure chair. Private charities and philanthropic organizations do all they can to supplement what is available from the government, and still there is never enough. Why is that?

You have to assume that part of the reason is that some people abuse the system. While I would never agree with the assertion that poor people are poor because they're lazy, I think that being poor drains the initiative out of some of them, and makes them passive and unreceptive to improvement. In my opinion, we can offer opportunities for poor people, but if they don't seek them out and take advantage of them -- well, they bear a certain amount of responsibility for their situation. I mean, pray to God, but row for shore, you know?

Raising the minimum wage will cause the cost of everything else to go up. Most people work minimum wage for a few months or years when they first enter the job market, and very few ever return to it (unless they take a second job, such as retail clerking or food service). It should be a starting point, from which people are inspired to learn and improve their skills so they can earn more.

PE,

I linked an article that said the poor had color TVs. A majority also have computers (over 60%). The big thing that the poor do not have is a car. But if they sold their TV and computer, they could buy a car. But that's neither here nor there.

This discussion is the effect of the minimum wage on employment and poverty. Despite Cube Jockey's rather rude portrayal of Republicans as completely opposed to the minimum wage (who was in control of the House of Representatives in 1997? ), if we look historically at the minimum wage, we see that it doesn't seem to help the population as a whole to escape poverty.

Minimum wage was enacted in 1938. Unfortunately, I could only find data on poverty back to 1959: Poverty Status of People (page 22).

When minimum wage was at $2.30 in 1977, 11.6% of the population was in poverty. Over the next four years, minimum wage was raised to $3.35 (in 1981) DOL: Minimum hourly wage of workers . Poverty went UP to 15% in 1982.

Despite the fact that the minimum wage remained at $3.35 throughout the 1980s (the next increase would be in 1990) poverty FELL to 12.8% by 1989.

The minimum went to $3.80 in 1990 and then $4.25 in 1991. Poverty again went UP over the next few years, peaking at 15.1% in 1993.

In 1997, the minimum wage again went up, this time the poverty rate did go down (from 13.3% in 1997 to 12.7% then 12.3%). However the economy was "booming" during that period.

Back to my earlier example of Washington state. Recall that Washington state implemented an indexed minimum wage in 1998, which has increased to $7.15 today. What about poverty in Washington state?

In 1997 (when the Washington state and the federal minimums were equal) Washington state had a 9.2% poverty rate--the national level was 13.3%. Historical Poverty Tables by State

Here is a quick table of Washington state vs. the national average, by year:
US Washington State
1997 13.3 9.2
1998 12.7 8.9
1999 11.9 9.6
2000 11.3 10.8
2001 11.7 10.7
2002 12.1 11.0
2003 12.5 12.6


2003/2004 Data

I will let the reader decide if the indexed minimum wage has helped to end poverty in Washington state.

Of course, the minimum wage is not really the answer to the poverty question. The answer is the family structure. While poverty stands at about 12.7% for all people, it drops to 11% for people in families (all types). It drops to 6.4% for people in families with married parents. Not surprisingly, it is 13.8% for single father families and 30.5% for single mother families.

Many proponents of the minimum wage in the Progressive Era had much more sinister motives than just helping exploited workers. It was a coalition of worker advocates, proponents of Eugenics, racists, xenophobic anti-immigration advocates… The idea of many was that, by artificially raising the minimum wage, it would cause “undesireable groups” to leave the labor force. Here is an (pdf link) interesting article that notes how the minimum wage was proposed by Eugenics advocates to ensure that women wouldn't work and thus could better carry out their eugenic duties as 'mothers of the race.'

Much like the Davis-Bacon law was meant to keep blacks from gaining employment by pricing them out of entry-level work, the minimum wage law was designed to protect the (white) male bread-winner by reducing competition from women and immigrants. You can of course argue that they were wrong, and that a maximum wage (for women and immigrants) would have had a more eugenic effect, but their motives were out in the open. Before the Nazis, eugenics was acceptable social science.

{applause}

Here is a comparison of minimum wage vs. average wage. It doesn't appear that the minimum wage affects the average worker too much. For example, since the minimum wage was last changed in 1997, average wages have gone up $4. There are (at least) two ways to interpret this:
1 - Minimum wage workers are trapped, being left behind in their minimum wage jobs while society advances without them.
2 - There is plenty of upward mobility in wages that appears unrelated to minimum wage. Perhaps this is because workers only work for a while at a minimum-wage job before they move onto more gainful employment.

Again, I'll ask - is anyone here "trapped" in a minimum-wage job? If so, for how long have they been trapped? Why?

Amlord,

I believe your post is evidence of the cycle I described above....raise the minimum wage, and the cost of goods will likely rise along with it, raising the poverty threshold, and leading to no net decrease in poverty.

PE,



Actually, yes, I do dispute that. As I recall, minimum wage was enacted for exactly the same reasons being argued here...that a person couldn't afford to live on minimum wage. I don't recall corporate worker exploitation played much role in the discussion. But I'm not sure that's relevant to the current discussion, unless one is arguing that the purpose of minimum wage is primarily to avoid such exploitation....in which case I think evidence of that being the case initially would be called for.



I'm not sure which conservatives you're referring to, but I will state here that I am indeed in favor of tougher immigration laws, and that enforcement of such should help naturally raise the *minimum* wage, by removing a large sector of the workforce willing to work for even lower wages. In fact, I would argue that any increase in minimum wage should be explicitly tied to stronger immigration policies....otherwise all you're really doing is encouraging even more illegal aliens to come across our borders to get those higher paying jobs. Hmmmm...given that, to me, stronger border enforcement should be valid conservative concern, and higher minimum wage seems to be more of a liberal issue....maybe there lies our *compromise* win-win scenario?

Firstly, last time I posted I commented on the follishness of the 'poor people are lazy' belief. Since that post, poor people have been called lazy, foolish, and more recently idiots by posters on this board.

What the heck is wrong with you people?





Let me just deal with this one thing. I am willing to bet that this burger joint's prices have not remained the same for the last 7 years. I am willing to bet that in fact, the prices have been increasing at or about the same rate annually as inflation. Since the minimum wage has not been increasing, prices have gone up and the burger joint has been SAVING money these last 7 years by not paying its staff as much (in real dollars) as they were earning 7 years ago. The burget joint has been turning a profit as the relative cost of its staff DROPS over 7 years.

Assuming everything increases at about the rate of inflation, including costs, supplies costs, AND wages, then the burger joint should not need to increase its sales costs by any more than standard inflation.

So what exactly is the problem with raising Minimum wage at inflationary levels again?

Number of times the word "fool" appears in this topic = 0
Number of times the word "lazy" appears = 8. It was used by yourself 4 times, plus 4 other times by other posters arguing against the idea that poor people are lazy.

Could you be more specific in your objections? I haven't said these things, and I'm looking for who else has, but every proponent of minimum-wage raises appears to be arguing against the proposition that "poor people are lazy." Who is saying this? Here is what DaytonRocker said as to "idiots" that has you so exercised. It's a bit harsh, but it sure doesn't say "poor people are idiots."



By the way, would you agree that some poor people are either lazy, foolish or idiots? Seems likely to me. What is the solution? Lazy rich people can support themselves, lazy middle-class people can underachieve and probably still pay the mortgage. What to do with lazy poor people? Maybe we need a dose of Thomas Paine here - make them into soup or soylent green or something.

Actually I would agree with this. Trouble is, I don't think that is what the Democrats are asking for. If it was indexed to inflation, next we'd hear foot-stomping that "inflation figures are being understated by the evil Bush regime." I can hear it now - "gas is $3 a gallon and the minimum wage only went up by 12¢ this year. where is the compassion?!"

So you do agree with raising it then? All this time I thought you were arguing against it.

In the article that opened this topic we have the following statement:


There are currently no proposals that I'm aware of right now to increase the minimum wage but Ted Kennedy generally does introduce a bill during each session of Congress to do this. However, he probably isn't going to ask for a $2 increase. It certaintly wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility for them to introduce a bill tying it to inflation which would save them the trouble of having to try and get it increased every year.

So it seems like the only plan on the table is one by the AFL-CIO that the minimum wage be tied to inflation. It sounds like you support that so that pretty much ends the debate for you doesn't it?

I think we can leave the predictions about future politics out of it especially since I highly doubt this would ever get passed while Bush was in office in the first place.

If the minimum wage were tied to inflation starting this year, I'd support it. If it were tied to inflation retroactively to 1930 or whatever I'd be against it. At least this way, it's low enough that states who wish to have higher wages can pass them (And their economies could reap all of those benefits of a higher minimum wage). The only states it would hurt would be the South, but I'm guessing that some farm-labor excemptions would be in a new law.

As to whether Bush would pass this, why not? He's doubled spending by the Department of Education, passed a prescription drug benefit, created a new cabinet-level post (homeland security), hasn't vetoed any of the ridiculous spending or farm bills - let's face it, he's a big-government guy. I can see him and Senator Clinton rolling out this "common sense measure" in a joint press conference, sometime in 2007.

Amlord, to put it plainly you have not demonstrated that jobs or employment are effected negatively by minimum wage increases. In fact, to this point nobody has. As long as claims of downward pressures on employment levels and small-business operation are made, at least one iota of evidence should be provided, or else these claims (championed primarily by Amlord and Aevans) have no legitimacy.

Of course I have not done an in-depth study.

I have shown that both poverty rates and unemployment rates in Washington state (which indexes its minimum wage) have both RISEN since it instituted the policy. I will concede that I have not demonstrated causation, but I have shown correlation. Of course, the people of Washington state, who are more likely to be both poor and unemployed today feel lucky---if they have jobs.



Actually, the minimum wage in 1938 ($0.25 per hour) would be $3.22 today. The minimum wage in 1945 ($0.40) would be $4.20 today. The highest level was probably 1963 when the $1.25 minimum would translate into $7.64 today. (The 1981 level of $3.35 would be $7.50 today). Inflation calculator

I stand corrected. I must say that, in the early 80's when I was making that tall $3.35, it sure felt like a lot of money. Now I see that it was!

Even at the current rate though, I'd support this just to get it off the table and create some certainty in future labor costing. Take it out of Congress' hands and make it predictable. Plus, minimum wage workers will get the good feeling of a 'raise' once a year.

Seemingly the idea has had merit except during the years that Reagan and Bush have held office. I think it has more to do with playing to one’s constituencies than lack of merit.



It’s good to see that you use tongue-in-cheek. It’s becoming a lost art.



Ah, but tongue-in-cheek was just a prelude to a broadside of one of the Kennedys, an annoying habit you engage in periodically. Ted Kenndey’s legal problems of several decade ago have nothing to do with the validity or lack there of concerning the minimum wage. What you have said is mean spirited and irrelevant.



Thanks for the concession. Correlation means little unless someone can show causation. Just think all the work you did for nothing.

Actually I prefer a dual approach to the minimum wage. First, raise the current rate to about $7.00 per hour and second, index the new $7.00 to inflation. I’m not saying that the possible loss of jobs is without merit. I would like to point out a few things. It seems, as a consumer, that there are at least a couple of business philosophies I have to deal with. One is the customer service model. Here the business employs enough people to take care of its customers in a reasonably efficient manner. The other is prepared to make customers wait until a smaller workforce can tale care of them. How many of you have ever had to hold on the telephone 30 minutes or longer while all a company's representatives were busy "taking other customer's calls?"

I’ll use Starbucks and Borders Espresso bars as an example. I don’t like Starbuck’s coffee, but I’ve never been in there when they didn’t have four or five people working. This includes the Starbucks within B&N bookstores. On the other hand both Borders in Fort Worth employ one attendant in the coffee bar. That employee must wash dishes, bus tables and it sometimes becomes necessary for customers to wait in line for prolonged periodsw while that lone employee makes time consuming coffee dinks. Further, that lone coffee bar employee is expected to help other areas of the store if, heaven forbid, they have a spare moment. I have complained about slowness of service to Borders management and suggested that they hire more people. The answer I usually get is that they can’t hire people or that the one’s they do hire don’t show up. Gee, I wonder why.

The point I’m trying to make is that those employers who want to maximize profit by skimping on labor are probably going to do it regardless of where the minimum wage is pegged. In fact, it migh be an excuse to reduce labor costs. Those with more interest in customer service are probably going to hire more people.