Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The Minimum Wage: restraining progress
Posted by: Jon Henke on Saturday, July 15, 2006

At the Democratic Party Blog, Tracy Russo observes that "a worker paid $5.15 an hour would earn $10,700 a year" and yet "the Republican-led Senate can't find the will to do something about it."

Funny, I always thought "doing something about it" should be the responsibility of the person who no longer wants to make $10,700 a year.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Actually, I agree that the Republican-led Senate should do something about it. This is outrageous, a glaring mark against us.

End wage discrimination now, so that those whose skills are worth less than $5.15/hour will be able to work!
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
I wrote a post about this kind of thing a month or so ago, and figured out that the min wage would have to be a minimum of $8.15 and hour to bring people up to the supposed "poverty level." Yet Dems do not push for this. They really just want a symbolic win.

I have a hard time believing that someone flipping burgers while off from high school for the summer should be given more then the company wants to pay.
 
Written By: William Teach
URL: http://www.thepiratescove.us
I also wrote a post about the minimum wage. It really only affects a small percentage of the workforce so it is mostly much ado about nothing. At the same time, I believe raising it is the right thing to do.
 
Written By: Vivian J. Paige
URL: http://vivianpaige.wordpress.com
Jon, not everyone is as capable as you to be able to do "something about it."
 
Written By: VRB
URL: http://
Jon, not everyone is as capable as you to be able to do "something about it."
No? Why not? Surely completing high school/GED, avoiding substance abuse and making an effort to do good work (which is all it takes to rise above minimum wage over time in most jobs) is not beyond the capability of most people. And for those few for which it is too much, why are we imposing hundreds of millions in costs on society in order to provide them with assistance?

And on that theme...
I also wrote a post about the minimum wage. It really only affects a small percentage of the workforce so it is mostly much ado about nothing. At the same time, I believe raising it is the right thing to do.
Since it does affect a small percentage of the work force — and since the percentage of those it affects who are actually trying to make a living on it is much, much smaller, why is it a good policy? Why are we imposing large, broad costs on businesses in order to help a very small subset of people? That’s a tremendously inefficient welfare program.

And what happened to the Democrats dedication to "choice"? I can only choose what to do with my body so long as I don’t do it for less than $7.15 an hour?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
And for those few for which it is too much, why are we imposing hundreds of millions in costs on society in order to provide them with assistance?
More to the point, it would probably be cheaper to society to just provide benefits to the working poor directly if we collectivly decided we needed more socialism.
Minimum wage is just that a bloody MINIMUM, I have been unemployed several times in my life and have never had to take a minimum wage job after the age of nineteen. Once you get even a minimum set of skills you can earn more than that.

ONE MORE THING. Raising the minimum wage will not make any difference in most places because the employers are hireing illegals to do all the work on the QT anyway.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Surely completing high school/GED, avoiding substance abuse and making an effort to do good work (which is all it takes to rise above minimum wage over time in most jobs) is not beyond the capability of most people.
A lot of employers think if you are doing a great job, why give you a raise. All mininum or less than minimum wage jobs I ever had, there were no incentives to be or think smart. These jobs, I had as an adult. A minimum wage job only prepares you for the next minimum wage job. I don’t think my experiences have been unique. A high school diploma would be enough, if there were a greater variety of skills needed in this country. Not everyone’s talents lie where the jobs are. I was not necessarily defending minimum wage, but challenging your statement.
 
Written By: VRB
URL: http://
Why beat up on the Dems on this issue? After all, last time I looked, the GOP controls the Congress and the Presidency. If the minimum wage is the evil you portrary it to be, why doesn’t the GOP just get rid of it?

And while they are at it, why not get rid of the child labor laws. Why should government get to decide how much an 11 year old may work?

And why stop there? What’s with OSHA? Why should the government dictate workplace safety? If an employer wants an unsafe workplace, let him. No one is forcing anyone to work in an unsafe workplace.

The funny thing about opponents of the minnimum wage is that they are essentially calling for themselves to be taxed. After all, a person making $5.15 an hour is likely to be eligible for more food stamps than a person making $8 an hour. In the end, the debate is not about the minimum wage, but about whether the government or the private sector should pay for the poor to eat.

And before you respond with the knee jerk winger response that employers will hire fewer employees if the minimum wage goes higher, there really is no statistical correlation between unemployment rates and minimum wage laws (not suprisingly, after all, those making little actually spend what money they have, fueling job creation). Of the 10 states with the worst unemployment rates in May 2006, only 3 had minimum wage laws above the federal level.

But, of course, the worst part about this debate that the GOP senators did not votes against the minimum wage increase. They voted against letting there be a vote in the firs place. (Where are all those wingers who believe that the fillibuster is the spawn of the devil?) They voted against it coming to a vote because they don’t want to be on the record against something a majority of voters wants.

If raising the minimum wage is such a horrible idea, tell the American people why and then vote against it. But that’s not going to happen? Why? Well, if the answer isn’t obvious, nothing is.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
"All mininum or less than minimum wage jobs I ever had, there were no incentives to be or think smart."

That is a remarkable confession.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Since it does affect a small percentage of the work force — and since the percentage of those it affects who are actually trying to make a living on it is much, much smaller, why is it a good policy? Why are we imposing large, broad costs on businesses in order to help a very small subset of people? That’s a tremendously inefficient welfare program.
It is a good policy because people working full time should be paid an amount that puts them above poverty level. Welfare is getting something for nothing so I don’t see how you can call it that. The argument that a higher minimum wage costs businesses so much just doesn’t hold water. The group of people earning it are just too small to have that kind of effect.
 
Written By: Vivian J. Paige
URL: http://vivianpaige.wordpress.com
I normally don’t have much agreement with mkultra, but I do note the truth of this:
Of the 10 states with the worst unemployment rates in May 2006, only 3 had minimum wage laws above the federal level.
Republican opposition to a minimum wage and minimum health care is rooted in a traditional view they represent the Boss & the Owner against the greedy worker who would destroy the noble company that GAVE them a job, if allowed to go too far.

Which was fine and part of a wierd balancing act back in the day when unions represented the worker and a steady growing middle class existed and high taxes formed a restraint on the Bosses and Owners from getting too greedy themselves. But the "back in the day" is no more.

America is seeing a great shift to an earlier day than that, where a dramatic inequality in wealth arose in the late 19th Century here and in Europe and led to Marxism. Which led to income reforms here in America and Socialism in Europe.
We really don’t want a repeat of the 1st half of the 20th Century of labor riots, national strikes, Marxist revolutions.

And the Owner&Boss class in America is reduced to scare tactics...accept less wage or salary as the company has record profits and execs get 50% pay increases a year...or your job can easily go to an H-1B visa holder or illegal happy to "do the jobs Americans refuse to do" at lower cost...

And the minimum wage scare tactic is the doomsayings of "mass unemployment" if the minimum wage is raised, or saying if it is raised too much, businesses will be FORCED to violate the law and hire illegals to preserve the status of the wealth generated by labor more and more going to the Owners and Bosses instead of the workers.

As mkultra notes, they predict mass unemployment anytime the min wage is raised and it’s all bunk.



 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
mkultra

The funny thing about opponents of the minnimum wage is that they are essentially calling for themselves to be taxed. After all, a person making $5.15 an hour is likely to be eligible for more food stamps than a person making $8 an hour. In the end, the debate is not about the minimum wage, but about whether the government or the private sector should pay for the poor to eat.

Leaving aside the assumption that the "poor" cannot feed themselves, the choice you present is inaccurate. The "government" doesn’t pay for anything. The taxpayers do. So it isn’t a question of whether taxes will be raised in your scenario, but upon whom will they be raised, businesses or individual taxpayers as a whole.

And before you respond with the knee jerk winger response that employers will hire fewer employees if the minimum wage goes higher, there really is no statistical correlation between unemployment rates and minimum wage laws (not suprisingly, after all, those making little actually spend what money they have, fueling job creation). Of the 10 states with the worst unemployment rates in May 2006, only 3 had minimum wage laws above the federal level.

From Jane Galt:

... of the nineteen states with a minimum wage above the Federal average, twelve are in the bottom half of the unemployment distribution, which is to say they have higher unemployment rates:

Michigan #2
Alaska #3
Oregon #6
DC #8
Rhode Island: #10
New Jersey: #12
Illinois: #13
New York: #15
Massachussets: #16
California: #18
Wisconsin: #19
Washington: #21

Whereas there are only 7 in the happy end of the unemployment scale:

Minnesota: #31
Connecticut: #33
Delaware: #34
Maryland: #39
Vermont: #45
Florida: #49
Hawaii: #50

Of those, only three are in the ten best employment states, versus 5 in the worst employment states; and all three of the best employment places are states that are heavily dependant on the tourism industry. I just don’t see how this is a justification for high minimum wages. But I’m sure I must be reading it wrong. Mr Klein? Mr Wilkinson? Someone?


 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
Of the 10 states with the worst unemployment rates in May 2006, only 3 had minimum wage laws above the federal level.
Well, that’s nice. One data point, MK. How about a trend line?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
And the minimum wage scare tactic is the doomsayings of "mass unemployment" if the minimum wage is raised, or saying if it is raised too much, businesses will be FORCED to violate the law and hire illegals to preserve the status of the wealth generated by labor more and more going to the Owners and Bosses instead of the workers.
I don’t know who is saying "mass unemployment". I’m reading "more unemployment". And while businesses will not be "forced" to substitute illegals for legals by a higher minimum wage, they certainly will have greater incentive to do so. And concurrently, there will be greater incentive for poor foreigners to come to the US illegally.
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
Just what are these minimum wage jobs? I have’t checked with my local Mickey D’s lately, but 20 years ago there as a sign at a Wendy’s where I lived advertising $5.20/hr. to start. A recent article in the Wash. Times told of day laborers making $14/hr and more. Starting wages at a local non-union supermarket START at $7.50/hr and up (plus benefits) depending on the job.



"lot of employers think if you are doing a great job, why give you a raise. All mininum or less than minimum wage jobs I ever had, there were no incentives to be or think smart. These jobs, I had as an adult."

Your experiences differ so greatly from mine that I must ask what country are you talking about? Less than minimum wage? That is entirely your fault. Anyone who takes a job for less than minimum wage in this country has no smarts to incentivize.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The MW only becomes a issue in times of high unemployment, where it would set a "price control" for the labor supply. In times of higher employment, raising the MW in such a way that it is still below the going rate of labor means nothing. It would be the same as passing a law that gold could not be sold for less than $10 per ounce. The liberitarian in me says that its my labor and a private contract with another individual, and the government has no business regulating what goes on between two or more consienting adults.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
I started at a minimum wage job, and worked hard to make more and go to other jobs. If anyone cannot find a job, they are not looking.

Minimum wage laws also hurt the people they are supposed to help. A business is not going to be able to absorb the full cost of a minimum wage increase, because there competitors won’t. You either hire less people, or go out of business. As a result, jobs go right down the drain for the very people the Democrats are trying to help.

The liberal media always focuses on the short-term effects of a wage increase. Everyone is happy!! whohoo!! No one ever goes back and looks at the long-term effects of a wage increase on jobs, prices, business, and the economy.

Virginia should keep the minimum wage at what it is now. I would like to see it lowered if at all possible (probably impossible). This would create more jobs for students and young people looking to start in the workforce.
 
Written By: hrconservative
URL: http://hrconservative.blogspot.com
The idea put forth by Vivianne that a minimum wage job ought to put you above the poverty level is just silly. BY whose estimation? Am I or society responsible to put the uneducated and teenagers above the poverty line?
Besides which people who shill for minimum wage increases are either economically ignorant (we already knew about Mkultra) or, they work for a union who has automatic pay raises attached to rises in minimum wage. You see, all it will do is raise everyones pay, raise prices, and cause inflation and the buying power of people on minimum wage will not increase, never has in the past.
It is true that past raises in minimum wage have not produced mass unemployment, but that is because those increases were very modest. WHY? Because your democrat politicians are also hypocrites, they wanted to say they increased minimum wage but not actually do anything to rock the boat.
So, if its such a good thing well, we ought to REALLY increase it, lets just make it $20.00 an hour.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
kyle N - I really do suggest you take a look at the statistics on minimum wage as well as review the link in my earlier post. Approximately 1.9 million people earn minimum wage, with about 47% of them being over the age of 25. The numbers are quite small compared to the entire workforce. But given that we have already spent a TON of money moving people from welfare to work, I see no reason why the minimum wage should be so low. Its purchasing power is at the lowest that it has been in 51 years! And the poster above is correct:
After all, a person making $5.15 an hour is likely to be eligible for more food stamps than a person making $8 an hour. In the end, the debate is not about the minimum wage, but about whether the government or the private sector should pay for the poor to eat.
Pay now or pay later.

hrconservative - there are studies that show job losses and studies that show no job losses. Just depends on who you want to believe.

But let’s talk about those who earn less than the minimum wage: namely, waitstaff in restaurants that are paid $2.13 per hour plus tips. Want to talk about corporate welfare? Name me one other business that can get by with having its customers pay its staff directly. And the matching social security tax employers pay on wages? Restaurants get a tax credit for the employers’ portion of social security on tips over the minimum wage.

How come all employers don’t get a tax credit (which is far more valuable than a tax deduction) for the social security tax they pay on wages in excess of the minimum?
 
Written By: Vivian J. Paige
URL: http://vivianpaige.wordpress.com
timactual,
I worked for less than minimum wage because I needed a job! That what you do when you are independant and are not looking for the state to take care of you. Perhaps you have not experienced this, but there have been times that the jobs are not available that would meet your skills or experience. Even, not having a car, can be an impediment to finding work. One of my most fun jobs was sewing the trademark crotch stitch on Levi Jeans 90 times an hour. This was in Tennessee.
Consider yourself lucky that you have never had to do that kind of mind numbing work. I consider myself lucky, because I was able to go back to school and get a better job. I worked with adults that were not able to do what I did or would be capable. Some were not bothered by repetive task and took pride in what they did. I do think those persons deserve to be thought of with dignity and paid better wages. Not all the minimum jobs are retail or fast food. A lot of small maufacturing companies pay that for assembly.

Do we have some connection I don’t know about? It seems I’m always responding to you.
 
Written By: VRB
URL: http://
But let’s talk about those who earn less than the minimum wage: namely, waitstaff in restaurants that are paid $2.13 per hour plus tips. Want to talk about corporate welfare? Name me one other business that can get by with having its customers pay its staff directly. And the matching social security tax employers pay on wages? Restaurants get a tax credit for the employers’ portion of social security on tips over the minimum wage.
This isn’t true in all states. I know that there is no serving wage in California or Nevada. I’m sure there are other states with no serving wage, as well.

But let’s not talk about waiters making only minimum wage. You can take a look at my last payroll: in addition to their wages, every single one of my servers earned hundreds of dollars in the two-week pay period. I had one server make $1700 in tips — that’s better than $40K a year.

If you count tips, most servers make well above minimum wage. It’s only the lowest entry-level jobs that pay minimum wage with no tips.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
The nice thing about jacking up the minimum legal wage to a higher dollar value is that it is basically a way to define a larger number of hourly jobs as black market. Once they become under-the-table jobs, they become untaxed... and I do of course speak from personal experience.

If there is anything I want my elected representatives doing, it is lowering the tax burden on the poor. So let’s raise that minimum legal wage to $10 per hour. I mean, if we’re serious about helping poor people.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
I thought unless the government also controlled prices, there was little point. If the minimum is $5 an hour and a loaf of bread costs $1, then the minimus is raised to $10 an hour, bread will just go up to $2. You can still only get 5 loaves for your hour of work. Is this incorrect?
 
Written By: Scout
URL: http://
I do think those persons deserve to be thought of with dignity and paid better wages.
Paying someone more than their labor is worth is called charity. I have no problem with that; if you want to hand out charity to them, I won’t stop you. But call it what it is: charity.

If you raise the minimum wage, you are not magically putting more money in the pockets of the poor. In fact, despite your good intentions, you are decreasing the number of labor-hours that domestic business can afford to buy. Even relaxing many of the assumptions of supply and demand, this is pure economic common sense.
Remember: if you raise the minimum wage, you are only affecting the domestic production of goods. You are saying that any work that’s worth less than $5.15/hour (plus other assorted stuff, like Social Security taxes the employer has to pay) is prohibited in this country — but not in every other country.

That is to say, if you want to produce pairs of jeans that will compete with foreign-produced jeans, but cannot get enough productivity out of people to justify paying them $5.15 an hour — they can only produce $4.50 worth of jeans per hour (as the market judges their value) by a particular process, like hand-stitching — then you have just ensured that nobody will be hired in this country to produce jeans by hand-stitching. You have killed the hand-stitched jeans production in the U.S., because any business that tries to produce jeans here instead of overseas where the minimum wage is lower or doesn’t exist is going to be at a competitive disadvantage, with higher marginal costs.

If you raise the relative cost of labor, employers will have a greater incentive to replace labor with capital in the production process. For example, Levi’s might find that by automating the process, they can make people productive enough to justify paying then $5.15 an hour. But by paying for the machines for that automation, they have less money to pay for workers, so they will hire fewer people (or hire the same number of people for fewer hours). They have replaced human power with machine power, even though without wage discrimination they could have hired more people and actually paid more money to the low-skilled people of this country.

And they already have incentives to replace people with machines due to other things besides wages, so why encourage them even more? Machines don’t require an extra 6.2% Social Security payroll tax for each hour of operation. Machines never sue the company for any of a thousand reasons; they never unionize; they never go on strike. If they get "sick," you can usually call someone out to repair them or replace them in an extremely short period of time, and the "temp" will have all the same "skills" as the original. Machines never file for worker’s comp or demand paid vacation, sucking down money while they produce absolutely nothing. Let’s face the facts: there’s a big wedge already between how much people are paid and how much their labor is worth, and it hurts workers as well as businesses and consumers.

And that assumes that they even go to the trouble of paying for those machines in this country. Those same machines can usually be operated by low-skilled workers in China, and you end up paying the same for the machines and less for the labor. Minimum wage laws — wage discrimination — creates a powerful incentive for firms to shift low-skilled production overseas.

So in effect, all a minimum wage law really does is harm the poor people of this country that it’s supposed to help. It’s a perverse example of good intentions not having the desired effect, and in fact being counterproductive to our desired end, which is creating opportunities for our most disadvantaged citizens.

Now, if you look at the big picture, a modest change in the minimum wage probably doesn’t have a very big effect on the economy. It only affects a small number of workers, many of whom are teenagers. But even if the minimum wage doesn’t produce a large negative effect, why have wage discrimination in the first place? What is the intended positive effect, and what is the mechanism by which the minimum wage law produces this effect?
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
"So, if its such a good thing well, we ought to REALLY increase it, lets just make it $20.00 an hour"

Every time I have seen someone suggest this, the argument suddenly ends. Amazing.

"But let’s talk about those who earn less than the minimum wage: namely, waitstaff in restaurants that are paid $2.13 per hour plus tips."

Yes, let’s. That is PLUS TIPS. Also, if the employee doesn’t declare enough tips to bring them up to the minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference. Having spent a considerable amount of time working in restaurants, I can tell you that any waiter/waitress who doesn’t make more than the minimum wage isn’t doing their job and won’t be working there very long. I have also heard rumors that a considerable portion of tips are not declared, and are thus tax free. This practice, if true, also distorts any statistics about this industry, and understates employee compensation.

" Consider yourself lucky that you have never had to do that kind of mind numbing work."

You know what they say about making assumptions. Why is it that those who advocate increasing government benefits or regulations always assume that those who disagree have no experience in the area under discussion? Obviously I must be a rich WASP male whose only calluses or blisters are from playing golf or tennis.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Your experiences differ so greatly from mine that I must ask what country are you talking about? Less than minimum wage? That is entirely your fault. Anyone who takes a job for less than minimum wage in this country has no smarts to incentivize.
This is why my assumption was such.
 
Written By: VRB
URL: http://
Having worked for both Wal-Mart and Taco Bueno in my teenage years, I can tell you that it would be almost impossible to be stuck at minimum wage for very long. You see the trick is to actually, you know, work.

I can’t count the number of entitlement-minded morons who went through those places. They would loaf around all day, and then justify it by saying that they aren’t being paid enough anyway. You’ve got the causality backwards there, pal.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
I used to make just a few cents over minimum wage working at a craft store. I, like the other women who worked there, was married and had a working husband, so I was just working for mad money. My time just didn’t have that much monetary value to me, and the best thing I got from working at the craft store wasn’t the money, it was the skills I learned. That I was getting paid to hang around at a craft store learning how to make crafts was a pretty cool proposition.

Now that I’m all grown up, I work at home tutoring for $10 an hour. Why would I do that when I could make so much more teaching full time? Because there are other things that I value more than the money. My husband makes enough to pay most of the bills, and it’s important to me to be with my kids and keep my household together. I have to keep my hours both limited and flexible.

I also have a business selling crocheted items. Some of the items I have made for me by contractors. Because crocheting can be done while watching kids or TV, it’s really not worth minimum wage. So I hire the contractors as independent contractors and not as employees, and pay them by the piece. These women are happy with the contracts. They eagerly give their consent and sign the contracts. By doing something they like to do, they can turn their TV watching time into money for dance lessons for their kids. I’m helping them to be more productive and bring in extra income, all without paying them minimum wage.

There are some things (like being able to bring in a few bucks without significantly changing your at-home lifestyle) that are worth more than money. Minimum wage laws get in the way of people who for one reason or another WANT to work for less.
 
Written By: Wacky Hermit
URL: http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com
Hey

In America no one should go hungry, be in poverty, or let businesses save a buck by hiring illegals.

Anyone who says otherwise is setting a standard for a section of our people to be exploited.

What is wrong with setting a level of pay so that a person can at least have the basic needs to survive.

17 years in upper management has taught me one thing, Companies do not care about you, so care for yourself. Not everyone of course is destined to be a successful person but in America, again if anyone is suffering due to corporate greed it is wrong.
 
Written By: x2master
URL: http://
There are some things (like being able to bring in a few bucks without significantly changing your at-home lifestyle) that are worth more than money. Minimum wage laws get in the way of people who for one reason or another WANT to work for less.
Rubbish. The women you buy from are not employees, so the law doesn’t get in the way. If it does, then why not dispense with the piece-rate contract and simply buy their produce as if from another business ?
 
Written By: Blewyn
URL: http://blewog.blogspot.com
It is a good policy because people working full time should be paid an amount that puts them above poverty level.
People should be paid the market value of their labor, not some wage determined by politicians.
The argument that a higher minimum wage costs businesses so much just doesn’t hold water. The group of people earning it are just too small to have that kind of effect.
The reason it impacts a small group is because it is a stupid policy that would drag down the economy if applied on a larger scale.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Republican opposition to a minimum wage and minimum health care is rooted in a traditional view they represent the Boss & the Owner against the greedy worker who would destroy the noble company that GAVE them a job, if allowed to go too far.
No, it is rooted in the idea that the government should not be setting wages, setting prices, or interfering in freedom of contract.
Which was fine and part of a wierd balancing act back in the day when unions represented the worker and a steady growing middle class existed and high taxes formed a restraint on the Bosses and Owners from getting too greedy themselves. But the "back in the day" is no more.
Unions are nothing more than efforts at labor cartels.

Minimum wage is a bad idea, one that doesn’t really work. Currently, minimum wage is set low enough that it has minimal economic impact, and that allows it to remain politically viable.

Note that few Democrats want to set a high minimum wage: that’s ’cause they know it is a stupid idea. The flip side, as mkultra touched upon, is that Republicans don’t want to end minimum wage. That’s ’cause doing so would give the Democrats soundbytes for political adds. It’s a bad idea that continues on the margins for political reasons.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
In America no one should go hungry, be in poverty, or let businesses save a buck by hiring illegals.

Anyone who says otherwise is setting a standard for a section of our people to be exploited.
There was a neat experiment in this that started in 1917 and ended early 1990s. It was called the USSR, you might want to look into it.
What is wrong with setting a level of pay so that a person can at least have the basic needs to survive.
What’s wrong with letting people determine how little they are willing to accept as wages? Not everyone has the same needs, and being competitive in the job market sometimes means underbidding someone else.
17 years in upper management has taught me one thing,


One thing?
Companies do not care about you, so care for yourself. Not everyone of course is destined to be a successful person but in America, again if anyone is suffering due to corporate greed it is wrong.
It took 17 years in upper management to learn that? That’s the ONE THING?

I estimate that the company I work for would like to pay me $0.01/hr, while I want $1,000,000.00/hr. Neither one of us got what we wanted, but we came to an agreement that falls somewhere in between what I want and what they want to pay me (closer to their ideal than to mine, sad to say). I work for my best interests, the company I work for works for its best interests, and we have worked out a deal that’s mutually benificial. That’s the way free markets work. If you wangt a worker’s paradise, I suggest North Korea.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
In America no one should go hungry, be in poverty, or let businesses save a buck by hiring illegals.

Anyone who says otherwise is setting a standard for a section of our people to be exploited.
There was a neat experiment in this that started in 1917 and ended early 1990s. It was called the USSR, you might want to look into it.
What is wrong with setting a level of pay so that a person can at least have the basic needs to survive.
What’s wrong with letting people determine how little they are willing to accept as wages? Not everyone has the same needs, and being competitive in the job market sometimes means underbidding someone else.
17 years in upper management has taught me one thing,


One thing?
Companies do not care about you, so care for yourself. Not everyone of course is destined to be a successful person but in America, again if anyone is suffering due to corporate greed it is wrong.
It took 17 years in upper management to learn that? That’s the ONE THING?

I estimate that the company I work for would like to pay me $0.01/hr, while I want $1,000,000.00/hr. Neither one of us got what we wanted, but we came to an agreement that falls somewhere in between what I want and what they want to pay me (closer to their ideal than to mine, sad to say). I work for my best interests, the company I work for works for its best interests, and we have worked out a deal that’s mutually benificial. That’s the way free markets work. If you wangt a worker’s paradise, I suggest North Korea.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"So, if its such a good thing well, we ought to REALLY increase it, lets just make it $20.00 an hour"
This is too low to be able to afford a house in California. It needs to be $50/hour, at least.
 
Written By: h0mi
URL: http://
At the Democratic Party Blog, Tracy Russo observes that "a worker paid $5.15 an hour would earn $10,700 a year" and yet "the Republican-led Senate can’t find the will to do something about it."
I guess the GOP should demand the workweek be doubled to 80 hours; then that worker would earn 21,400 a year. Problem solved!
 
Written By: h0mi
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider