Folks in my city are starting a coalition pushing for a $3 increase in minimum wage in two years. Good or bad?

No. 5 wrote:

It's a union scam, their wages are tied to the minimum wage.

This is the unions' way of giving themselves a raise, without looking like they are so doing.

No, it is a hidden tax increase. They gain additional revenue without raising the actual rates. Clinton mastered this technique in order to lower the deficit. It worked then, so they are dusting it off for Obama. I say we wait to do it when there is no longer a demonrat in the Oval Office just to get their goat. :D

Steve Martin wrote:

No. 5 wrote:

It's a union scam, their wages are tied to the minimum wage.

This is the unions' way of giving themselves a raise, without looking like they are so doing.

No, it is a hidden tax increase. They gain additional revenue without raising the actual rates. Clinton mastered this technique in order to lower the deficit. It worked then, so they are dusting it off for Obama. I say we wait to do it when there is no longer a demonrat in the Oval Office just to get their goat. :D

Raising the minimum wage does not directly affect taxes collected by the federal government. That's because even with a raise, these workers generally don't make enough to owe additional tax to the IRS.

Clinton didn't just lower the deficit, he erased it. This was primarily due the the booming economy.

Note also, that President Obama has lowered the deficit every year he has been in office.

you're not understanding what a "hidden tax" means... it is not a literal tax from the feds.

Clinton also left office with a recession on his hands, and the Fed Debt was increasing... smoke and mirrors.

Lion Heart wrote:

you're not understanding what a "hidden tax" means... it is not a literal tax from the feds.

Clinton also left office with a recession on his hands, and the Fed Debt was increasing... smoke and mirrors.

"hidden tax" can mean a lot of things. The poster wasn't specific about it.

But back to the serious point. Raising the minimum was would be really good for the economy and for the nation as a whole. It does not increase unemployment. It does not cause inflation.

What it does do is to give hard-working people a greater opportunity to dig themselves out of poverty. It stimulates the economy by putting dollars in the hands of people who will spend it. It reduces hunger in our children, which leads to more effective education. It reduces the tax dollars we spend on social programs.

But most of all, it increases the honor and dignity of work. Honest work should always be respected with a decent paycheck.

Raising the minimum wage slightly does not raise unemployment (research shows this), but the latest round of fast food strikes advocate a doubling of the minimum wage to $15/hr.

You're essentially doubling the wage of hundreds of thousands of workers and raising wages for millions of others (do you think workers who previously made $16/hr will be happy with their paychecks?). Where is that money going to come from?

32423 wrote:

What are some of the positives and negatives of such a move?

It's just another sign of inflation. These people can't buy as much food, or at least not as quality of food as they could 3 years ago or 6 years ago and their utility bills and gas, insurance, medical costs are all substantially higher. The trend is only getting worse.

They keep slowly living with less and less or giving up something to maintain status quo as long as they can. Maybe living with a two roommates in a two bedroom now instead of just one roommate. Maybe borrowing from mom, dad or the credit card. It's slowly eating away at people, but because of the massive credit and debt boom that didn't exist in the US 40 years ago people are able to maintain a facade and fantasy of a higher quality of life than people did in the 60's and 70's and before.

But they are simply living way beyond their means and it's starting to catch up as all debts do.

you need help wrote:

Raising the minimum wage slightly does not raise unemployment (research shows this), but the latest round of fast food strikes advocate a doubling of the minimum wage to $15/hr.

You're essentially doubling the wage of hundreds of thousands of workers and raising wages for millions of others (do you think workers who previously made $16/hr will be happy with their paychecks?). Where is that money going to come from?

That money will likely come from corporate profits.

But if you assume that it does not come from profits, and, for instance, you just raise the cost of a hamburger, we can see that only a few pennies of increase makes a big difference in the wages of workers. Just use the McPoverty calculator!

"On April 1, 1992 New Jersey's minimum wage increased from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour. To evaluate the impact of the law we surveyed 410 fast food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after the rise in the minimum. Comparisons of the changes in wages, employment, and prices at stores in New Jersey relative to stores in Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage remained fixed at $4.25 per hour) yield simple estimates of the effect of the higher minimum wage. Our empirical findings challenge the prediction that a rise in the minimum reduces employment. Relative to stores in Pennsylvania, fast food restaurants in New Jersey increased employment by 13 percent. We also compare employment growth at stores in New Jersey that were initially paying high wages (and were unaffected by the new law) to employment changes at lower-wage stores. Stores that were unaffected by the minimum wage had the same employment growth as stores in Pennsylvania, while stores that had to increase their wages increased their employment."

"McDonald's serves about 23 Million meals a day, if you raise the price 22 cents the above calculator says salaries double from $7.25 to $15.23 but the increase in revenue is about 5 million a day for 1.8 Million employees Sorry but IMO this does not add up"

Raise It Now wrote:

That money will likely come from corporate profits.

But if you assume that it does not come from profits, and, for instance, you just raise the cost of a hamburger, we can see that only a few pennies of increase makes a big difference in the wages of workers. Just use the McPoverty calculator!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/01/the-mcpoverty-calculator.html

I'm skeptical of that calculator just because it seems to factor in direct labor costs to increasing the price of a Big Mac, but it does not seem to identify downsteam costs: wages on farms, at slaughterhouses, and at distribution hubs will also rise, driving up the cost of the burger.

Secondly, if the market could handle a price increase on a Big Mac right now (with no mandated wage increase for workers), why doesn't McDonalds raise all of its prices so it can reap more profits? It'a almost like McDonalds has carefully set the price of its food to be competitive with other fast food restaurants. Raising the price of its menu will in fact hurt the very people the strikers are trying to help.

I'm in favor of a gradual increase in the minimum wage. I'm not in favor of a drastic 100% increase like those proposed by the strikers.

Clam Evans wrote:

"McDonald's serves about 23 Million meals a day, if you raise the price 22 cents the above calculator says salaries double from $7.25 to $15.23 but the increase in revenue is about 5 million a day for 1.8 Million employees Sorry but IMO this does not add up"

It doesn't add up because you are using the wrong data. The calculator is based on economic research by professionals who do have the right data and are able to apply it correctly to the question at hand.