Can There Be A Compromise on Minimum Wage?

[Spiderman]

The left wants 15.00 an hour, and the right doesn't want an increase at all, right? (Am I missing something?)

So is there a middle ground people are willing to reach? Personally, living in the South, where people get by on about 7.25/hour just fine (so long as they're single anyway), I don't see much reason to increase it to 15.00/hour.

So how about meet in the middle? 10/hour? 9/hour?

The reason I ask this is because I fear that if no compromise as such is made Obama will just freight train a 15.00/hour minimum wage policy.

(Incidentally, I make 12.00/hour and I'm considered upper-middle class.)

12 dollars an hour does not make you upper middle class.

9 ways to know if you're middle class- MSN Money

 

[Disir]

Call their bluff. There is absolutely no reason why taxpayers should pick up the tab via public assistance while these places spend millions in philanthropy etc. that increases their power in other sectors. The message that is sent is for the workers to just deal with it. There is nothing to be done because the cost will be passed on to the consumer because they won't be giving up any of their money.

Ok.

Try it. Raise the prices too high and people won't come.

Thus far, the stance has been these businesses make it our problem to solve because they have no intention of taking care of it. Kick it right back to them and make it their problem to solve. Stop exploiting the workers and stop exploiting the tax payers.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think the notion that anyone can "get by just fine" on $7.50 an hour is ridiculous - no matter where you live.

$15,600 a year??????

Maybe in 1970....

I don't believe that unskilled workers - who can be replaced by almost anyone - can expect to be "upper middle class" though.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If 10.10 is a good arbitrarily chosen value, or even $15, why not $50 or even $100? I mean wouldn't that mean we just put most of the federal poverty level into the middle and upper middle echelon?

 

[oldfart]

Why not just replace the minimum wage with a program of national employment ?

There are lots of things that need doing in this country from road and bridge construction to caregivers at nursing homes. If anyone capable of doing the job were paid prevailing wage with a $15.00 floor, no one would work for less. We could end unemployment benefits after say, six weeks. We would also see a major reduction in disability claims. Most means-tested benefit programs would also see a reduction.

With more people working, more would be produced, and thus more could be consumed. Virtually everyone could be better off, because even rich people rely on certain public services more than they usually realize. I haven't seen Warren Buffet followed around by a private ambulance to take him to his private ER should he slip on a banana peel.

This is a market based solution, far more than minimum wage is. Unemployment becomes more voluntary as the coercion of fearing destitution is reduced in the labor market. Employers are free to choose whatever rate of pay they deem they need to attract sufficient workers, they just have competition at the lower end.

Believe me, I know the counter-arguments. None of them really hold much water. But I'm not going to do the work for the corporate apologists and Social Darwinism hacks. If there are valid drawbacks to such a program, and not just nineteenth century slogans that imply that Marx was right about capitalism, then bring them forth.

 

[Flopper]

The left wants 15.00 an hour, and the right doesn't want an increase at all, right? (Am I missing something?)

So is there a middle ground people are willing to reach? Personally, living in the South, where people get by on about 7.25/hour just fine (so long as they're single anyway), I don't see much reason to increase it to 15.00/hour.

So how about meet in the middle? 10/hour? 9/hour?

The reason I ask this is because I fear that if no compromise as such is made Obama will just freight train a 15.00/hour minimum wage policy.

(Incidentally, I make 12.00/hour and I'm considered upper-middle class.)

Sorry Bud, at $12 per hour you are not even close to upper middle class, unless you live in a third world country. Now what is scary is that some people actually believe that making $25,000 per year makes you middle class.

I'm a Democrat, and as for the minimum wage, I want to see it increased to $10 per hour and then have the minimum wage tied to inflation. I do not want to see a $15 minimum wage. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing, and that would be way too much of a good thing, which would turn out making it very bad.

Tying minimum wage to inflation is a good idea. Congress has raised minimum wage over 15 times in the last 60 years and it will continue to dos so. The major problem for business is not the magnitude of the raises but rather the random nature. Adjusting minimum wage automatically, takes the guess work out of the equation for businesses. It also will allow congress to waste their time and tax payer money in a more efficient manner.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It also will allow congress to waste their time and tax payer money in a more efficient manner.

priceless

 

[Flopper]

The left wants 15.00 an hour, and the right doesn't want an increase at all, right? (Am I missing something?)

So is there a middle ground people are willing to reach? Personally, living in the South, where people get by on about 7.25/hour just fine (so long as they're single anyway), I don't see much reason to increase it to 15.00/hour.

So how about meet in the middle? 10/hour? 9/hour?

The reason I ask this is because I fear that if no compromise as such is made Obama will just freight train a 15.00/hour minimum wage policy.

(Incidentally, I make 12.00/hour and I'm considered upper-middle class.)

Why does each group support those positions?

The leftists in our country, think that the minimum wage benefits people.

The right-wing in our country (like myself), know that raising the minimum wage harms people.

Every time you jack up the minimum wage, you cause unemployment.

To understand this, consider yourself. Let's say that you own a home, and you have a lawn, and someone comes to your house and says they will mow your lawn for $20.

You think, that sounds pretty good. Just $20, and I don't have to spend an hour mowing my lawn, don't have to buy a mower, don't have to buy gas, and I can relax on the weekends.

Now let's say that the government steps in, and says the minimum wage for lawn mowers, is $100 a lawn.

So a guy comes up and says he'll mow your lawn for $100. Do you do it?

Well gee... for a $100 I could buy my own lawn mower, and enough gas for the whole summer. That's not a good deal.

This is the problem. Government minimum wage laws, do not change the value of the labor to the consumer. Just because the government says that lawn mower people should get $100 a lawn, doesn't mean that you the consumer are willing to pay $100 a lawn.

Now you the consumer are worse off because you can't afford to have this service that benefited you, and the mower guy is worse off because before he was getting $20 every lawn, and now he's getting ZERO.

The issue comes with employment, where there is a person between the labor, and the consumer, which is the employer.

The leftists think the because there is an employer between the labor and consumer, that he will just suck up the cost of the minimum wage. That's wrong. The employer must pass on all costs, including minimum wage costs, onto the consumer.

This is a menu from McDonald's in Norway. Norway actually has no minimum wage at all. Nevertheless, because of the limited low-income labor, the wages of a McDonald's cashier is $15/hr. Now notice the menu? 91 Krone. That roughly translates to $16... for a Big Mac. Just the burger, not the value meal.

Now there are very few McDonald's in Norway, almost all of which are in tourist locations, where people are accustom to high prices.

The point is, that all prices have to be passed on. The only reason McDonald's Norway, can afford to pay employees $15/hr, is because customers are paying $16 for a burger.

That's how that works. And if the customers are not willing to pay that much? What happens then?

McDonald's hires 7,000 touch-screen cashiers | Crave - CNET

McDonald's replaced 7,000 employees in France, with Kiosks. The customers in France were not willing to pay $16 for a burger, thus McDonald's couldn't pay $15/hr to employees.

So what did they do? Fired them. Replaced them with kiosks. The unemployment rate TODAY in France, is over 10%. The unemployment rate for youth in France, the specific group that McDonalds *would have* hired, is 25%.

So are you getting the idea? We see the minimum wage as a harmful policy the hurts the poorest among us, the worst, by driving out jobs. We believe this, because that is what has happened every single time the minimum wage has gone up.

What was the unemployment rate in 2006 when the minimum wage was $5.25? What was the unemployment rate in 2010 after minimum wage hit $7.25?

So when you say let's compromise, and only raise the minimum wage a little.... what you are in effect saying is, "lets compromise and harm people just this much".

As of 2007, there were over 160 major studies done on the effects of minimum wage on the economy. Today, that figure probably exceeds over two hundred and still there is no consensus as to whether minimum wage increases are good or bad for the economy.

Some employers react to increases in minimum wage by raising prices, other react by reduce employment, and still other absorb the cost. However, from the studies one can see that increases in minimum wage is not a significant factor in either inflation or unemployment.

Minimum wage increases are much more a moral issue than an economic one. With the decline of trade unions and the spread of aggressive management techniques, low-paid workers now have little bargaining power and few legal protections. Only the government can ensure that they receive a living wage. “Even with the tax relief we've put in place,” President Obama noted in his speech, “a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong.” And he’s right.

The Case for a Higher Minimum Wage : The New Yorker

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think the notion that anyone can "get by just fine" on $7.50 an hour is ridiculous - no matter where you live.

I would like you to back that up, if you can.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The left wants 15.00 an hour, and the right doesn't want an increase at all, right? (Am I missing something?)

So is there a middle ground people are willing to reach? Personally, living in the South, where people get by on about 7.25/hour just fine (so long as they're single anyway), I don't see much reason to increase it to 15.00/hour.

So how about meet in the middle? 10/hour? 9/hour?

The reason I ask this is because I fear that if no compromise as such is made Obama will just freight train a 15.00/hour minimum wage policy.

(Incidentally, I make 12.00/hour and I'm considered upper-middle class.)

Why does each group support those positions?

The leftists in our country, think that the minimum wage benefits people.

The right-wing in our country (like myself), know that raising the minimum wage harms people.

Every time you jack up the minimum wage, you cause unemployment.

To understand this, consider yourself. Let's say that you own a home, and you have a lawn, and someone comes to your house and says they will mow your lawn for $20.

You think, that sounds pretty good. Just $20, and I don't have to spend an hour mowing my lawn, don't have to buy a mower, don't have to buy gas, and I can relax on the weekends.

Now let's say that the government steps in, and says the minimum wage for lawn mowers, is $100 a lawn.

So a guy comes up and says he'll mow your lawn for $100. Do you do it?

Well gee... for a $100 I could buy my own lawn mower, and enough gas for the whole summer. That's not a good deal.

This is the problem. Government minimum wage laws, do not change the value of the labor to the consumer. Just because the government says that lawn mower people should get $100 a lawn, doesn't mean that you the consumer are willing to pay $100 a lawn.

Now you the consumer are worse off because you can't afford to have this service that benefited you, and the mower guy is worse off because before he was getting $20 every lawn, and now he's getting ZERO.

The issue comes with employment, where there is a person between the labor, and the consumer, which is the employer.

The leftists think the because there is an employer between the labor and consumer, that he will just suck up the cost of the minimum wage. That's wrong. The employer must pass on all costs, including minimum wage costs, onto the consumer.

This is a menu from McDonald's in Norway. Norway actually has no minimum wage at all. Nevertheless, because of the limited low-income labor, the wages of a McDonald's cashier is $15/hr. Now notice the menu? 91 Krone. That roughly translates to $16... for a Big Mac. Just the burger, not the value meal.

Now there are very few McDonald's in Norway, almost all of which are in tourist locations, where people are accustom to high prices.

The point is, that all prices have to be passed on. The only reason McDonald's Norway, can afford to pay employees $15/hr, is because customers are paying $16 for a burger.

That's how that works. And if the customers are not willing to pay that much? What happens then?

McDonald's hires 7,000 touch-screen cashiers | Crave - CNET

McDonald's replaced 7,000 employees in France, with Kiosks. The customers in France were not willing to pay $16 for a burger, thus McDonald's couldn't pay $15/hr to employees.

So what did they do? Fired them. Replaced them with kiosks. The unemployment rate TODAY in France, is over 10%. The unemployment rate for youth in France, the specific group that McDonalds *would have* hired, is 25%.

So are you getting the idea? We see the minimum wage as a harmful policy the hurts the poorest among us, the worst, by driving out jobs. We believe this, because that is what has happened every single time the minimum wage has gone up.

What was the unemployment rate in 2006 when the minimum wage was $5.25? What was the unemployment rate in 2010 after minimum wage hit $7.25?

So when you say let's compromise, and only raise the minimum wage a little.... what you are in effect saying is, "lets compromise and harm people just this much".

As of 2007, there were over 160 major studies done on the effects of minimum wage on the economy. Today, that figure probably exceeds over two hundred and still there is no consensus as to whether minimum wage increases are good or bad for the economy.

Some employers react to increases in minimum wage by raising prices, other react by reduce employment, and still other absorb the cost. However, from the studies one can see that increases in minimum wage is not a significant factor in either inflation or unemployment.

Minimum wage increases are much more a moral issue than an economic one. With the decline of trade unions and the spread of aggressive management techniques, low-paid workers now have little bargaining power and few legal protections. Only the government can ensure that they receive a living wage. “Even with the tax relief we've put in place,” President Obama noted in his speech, “a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong.” And he’s right.

The Case for a Higher Minimum Wage : The New Yorker

One can see all sorts of things if one picks only the information that confirms what one already knows.

 

[gnarlylove]

Minimum wage increases are much more a moral issue than an economic one.

The Case for a Higher Minimum Wage : The New Yorker

Well, nice to see someone is paying attention! This isn't economic. Just look at this case.

Indeed the issue is a moral one. When working people are forced into austerity while government is being suckled by multi-national corporations who don't need any more largesses, then something needs to be done. A moral balance of distributing increases in productivity to the workers, not just the few elites. It's obvious what's going on if anyone is bothering to examine this critically and we need to keep our focus in the here and now, like minimum wage to win victories for prosperity and freedom for the working class against our oppressive institutions.

 

[Noomi]

A Big Mac over here costs around $5.20, yet McDonalds can afford to pay me, and others, just over $18 an hour.
How on earth do they manage to stay open when they pay us so much?

It's a mystery...

 

[gnarlylove]

Wanted to add this ominous piece, written in 1996 by Social Philosopher Richard Rorty, but he is writing from the vantage point of 2096, look back on the century:

Our long, hesitant, painful recovery, over the last five decades, from the breakdown of democratic institutions during the Dark Years (2014-2044) has changed our political vocabulary, as well as our sense of the relation between the moral order and the economic order. Just as 20th-century Americans had trouble imagining how their pre-Civil War ancestors could have stomached slavery, so we at the end of the 21st century have trouble imagining how our great-grandparents could have legally permitted a C.E.O. to get 20 times more than her lowest-paid employees. We cannot understand how Americans a hundred years ago could have tolerated the horrific contrast between a childhood spent in the suburbs and one spent in the ghettos. Such inequalities seem to us evident moral abominations, but the vast majority of our ancestors took them to be regrettable necessities.

As long as their political discourse was dominated by the notion of ''rights'' -- whether ''individual'' or ''civil'' -- it was hard for Americans to think of the results of unequal distribution of wealth and income as immoral. Such rights talk, common among late-20th-century liberals, gave conservative opponents of redistributionist policies a tremendous advantage: ''the right to a job'' (or ''to a decent wage'') had none of the resonance of ''the right to sit in the front of the bus'' or ''the right to vote'' or even ''the right to equal pay for equal work.'' Rights in the liberal tradition were, after all, powers and privileges to be wrested from the state, not from the economy.

Fraternity Reigns - NYTimes.com

 

[OnePercenter]

A Big Mac over here costs around $5.20, yet McDonalds can afford to pay me, and others, just over $18 an hour.
How on earth do they manage to stay open when they pay us so much?

It's a mystery...

A Big mac, or a Big Mac meal?

 

[OnePercenter]

Funny.....try that 62,500 in NY and see how far it gets you. Not sure if you got to exited and didnt finish reading my post or what,but I thought I made it pretty clear that it depended on where you live.

I did read your post, and took exception to your claim that upper middle class starts at $150,000.

Your response is more proof that a national minimum wage is stupid, which is my entire point.

I agree. There should be no minimum wage. People should be paid what they are worth. Unfortunately for some that would be a buck fifty an hour.

If your employees make you 100% of your revenue, how much are they worth?

 

[OnePercenter]

I did read your post, and took exception to your claim that upper middle class starts at $150,000.

Your response is more proof that a national minimum wage is stupid, which is my entire point.

I agree. There should be no minimum wage. People should be paid what they are worth. Unfortunately for some that would be a buck fifty an hour.

According to the BLS there is only 3.5% of the workers making at or below minimum wage. For those over 25, the percentage falls to .8%. If minimum wage is raised to $10, it will not substantially lower the level of poverty nor will it substantial increase unemployment. It is nothing more than a political joust between the Right and Left. At some point there will be a compromise and both sides will return home proudly proclaiming their victory.

How many people do your percentages represent?

 

[DriftingSand]

The left wants 15.00 an hour, and the right doesn't want an increase at all, right? (Am I missing something?)

So is there a middle ground people are willing to reach? Personally, living in the South, where people get by on about 7.25/hour just fine (so long as they're single anyway), I don't see much reason to increase it to 15.00/hour.

So how about meet in the middle? 10/hour? 9/hour?

The reason I ask this is because I fear that if no compromise as such is made Obama will just freight train a 15.00/hour minimum wage policy.

(Incidentally, I make 12.00/hour and I'm considered upper-middle class.)

The only way businesses can afford to raise the minimum wage is to raise prices significantly or they must shut their doors and lay everyone off.

When prices go up the value of the dollar goes down. So when the prices go up the folks making more than the minimum wage become poorer because they can't afford to buy as much. It's a classic case of wealth-redistribution.

 

[OnePercenter]

Minimum wage should be $23.50/hr.

Democrats want to increase it because it helps people.

Republicans don't because they like slaves.

It's difficult to take anything you say seriously when you post things like this.

Let me help you understand.

My plan:

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

 

[gnarlylove]

Let me help you understand.

My plan:

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

Fair policy. Have you thought about sending it to 'Washington'? And how likely do you think such a policy could be instituted, or rather do you think there is support for this? I think there could be.

 

[AntiParty]

Funny.....try that 62,500 in NY and see how far it gets you. Not sure if you got to exited and didnt finish reading my post or what,but I thought I made it pretty clear that it depended on where you live.

I did read your post, and took exception to your claim that upper middle class starts at $150,000.

Your response is more proof that a national minimum wage is stupid, which is my entire point.

I agree. There should be no minimum wage. People should be paid what they are worth. Unfortunately for some that would be a buck fifty an hour.

I can't read further than this into the thread.....

"some would be worth a buck fifty an hour"? and you don't fire them?? OR IS THE BIGGER PICTURE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A DOLLAR IS TO HUMANS AND YOU GOT DRAMATIC......

If you know anything about economics why would you employ anyone that works at a $1.50 an hour? "But I keep him and I'm rich"