Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[JRK]

If it takes 15.00 an hour to have a "living" wage, well I really dont have an issue with that except that really all your doing is raising the cost to build a widget, or grow a widget to a point in which the 8.00 an hour becomes 15.00 an hour it seems to me
What is a living wage?

Here is the whole issue with wages. A very large portion of our economy comes from consumer spending. The lowest income earners spend the greatest percentage of their incomes on products and services. The ability for consumers to spend, meaning they have money to spend, is what drives our economy. As spending power decreases among the middle class and underclass, so goes the economy. Rich people do buy goods and services, but they don't buy nearly as much as the rest of us do. If the top ten percent are earning approximately 45% of income, and the other 90% is earning the other 55%, do you really think that the top 10% is putting that money all back into the economy?

Increasing the wages of the lowest income earners will just put all that money right back into the economy. Everyone benefits. Of course it isn't quite so simple as just giving everyone a raise. However, when we look at the amount that the top income earners have increased their incomes by, we must ask ourselves what are they using that money for? Are they putting it back into the economy? With American businesses sitting on over $2 trillion in cash, the obvious answer is no. If that money was in the pockets of American workers, it would all be put right back into the economy creating substantial growth.

I am not saying that this is the solution, but just explaining that is how things actually work. Making it so is another story. The other problem that we have is that the baby boomers have reduced their spending considerably just due to the fact that they have everything they need. So we now have reduced spending on two fronts, the wealthy baby boomers and the rest of the populace that is just struggling to get by. But on the other end, we have the wealthy who continue to gain wealth while the rest of the country takes it up the ass.

Then with all of this happening, we have people like Herman Cain telling us we need to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy, those who are already increasing their wealth, while increasing taxes on everyone else, those who are already losing any wealthy they may have. It really makes sane people scratch their heads.

I am at present a manager on a project that is the expansion of a crude oil refining complex that my project is all but done

we pay
hole watch
fire watch
entry level trades men
etc... 10-11.00 an hour

we bump that up to 15.00 an hour, which I have no issue with, then my bare composite goes up from 17.5 to 20
1 million man hours increases the cost to Exxon by 4 million, BARE

Built up probably 5 million

every trade, every thing we buy from a ham-burger to a hammer to 1 gallon of gas will go up accordingly to cover hose cost
gas for example will not just stop with theses cost
everything we buy will go up accordingly. So have you really made a living wage? How do we compete with any country now? does Toyota and Honda, etc... keep building cars in the USA?

One other thing, the "rich" would not be getting a tax cut as much as they would be getting tax incentive to expand and to hire. It would take a "brief" to make sense of it but think about how much in corporate tax they pay now, income etc... and who would really pay the sales. no matter where you would hide your money you would pay tax on it
People with money are looking to invest, as long as BHO is in power there not
sales and corporate taxes would catch most as most are in some sort of business
that's the good to me of the idea, is that loop holes are gone but owning a business would be a win-win for that person

 

[Bern80]

Here is the whole issue with wages. A very large portion of our economy comes from consumer spending. The lowest income earners spend the greatest percentage of their incomes on products and services. The ability for consumers to spend, meaning they have money to spend, is what drives our economy. As spending power decreases among the middle class and underclass, so goes the economy. Rich people do buy goods and services, but they don't buy nearly as much as the rest of us do. If the top ten percent are earning approximately 45% of income, and the other 90% is earning the other 55%, do you really think that the top 10% is putting that money all back into the economy?

Increasing the wages of the lowest income earners will just put all that money right back into the economy. Everyone benefits. Of course it isn't quite so simple as just giving everyone a raise. However, when we look at the amount that the top income earners have increased their incomes by, we must ask ourselves what are they using that money for? Are they putting it back into the economy? With American businesses sitting on over $2 trillion in cash, the obvious answer is no. If that money was in the pockets of American workers, it would all be put right back into the economy creating substantial growth.

I am not saying that this is the solution, but just explaining that is how things actually work. Making it so is another story. The other problem that we have is that the baby boomers have reduced their spending considerably just due to the fact that they have everything they need. So we now have reduced spending on two fronts, the wealthy baby boomers and the rest of the populace that is just struggling to get by. But on the other end, we have the wealthy who continue to gain wealth while the rest of the country takes it up the ass.

Then with all of this happening, we have people like Herman Cain telling us we need to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy, those who are already increasing their wealth, while increasing taxes on everyone else, those who are already losing any wealthy they may have. It really makes sane people scratch their heads.

So you support guaranteeing a subjective 'fair' or 'living' wage over having people earn more because they advance, make better choices, etc... and unequal treatment by law under government

got it

Actually, I didn't say that. It isn't quite so simple as guaranteeing wages. I just stated that unless we find a way to increase wages for lower and middle income earners, our economy is not going to grow, and we will continue to see this economy stall, no matter who is in office. And cutting taxes further for the wealthy while increasing them on lower income earners certainly isn't going to make things better. If you think that doing so would, then you are bat shit crazy as a lot of others here.

And there is a way to do that actually. Find a skill that pays more and is in demand, learn it. Problem solved.

 

[Kuros]

That is a subjective question. The answer is there really is no living wage since the cost of living varies so widely depending on where you live. It's why a minimum wage is so pointless. Hell my kids got 8 or 9 bucks an hour at Taco Bell when they were growing up. And the minimum wage was far below that.

Minimum wages are set by the States. The Feds only impose a floor on the minimum wage.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Government should set both the minimum and maximum wage and it should be the same number for everyone, its the only way to make certain we never have a 1% again

 

[kwc57]

So if Walmart paid their employees more money it would go from being Walmart prices to being Barney's 5th ave prices?

You know how dumb that sounds? The free market wouldnt have that and would just shop elsewhere, which is the incentive for Walmart to keep their prices low

Maybe, what we need is a society where more money is used to pay people at the bottom of the pyramid, and less at the top of the pyramid. Then, prices don't have to rise after all.

But.....we already live in a society where education is free and anyone with an idea and an ounce of gumption can start their own business and keep as much as they want. The other option is to work for those people and get paid a wage. Why is it so hardto understand that a person creates a businees for themselves. As it grows beyond their ability to handle it by themself, they pay people to do some of the work. Those employees didn't come up with the idea, build a business plan, sink their life savings into it at the risk of losing it all and work 80 hour weeks to build it into a success. Their wage is fair compensation for their time. No one forces them to accept the job. They are free to look elsewhere or start their own business.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It's trolling in the sense that the term is pretty simply defined. The term defines itself realy. It's who should provide it that the debate begins. Should you be responsible for providing for what you need or your employer?

I think you're going off on what's at best a tangent, if not possibly completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Nonetheless, I think it's (potentially) an interesting discussion so I'll apologize to the OP for indulging it here.

To answer, first I'll say that you're over simplifying the point you're trying to make. While individuals are of course responsible for providing for themselves as best as they can, employment is a necessity of life and it is through employment that people provide for their needs. You give work, the employer gives pay. This much should be obvious.

So the question that really matters is: What kind of society do we become when employment is, largely, an insufficient means by which a great many of our fellow citizens can provide for themselves and their families? Also, what changes in our society can effectively prevent us from devolving into either a culture of de facto slavery or violent anarchy brought on by widespread poverty?

 

[Bern80]

Here is the whole issue with wages. A very large portion of our economy comes from consumer spending. The lowest income earners spend the greatest percentage of their incomes on products and services. The ability for consumers to spend, meaning they have money to spend, is what drives our economy. As spending power decreases among the middle class and underclass, so goes the economy. Rich people do buy goods and services, but they don't buy nearly as much as the rest of us do. If the top ten percent are earning approximately 45% of income, and the other 90% is earning the other 55%, do you really think that the top 10% is putting that money all back into the economy?

Have to disagree with part of that. Rich people may send a smaller portion of income, but less than everyone else? That makes no sense. They don't have the same basic needs we do. I'm pretty sure Bill Gates is buying milk just like everyone else and in a lot of cases paying more for it. Rich people are spending as much as the rest of us, in fact observably more. They purchase the same basics we do on top of the luxuries their money extra money affords. Your statement is obviously false because rich people observably HAVE more stuff.

Increasing the wages of the lowest income earners will just put all that money right back into the economy. Everyone benefits. Of course it isn't quite so simple as just giving everyone a raise. However, when we look at the amount that the top income earners have increased their incomes by, we must ask ourselves what are they using that money for? Are they putting it back into the economy? With American businesses sitting on over $2 trillion in cash, the obvious answer is no. If that money was in the pockets of American workers, it would all be put right back into the economy creating substantial growth.

It isn't really any of your business what anyone does with their money. But let's just say we do go to $15 hr. That money comes from the employer you know the people with the money you're complaining won't spend it. Do you suppose the chances they spend more money or create more jobs goes or invest in their companies goes up or down when they have less money? As far as the people getting the wage increase, you haven't raied them up. You've just created a new bottom. Companies can only charge for the goods and services what people have and/or are willing to pay. Since everyone has more, they can now charge more. When wages go up, the cost of everything else goes up right along with it. So you haven't effectively done anything for anyone. This is what I mean when I say proponents of raising wages obviously don't see who all of these concepts are interconnected and how things react when you actually do try something like that.

Then with all of this happening, we have people like Herman Cain telling us we need to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy, those who are already increasing their wealth, while increasing taxes on everyone else, those who are already losing any wealthy they may have. It really makes sane people scratch their heads.

Taxes have nothing to do with this. That is simply about creating a tax code that is fair and treats everyone the same. A fair or flat tax in any form is going to benefit the rich and increase taxes on the poor, unless you put in some type of exemption on the first x thousand dollars or something.

 

[JRK]

Want to know what your living wage is in your county? Here is a site from Penn State that gives you that information.

Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

Indiana :$7.57
Cali: $10.72

Fairly accurate
looks to me the main issue is single women with a boat load of kids. The father running out or the woman running off to find herself kind of event
If we take this info as shown a couple who stays focused and works is making a living wage

 

[pgm]

the equivalent of the min wage in 1968, $10.50.

I support the minimum wage and even increasing it, but inflation started to really creep up starting about 1968 (3% at the end of 1967, 4.3% at the end of 1968, 11% at the end of 1974). Most of that was from the Vietnam War, but I'd be shocked if the minimum wage had zero effect. The '90s and '00s had a minimum wage that was pathetically low and inflation was extremely low as well. (Again, there are other factors--most notably, China, India and other developing nations with increased manufacturing).

Economists call an increase in prices do to an increase in minimum wage, "cost-push inflation." Critics of this model say that companies could simply cut employment to make up for the added costs, but I think this model doesn't work because it ignores how important demand is on unemployment. If you cut your workforce in the face of increased demand, you may find yourself with an inability to meet your customers' needs. Thus, you'll lose your business to competitors. There will likely be an increase in demand (at least at first) because workers have more disposable income (do to the increase in minimum wage). If you increase prices instead of cutting workers, you could potentially lose out to competitors who don't increase prices, but your competitors have to pay the same minimum wage and have just as much incentive to raise prices. So, companies need to find a balance between cutting costs and passing the cost increases onto consumers. Alan Kruegman has done extensive research to show that increasing the minimum wage will not necessarily increase unemployment. He attributes this primarily to increased demand cancelling out the effect, but I think there are also many instances where the increased cost is passed on to the consumer. Australia has a $15/hr minimum wage (although, it is not applied equally to all work). My Australian friends constantly complain about how much more expensive things are in Australia than in the U.S. or in Japan. For some reason, though, they don't think the fact that people get $15/hr to ask if someone wants a side of fries is a valid reason why their Big Mac costs more, though.

And now to say something from the other side of the political spectrum.

every trade, every thing we buy from a ham-burger to a hammer to 1 gallon of gas will go up accordingly to cover hose cost
gas for example will not just stop with theses cost
everything we buy will go up accordingly. So have you really made a living wage? How do we compete with any country now? does Toyota and Honda, etc... keep building cars in the USA?

Toyota has factories in Australia, despite Australia's $15/hr minimum wage.

 

[Inthemiddle]

But.....we already live in a society where education is free

Hot damn, someone tell my school! I'm going back to school to try to finish my nursing degree. They sure want an awful lot of money for free education.

and anyone with an idea and an ounce of gumption can start their own business and keep as much as they want.

So, I'm sure you're doing this, right? Also, how is a society supposed to function if everyone is running their own business? Who's going to be the employees?

The other option is to work for those people and get paid a wage. Why is it so hardto understand that a person creates a businees for themselves. As it grows beyond their ability to handle it by themself, they pay people to do some of the work. Those employees didn't come up with the idea, build a business plan, sink their life savings into it at the risk of losing it all and work 80 hour weeks to build it into a success.

You seem to romanticize the rich. Do you really think that this is how Paris Hilton makes $10 million a year? You think she did any of this? The only thing she "sunk" into anything was her name that she's sold to the labels of other people's products, and then turned around and bought those product lines. Oh wait, that's not the only thing she's "sunk" but I guess that's not really our business.

Their wage is fair compensation for their time.

Says who? There's a difference between "fair" and "as little as we can get away with giving you, regardless of whether it is sufficient."

No one forces them to accept the job. They are free to look elsewhere or start their own business.

So you're alternative is that people should just wait around and stay unemployed until companies decide they're willing to pay their employees better?

Let me ask you something, how is a person supposed to start their own business without a product, or without the knowledge of how to run a business? How are they supposed to get the education for those things without money? Oh yeah, you're under the crazy idea that all the requisite education is free for the taking.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Want to know what your living wage is in your county? Here is a site from Penn State that gives you that information.

Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

Indiana :$7.57
Cali: $10.72

Fairly accurate
looks to me the main issue is single women with a boat load of kids. The father running out or the woman running off to find herself kind of event
If we take this info as shown a couple who stays focused and works is making a living wage

There are a few problems here.

1) That living wage calculator seems somewhat dubious. I checked it for my area, and the results were not reliable. It said the living wage was about $7.30 for my area for a single person. I knew that couldn't be the case so I looked harder. The "living wage" was insufficient to cover the costs of the estimated expenses. Not only that, but those estimated expenses were somewhat underestimates. Mainly, housing was under shot by at least $100 a month. The estimate offered might be reasonable for a single person's contribution where two people are contributing to a two bedroom place, but that's about it. On top of all that, from what I could tell, the alleged "living wage" seems to be a bare minimum to pay all expenses and then have two pennies to rub together afterward. It doesn't afford any ability to save even $10 a month toward retirement, no clothing expense allotment, no room in the budget to change your tires or get a new car battery. End result, this calculator seems problematic to say the least.

2) What constitutes a "living" wage must take into account one's dependent status, otherwise it's useless. A single person can live off much less than a single parent (it doesn't matter why s/he is single) or a family with only one working parent.

 

[JRK]

the equivalent of the min wage in 1968, $10.50.

I support the minimum wage and even increasing it, but inflation started to really creep up starting about 1968 (3% at the end of 1967, 4.3% at the end of 1968, 11% at the end of 1974). Most of that was from the Vietnam War, but I'd be shocked if the minimum wage had zero effect. The '90s and '00s had a minimum wage that was pathetically low and inflation was extremely low as well. (Again, there are other factors--most notably, China, India and other developing nations with increased manufacturing).

Economists call an increase in prices do to an increase in minimum wage, "cost-push inflation." Critics of this model say that companies could simply cut employment to make up for the added costs, but I think this model doesn't work because it ignores how important demand is on unemployment. If you cut your workforce in the face of increased demand, you may find yourself with an inability to meet your customers' needs. Thus, you'll lose your business to competitors. There will likely be an increase in demand (at least at first) because workers have more disposable income (do to the increase in minimum wage). If you increase prices instead of cutting workers, you could potentially lose out to competitors who don't increase prices, but your competitors have to pay the same minimum wage and have just as much incentive to raise prices. So, companies need to find a balance between cutting costs and passing the cost increases onto consumers. Alan Kruegman has done extensive research to show that increasing the minimum wage will not necessarily increase unemployment. He attributes this primarily to increased demand cancelling out the effect, but I think there are also many instances where the increased cost is passed on to the consumer. Australia has a $15/hr minimum wage (although, it is not applied equally to all work). My Australian friends constantly complain about how much more expensive things are in Australia than in the U.S. or in Japan. For some reason, though, they don't think the fact that people get $15/hr to ask if someone wants a side of fries is a valid reason why their Big Mac costs more, though.

And now to say something from the other side of the political spectrum.

every trade, every thing we buy from a ham-burger to a hammer to 1 gallon of gas will go up accordingly to cover hose cost
gas for example will not just stop with theses cost
everything we buy will go up accordingly. So have you really made a living wage? How do we compete with any country now? does Toyota and Honda, etc... keep building cars in the USA?

Toyota has factories in Australia, despite Australia's $15/hr minimum wage.

Then I have to ask, why is it 1/2 of that here? I checked your info and at a 38 hour weeks is what it related to was correct
I have already found that upon these wages reaching this level it looks as though they have a 38 hour work week, which is still a hell of allot better than a 40 hour week @ 7-8.00 an hour (pending what state your in)

 

[Bern80]

To answer, first I'll say that you're over simplifying the point you're trying to make. While individuals are of course responsible for providing for themselves as best as they can, employment is a necessity of life and it is through employment that people provide for their needs. You give work, the employer gives pay. This much should be obvious.

I want you to take an open mind when I say this. I promise it's true and I promise it's something the rich know. Employment is NOT a neccessity in life. Generating cash flow is a necessity in life and there is a big difference between the two.

So the question that really matters is: What kind of society do we become when employment is, largely, an insufficient means by which a great many of our fellow citizens can provide for themselves and their families?

That is a hypothetical that isn't possible short of slavery and I'm not really sure what interest anyone would have in the later. And it's a bit more nuanced than simply any type of employment providing for people and families. Some jobs can and some jobs can't. Which jobs can and which jobs can't currently is dependent on a combination of the scarcity and demand of skill sets. It takes the right combination of both for their to be a job that pays a lot of money. But those proposing this living wage think we can just throw how things work and why it works the way it does out the window. In determing what people should be paid they want to ignore things like whether there is a labor demand for an individuals skill set. To put it simply they want the cost of labor to be determined by what people need as opposed to the actual value they provide to the employer. An economy can't work that way.

Also, what changes in our society can effectively prevent us from devolving into either a culture of de facto slavery or violent anarchy brought on by widespread poverty?

What prevents it is the simlple fact that is undesirable outcome for all parties. The rich wouldn't want that anymore than the poor do. All kinds of businesses pay higher wages than what people need to live on. In many cases a lot more. No legal authority is forcing them to do that. What is forcing them to pay those wages is the scarcity and value of the skill set that individual has.

 

[JRK]

Fairly accurate
looks to me the main issue is single women with a boat load of kids. The father running out or the woman running off to find herself kind of event
If we take this info as shown a couple who stays focused and works is making a living wage

There are a few problems here.

1) That living wage calculator seems somewhat dubious. I checked it for my area, and the results were not reliable. It said the living wage was about $7.30 for my area for a single person. I knew that couldn't be the case so I looked harder. The "living wage" was insufficient to cover the costs of the estimated expenses. Not only that, but those estimated expenses were somewhat underestimates. Mainly, housing was under shot by at least $100 a month. The estimate offered might be reasonable for a single person's contribution where two people are contributing to a two bedroom place, but that's about it. On top of all that, from what I could tell, the alleged "living wage" seems to be a bare minimum to pay all expenses and then have two pennies to rub together afterward. It doesn't afford any ability to save even $10 a month toward retirement, no clothing expense allotment, no room in the budget to change your tires or get a new car battery. End result, this calculator seems problematic to say the least.

2) What constitutes a "living" wage must take into account one's dependent status, otherwise it's useless. A single person can live off much less than a single parent (it doesn't matter why s/he is single) or a family with only one working parent.

I checked my area and it was not that far off. look i am a hard line conservative, but this is one area I have a real issue with and am not sure the Dems can get a free pass here either as they had the power to make this happen 09-2010
Australia has a 15.00 an hour minimum wage, why cant we? yes the price of goods would go up, but there making it happen in Australia some how
I really would like to see a study on this. I know what it would do to my business, but it would do the same to all that I compete with
Next question, does the welfare queen get the same raise?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sigh.

A 'living wage' for somebody living at home with the parents or renting a room near his/her place of work is far less than somebody who wants to live in a nice house in the Hamptons or San Francisco or Mission Hills KC. A tour of some of the poorest areas of Appalachia find families living in small but heated homes with electricity and most have indoor plumbing. Incomes are tiny but most of the people own their modest homes, grow and butcher their own food, and are by no means starving or going without basic necessities.

A 'living wage' provides food, clothing, a roof over one's head, and other basic necessities however that is achieved. Anything more than that is asking for more than a living wage.

There are some who see a 'living wage' as an unalienable right no matter who must give up their rightfully and honorably owned property to provide that to others. There are some who see a system in which all can expect to EARN a living wage and however much more will make them happy as what the Founders intended.

I agree with whoever up there said the minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage. It was intended to ensure that apprentice programs were not abused and to give an opportunity to entry level workers to acquire marketable skills, develop a work ethic, and acquire references. Those who do not progress beyond that simply do not want to or have failed to achieve what the minimum wage was supposed to provide for them.

 

[pinqy]

Children under 18 are NOT the majority of workers making minimum wage.... working mothers and senior citizens is where the majority lies.

Since 16-19 year olds make up only 5.5% of hourly employees, they could hardly be the majority of anything. However, while only 5.5% of hourly employees are 16-19, they make up 22.8% of those who make minimum wage or less.

On the other hand, those over 65 make up only 3.8% of those who make minimum wage or less. Kind of odd that you have them as part of the majority, then.

And as for "working mothers," 42.6% of women making min wage or less are never married 16-24 year olds. I'm not going to look up the single mother rates for those ages, but I'm quite sure it's not the majority.

So your claim is proven false.

The majority of people who make min wage or less are never married 16-24 year olds (45.4%) and married, spouse present, over 25 (21.9% mostly women).

So most min wage workers are either young people without families or spouses. We can assume that many, probably most, of the "married spouse present" are secondary earners and are unlikely to be sole bread-winner at min wage.

Source: BLS: Characteristics of minimum wage workers 2010

 

[kwc57]

But.....we already live in a society where education is free

Hot damn, someone tell my school! I'm going back to school to try to finish my nursing degree. They sure want an awful lot of money for free education.

and anyone with an idea and an ounce of gumption can start their own business and keep as much as they want.

So, I'm sure you're doing this, right? Also, how is a society supposed to function if everyone is running their own business? Who's going to be the employees?



You seem to romanticize the rich. Do you really think that this is how Paris Hilton makes $10 million a year? You think she did any of this? The only thing she "sunk" into anything was her name that she's sold to the labels of other people's products, and then turned around and bought those product lines. Oh wait, that's not the only thing she's "sunk" but I guess that's not really our business.

Their wage is fair compensation for their time.

Says who? There's a difference between "fair" and "as little as we can get away with giving you, regardless of whether it is sufficient."

No one forces them to accept the job. They are free to look elsewhere or start their own business.

So you're alternative is that people should just wait around and stay unemployed until companies decide they're willing to pay their employees better?

Let me ask you something, how is a person supposed to start their own business without a product, or without the knowledge of how to run a business? How are they supposed to get the education for those things without money? Oh yeah, you're under the crazy idea that all the requisite education is free for the taking.

See you just got some free education, as I think you are beginning to catch on. Life isn't "fair". I've always loved music and would love to be a singer, but I can't carry a tune in a bucket. So, I listen to music that other people make. Some people are good at being creative and/or business. Some of those folks never finished high school and built big businesses and wealth. Did I chose that route? No, but I did get a college education and entered a profession and do nicely, as does my wife. We made the right choices. We made good choices. Even though we do nicely, we don't bitch about those who have more than us by the choices they made and the risk and work they put into building their wealth. I appreciate them because they can hire me and pay me what I'm worth based on the choices I made. Anyone can have a decent life, whether they build a business or decide to just be an employee. As far as free education, I was speaking of the basics, the foundation, the mandatory education our tax dollars provide. You can be successful with just a public education. Now, for those kids whose parents don't make much money, they can get a free higher education too. But again, it comes down to choices. In Oklahoma where I live, if a kids parents make less than $50k per year during their 8th grade year, they can register their child in a state program called Oklahoma's Promise. Feel free to Google it. There are certain high school classes they are required to take, but they only have to maintain a 2.5 GPA in order to qualify for tuition and fees to be totally paid at one of the many state colleges and universities. Now, if you decide to piss that away at 18 because you want to lay out a few years and play video games, drink beer and make some sweet coin at a burger shake, well that is your choice and you'll end up paying for it when you are 30 and working minimum wage and being envious of all those unfair fatcats with more money than they can ever spend. No, life isn't fair, but it is all about choices. You can build a business or get an education in a field that pays well or you can NOT. Nobody owes you anything. They will pay you however a wage or salary commiserate with your skill, experience and ability. The more you have, the more you'll make.

 

[Foxfyre]

Children under 18 are NOT the majority of workers making minimum wage.... working mothers and senior citizens is where the majority lies.

Since 16-19 year olds make up only 5.5% of hourly employees, they could hardly be the majority of anything. However, while only 5.5% of hourly employees are 16-19, they make up 22.8% of those who make minimum wage or less.

On the other hand, those over 65 make up only 3.8% of those who make minimum wage or less. Kind of odd that you have them as part of the majority, then.

And as for "working mothers," 42.6% of women making min wage or less are never married 16-24 year olds. I'm not going to look up the single mother rates for those ages, but I'm quite sure it's not the majority.

So your claim is proven false.

The majority of people who make min wage or less are never married 16-24 year olds (45.4%) and married, spouse present, over 25 (21.9% mostly women).

So most min wage workers are either young people without families or spouses. We can assume that many, probably most, of the "married spouse present" are secondary earners and are unlikely to be sole bread-winner at min wage.

Source: BLS: Characteristics of minimum wage workers 2010

Good research friend. Further, if you start fine tuning the statistics you find a lot of people like me who married a guy who got transferred a lot. As I was the primary caregiver to our children, we mutually agreed that we would focus on him being the primary bread winner and therefore he would be the one to accept transfers, etc. as we moved up the corporate ladder. That meant that many, many times I have 'started over' at an entry level minimum wage job or near minimum wage. I don't believe I have ever stayed at minimum wage, however, for more than 60 days as I make it a point to make myself valuable to my employers and merit more pay and responsibility in a hurry. That has allowed me to achieve a good wage--sometimes actually exceeding my husbands--more than once and now and then takes me back to the top of my field.

However, all those 'starting over' points would have included me in the minimum wage category at that particular time. I am guessing very very few people who start at minimum wage stay there for very long which was the intention from the beginning.

Excessively raise the minimum wage above the bare training/apprentice level, however, and you will shut more and more entry level positions out of the equation which is already happening to many of our young people, most especially black youth. Another instance of good intentions producing unintended bad consequences.

 

[JRK]

Children under 18 are NOT the majority of workers making minimum wage.... working mothers and senior citizens is where the majority lies.

Since 16-19 year olds make up only 5.5% of hourly employees, they could hardly be the majority of anything. However, while only 5.5% of hourly employees are 16-19, they make up 22.8% of those who make minimum wage or less.

On the other hand, those over 65 make up only 3.8% of those who make minimum wage or less. Kind of odd that you have them as part of the majority, then.

And as for "working mothers," 42.6% of women making min wage or less are never married 16-24 year olds. I'm not going to look up the single mother rates for those ages, but I'm quite sure it's not the majority.

So your claim is proven false.

The majority of people who make min wage or less are never married 16-24 year olds (45.4%) and married, spouse present, over 25 (21.9% mostly women).

So most min wage workers are either young people without families or spouses. We can assume that many, probably most, of the "married spouse present" are secondary earners and are unlikely to be sole bread-winner at min wage.

Source: BLS: Characteristics of minimum wage workers 2010

If your a single mother and your working a job @ minimum wage God i hope it will get better
That is not even a life and i am sure well fare, medicate, medicare etc... are all over that

 

[Kuros]

So if Walmart paid their employees more money it would go from being Walmart prices to being Barney's 5th ave prices?

You know how dumb that sounds? The free market wouldnt have that and would just shop elsewhere, which is the incentive for Walmart to keep their prices low

Maybe, what we need is a society where more money is used to pay people at the bottom of the pyramid, and less at the top of the pyramid. Then, prices don't have to rise after all.

But.....we already live in a society where education is free and anyone with an idea and an ounce of gumption can start their own business and keep as much as they want.

Wait. But I was told government regulations and health care and high taxes were stifling job creation.