Social Issue: On Economies - The Minimum Wage

May I contribute?

I believe that that the minimum wage offered by an employer is to reduce a cost-factor of production. Rather than increase wages through the employer, banks have stepped in to offer credit-cards and loans to those on the lowest incomes with a seeming disregard on ability to repay...you could look at it as a privatisation of the pay-rise

or...
you could look at it as the enslavement of the american people.

or, the undermining of the basic value system of the United States.

whatever. susposedly, we value independance and freedom. and freedom cannot be achieved without independance. and yet, we will treat the idea that more and more of our population are increasingly having to become dependant on another, be it another person, the government, charity organization, lender, whatever, as if it's nothing to worry about. but, raise our flag high, and spead the gospel of Democracy....(capitalism)..... far and wide!!! there's riches to be gained!!!

The only solution to minimum wage is to abolish it all together!

Let the market decide what the prevailing wage is.

The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, yet in New Orleans you can get on at Burger King for $10.00 an hour.

Let the market decide! If a business pays too little they won't get quality workers!

Abolish the minimum wage and we won't have to hear the whining and crying every 4-5 years!

posted by timski

May I contribute?
I believe that the minimum wage offered by an employer is to reduce a cost-factor of production. Rather than increase wages through the employer, banks have stepped in to offer credit-cards and loans to those on the lowest incomes with a seeming disregard on ability to repay . . you could look at it as a privatization of the pay-rise

You’re right, Timski, easy credit can be a substitute for a legitimate pay raise. But surely it is only temporary, and puts the borrower in worse shape than ever. Fair Credit Law says bad info can be reported for 7 yeas and the fact of bankruptcy for 10 years. That is not good. Slow pay is 99% as bad as no pay from a lenders POV.

This means the guy is stuck with paying cash - which he cannot accumulate - or buy a car on a “buy here pay here” lot. He’ll pay $3,000 for a $1,000 car. He’ll buy furniture at Rent-a-Center and pay $999 for a $299 couch. He will join the 20,000,000 of Americans who are worse off than the Low Class. What do you call that?

In Mexico, they‘re called peons, in old Russia they called it “serf-dom.” In China they were coolies. In America they call it “free market.” Don’t Do It!



[edit on 7/24/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by RRconservative
The only solution to minimum wage is to abolish it all together!

Let the market decide what the prevailing wage is.

The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, yet in New Orleans you can get on at Burger King for $10.00 an hour.

Let the market decide! If a business pays too little they won't get quality workers!

Abolish the minimum wage and we won't have to hear the whining and crying every 4-5 years!

won't work as long as we have nice gov't programs willing to jump in and take the pain out of proverty, or at least dampen the effects.
like I already pointed out, the welfare to work program alone will flood the market will desparate workers willing to take whatever they can, and they don't have to worry about if that check will cover their childcare even...let alone rent, food, ect. ect.

I agree with RR. Toss the min. wage out all together.

Redo the whole higher education grant/loan system instead. Set different standards to make it easier for people to continue their education. Set up funds to help those with kids. Less drop outs, smarter society. After that, if you choose to go ahead and drop out (and risk making only a couple bucks an hour) or if you choose to stay where you are, then deal with it. It is a free country (ok, somewhat) you get what you work for. If you want such and such amount of money, then educate yourself and work for it. If you dont want to work for it, then learn to deal with what you get. As for the illegals, it would be too difficult - next to impossable - for them to go out and get a grant, so they can deal with working for the same money they get back home. Of course with that and considering the reprecussions for the littleones, I would also suggest free health care for all minors in the lower income families.

then, who will sell you your shirts at wal mart? print all those nice ads your see in the stores, cook your big mac, pick your apples, file your papers in the office, be a bus aide on your kid's school bus??? we rely on many of these people to do what they are doing, we just don't respect them enough to acknowledge their right to life!!! or else we would find this whole thing quite appalling!

I totaly acknowledge their right to life. That is why I suggest making it easier to go get an education.

You do what you gotta do to make ends meet while you do what you gotta do to get what you want.

If you want to flip burgers for the rest of your life, go right ahead, just dont come fussing to me when you cant afford what you want.

BUT that is how I am. I am for pushing society twards becoming smarter and stronger, not dumber and lazier. I dont want to support lazy people. I will give the shirt off my back, and all my money to someone in need, but Im not going to give my whole wardrobe to someone just because they dont want to go get their own.

Let's see...

"To Save Money We Should Stop Paying People For Working!"

6 Months Later...

"How Come Every Store and Business went out of Business? They haven't paid anyone for the past 6 months! What? No one bought the products they made in the sweat shops and slave labor? Well, make it a law they have to buy the products! What? You mean they don't have money because we haven't paid anyone in the past 6 months? Well, don't look at us we aren't evil communists who are going to pay people for working!"

See? Doesn't make sense. How do you expect the economy to work if all the workers are slaves? If no one has money then nothing will be sold. Oh sure that 64" Flat Screen HDTV may cost $20 but guess what? No One Has $20!!!!!!!

The argument that prices will be raised in response to a minimum wage increase ignores supply and demand.

Let's try a more extreme example than 8 dollars an hour, without going over the top. When dealing with smaller increases in costs, revenue losses from reduced demand that would result from a price increase can exceed the revenue loss from increased overhead, and therefore a price increase is not a sound strategy.

Suppose the minimum wage was 12 dollars an hour. Assuming a 20% labor cost not only on the retail end but in the production stages, you end up with a 20% cost increase at the retailer. Your 6 dollar value meal would go up to 7.20 dollars in a vacuum.
But will it? Maybe not. I'm not paying 7.20 for a big mac, fries, and coke; the fry cook's income just doubled, but mine didn't because I already make more than that.

Why won't I pay that much when I make more than the fry cook? Because I don't have a sudden increase in wages. I have been living on this income already and I've allocated more towards my car and other exepenses than the fry cook, thus I can't shake out any more money for food than I'm already paying.
The same thing applies to the fry cook. He won't pay 7.20 for a burger either because his income just doubled and now he can drop his room mate and get his own place as long as he doesn't spend money on overpriced fast food.


So what you have to do is very carefully run the numbers a minimum wage increase to make sure that the wages are coming from out of corporate overhead/waste and inflated top-level sallaries, not out of the consumer's pocket. The ability to callibrate minimum wage can be increased by setting industry specific minimums rather than a general minimum wage, and by adjusting tax policies for affected industries.


The goal is to make money move. The more money moves, the higher the GDP. Money moves when the working and middle class have it. Can Ray Croc make his money move? He doesn't have to spend it all and he's not going to spend it all. Which brings us to what Ray Croc's money is doing instead of being transacted among a broader middle class that would be created by well-targeted minimum wage increases. Ray Croc's money is in banks and investments.

When you trim from the rich, you're reducing the supply of available capital, forcing/enabling banks to raise interest rates. Hardly inflationary is it? These raised interest rates are going to pose an obstacle for startup businesses, home buying, etc, but these are partly offset by the increased spending going on, creating a survival of the fittest environment- weak startups will not survive, but strong ones will still be able to prosper in this environment.

In my admittedly ametuer opinion, which never the less I believe is fairly well thought out at least on the practical level, mimimum wage is doesn't enjoy nearly the place it should as a useful control over the economy. It can be used to encourage commerce and increase standard of living, and when well managed it auto-corrects for inflation by influencing lending rates.

burger flippers, hmmm........got news for ya. I think the burger flippers in this area make more than me....4 years experience in screen printing.

ya know, there was a guy who worked for me in my last job. thought the world of his wife and his little daughter. he made more than minimum wage, but not really enough to support that little girl and wife. he was a good screenprinter. matter of fact, the training mauals that the government uses to train their pilots were printed by him. why should he have to change occupations?? well, the only way they found to make it finacially was for him to move out and settle for biweekly visitation rights. that way, she could get the help that was needed from the government.

oh ya, we should see more education as the answer!!! why, keep encouraging higher education as the answer and all you are gonna do it and make degrees a dime a dozen and next to valueless and well, create more endebted people in the process!! and you are still gonna need someone to print the training manuals to train the pilots!! not to mention cut the gaskets that are in ther engines.

the living wage varies across the country, but well, I think in most parts that the government has come to the conclusion that a women with two kid needs to be making at least $10. and hour to make it on her own......a family of three..so, let's assume that a family of three, regardless of family makeup needs to bring in at least $10 and hour....but let's give ourselves some leeway here, okay, if it's a two parent family, and it requires both parents working to make that ten an hour, well, more will be needed to compensate for childcare. more taxes will be taken out of their paychecks I believe also. ect. I assume we want a future generation to take over for us, don't we? so, well, it's not reasonable to think that we can do without having kids. our paychecks should reflect that fact! the simple fact is, that for many occupations, not just the burger flippers, the paychecks are not covering the living expenses...and we have a wide range of government sponsered schemes to get the money that is needed to keep these people going to them!

if the argument that increasing the minimum wage will cause a ripple effect up the wage scale can be used as an argument against raising it, the opposite can be used against it!!! decreasing it and letting if fall to a buck an hour will drop everyone's wages. with the result of more people needing assistance, more broken families, more chaos, higher taxes or larger government debt!!!

you can rearrange these social programs, and rename them all you want, won't change a thing. they are still just government manipulation of a malfunctioning economy to keep it running just a little longer, in the end, well, it more than likely will cost alot more than if we actually found the solution and adjusted our economy so it was functioning properly! and I really find it quite ironic that the it is the same group of people who accuse liberals of being socialists and declare their desire to disband the social programs are the same ones who are too blind to see that for those social programs to be disbanded now requires that the wages on that lower end raise enough for the employees working them to at least have their basic needs met! their trickle down economics leads more to socialism than anything that the liberals could ever think up!!!

by dawnstar:

manipulation of a malfunctioning economy

REPLY: Hmmm... a $13 TRILLION GDP is a malfunctioning economy???

it's not reasonable to think that we can do without having kids. our paychecks should reflect that fact! the simple fact is, that for many occupations, not just the burger flippers, the paychecks are not covering the living expenses.

REPLY: Many of those living expenses are based on "want" not "need." Do we need kids for our future, most definately; but common sense has to be the deciding factor. East of the big river, it requires an average of $110,000.00 to raise a boy child from birth to the age of 18 (a girl is much higher). That's $6111.00 per year just for the kid. Add to that: housing, utilities, phone, car payments, taxes, food, etc. One has to plan ahead to guarantee they can AFFORD to have a child. I have no sympathy for those with no common sense. Your paycheck reflects nothing more than an indication of your education, the job you are able to do, and what the market will bear to pay for the job you have.

encouraging higher education as the answer and all you are gonna do is and make degrees a dime a dozen and next to valueless.

REPLY: Exactlyfalse. It is the lack of educated people which is a large part of jobs going overseas. Corporate state and federal taxes is the other reason.

".... that way, she could get the help that was needed from the government.

REPLY: She's not getting it from the government! Government doesn't have any money it doesn't get from us. So I'm helping pay for what she "needs" and I don't even know her, let alone the possibility of having another kid with her (if we could afford it, of course).

"....their trickle down economics leads more to socialism than anything that the liberals could ever think up!!!

REPLY: It would be very difficult to explain 30 years worth of economics to you, but your statement above is totally false. It's the "trickle-down" economics that, unfortunately, PAYS for those programs; it doesn't start them

[edit on 25-7-2006 by zappafan1]

zappafan1

if you don't like my estimate as to how much it costs to live, well, all I can say is talk with the government!! go online to any search engine, and type in the word "income guideline", "hud" or "foodstamps", or "heap" for a few states. I did last night and found that for the most part, a family of three.....IT'S THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS SAYING THAT PEOPLE MAKING LESS THAN THAT AMOUNT NEEDS HELP TO FEED THAT FAMILY. or heat their house, or get healthcare, or whatever!!! generally that amount is around $10 an hour.

or you could do it another way, look in the newpaper, just how much is the average rent for a two bedroom apartment? estimate just how much the grocery bill would be for a family of three, the heat and electricity? transportation expense? school supplies, clothing (yes, you can use the good will in this estimate, but you have to estimate something!! unless you feel it's okay that people run around with no clothes on that is. health insurance. ect. ect. ect.......and well what do you come up with?

There is no room for those nice extras in my estimate.

so, let's consider the idea that everyone went back to school, even people like me who only have maybe 15 years left to be in the workforce, we get various degrees to get those more valued jobs. okay, is there money available to do this first? if not, well, wouldn't we get more bang for our bucks if we use the money we do have for the people who have more years to spend using that education? and well, once we all have those degrees, is there really enough of those valued jobs out there for all of us? so, then, wouldn't the people working in the shipping departments, the clerical workers, the printers, the stock boys at the grocery store, the cashiers, the machine operators, ect. wouldn't they see a lack or workers while all of us went out looking for the job of our dreams. and wouldn't at least some of these people come back to those jobs I just listed once their wages rose enough, or maybe that raise in wages wouldn't even be needed to get those higher qualified candidates, only now, those higher qualified candidates would need higher wages to pay for the education that is failing to deliver what was promised!!!

in plain simple words, encouraging everyone to gain more education is not the answer. encouraging those who have the talent, and the desire is the best way to go. we will still need people working in those lower paying jobs, only if there's a surplus of overqualified people, more than likely the cost of these employees will increase!! either through higher wages, or more government handouts!

---------------------------------------------------

"Exactly false. It is the lack of educated people which is a large part of jobs going overseas. Corporate state and federal taxes is the other reason."

--------------------------------------------------

then why are companies sending headhunters south across the borders to recruit foreigners who can't even speak our language to fill their workforce??



--------------------------------------------------

"She's not getting it from the government! Government doesn't have any money it doesn't get from us. So I'm helping pay for what she "needs" and I don't even know her, let alone the possibility of having another kid with her (if we could afford it, of course)."

-------------------------------------------------




no, she is getting it from the government....they are the ones who are deciding who should get what, and how much, or do you have some connection that enables you to decide such matters?

and as far as the idea that people should be planning and waiting till they afford to have kids, well, in the present situation, this sounds like a feeble attempt to do a little bit of genetic cleansing on your part. in some of the schools in my area, the number of kids getting free or reduced lunch in school is way over 50%, and I think the average for all the schools is a little over 50%, so that is 50% of the kids that should never have been had according to this rule!!!


------------------------------------------
"It would be very difficult to explain 30 years worth of economics to you, but your statement above is totally false. It's the "trickle-down" economics that, unfortunately, PAYS for those programs; it doesn't start them"
________________________________


the money isn't trickling down!!! unless you consider the part that these gov't handouts as being part of the process. in which case, this is a very socialist view and you've proven my point!!
in the past 30 years, more and more and then even more people have been put in a position of having to depend on these handouts!!!

[edit on 26-7-2006 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Can Ray Croc make his money move? He doesn't have to spend it all and he's not going to spend it all. Which brings us to what Ray Croc's money is doing instead of being transacted among a broader middle class that would be created by well-targeted minimum wage increases. Ray Croc's money is in banks and investments.

There's some good logic to your post, Vagabond, and I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Ray Kroc has been dead for more than twenty years.

[edit on 2006/7/26 by GradyPhilpott]

Well, what if instead of giving 9 Billion dollars to Billionaires we put it in Social Security? Think about it, before the 2006 elections if the Republicans took that Tax Payer Money back and put it into SS, they could say "We Saved Social Security! Vote for Me!" and might actually win. But no, giving money to billionaires makes much more sense.

Also, isn't THAT Communism? Isn't Bush&Co being the biggest Commies ever? Even more then Krushechev(sp?) or Mao? Giving Billions to Companies... Or is that Socialism ala Hitler and the NAZIs? I mean, in a capitalist society we are supposed to be why are Billionaires being given Billions more by our government? Or is Socialism a good thing when the money doesn't go to the poor who needs it?

posted by Spades:
Well, what if instead of giving 9 Billion dollars to Billionaires we put it in Social Security? But no, giving money to billionaires makes much more sense.

Also, isn't THAT Communism? I mean, in a capitalist society we are supposed to be why are Billionaires being given Billions more by our government? Or is Socialism a good thing when the money doesn't go to the poor who needs it?

REPLY: You have it exactly backwards, and wrong. Communism is where the government owns the corporations, and also has control of all means of production. (very basic description). The Greenies love the idea of state and federal governments owning "public land", which is unconstitutional, but it is also Communistic by it's very nature, as the land is the ultimate means of production. Of course they love it, because they LOVE Communism.

What don't you understand? (obviously a LOT concerning economics. I'm not knocking you, because whatever you learned about it was taught to you in our failed public school systems). When you received your refund from your taxes (money overpaid), did you send it back to the government, or donate it to Social Security? The money the "billionaires" received was their money... they earned it! just as the money you received was the money YOU earned. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

What you propose is Marxism/Socialism, both of which have never worked throughout history; they are failed governmental and economic policies.

Social Security is in trouble because, back in the early 70's President Johnson (Dem) took down the wall between the SS "Lockbox" and put all the money into the "General Fund", then spent most of it on his failed "Great Society" social programs. Which were/are, of course, Marxist/Socialist in nature; Proving yet once again, as mentioned above, they never work.

Dawnstar: I'm not arguing with what you mentioned as to the cost of living for average folk. I was merely providing figures as they pertained to the people you mentioned, and the costs directly related to raising but one child. I believe those figures would fit quite nicely into the figures you mentioned. Taking your figures, all I'm saying is that a couple with ONE child would have to have the common sense to realize that they would have to guarantee they could increase their yearly income by $6111.00 before they had another child. How many people could do that without getting a better job, which would require, most likely, better educating themselves in the same or another career.

I'm right about the same age as you, so I know where you're coming from, and I understand your outlook. However, as was also described by someone else, increasing the minimum wage raises the cost of doing business, and the cost of goods and services, which equals exactly no help whatsoever to anyone.

The outsourcing of jobs I referred to were those of higher wage jobs, which means better educated people. Those who are looking south of the border for people are most likely looking for illegals, and are doing so illegally. But that's another thread/issue.

No, she is not getting it from the government. Any money the government has came from us, the taxpayers.

".... and as far as the idea that people should be planning and waiting till they afford to have kids, well, in the present situation, this sounds like a feeble attempt to do a little bit of genetic cleansing on your part.

REPLY: No, it's economical common sense, something they used to teach iwhen we were in school, but no longer do. "Genetic cleansing" relates more to abortions than it does this issue.

".... more and more and then even more people have been put in a position of having to depend on these handouts!!!

REPLY: They haven't been "put in the position" of having to receive them.... President Bush has made it easier for more people who need help to have access to those programs (one of the few things I disagree with him on). Many people look at these things as being good, but of course hardly any mention of his doing something "good" has been given much press or media coverage.

Programs that grew over the past five years are aimed at the under-65 population, especially families earning less than $40,000 a year. For example, the number of mostly low-income college students receiving Pell grants rose 41% over five years to 5.3 million.

Expanded eligibility: Congress has expanded eligibility for programs in ways that attracted little attention but added greatly to the scope and cost of programs. Congress added food stamp eligibility for 2.7 million people by ending a rule that disqualified people from receiving food stamps if they had a car or truck worth $4,650 or more. The change, one of a series of expansions in 2001 and 2002, was designed to make it easier for food stamp recipients to work.

Increased participation: The government has made applying for benefits easier, prompting more eligible people to get them. Forms have been shortened, office visits reduced and verification streamlined.

Welfare reform: The 996 overhaul pushed millions of people off cash assistance and into the workforce. Congress expanded eligibility for benefits to support people with low-wage jobs.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by zappafan1]

by Dawnstar: the money isn't trickling down!!!

REPLY: The current economic boom is the direct result of what some call "Trickle Down" economics; actually it is just the economic principle of lowering taxes for everyone.
You see, I don't care if some rich person gets to keep more of the money he/she earned. Horrors..... he might have the nerve to buy another lexus, or he might buy another mansion somewhere in another state.

How does this relate to "Trickle-down Economics?
Ask all the people on the assembly line who build the Lexus if they care, or all the various companies who make all the parts that go into the car if they care. More "rich people" who buy more cars means providing more jobs; lower taxes allow them to hire more people and invest in more equipment, and benefits those who build THAT equipment.

Ask those electricians, carpenters, plumbers, roofers, masons, etc, who build those mansions if they care that some rich guy has more of the money he earned. More product sold, more people who are employed equals more taxes paid into the government coffers. That's "Trickle-down Economics", and it has worked every time it has been used.

Any time money is kept out of governments hands, and in the hands of those who earned it is a damn good thing.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by zappafan1]

Double post.... sorry.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by zappafan1]

DonW, I think you and I are old enough to remember when the minimum wage was something teenagers or school drop outs made. A young person completing high school could get a job not tied to min wage but set at the workplace. About 25 years ago, all this changed, and minimum wage became a standard for much employment. Now a min wage is not just for teens or drop outs. It's the standard for where many paychecks start.

If there's only so much food to go around, and you're at the top of the food chain, you make sure others survive on less calories. You get to grow fatter while those around you become thinner. "Wasting diseas" is not only found in bovines. In order for those at the top to make more $, the bottom makes less, and told be happy don't complain. To make even more $ (ahhh, the love of money--the root of evil), the top finds persons willing to work for even less.

More education--true in general. But, true story, a bright young man completes college, hired by a successful company, good position, but making $40,000 a year which in his area is poverty level (rent alone would consume half his gross income, hence room mates). Gone are any pensions or health benefits. The only way a young person nowadays might "own" a house is by never owning a house, instead affording an interest only loan.

A comment re student aide. That, too, is suffering from wasting disease.

Anyway, I guess I'm trying to say that min wage is just part of a much larger problem for workers. Hey, when all our reserve/guard soldiers come home, returning to their jobs, where will those displaced workers find a (min wage?) job?


And another thing, please, no more tax breaks! As soon as I got more $ back in my paycheck, it went to increases (it's like the vultures were waiting nearby)in health care, all my insurances (home, auto, health), housing, utilities, fuel, food, tuition; so I'm worse off! Maybe the wealthy can afford tax breaks, but I can no longer afford them.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by desert]