Dems propose outrageous minimum wage hike
Nov 9, 2013 16:11:07 #
oldroy
Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
Yep, it seems they want about 40% hike over the $7.25 that they passed in 2007. I guess none of them have ever looked at the fact that cost of living isn't the same the nation over, but they do really like to see everyone equal in every way. Many people could live a lot better on their proposed $10.10 per hour than many others living in more costly regions. I don't think that many of them really have any idea what equality really is.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/dems-propose-outrageous-minimum-wage-hike/
http://www.westernjournalism.com/dems-propose-outrageous-minimum-wage-hike/
Nov 9, 2013 17:40:40 #
oldroy wrote:
Yep, it seems they want about 40% hike over the $7... (show quote)
Perhaps there should be a different minimum for those just entering the work force and a higher minimum for adults that have been working for a while.
Nov 9, 2013 22:15:13 #
that's a damn good idea, a sorta compromise, well done, cheers
octive9 wrote:
Perhaps there should be a different minimum for those just entering the work force and a higher minimum for adults that have been working for a while.
Nov 10, 2013 01:07:31 #
lpnmajor
Loc: Arkansas
73STNGLKABEE wrote:
that's a damn good idea, a sorta compromise, well done, cheers
Why not let the States set minimum wage. Arkansas has a lower cost of living than California, so a higher wage would be called for there.
Nov 10, 2013 01:20:32 #
octive9 wrote:
Perhaps there should be a different minimum for those just entering the work force and a higher minimum for adults that have been working for a while.
It would be fairer. Those that have worked and improved their skills deserve more. It is a disincentive to see someone just starting making an equal amount.
Nov 10, 2013 01:21:55 #
lpnmajor wrote:
Why not let the States set minimum wage. Arkansas has a lower cost of living than California, so a higher wage would be called for there.
Several corporations already pay a differing wage in various areas. One size does not fit all.
Nov 10, 2013 11:30:47 #
No we should accept the fact that some people will always be far below the poverty level. Then we can continue to cut the social programs that assist them. Eventually they will all die and we won't have to worry about low earning people in America. Perhaps we should go forward with the ridiculous proposal of abolishing the minimum wage. It will definitely end unemployment!
Nov 10, 2013 11:52:02 #
Quadfather wrote:
No we should accept the fact that some people will always be far below the poverty level. Then we can continue to cut the social programs that assist them. Eventually they will all die and we won't have to worry about low earning people in America. Perhaps we should go forward with the ridiculous proposal of abolishing the minimum wage. It will definitely end unemployment!
Pure unadulterated hogwash! Maybe one of the stupidest posting I have read on this forum yet! Typical brain-dead left-wing response.
Raise the min wage, and prices go up...unemployment goes up...the unskilled worker is then denied a job and learning a skill...on, and on. The majority of firms, who must compete for employees as well as customers, pay above min wage. It is only the low skill and high-turnover businesses like MacDonald's who pay near min wage. You lefties don't understand (or don't want to understand) internship. One takes a low paying job to learn a skill and gain experience. That job becomes a bullet on a resume, and he/she uses that to advance to a higher paying job, and so on. Those who dont think the world owes them a living understand that they cant expect to get paid more than the worth of their value to an employer, and that to earn more they have to become worth more. Such people know that a low-paying job can be the best path to a high-paying job.
Nov 10, 2013 12:13:22 #
This is not mine but very relevant.
The minimum wage is merely a -floor- set in place to prevent abuse of employees. As such it is designed to define what a minimum living wage is, and we're arguing that it should be adjusted to reflect the changing costs of living and inflationary effects of market economics. It is merely part of a safety net, and as evidenced by the tiny proportion of jobs out there that pay only the minimum wage it is effective as such.
It is not nor should it ever become some kind of mandated wage for average earners. Wages that do not drop to abusive levels should not be regulated - they should be allowed to remain a function of the market.
As for Mr. Manor's complaints:
I am not advocating one way or another with your small business example. I was just pointing out that your example is overly simplistic and ignores all other business concerns that might be in play - I did not argue that the business should fail or that it does not deserve to succeed, I merely pointed out that any business running zero margin and unable to adjust either its prices or its costs to come up with an extra $160 a week in expenses -is already failing- and ought to see the SBA about a loan.
I have simply asserted that when faced with the choice between A) preserving the occasional hypothetical failing small business and ensuring that thousands of our most vulnerable working poor are earning enough to feed their kids, that we ought to choose B as the greater good. The mere possibility that some already failing businesses may fail a little more is not enough of a justification to pay people below sustenance level.
Between the small percentage of businesses that pay minimum wage and the utterly hypothetical nature of all examples of economic doom/gloom offered thus far both here and in the larger minimum wage debate, I deem the risk to the economy to be minimal at best, and the benefits in increased economic activity due to 2-4% of our population spending 10-15% more on goods and services spread among a much larger segment of the economy than just those who pay minimum wage to be far more substantial. Hence the cost/benefit is far in the favor of the minimum wage.
I understand full well that one can and should pay the most valuable employees more than the less valuable, and the minimum wage does not prevent that. It merely sets a floor for how low the lowest wages can be set without amounting to economic abuse. If you want to pay others more above that, then do so - you should! But if you -can't- then you really ought to take a good long hard look at your business model because if you can't even pay your employees poverty wages then you are either undervaluing the price of your goods or services or overstaffing your operation. Period.
And if you're going to stick by this ludicrous argument that we can't argue for a minimum wage unless we've actually owned (not just managed) a small business, then I deem you equally unfit to make your own arguments on the grounds that you aren't trying to feed a family of 4 making only minimum wage. Both arguments are equally ridiculous.
I insist once more with the utmost civility that any and all intelligent adults may engage in debate on a subject - their only actual obligation is to listen to the other side and consider all evidence offered thereby and offer their own in return.
Well that I have done, providing solid numbers and all the evidence an hour of composition and online research could glean (because really we all have things to do) and I have considered the examples you have submitted as evidence - they have been weighed, measured, and found wanting on the grounds that they are entirely hypothetical.
So, offer me concrete numbers of businesses put out of business by the minimum wage, concrete examples of businesses that have failed because of the minimum wage, and not just anecdotes but hard evidence (to suit your own requirements above) and I will consider it, and perhaps even modify my opinion according to their merits - but until then, I merely ask that you give my evidence the same consideration I am willing to give yours.
First, let's get the scale of impact straight. According to the BLS, only 4.7% of all workers in this country earn at or below the minimum wage, and in Washington it's under 2%.
Leaving out those who earn below minimum wage due to exemptions or non-wage based earnings (self employed sole proprietors like me) or waiters/waitresses who get paid in tips (who are all thus irrelevant to this conversation), leaves us with 2.1% nationwide (and less than 1% in WA).
37% of that 2.1% (0.77% of the population nationally) earn minimum wage in the leisure/hospitality sector (this includes the food service, club, and hotel industries) and 26% of that 2.1% (or 0.54% of the population nationally) earn minimum wage working in wholesale/retail trade (from WalMart to your corner market). The other third are scattered all over.
Thus, you are suggesting in your arguments that marginally raising the rate of pay for 2.1% of the population (remember less than 1% in WA from whence this discussion was spawned) who are mostly working poor (only 30% of minimum wage earners are under 20 and could thus be irrelevantly and unreasonably stereotyped to be teenagers living with their parents, as the right has often done) will cause massive inflation and make our costs go up exorbitantly across the entire economy.
I call shenanigans.
One flaw in your argument there is that you aren't considering the fact that any cost increase due to a a minimum wage increase is not reflected linearly in the price of goods on the shelf - rather it is spread out throughout the store or targeted on particularly high-margin products in which the increases won't be noticed. Thus, any wage increase would result in an absurdly tiny fraction of that increase that gets passed along on a per-product basis - fractions of a penny on the dollar at a retail level - thus making the consumer impact far less than you imagine.
If all of us are paying even a penny more per item for our stuff at WalMart (which would be a vastly overlarge increase for a buck an hour wage increase but is easy to work with), making each weekly trip maybe a dollar or two more expensive - let's say an unlikely 4 dollars more expensive so the math is easy - while people at the lowest end of the pay spectrum (many of whom shop at WalMart) are earning a dollar more per hour worked, putting 40 bucks more in their pockets a week (let's give them credit for finding two part time jobs if somebody won't hire them full time, which is common), their cost increase is 1/10th of the increase in their wages - a net gain in wealth. And that with a cost that is rounded up to a huge degree.
If a WalMart store has 50 employees earning minimum wage all working part time (since that is their tactic) and 50,000 product SKUs (which is actually far fewer SKUs than they actually have but was chosen only to make the math easy) and their wages are increased by $1/hr, you're looking at an increased cost to the store of $1,000/week. For comparison, an increase of 1 penny per item sold would net way, way more than $1,000 in a week.
In a store that does 1.4 MILLION dollars of business in a week on average (average gross revenue chain-wide divided by number of stores, so it's rough, but even cutting that in half to remove Black Friday week and cutting it by 20% because let's say it's a lower volume store than average, that's still over HALF A MILLION in income per week) you're talking about a very, very tiny cost increase per item that will be easily absorbed by people with more money in their pockets - hell, since people who make minimum wage almost always spend all their money on subsistence it's likely that a rise in the minimum wage would overall increase WalMart's income, since so many of that demographic shop at WalMart.
So there are some facts. Have at thee.
One other thing.
This is from a gentleman whose name is Ethan Pasternack.
The minimum wage is merely a -floor- set in place to prevent abuse of employees. As such it is designed to define what a minimum living wage is, and we're arguing that it should be adjusted to reflect the changing costs of living and inflationary effects of market economics. It is merely part of a safety net, and as evidenced by the tiny proportion of jobs out there that pay only the minimum wage it is effective as such.
It is not nor should it ever become some kind of mandated wage for average earners. Wages that do not drop to abusive levels should not be regulated - they should be allowed to remain a function of the market.
As for Mr. Manor's complaints:
I am not advocating one way or another with your small business example. I was just pointing out that your example is overly simplistic and ignores all other business concerns that might be in play - I did not argue that the business should fail or that it does not deserve to succeed, I merely pointed out that any business running zero margin and unable to adjust either its prices or its costs to come up with an extra $160 a week in expenses -is already failing- and ought to see the SBA about a loan.
I have simply asserted that when faced with the choice between A) preserving the occasional hypothetical failing small business and ensuring that thousands of our most vulnerable working poor are earning enough to feed their kids, that we ought to choose B as the greater good. The mere possibility that some already failing businesses may fail a little more is not enough of a justification to pay people below sustenance level.
Between the small percentage of businesses that pay minimum wage and the utterly hypothetical nature of all examples of economic doom/gloom offered thus far both here and in the larger minimum wage debate, I deem the risk to the economy to be minimal at best, and the benefits in increased economic activity due to 2-4% of our population spending 10-15% more on goods and services spread among a much larger segment of the economy than just those who pay minimum wage to be far more substantial. Hence the cost/benefit is far in the favor of the minimum wage.
I understand full well that one can and should pay the most valuable employees more than the less valuable, and the minimum wage does not prevent that. It merely sets a floor for how low the lowest wages can be set without amounting to economic abuse. If you want to pay others more above that, then do so - you should! But if you -can't- then you really ought to take a good long hard look at your business model because if you can't even pay your employees poverty wages then you are either undervaluing the price of your goods or services or overstaffing your operation. Period.
And if you're going to stick by this ludicrous argument that we can't argue for a minimum wage unless we've actually owned (not just managed) a small business, then I deem you equally unfit to make your own arguments on the grounds that you aren't trying to feed a family of 4 making only minimum wage. Both arguments are equally ridiculous.
I insist once more with the utmost civility that any and all intelligent adults may engage in debate on a subject - their only actual obligation is to listen to the other side and consider all evidence offered thereby and offer their own in return.
Well that I have done, providing solid numbers and all the evidence an hour of composition and online research could glean (because really we all have things to do) and I have considered the examples you have submitted as evidence - they have been weighed, measured, and found wanting on the grounds that they are entirely hypothetical.
So, offer me concrete numbers of businesses put out of business by the minimum wage, concrete examples of businesses that have failed because of the minimum wage, and not just anecdotes but hard evidence (to suit your own requirements above) and I will consider it, and perhaps even modify my opinion according to their merits - but until then, I merely ask that you give my evidence the same consideration I am willing to give yours.
First, let's get the scale of impact straight. According to the BLS, only 4.7% of all workers in this country earn at or below the minimum wage, and in Washington it's under 2%.
Leaving out those who earn below minimum wage due to exemptions or non-wage based earnings (self employed sole proprietors like me) or waiters/waitresses who get paid in tips (who are all thus irrelevant to this conversation), leaves us with 2.1% nationwide (and less than 1% in WA).
37% of that 2.1% (0.77% of the population nationally) earn minimum wage in the leisure/hospitality sector (this includes the food service, club, and hotel industries) and 26% of that 2.1% (or 0.54% of the population nationally) earn minimum wage working in wholesale/retail trade (from WalMart to your corner market). The other third are scattered all over.
Thus, you are suggesting in your arguments that marginally raising the rate of pay for 2.1% of the population (remember less than 1% in WA from whence this discussion was spawned) who are mostly working poor (only 30% of minimum wage earners are under 20 and could thus be irrelevantly and unreasonably stereotyped to be teenagers living with their parents, as the right has often done) will cause massive inflation and make our costs go up exorbitantly across the entire economy.
I call shenanigans.
One flaw in your argument there is that you aren't considering the fact that any cost increase due to a a minimum wage increase is not reflected linearly in the price of goods on the shelf - rather it is spread out throughout the store or targeted on particularly high-margin products in which the increases won't be noticed. Thus, any wage increase would result in an absurdly tiny fraction of that increase that gets passed along on a per-product basis - fractions of a penny on the dollar at a retail level - thus making the consumer impact far less than you imagine.
If all of us are paying even a penny more per item for our stuff at WalMart (which would be a vastly overlarge increase for a buck an hour wage increase but is easy to work with), making each weekly trip maybe a dollar or two more expensive - let's say an unlikely 4 dollars more expensive so the math is easy - while people at the lowest end of the pay spectrum (many of whom shop at WalMart) are earning a dollar more per hour worked, putting 40 bucks more in their pockets a week (let's give them credit for finding two part time jobs if somebody won't hire them full time, which is common), their cost increase is 1/10th of the increase in their wages - a net gain in wealth. And that with a cost that is rounded up to a huge degree.
If a WalMart store has 50 employees earning minimum wage all working part time (since that is their tactic) and 50,000 product SKUs (which is actually far fewer SKUs than they actually have but was chosen only to make the math easy) and their wages are increased by $1/hr, you're looking at an increased cost to the store of $1,000/week. For comparison, an increase of 1 penny per item sold would net way, way more than $1,000 in a week.
In a store that does 1.4 MILLION dollars of business in a week on average (average gross revenue chain-wide divided by number of stores, so it's rough, but even cutting that in half to remove Black Friday week and cutting it by 20% because let's say it's a lower volume store than average, that's still over HALF A MILLION in income per week) you're talking about a very, very tiny cost increase per item that will be easily absorbed by people with more money in their pockets - hell, since people who make minimum wage almost always spend all their money on subsistence it's likely that a rise in the minimum wage would overall increase WalMart's income, since so many of that demographic shop at WalMart.
So there are some facts. Have at thee.
One other thing.
This is from a gentleman whose name is Ethan Pasternack.
Nov 10, 2013 13:24:33 #
Kenneth Biggs
Loc: Nashville,Tennessee
OLD ROY, IF I HAD BEEN MAKING ,$10.10 PER HR. IN 2009, I WAS MAKING ABOUT ,$8.25 PER HR., I WOULD GET MAYBE, $20 MORE PER MONTH IN SOCIAL SECURITY , IF THAT IS SUCH A GREAT DEAL MORE, AND WOULD BREAK YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, THEN YOU HAVE MY APPOLIGEE, THANKS, KENNETH BIGGS.
Nov 10, 2013 13:42:29 #
Kenneth Biggs
Loc: Nashville,Tennessee
NO,QUADFATHER'',I'M SORRY, THATS HITLER'',WHAT WILL END UNEMPLOYMENT ,FOR ONE THING ,IS A DESENT MINIMUM WAGE, BUT YES I AGREE, WITH GETTING PAID MORE FOR EXSPERIENCE, AND OR ABILITY TO PERFORM A JOB RIGHT!, IT IS TIME FORE , WAGES TO CATCH UP TO RISING COST OF LIVING FOR US POOR, ELDERLY,MEN,AND WOMEN ON LOW /FIXED INCOMES!, IF THIS HURTS YOUR FEELINGS, REMEMBER,''YOUR ONE PAY DAY AWAY FROM BEING POOR!, '' YOURSELF!, THINK ABOUT IT!?, KENNETH BIGGS.
Nov 10, 2013 13:48:42 #
Kenneth Biggs
Loc: Nashville,Tennessee
QUAD MAN, YOU SOUND LIKE ,SOME LITTLE RICH KID THAT THINKS SOMEONE IS GOING TO STEAL HIS CANDY!? GET OVER YOURSELF, PLEASE, MAY GOD BLESS, AND INLIGHTEN YOU, KENNETH BIGGS.
Nov 10, 2013 14:02:11 #
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I am some spoiled rich kid. I firmly believe that minimum wage should be raised to be at least a modicum of a living wage. My social benefit isn't even there. So are you an advocate of rising it or against it because it didn't happen while you were employed?
Nov 10, 2013 14:07:32 #
Kenneth Biggs
Loc: Nashville,Tennessee
I FOR ONE, DO NOT THINK THAT, QUADFATHER, HAS EVER HAD TO WORK FOR ANYTHING IN HIS LIFE!?, LET ALONE , WORK FOR MINIMUM WAGES, IF HE HAD ,HE WOULD NOT BE SO AGAINST , THE POOR LIVING A HUMANE LIFESYLE,AND GETTING A FARE LIVING WAGE!?, IS THIS ANOTHER, THE RICH GET ,RICHER, AND THE POOR TO HELL WITH THEM!?, KENNETH BIGGS, P.S. GOD WILL JUDGE PEOPLE LIKE YOU!, MAY HE HAVE MERCY ON YOU!
Nov 10, 2013 14:16:55 #
Kenneth Biggs
Loc: Nashville,Tennessee
Kenneth Biggs wrote:
I FOR ONE, DO NOT THINK THAT, QUADFATHER, HAS EVER HAD TO WORK FOR ANYTHING IN HIS LIFE!?, LET ALONE , WORK FOR MINIMUM WAGES, IF HE HAD ,HE WOULD NOT BE SO AGAINST , THE POOR LIVING A HUMANE LIFESYLE,AND GETTING A FARE LIVING WAGE!?, IS THIS ANOTHER, THE RICH GET ,RICHER, AND THE POOR TO HELL WITH THEM!?, KENNETH BIGGS, P.S. GOD WILL JUDGE PEOPLE LIKE YOU!, MAY HE HAVE MERCY ON YOU!
YOU TALK LIKE, MOST EVERY RICH PERSON THAT I HAVE KNOWN, OTHER THAN A VERY FEW!, THAT I HAVE MET, IF BY SOME CHANCE I AM WRONG ABOUT YOU, I AM SORRY! IF SO, THEN ., MAY GOD TRUELY BLESS YOU, KENNETH BIGGS. I AM FOR IT!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.