Eliminate Minimum Wage

[buckeye45_73]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTLwANVtnkA]Milton Friedman Sets Liberal Straight On "Too Many Millionaires".wmv - YouTube[/ame]

 

[editec]

I doubt that minimum wages effect the employment picture one way or the other.

I know damned well that if a thriving business needs a warm body, they will hire regardless of whether that body gets paid $7.50 an hour or $10.00 an hour.

That said, I also do not think that minimum wages are actually helping all that many workers, either.

I suspect that the starting wages would remain roughly the same if the MW law was repealed, too.

Its the FEEBLE LABOR MARKET that continues to repress wages, and I do not think minimum wages serve as a "floor" for all other wages above that rate.

Repeal the MW laws and I doubt we'd see a huge influx of new hires OR a decline in aggregate average salaries either.

I mean that would not be the case if MW was much higher, but it is so low that I doubt it effects the labor market all that much.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Only 2 or 3 % of hourly wage earners make minimum wage.

Who Earns Minimum Wage? A Statistical Profile

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the median annual income of a U.S. worker is $32,140. Federal minimum wage is currently $5.85 an hour, or about $11,500 per year — just above the poverty line. Of the 76.5 million people paid by the hour in the United States in 2006, 2.2% make minimum wage or less. Here are some generalizations we can make about minimum wage workers:

Minimum wage is pretty much a non issue

 

[rdean]

Ever since the liberals invented minimum wage laws the welfare leeches that couldn't get a free ride from the tax payers have depended on minimum wage laws. This makes the government force employers to overpay the lazy workers who would be sitting at home if they could. Instead of more of Obama's socialism by raising the minimum wage we should eliminate the minimum wage all together. This would bring prices down and let higher wage earners be able to afford a better lifestyle. It would raise profits and best of all it would motivate the lazy welfare leeches to go find better jobs that pay more if they want to survive. The liberals will boo hoo and cry for the poor but that is because most of them are the bums that are to lazy to go find a decent job and want to live off the hard working conservatives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/b...income-distribution.html?partner=yahoofinance

This is the dumbest article. Check out this part:

The president’s proposal would raise annual income by $3,500 for a full-time minimum-wage worker. A recent analysis found that 13 million workers earn less than $9 an hour. If they were all working full time at the current minimum — and a majority are not — the income increase from the higher minimum wage would be only about $50 billion. Even assuming that all of that higher income was redistributed from the wealthiest families, the difference in spending behavior between low-income and high-income consumers is likely to translate into only about an additional $10 billion to $20 billion in consumer purchases. That’s not much in a $15 trillion economy.

That's not much in a $15 trillion economy. Yea, but it's a lot to those struggling 13 million workers. Duh! And how come these assholes never mention the massive redistribution of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 5% that the Bush tax cuts caused? Moving the wealth of the nation to people who already have more money than they could ever spend and many used that money to move jobs overseas. "Good job Brownie". When ever I think of failure that hurts many Americans, I think "Good job Brownie".

 

[Supposn]

I support minimum wage as long as it doesn't take our ability to compete away.

Matthew, stop orders are specific to their particular securities. Investors or their computer programs may monitor their stop orders’ amounts; their purposes are to retain the purchasing power of their portfolios’ values. Stop orders limit losses but do not hinder investors’ portfolios from competing with each other.

The minimum wage is the minimum (“bench mark”) rate’s amount. The U.S. Congress now initiates the timing and extent of the minimum rate amount’s update. It is as a political determination. An annual statistical determination of the minimum rate’s amount is proposed.
In both of these cases the minimum wage laws' purpose is to retain the minimum rate’s purchasing power. s

The enforced minimum wage laws prohibits any undermining that rate. It will not tolerate a race to the bottom".
Regardless of the task, beyond the minimum rate it does not hinder negotiation or competition between or among employees and/or employers.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[editec]

I support minimum wage as long as it doesn't take our ability to compete away.

Matthew, stop orders are specific to their particular securities. Investors or their computer programs may monitor their stop orders’ amounts; their purposes are to retain the purchasing power of their portfolios’ values. Stop orders limit losses but do not hinder investors’ portfolios from competing with each other.

The minimum wage is the minimum (“bench mark”) rate’s amount. The U.S. Congress now initiates the timing and extent of the minimum rate amount’s update. It is as a political determination. An annual statistical determination of the minimum rate’s amount is proposed.
In both of these cases the minimum wage laws' purpose is to retain the minimum rate’s purchasing power. s

The enforced minimum wage laws prohibits any undermining that rate. It will not tolerate a race to the bottom".
Regardless of the task, beyond the minimum rate it does not hinder negotiation or competition between or among employees and/or employers.

Respectfully, Supposn

I have absolutely no problem with any of the above, Supposn, but let me ask you..

Do you think that MW is actually working to keep wages from falling?

How many current MW employees do you suppose would work for less than $7.50 an hour in this economy if the MW floor was repealed?

And if those employees did leave their jobs, how many employees would jump at a job that pays less than that amount?

I think NOT MANY.

Just going to work costs money.

Pay much less than MW and I doubt many currently unemployed could AFFORD to take those jobs.

 

[Oddball]

I support minimum wage as long as it doesn't take our ability to compete away.

Matthew, stop orders are specific to their particular securities. Investors or their computer programs may monitor their stop orders’ amounts; their purposes are to retain the purchasing power of their portfolios’ values. Stop orders limit losses but do not hinder investors’ portfolios from competing with each other.

The minimum wage is the minimum (“bench mark”) rate’s amount. The U.S. Congress now initiates the timing and extent of the minimum rate amount’s update. It is as a political determination. An annual statistical determination of the minimum rate’s amount is proposed.
In both of these cases the minimum wage laws' purpose is to retain the minimum rate’s purchasing power. s

The enforced minimum wage laws prohibits any undermining that rate. It will not tolerate a race to the bottom".
Regardless of the task, beyond the minimum rate it does not hinder negotiation or competition between or among employees and/or employers.

Respectfully, Supposn

I have absolutely no problem with any of the above, Supposn, but let me ask you..

Do you think that MW is actually working to keep wages from falling?

How many current MW employees do you suppose would work for less than $7.50 an hour in this economy if the MW floor was repealed?

And if those employees did leave their jobs, how many employees would jump at a job that pays less than that amount?

I think NOT MANY.

Just going to work costs money.

Pay much less than MW and I doubt many currently unemployed could AFFORD to take those jobs.

MW is largely irrelevant....In most places, the prevailing wage is higher, if for no better reason than to get people in the door who won't steal from you.

All it really amounts to is a sop to unions, so their "leadership" (such as it is) can point to the MW as a way to argue that their wages need to be higher.

 

[Mr Natural]

Matthew, stop orders are specific to their particular securities. Investors or their computer programs may monitor their stop orders’ amounts; their purposes are to retain the purchasing power of their portfolios’ values. Stop orders limit losses but do not hinder investors’ portfolios from competing with each other.

The minimum wage is the minimum (“bench mark”) rate’s amount. The U.S. Congress now initiates the timing and extent of the minimum rate amount’s update. It is as a political determination. An annual statistical determination of the minimum rate’s amount is proposed.
In both of these cases the minimum wage laws' purpose is to retain the minimum rate’s purchasing power. s

The enforced minimum wage laws prohibits any undermining that rate. It will not tolerate a race to the bottom".
Regardless of the task, beyond the minimum rate it does not hinder negotiation or competition between or among employees and/or employers.

Respectfully, Supposn

I have absolutely no problem with any of the above, Supposn, but let me ask you..

Do you think that MW is actually working to keep wages from falling?

How many current MW employees do you suppose would work for less than $7.50 an hour in this economy if the MW floor was repealed?

And if those employees did leave their jobs, how many employees would jump at a job that pays less than that amount?

I think NOT MANY.

Just going to work costs money.

Pay much less than MW and I doubt many currently unemployed could AFFORD to take those jobs.

MW is largely irrelevant....In most places, the prevailing wage is higher, if for no better reason than to get people in the door who won't steal from you.

All it really amounts to is a sop to unions, so their "leadership" (such as it is) can point to the MW as a way to argue that their wages need to be higher.

When in fact, American workers wages need to be a lot lower so they can effectively compete with their Chinese counterparts.

 

[Supposn]

... have absolutely no problem with any of the above, Supposn, but let me ask you..

Do you think that MW is actually working to keep wages from falling?

How many current MW employees do you suppose would work for less than $7.50 an hour in this economy if the MW floor was repealed?

And if those employees did leave their jobs, how many employees would jump at a job that pays less than that amount?

I think NOT MANY.

Just going to work costs money.

Pay much less than MW and I doubt many currently unemployed could AFFORD to take those jobs.

Editec, if the specific federal minimum wage rate were eliminated, it would be replaced by an indefinite market driven minimum bench mark. The purchasing power of an indefinite minimum rate will be less than that of an indefinite market driven rate except during periods of unskilled labor shortages.

The point is not to what extent a legally enforced minimum rate promotes our economy but rather the extent of detriment to our economy due to any proportional change of our minimum rate’s purchasing power lagging behind that of the U.S. dollar.

Refer to the first post of the thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/232006-consequences-of-repealing-minimum-wage-rates.html

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[editec]

... have absolutely no problem with any of the above, Supposn, but let me ask you..

Do you think that MW is actually working to keep wages from falling?

How many current MW employees do you suppose would work for less than $7.50 an hour in this economy if the MW floor was repealed?

And if those employees did leave their jobs, how many employees would jump at a job that pays less than that amount?

I think NOT MANY.

Just going to work costs money.

Pay much less than MW and I doubt many currently unemployed could AFFORD to take those jobs.

Editec, if the specific federal minimum wage rate were eliminated, it would be replaced by an indefinite market driven minimum bench mark. The purchasing power of an indefinite minimum rate will be less than that of an indefinite market driven rate except during periods of unskilled labor shortages.

The point is not to what extent a legally enforced minimum rate promotes our economy but rather the extent of detriment to our economy due to any proportional change of our minimum rate’s purchasing power lagging behind that of the U.S. dollar.

If I understand the above point, you are proposing that sans MW laws, the economy would falter because consumer class would have less money?

I think that might be true if the MW had kept up with (real) inflation over the last 40 years.

In that case repealing that law might very well put those MW jobs on a race to find a new bottom.

I just do not think most people can afford to work for less than the MW as it stands today.

Even here in Maine, MW paying jobs are hard to fill because, let's face it, it is not worth your time to work for so little if you've got grown up expenses.

the available data suggest that roughly half the workers likely to be affected by the $9-an-hour level proposed by the president are in families earning less than $40,000 a year. So while raising the minimum wage from the current $7.25 an hour may not be particularly well targeted as an anti-poverty proposal, it’s not badly targeted, either.

The above is the argument to increase minimum wages. I really have no problem with that proposal. Like the author of that article I doubt it will cause many employers to fire people.

Were I in charge I'd peg MW to the REAL (as opposed to the government's) rate of inflation.

But as long as the MW is so out of line with real costs of living?

I doubt not having it would make all that much difference to the employment picture, too.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Ever since the liberals invented minimum wage laws the welfare leeches that couldn't get a free ride from the tax payers have depended on minimum wage laws. This makes the government force employers to overpay the lazy workers who would be sitting at home if they could. Instead of more of Obama's socialism by raising the minimum wage we should eliminate the minimum wage all together. This would bring prices down and let higher wage earners be able to afford a better lifestyle. It would raise profits and best of all it would motivate the lazy welfare leeches to go find better jobs that pay more if they want to survive. The liberals will boo hoo and cry for the poor but that is because most of them are the bums that are to lazy to go find a decent job and want to live off the hard working conservatives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/b...income-distribution.html?partner=yahoofinance

We already tried your idea.

It was called slavery.

 

[Oddball]

I have absolutely no problem with any of the above, Supposn, but let me ask you..

Do you think that MW is actually working to keep wages from falling?

How many current MW employees do you suppose would work for less than $7.50 an hour in this economy if the MW floor was repealed?

And if those employees did leave their jobs, how many employees would jump at a job that pays less than that amount?

I think NOT MANY.

Just going to work costs money.

Pay much less than MW and I doubt many currently unemployed could AFFORD to take those jobs.

MW is largely irrelevant....In most places, the prevailing wage is higher, if for no better reason than to get people in the door who won't steal from you.

All it really amounts to is a sop to unions, so their "leadership" (such as it is) can point to the MW as a way to argue that their wages need to be higher.

When in fact, American workers wages need to be a lot lower so they can effectively compete with their Chinese counterparts.

Pure crap...As was already pointed out, the prevailing wages in almost all the country are significantly higher than the MW.....Moreover, the same economically ignorant and plain old bigoted crap was said about the Japanese, then the Hong Kong Chinese, then the Indonesians, then the Taiwanese, and all that trade with America made both trading partners better off.

Pull your head out.

 

[dblack]

Minimum wage is the Democrat's "flag burning". A pointless gesture that fires up the base and keeps them from thinking about real policies critically.

 

[OnePercenter]

If minimum wage would have risen with costs from 1970 to today, it would be $23.50/hr., where it should be today.

Want to fix the economy? Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr and double social security payments.

 

[dblack]

If minimum wage would have risen with costs from 1970 to today, it would be $23.50/hr., where it should be today.

Want to fix the economy? Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr and double social security payments.

LOL. Do you ever wonder why they don't just do that?

 

[Cowman]

Only 2 or 3 % of hourly wage earners make minimum wage.

Who Earns Minimum Wage? A Statistical Profile

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the median annual income of a U.S. worker is $32,140. Federal minimum wage is currently $5.85 an hour, or about $11,500 per year — just above the poverty line. Of the 76.5 million people paid by the hour in the United States in 2006, 2.2% make minimum wage or less. Here are some generalizations we can make about minimum wage workers:

Minimum wage is pretty much a non issue

If that is true, Then what is the problem? Why the desire to get rid of it? If it's gotten rid of, you KNOW there will be people who will make less than the minimum wage, and that would be a travesty.

 

[dblack]

Only 2 or 3 % of hourly wage earners make minimum wage.

Who Earns Minimum Wage? A Statistical Profile

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the median annual income of a U.S. worker is $32,140. Federal minimum wage is currently $5.85 an hour, or about $11,500 per year — just above the poverty line. Of the 76.5 million people paid by the hour in the United States in 2006, 2.2% make minimum wage or less. Here are some generalizations we can make about minimum wage workers:

Minimum wage is pretty much a non issue

If that is true, Then what is the problem? Why the desire to get rid of it? If it's gotten rid of, you KNOW there will be people who will make less than the minimum wage, and that would be a travesty.

It's a non-issue because it's so low that it has little effect, bad or good.

 

[OnePercenter]

If minimum wage would have risen with costs from 1970 to today, it would be $23.50/hr., where it should be today.

Want to fix the economy? Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr and double social security payments.

LOL. Do you ever wonder why they don't just do that?

Because the Republican controlled House would vote against it.

Case in point. Look how much they bitched when Obama came out with the $9.00+ figure.

 

[dblack]

Cause the Republican controlled House would vote against it.

Case in point. Look how much they bitched when Obama came out with the $9.00+ figure.

Those meanies. But what about when the Democrats had control? Why didn't they raise it then?

OR, more to the point - answer the question that everyone dances around avoiding in these conversations. If it's really just a matter of decreeing that low wage earners will make more money, why not set it at something decent - $30/hr, let's say. Then everyone will be middle class, right?

 

[OnePercenter]

Cause the Republican controlled House would vote against it.

Case in point. Look how much they bitched when Obama came out with the $9.00+ figure.

Those meanies. But what about when the Democrats had control? Why didn't they raise it then?

Corporate America, Wall Street, and the Bush Administration hadn't crashed the economy yet. Today, It's the only way out for the middle class.

OR, more to the point - answer the question that everyone dances around avoiding in these conversations. If it's really just a matter of decreeing that low wage earners will make more money, why not set it at something decent - $30/hr, let's say. Then everyone will be middle class, right?

Simple, It's called making it right. Plus, consumer spending will skyrocket, which is what, 70% of the GDP?