Minimum wage: a hurdle for the poor.

The minimum wage creates a permanent poverty class. It hurts the poor. If the minum wage works, lets just raise it to $25 per hour. Whats that you say? The UNEMPLOYMENT rate would skyrocket? Oh, well thats O.K., because the 50% of the nation that was employed could simply be taxed 75% to pay welfare to those who lost their jobs. Gee, minimum wage is swell! See what a good socialist I am? I care about the poor so much that I refuse to listen to reason and instead act on emotion, even if that means hurting the people I pretend to protect. After all, only a MEANIE would want to tell a poor person they may be getting less money or that they have to actually prove they are worth a raise instead of the gov. saying how much they are worth and creating a means for employers to justify not giving them more. Ask yourself why a fast food joint would pay an unskilled worker more than what the government says is the right wage for the lowest jobs in our country. Minimum wage = UNEMPLOYMENT = less spending = less profit = MORE UNEMPLOYMENT. Raising taxes = less income = less spending = less profit = MORE UNEMPLOYMENT. Doesn't make any sense to me. But hey, lets keep the UNEMPLOYMENT rate up, or we cant justify that huge welfare budget that keeps gov. employees sitting at their desk instead of heading to the UNEMPOYMENT office.

I think its funny and sick that Liberals try so hard to help "the little guy" and end up creating a system of social control that is so hard to rise above, all because they can't scratch the surface and think about things. Liberal politics are based on knee-jerk emotions!


Lets hear what y'all have to say.

P.S. I don't own a buisiness, nor does my family. Just a working class soldier.


[edit on 30-6-2004 by cavscout]

You have an excellent point. I heard Kerry wants to raise minimum wage. Thats all fine and dandy till the employers decide they cant afford an increase in minimum wage. Its gonna be a sad day for walmart employies.

Kerry's vow to raise wages is just one more case in point........how can slander Bush for unemployment then make such a pledge?

Please, if anyone out there thinks Kerry's wage increase will create more jobs than Bush's tax cuts, I'd like to hear why.

Minimum wage, social security, worker's comp., fair labor standards, were enacted because business has a historical preferance for exploiting labor.

Minimum wage does not keep the poor, poor. Lack of education, ambition, inteligence, keep poor people, poor. Racism, social mores, disease, keep poor people, poor.

scottsquared, I notice you shot down what I said without giving a reason/refuting what I said. You simply said you disagree. But why?

You also said nothing in defence of your point of veiw, you just stated it.

Income from workers stimulates (mainly through consumer spending) the economy and creates jobs over the long term. It's been proven since 1938.

Originally posted by cavscout
scottsquared, I notice you shot down what I said without giving a reason/refuting what I said. You simply said you disagree. But why?

You also said nothing in defence of your point of veiw, you just stated it.

Nice try scout. Actually, I did not refute your argument if that is what you want to call that incoherent babble.

Poverty is a complex issue that has no one cure-all. Nor is there one single cause. It is my own deeply held belief that if all else is equal, than every person has an equal opportunity to succeed, regardless of thier starting point. My parents were hardly wealthy. God or genetics or just plain luck, blessed me with inteligence and ambition. I have had minimum wage jobs, but either I was rapidly advanced in pay, or I moved on to greener pastures. The same goes for my stint in the Military.

My ire becomes inflamed when people make excuses for themselves or others. Or are you just using this lame-azz poverty excuse to forward your political agenda?

i think an important issue has been overlooked. every time minimum wage goes up so does the the cost of everything.

as employers have to pay their employees more they charge more to meet the wage.

even mcdonalds pays their employees more than minimum wage but still. its a chain reaction. those who have to pay more charge more and this effects other businesses and industries.

You are correct that raising the minimum wage will tend to increase unemployment. You are not correct in saying that more unemployment results in less spending. That may or may not be the case. Although total employment may decrease, the increase in wages may result in more total wage income, resulting in more spending, more profits, more people being hired.

Your argument that raising taxes increases unemployment is also flawed. Granted, higher taxes means less income, less spending, less profits, tending to result in more unemployment. However, raising taxes also decreases the federal budget deficit. Decreased government borrowing tends to lower interest rates, stimulating business and consumer spending.

For example, after Clinton raised taxes, a prolonged economic expansion resulted, and 22 million jobs were created.

Economics is an extremely complicated subject, and simplistic models such as you have proposed are not helpful in understanding what is really going on in the economy.

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
i think an important issue has been overlooked. every time minimum wage goes up so does the the cost of everything.

as employers have to pay their employees more they charge more to meet the wage.

I tend to agree with that. The employers are simply not going to lose money. They will find a way to make up for the additional wages being paid out. Namely, raise the price for what they are providing.

For just about every business that I can think of, wages are the largest expense of doing business. I do not doubt that any rise in overall wages will have inflationary consequences.

Is the corresponding increase in personal income somewhat offset by the increase in the cost of living?

Certainly!

Are we to suggest that the rise in cost of living resultant from a minimum wage increase, is in fact regressive to the minimum wage earner?

I sold a business three years ago, having owned it for 12 years. A trained employee could earn $35,000 within one year from the date of employment. However because it was a skilled field in which a trained employee was virtually impossible to find (because they're all employed), I had to hire untrained employees as apprentices.

For the first 3 to 5 months, they produced nothing, only cost the employer training time and money. So the most I could pay them was the minimum wage, and even at that I lost money for that time. Occasionally some of these left during the training period for various personal reasons and their time on the job would then be a complete loss to my investment in what I thought would be their future.

And because of the wage loss and the equipment investment in each trainee, I did not see a return on my investment in any employee until just over one year after they began working on their own.

If I had to pay more than the prevailing minimum wage for all the training time, during which they could not return the money, I would have been unable to hire as many trainees.

Can you understand how raising the minimum wage results in the loss of potential jobs throughout society?

2012,

Employees Suck! I try not to have 'em. I prefer sub-contractors where I can get away with calling them such. Don't forget the work-comp, health, and tax implications to the bottom line.

Let's not ignore the plain facts: At even $6.00/hr. X 40hrs./wk X 50wks./yr = $12,000.

In the year 2004, what do you think living on $12,000/yr. is like? Maybe with a child added another bonus of cyclical poverty?

Cavscout, you seem to be arguing that not only would a minimum wage increase hurt the working poor, but ANY minimum wage at all hurts the working poor.

So you'd like to not have a minimum wage? Something similar to China perhaps?

Someone mentioned Wal-Mart, the world's largest employer, and also the largest employer in many defunct communities (mine included) now that America's manufacturing infrastructure has been decimated by the efforts of cheap labor importers like Wal-Mart.

Considering Wal-Mart pays as little as possible (being the only game in town) at around $6 an hour and also does it's best to avoid benefits by scheduling 20 to 35 hour weeks whenever possible, you do realize the typical "FT" working poor in the Wal-Mart example is lucky to earn $210 a week, or $840 a month, or a little over $10,000 per year.

Kerry's goal to establish a $7 minimum by 2006, only increases the working poors salary to about $12,740 per year in the new 35 hour per week model being established by Wal-Mart. $14,500 if you get 40 hours. Overtime is a thing of the past. Doesn't happen anymore in non union environments like Wal-Mart.

So that's where we'd be (or some 20 million working poor anyway) in 2 years even with the wage increase. With people working full time to earn a bit more than twice what I paid for my private insurance (when I had insurance).

You're right in that it may cause some employers to scale back, but wha't the alternative? Get rid of it? Do you trust an employer like Wal-Mart that can get away with anything "the market (they own) will bear" to do the right thing? Or would they pay $5, $4, $3 an hour?

How long would it take before we're back to sweat shops? Where you spend your life toiling for pennies, buying necessities from the company store on credit, and dying in debt? That's slavery. It's aparthied.

Not necessarily from a racial standpoint, but class structure. If the government draws at least some line in the sand saying, the wealthiest nation on earth has the obligation to offer it's full time workers this or that minimum living wage (keeping in mind we're taking about less than $15,000 per year :shk: ) I think we should.

There's capitalism and then there's just insane. I'm all for the success of the few that can work the system, but not at an unfair advantage stacked against the majority on the bottom. I just find it hard to believe you're really worried about the working poor here. Get rid of the minimum wage?

I'm more inclinded to use trade agreement requirements to attempt to enforce a minimum wage in other countries that will improve the conditions of the poor around the world, limit the ability of multinational corps to play God and import pain and suffering and salvage what's left of the once proud American tradition of being able to be blue collar and middle class at the same time.

Getting rid of the minimum wage pretty much makes that impossible IMO. I've had minimum wage jobs in my youth where the employers would have paid me less in a heat beat if they could get away with it. And I've held prestigious jobs where the employers fell all over themsleves to pay me more than they probably should have. And that's where we'd go. A two class economy. And frankly, I don't see the need to make the poor suffer any more so that we can increase CEO salaries. You think they'd just make more jobs with the savings? Right. Maybe some, but give me break.

Throughout history there have been two class societies with the few ruling the many. The obscenely wealthy and the obscenely poor. The middle class which made this country great is AN INVENTION of the government inspired largely by efforts of FDR. A living minimum wage is a prime example of this gloriously engineered society called the USA. And now you think we don't need it anymore because it hurts business. No I'm sorry, you said it hurts the poor. Bah. I like America just fine with a middle class thank you. One where at least getting an education and having reasonable healthcare is a possiblity for someone not born rich. My apologies to the fuedal lords of corporate america. No pay raise for you at the citizens expense.

[Edited on 30-6-2004 by RANT]

"we would expect the loss of 145,000 to 436,000 teenage jobs from raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15. From a base of 15.5 million teens in the U.S. in May of 1998 with slightly over 7 million employed, reductions of this magnitude are certainly meaningful, representing 2% to 6% of employment of that group."
- Kenneth A. Couch, writing in the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Letter.


Wishing really, really hard for people to make more money can�t make it happen. Unskilled jobs don't pay poorly because bosses are mean people; they pay poorly because that's what they�re worth.

Folks who want to see bigger numbers in the paycheck need to do it the hard way, by acquiring skills and experience that will qualify them for more-challenging jobs.

If you hike an employee's wages above that employee's value to a business, some kid isn't going to make an extra buck-an-hour; instead, he'll make nothing while the boss redistributes a task or two among fewer workers.

Where employers absolutely have to retain workers, they'll get rid of low-skilled workers and hire new people who are worth more bucks. That's what Prof. Kevin Lang of Boston University found in a study of the effect of minimum wage laws. He concluded: "When the minimum wage is set above the level that would be offered by low-wage firms in the absence of legislation, low-wage jobs become attractive to some high-quality workers .... The employment rate for low-quality workers will generally fall as may their expected wage."

I think that as long as the government "regulates" certain prices...and allows multi-national mergers decreasing competition then they have a duty to raise the minimum wage. As it functions now....
The problem (as I see it) us that the government allows this to be a "command" economy. For an example, if the government allows oil companies to merge and merge and merge, competition decreases and companies can charge whatever they like to the consumer. The same is true of the automotive market and the high technology market.
In a "true" free market system, companies would be forced to really compete for your business thereby driving costs down. At that point there would be no reaon to raise the minimum wage becuase your income would have more "buying" power.
Also, as stated earlier by a poster, if you increase the wages of the lower-middle class and poor class, you will see a much faster increase in economic spending. They are the first ones to by the CD players, DVD players, new computers, ETC. This was proven in the 1960's by management techniques at Ford Motors.

(makes whistling sound) HERE SCOUT! COME! SIT! STAY! GOOD BOY!

What does the word "padantic" mean to you?


www.onelook.com...

Originally posted by RANT
(keeping in mind we're taking about less than $15,000 per year :shk: )

Yes, per person, but how does that stack up the number of people each walmart employs? Enough to make them look at cost savings such as layoffs?

I just find it hard to believe you're really worried about the working poor here.

I am a enlisted soldier with four children. We live in a 3 bedroom house that is under 1000 sq. ft. I'm not just worried about the working poor, I am the working poor.



And frankly, I don't see the need to make the poor suffer any more so that we can increase CEO salaries. You think they'd just make more jobs with the savings?

Right. Maybe some, but give me break.

Do you think think they would just absorb the losses of a wage hike?

Right. Mabey some, but give me a break


Thank you for at least presenting your arguments in a constructive way and not just spewing verbal diarrhea at me like some seem inclined to do.


[Edited on 30-6-2004 by RANT]

[edit on 1-7-2004 by cavscout]

scottsquared, while I see you have learned such valued liberal traits as allowing emotions to get in the way of using your big boy voice, the Facetious personal attack really isn't neccecary. But I sure hope you feel better now.

Maybe it was an unfortunate thing that I happened across this thread first thing after a grueling 40 hour work week at....care to take a guess ? Yep, the minimum freaking wage.

I'm dead ass tired so I'm not going to say much only that some of the comments I've read here have completely infuriated me.

Employees suck ?

Oh ??? Well, I bet if you talk to many a wage slave you will find it a gazillion to one that it's the workers who think it's the other way around.

EMPLOYERS SUCK.

I have had two weeks of HELL at my job, a job I ONCE enjoyed. We have had cash shortages and since I had given my two weeks notice, everyone is looking at ME as if I'm the criminal. As if I was the easy target. I have not taken so much as a DIME from this place. The manager is hemming and hawing about watching the surveillence video even though I've encouraged her to. Even demanded it. I will not be insinuated to be a thief when I am innocent. Watch the video, BITCH. But all I get is corporate speak which never gives a straight answer to a question asked.

I've never done a THING except work my self to the point of complete physical and emotional/mental collapse for Subway. And what do I get ? two co-workers telling me they got raises today, one of them hired the same day I was. This is not sour grapes. This is blatant unfairness.

And it's RIFE in the minimum wage world. We work harder then ANYBODY and what do we get when we demand more for our blood sweat and tears ?????

A bunch of capitalist SUCK-UPS complaining about what "uneducated" white trash we are.

Capitalist suck-ups that wouldn't know a hard days work if it jumped up and bit them on the A$$.

The way it should be:

People who work the hardest are the most rewarded monetarily.

Those who produce nothing of value, merely push pencils and shuffle papers are the ones who should be making the eff-ing minimum wage.