116 total posts
(Page 1 of 4)
I don't see it as political
I see it more as something economical that should have happened long ago. It will generate more revenue, boost Social Security deposits made, and help boost the economy faster than any other 'quick fix' the government could come up with....no matter which party you are affiliated with. It doesn't matter which party stopped it or got it approved finally, the point is, it finally happened.
Discussions in this thread should be kept to the overall pros and cons regarding this move and leave the political ends out of it, and by doing so, the thread and posts will stay in place as far as I can see.
i see it
but i think it will hurt small businesses i hope im wrong but me thinks more people will lose jobs..
and is it $7.25 hr? why not $10.00, 15.00 more realistic wage to survive
I've heard this argument every time it goes up
The argument goes back and forth between there are very few people actually earn the minimum wage so it isn't necessary to raise it and raising it will throw thousands of people out of work.
I don't remember all these people being thrown out of work the last time it was increased.
but if 5.25 isnt good
hows 2 bucks more why not 10.00 15.00 hr
It's not that noticeable....
Most of those put out of work are kids new to the workforce.
I wonder what $5.15 from 1987
would be equivalent in today's dollars? It should be tied to inflation.
I notice the alternative minimum tax isn't tied to inflation either so there are a lot more paying it today than when it started.
Just what I was thinking
It should be tied to the rate of inflation. Hard to believe it's been so long since an increase.
If you increase it, some people get hurt. If you don't increase it, some people get hurt. You just have to find the best possible balance.
Sorry - thanks
if it becomes a law--not signed yet
minimum wage: some 'facts'? at a glance:::
"A minimum wage increase would help reverse the trend of declining real wages for low-wage workers.
* Since September 1997, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has deteriorated by 20%. After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955.
* Wage inequality has been increasing, in part, because of the declining real value of the minimum wage. Today, the minimum wage is 31% of the average hourly wage of American workers, the lowest level since the end of World War II."
"The inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage is 30% lower in 2006 than it was in 1979.
* The effect of the last minimum wage increase in 1996-97 has been completely eroded by inflation.
* $5.15 today is the equivalent of only $3.95 in 1995 ? lower than the $4.25 minimum wage level before the 1996-97 increase.
and more at:::
minimum wage FAQS from EPI:::
One size does not fit all!
I am of the opinion that a Federal minimum should apply only to those companies which do work paid for by Federal funds. And that the states and localities set their own levels according to local needs.
Thus a minimum wage in a state such as NY will be higher than one in which the cost of living is much lower such as Missouri.
That way mom and pop businesses would not be destroyed.
And there would be much less "off the books" cheating.
re: one size
that is a good idea but I think that those companies would sub-contract many employees. workaround for fedmin. fedmin could be written into a contract covering those situations though.
when I worked for the telco they had different wages based on locality. many companies do that so I agree. local governments may exceed fedmin now.
if mom and pop's prices reflect what they pay their workers, that is great. capitalism does not encourage that idea.
cheaters will always cheat until they get caught or have an equivalent epiphany.
off topic below, a thought that just occurred to me, not needing reply.
do you think that social security should pay their recipients, retirees and disabled, the prevailing amount necessary for where they live? same thought re: military and all federal employees
How about a federal minimum wage based upon the overall cost of living in each State?
We all know it cost more to live in SF than it does in Elvis' birthplace.
Makes sense to me.
That's why there should NOT be a federal wage
How about a percentage instead of a set figure?
reply to: (NT) How about a percentage
I think that would still cause an unnecessary economic ripple throughout the economy. But if there were a cap on wages to which it was applied it would definitely be more fair.
Ask anybody who lives in a high cost area, and they'll agree
with you. London England is one of the highest cost places to live in the world. So wages in London have a premium added to them because of the necessity to recognize the cost of living, not to mention the cost of keeping staff. We worked 25 miles approx from the center of London so we both qualified for London Fringe Weighting or premium.
This is how you address inequalities of location cost, not by leaving the minimum wage untouched for a decade, but by recognizing that the minimum wage calculations have been made for an average cost of living nation wide, and having employers recognize that if they want to keep valuable trained staff, they'll have to pay more for more expensive areas.
Having said that, I'm not entirely happy with the Cost of Living Increase, because generally C of L index is actually somewhat higher than the actual Cost of Living and it tends to compound over the years. I would like to see the minimum wage rise to the C of L index for 2006, then be re-assessed at 2 year intervals based on the previous years Cost of Living. This mightn't be perfect but it doesn't jump the rate as fast as it would if it was based on an estimate of this years C of L.
I wish I had jotted down.....
.... the figures I heard, so am not being exact here, just in the ball park.
The last increase was 10 years ago. Since then, a the prices of a gallon of milk and a gallon of gasoline have nearly tripled.
I also heard that in the states that have raised the minimum wage, the number of small businesses have actually increased. (Maybe they draw employees now better able to stay and work their way up?)
Sure, I know that the added costs willbe passed on to the consumers. Including those like me who are on a fixed income. But at least I have health insurance.
click here to email
RE: fixed income
How much of your fixed buying power will you loose?
SS increases is tied to inflation - so not really fixed
My monthly benefit rose $36 for 2007.
My medical coverage rose $10.50/mo, netting me $26.
I have had a small "survivors benefit" from my husband which began in 1998, but it is fixed, with no cost of living increase.
Still, I'm luckier than a lot of people.
click here to email
Tie to this perceived increased buying power....
The actual loss in buying power as costs and prices of [everything] increases. Following increases in the utilities, groceries, fuel, tires, insurance, computers and related items, appliances, stationery's, meals when you're not at home, and on, and on, and on.......
I doubt it will have much ...
of an effect on me.
I have only myself (and my dog ) to support. Being out of the work place, I don't have clothing, transportation, etc. costs that go with working. I haven't bought any fast food in years. My children thankfully are self-supporting. I have the "depression era" mentality.
I've learned that when there is a big sale on some food items, the price will be going up, so I stock up on what I use. Food-wise, my hardest lesson to learn was that I was no longer cooking for a family of four, so I have learned not to waste.
I don't go to the movie theaters, take vacations (I did go to a big family event last year, my first "trip" in 3 years).
My shopping is limited to selcted internet sites, which have great sales. Over the past year I spent $40 on clothing.
I have everything I need in the way of furniture and accessrories for my home. My car is a 1988 model that only recently hit 40,000 miles.
My health insurance cost has again raised, but, like i said, I do have health insurance.
I reckon that is an advantage of being old. So barring any catostrophic events, I will be OK.
click here to email
In reading the links above
It says that more people are able to move off welfare when the minimum wage goes up so they are paying taxes and not using them.
Not necessarily, as it also raises the poverty income level.
Economic studies have shown that the minimum wage is
ineffective. It simply increases the level of unemployment among those who need jobs the most.
with the infrormation that you provided I can not agree
An example I can personally vouch for.
I had seven employees. Minimum wage was increased from $4.25 p/h to $4.75, then soon to 5.15 p/h. The employees were earning from 6.50 to to 7.20. It wasn't long before
we all began realizing less buying power, everywhere. The 6.90 p/h had to leave for greener pastures.
Not only because it was reasonably necessary to increase total labor costs, including employment taxes on top of the fact that my other operating expenses (all of them) had increased, I could not replace the lost employee and remain competitive in the area. In fact, the local competition became stiffer even though the cities population, and not my industry was rapidly growing. Probably because every one was loosing some of their buying power. And we had to work harder and some times longer to keep ahead of this loss of buying power.
This loss of buying power is borne by every one including all levels of government and recipients of entitlement programs. And over all the government coffers remain very much the same. Then, [guess what]?
I'm not suggesting that we will not recover. Of course well, in time. But why put the economy through this for basically very little of no return. Government should stay out of dictating price structure in the private economy and leave it to private competition which is the structure behind a private economy.
fedmin wage has been in effect for almost 70yrs
that is after the depression years. that is part of usa economic history.
if there has been no increase in 10yrs why has my and your buying power decreased.
if one business is subject to fedmin all other business has the same baseline. an equal start point regarding wages.
what would prevent a business to set up in a state where there are no minimum wage rules. they could find workers to work for $4 an hour. remember factory towns, places like pullman village and others. where the saying: "I owe my soul to the company store" came from. that business could beat your costs, have lower prices and have a higher profit margin.
remember this country was built for very little money. laborers from all nations worked for a pittance, they lived in tent cities, extended families would pool their low earnings, children worked and a 40hr work week was about 3.5 days.
the only ones I can think of that did not benefit from the fedmin were the landed gentry, trust fund sippers, and the industrial aristocracy.
we all have personal histories, mine was helped by the fedmin, directly and indirectly through friends and relatives. my grandfather was a skilled carpenter and when he was young he helped rebuild earthquake ruined san francisco. he was young and he and his pals lived in shacks they built by the railroad. he said he worked for beer and bread. later he hired journeymen and paid the prevailing wage. he knew what it was like to work for the equivalent of a box of nails. his home building business was lost during the depression. another feature of usa economic history. it had nothing to do with fedmin wage.
have you or anyone you know benefited from the fedmin?
reply to: fedmin
Not all industries are regulated by federal minimum wage standards. Many tipped employees here for example earn as little as about $4.00 per hour. Even though tips are intended for the employee [not the employer] to take home. Minors, some student worker, and training programs are not required to pay federal minimum wage. In the early thirties it was rare to hear of union coalitions, OSHA, Workers comp, job protection, or child labor laws.
For "landed gentry, trust fund sippers, and the industrial aristocracy" I believe you would have to go to Old England, Ireland, or in the case of the US about pre 1850. Peoples and places change. And even if not, forcing an increase wages across the board would still make as much economic sense, none.
We all have some crosses to bare, so to speak. But when we no longer have to bare them their sometmies best left behind as we work toward the future.
"have you or anyone you know benefited from the fedmin?"
The end result is the same. Some economic chaos for a spell, then all is back to the way it was.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 4)