Serious question about raising the minimum wage.

The CBO report this year states that 500,000 jobs may be lost, but 900,000 people raised out of poverty and 16,500,000 workers benefitted.

Thus the conclusion some adverse affects but overall benefits.

As someone else said, the min wage in real terms was considerably higher many years ago, and has not kept pace with the growth of the economy.

There are numerous other studies that come up with a simple search. Just do some research.

You really think raising the minimum wage is the reason for African American unemployment among youth? I would say it's number 5 on the list.

Americans, from those in poverty to those in the 1% all have a much higher quality of life today because of innovation than in 1968, so all those points are moot.

Higher wages are a means to an end--the end being a higher standard of living. The end has been achieved in many ways over the last 40+ years, regardless of whether or not the wages have been raised. Pointing to the wages and income equality are all just red herrings and distractions.

Income equality is the biggest red herring of all--the difference between the top and the bottom class is not as important as their overall actual positions. In reality, poor Americans today have a much better life than they did in years past. The same is true of rich Americans. What is important is that both classes are rising, not that one is rising more than the other or that the gap between them is too big. As soon as someone says "income inequality" know that they have only political motivations in mind, because the phrase itself doesn't really mean anything or have any significance. Did you know that the same "inequality" exists between a guy making 500k a year and 50 million a year, as that which exists between someone making 25k a year (roughly poverty level) and 2.5 million a year? Each is a 100x difference. Yet I highly doubt anyone is crying for the guy that makes 500k. The point: don't get caught up in things such as income inequality, which don't mean anything nor have any real significance.

Just reporting this so people won't fall for the BS that most economists believe it's a good idea to raise the minimum wage.

biz man wrote:

Trick question.

The federal government has no business regulating what a private employer pays its employees.

Furthermore, the federal government has the responsibility to ensure that the money they've taken from me is spent in an efficient way. Therefore, they should not pay 'above market' wages.

Bottom line, you should get paid what you're worth. Not some inflated amount set by bureaucrats in DC.

If you're paid less than you're worth, leave and get a better paying job.

This. What you get paid is a personal matter and should not be something set by beaurocrats. It is a private contract between you and your employer, no one else should have any say in it.

I will concede that libs and social-justice warriors have realized something important, I just disagree w/their solutions.

Too many ppl; not enough jobs.

Through productivity enhancements via technology and automation, not enough LOW SKILL jobs (for, uh, "low skill" ppl), hence the need for JOBS PROGRAMS like gubmint workers, Homeland Security/TSA, IRS flunkies, public school ADMINISTRATORS, gubmint "regulators," and whatever other completely superfluous, non-additive job you can think of TO INCLUDE expanded welfare and disability programs.

(True story: I was watching a news video out of Detroit, which had been preceded by a commercial for lawyer Sam Bernstein's "Disability Express," complete with train theme....).

Social-justice warriors want bread and circus; I want ppl to reach their full potential. That justice warriors and ppl like 'another canuck' assume that "some ppl" canNOT succeed is disgusting (and another canuck's charge of racism projects what group he thinks lacks sufficient ability to succeed).

In my experience and with exceptions, conservatives believe in the inherent dignity of man; libs believe in their inherent superiority and/or the need to secure power by functioning as the font of all good things.

Automated labor will replace paid labor whether or not the minimum wage is raised. Why bring that into the conversation? It will also be a LONG time before a robot is able to perform open heart surgery. A raise in minimum wage would make working more attractive than relying on welfare too.

All you right wingers oppose both saying that we shouldn't be giving hand outs. Why not make the job more attractive than the hand out?

Recognizer of Lame Posts wrote:

Appealing to authority, huh? Lame.

As to your completely pull-it-out-of-your-ass conclusion, well, about as worthwhile as everything that comes out the same orifice.

You're a jerk, ____er of ____. Grow a nut sack and register a name and see how shitty you can get away with being. And don't fool yourself that anyone thinks there's more than one of you.

yeahyeahyay.. wrote:

Other beneficiaries: Automated grape sorters in Cali (yep: 24/7, never on strike--and BETTER at sorting); automatic tree-shakers/harvesters; automatic TRASH data (Enevo One, bay-bee!), automated made-to-measure clothing, 3-D printers for orthotics, robot LASIK and heart surgery.... Yep.

Those are arguments for, not against a minimum wage. As you illustrate, most of the US economy consists in the production and trade of useless and/or harmful things.

Grapes: wine for rich people and alcoholics

orthotics: foot destroyer prescribed by podiatrists

Lasik: surgery for people too rich and lazy to wear glasses or contacts

heart surgery: expensive treatment for people with unhealthy lifestyles

I'll add a few more:

soybeans

corn

weight loss programs for corn and soy eaters

psychologists for fat people who can't lose weight

smart phones for the socially hyperactive

3D televisions

plastic packaging

plastic plastic package packaging

clothing fashion

hair styles

Gatorade

Only a small percentage of stuff is something anyone actually needs, and the public has to be constantly badgered and conned into buying things or the entire economy will collapse. Most people grossly overestimate the value of their own job. Optometrists, for example, are educated and have some expertise, but in the United States they are protected by prescription-check regulations which force Americans to seek their services every 1 or 2 years when their scripts expire - a silly nanny-state law that does not exist in Canada. Without this law people would use their prescriptions for years (mine is over 10 years old and still perfect) and the economy would not support as many optometrists.

When the recession happened, jobs vaporized easily because people could do without unessential products. Recovery won't happen until luxuries and pointless things start selling again. The quickest way for this to be brought about is to expand the spending power of people who already spend all their money. Wealthy and middle class people tend to save or invest their extra money, which does nothing for the marketability of anyone's product. But low-wage workers spend everything they have, and would continue to do so even at a slightly higher wage.

Automation is always increasing no matter what wages are, and it would still happen even with no minimum wage at all. So you've got it backwards that it results from the minimum wage. Rather the minimum wage is a necessary result of the luxury economy that automation creates, and automation could not exist without it.

You gave 0 arguments for raising the minimum wage. You just went on and on about how most people buy worthless things with their money. Yes, that happens, as you've explained in many posts on here before, but you have yet to justify how that can justify a bunch of lawyers and beaurocrats telling someone how they should run their business, or why that gives them permission to interfere with private contracts.

It is a simple fact that the conventional wisdom amongst economists is that raising the minimum wage has negative effects on employment. No amount of denial or random rambling about onamo-nonomatons and automatic this and that is going to change it. Raising wages is what originally forced a vast migration of us jobs overseas back in the 60s. Although that is probably more the goal than anything here....because certain parties benefit when there are more unemployed people.

Democrats rely on the low information voter and poor people indebted to government to get votes. Hence they have no real motivation or reason to create policies that actually get people out of poverty. When you look at their economic policies, of course it all makes sense and fits together quite well.

Minimum wage increases create inflation across the board, so every item you purchase at the supermarket, fast food restaurant, etc. will cost more. There is no real living improvement most of the time as everything now costs more. Additionally, you would probably see many small businesses fold and decrease their staff as there is less demand for their product when the price is raised as a result of the higher wage and health benefits being forced on them.

joedirt wrote:

Minimum wage increases create inflation across the board, so every item you purchase at the supermarket, fast food restaurant, etc. will cost more. There is no real living improvement most of the time as everything now costs more. Additionally, you would probably see many small businesses fold and decrease their staff as there is less demand for their product when the price is raised as a result of the higher wage and health benefits being forced on them.

I think you misunderstood. Those in support of increased minimum wage have already made it very clear that a rational approach to this topic simply won't be tolerated.

Not true, income inequality correlates strongly to a number of indicators of poor living standards. For instance life expectancy, crime or health, for both the wealthiest and poorest.In any case, your point is moot as minimum wages are demonstrably not harmful to economic growth, so people would be wealthier in a more equal society too.In any case real median wages in the US have been stagbang for the last 30+ years, and real incomes for the poorest have declined. This would indicate that inequality would cause a real drag on living standards for the average person. Inequality is a large part of the reason that median incomes in Germany, Holland, Canada and the UK are catching up wih and overtaking US incomes.That is puttiing aside the moral case where equality is required to create a society where everyone is treates fairly and has the same life opportunities, unlike the US, where the wealth of your parents increasingly determines your own life chances. The US has the worst inequality and the worst social mobility of any developed countty.

le veritable wrote:

In any case real median wages in the US have been stagbang for the last 30+ years, and real incomes for the poorest have declined. This would indicate that inequality would cause a real drag on living standards for the average person.

I'll addresse the other points later, but for now I will talk about this one. I'm not denying that real incomes have declined--yes, for the poor they have. BUT, as I said before the income is a means to an end. The end--what one hopes to achieve with a better income--is a higher standard of living. Their standard of living is much much better than it was 30, 40, 15, 50, or any number of years ago. It's better than it has ever been.

Here is a study done by the heritage foundation. Now I know you probably won't trust them, because they are conservative. So then you'll be happy to know they took the following statistics straight from the government. Here is the first few paragraphs (with the statistics) done on poverty in the United States. I recommend you read the entire thing as it is quite eye opening and gives a very realistic look at what "poverty" is in the USA. Hint: it's nothing like what you see in Africa. Here it is:

"However, understanding poverty in America requires looking behind these numbers at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests near destitution: an inability to provide nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter for one’s family. However, only a small number of the 46 million persons classified as “poor” by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity.

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau as taken from various government reports:

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

92 percent of poor households have a microwave.

Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.

Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.

Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.

Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.

More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.

43 percent have Internet access.

One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.

One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.

For decades, the living conditions of the poor have steadily improved. Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households, partially because of the normal downward price trend that follows introduction of a new product."

Regardless of whether or not wages are the same, higher, or lower, or a lot lower--that's not the point. The point is that their standard of living is much much better than it was. 25% of "poor" families have a DVR system? Nearly 75% have a car? Nearly half have a video game system? Yep. That's what classifies as "poor" in the USA.

Keep in mind now that I'm talking about POVERTY,and not the average person. The average person certainly has more than what is listed above. The idea that wage stagnation has been bad for the poor (those who make minimum wage) and that they are suffering because of it, and that their standard of living has dropped is simply not true. They have more access to both practical and necessary things (cars, microwaves, air conditioning) and luxuries (electronics, big screen tvs, the internet.) Is almost no practical way is the average poor person (or middle class person) worse off today than when the minimum wage was the highest in 1968. It is factually incorrect.

Here is the study. It's called "understanding poverty in the United States."

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor

For those who are about to cry "it's the heritage foundation!!" Sorry to disappoint, but they use all government statistics.

If you are working a minimum wage job, you shouldn't have a family you cannot support. People just do this because they expect to be given something extra that they didn't earn and they can bitch and moan about how unfair corporations are.

jjjjjjjjj wrote:

raising the minimum wage removes many workers from the dole, which they need because minimum wage is not a living wage for someone with a family. raising the minimum wage raises the wages of minimum and non-minimum wage workers, an estimated 16 million would see increases with an increase, I think, of the minimum to $10.10/hr. there are many cases of minimum wage increases in one state and not another, so that many comparisons have been made. It brings an increase in spending, good for the economy, and no significant change in the unemployment rate. So, one good measure with a very significant effect on the lives of lower wage earners. There are other things to do to see that workers get more of the money that they generate through their labor.

another canuck wrote:

And again, don't let the facts get in the way of your views- the evidence is overwhelming that the income gap is growing beyond any reasonable level.A small step in the right direction is to raise the min wage.

I was going to reply to some of your other nonsensical, baseless statements, but I see that others already have.

In any case, don't let facts get in he way of yr views. The evidence is overwhelming that the income gap has accelerated in growth through Obama's implementation of his policies.

You also seem to ignore all the other logical arguments others have posted and only repeat the same statement over and over again. Classic technique that works when speaking to some of your own, but downright idiotic when someone actually has evidence against your point.

Straw M Thoroughman wrote:]

Automated labor will replace paid labor whether or not the minimum wage is raised. Why bring that into the conversation?

Because people develop automation to replace the cost of labor. Increase the cost of said labor and you get more automation. I thought that was simple to understand.

Wow. Now its Obama's fault! I don't know where to begin.The country was perfect until Obama was elected. Low unemployment, regular wage gains for all. No one unhappy except that pesky 47%. Now unemployment has skyrocketed and the stock markets have tanked. Oh, wait a minute, I might have that backwards.

joedirt wrote:

Minimum wage increases create inflation across the board, so every item you purchase at the supermarket, fast food restaurant, etc. will cost more.

joedirt is totally wrong. Let's dispel these and other myths about the minimum wage.

Minimum Wage Mythbusters

Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens.

Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high-school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 88 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase are age 20 or older, and 55 percent are women.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.

Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.

Not true: A June 2014 survey found that more than 3 out of 5 small business owners support increasing the minimum wage to $10.10. Small business owners believe that a higher minimum wage would benefit business in important ways: 58% say raising the minimum wage would increase consumer purchasing power. 56% say raising the minimum wage would help the economy. In addition, 53% agree that with a higher minimum wage, businesses would benefit from lower employee turnover, increased productivity and customer satisfaction.

Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants.

Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour - before tips. Even with a recent increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace the U.S. average in 2014.

Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses.

Not true: Employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $10.74 per hour – before tips. Yet, the San Francisco restaurant industry has experienced positive job growth over the past few years according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum.

Not true: Only 23 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, meaning a majority of states have an hourly minimum rate at or below the federal minimum. Increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for some 28 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally.

Myth: Younger workers don't have to be paid the minimum wage.

Not true: While there are some exceptions, employers are generally required to pay at least the federal minimum wage. Exceptions allowed include a minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers under the age of 20, but only during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, and as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive the current federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage, whichever is higher. There are programs requiring federal certification that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage, but those programs are not limited to the employment of young workers.

Myth: Restaurant servers don't need to be paid the minimum wage since they receive tips.

Not true: An employer can pay a tipped employee as little as $2.13 per hour in direct wages, but only if that amount plus tips equal at least the federal minimum wage and the worker retains all tips and customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. Often, an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage. When that occurs, the employer must make up the difference. Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the federal and state wage laws, he or she is entitled to the provisions of each law which provides the greater benefits.

Myth: Only part-time workers are paid the minimum wage.

Not true: About 53 percent of all minimum wage earners are full-time workers, and minimum wage workers contributed almost half (46 percent) of their household's wage and salary income in 2011. Moreover, more than 88 percent of those who would benefit from raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 are working adults, and 55 percent are working women.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses.

Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy.

Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised.

Myth: The federal minimum wage goes up automatically as prices increase.

Not true: While some states have enacted rules in recent years triggering automatic increases in their minimum wages to help them keep up with inflation, the federal minimum wage does not operate in the same manner. An increase in the federal minimum wage requires approval by Congress and the president. However, in his call to gradually increase the current federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, President Obama has also called for it to adjust automatically with inflation. Eliminating the requirement of formal congressional action would likely reduce the amount of time between increases, and better help low-income families keep up with rising prices.

Myth: The federal minimum wage is higher today than it was when President Reagan took office.

Not true: While the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981 and is currently $7.25 per hour in real dollars, when adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s and more nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. That's why President Obama is urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage and give low-wage workers a much-needed boost.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support.

Not true: Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a “last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired” scenario.

Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

Myth: The minimum wage stays the same if Congress doesn't change it.

Not true: Congress sets the minimum wage, but it doesn't keep pace with inflation. Because the cost of living is always rising, the value of a new minimum wage begins to fall from the moment it is set.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor