Minimum Wage hike, you for it?

Bobzilla wrote: It's the sign of the uneducated and the emotional. We're evil evil people because we want people to still have to work for things in life. SHAME on us.

No, it's the sign of a difference of opinion.

PHeller wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: It's the sign of the uneducated and the emotional. We're evil evil people because we want people to still have to work for things in life. SHAME on us.

No, it's the sign of a difference of opinion.

A difference of opinion is fine. Accusing someone of hating poor people/children because they opinion is different than yours is not.

4Cylnd wasn't quoting anyone in this thread.

No one in this thread was saying anyone in this thread was evil. There has been no name calling at all, for the most part.

I think everyone is just sharing life experiences that influence their opinion. Several us make well above minimum wage and well above the proposed minimum wage and we still believe it should be raised, several us do not make a lot of money and believe the minimum wage should stand as it is.

The problem with many of these threads is that the a few posters tend to take things personally. Don't we have another thread about how we need to man up and deal with things? For the sake of keeping the discussion open, we should try attacking the issue, not those with opinions about it.

Toyman01 wrote: There are a few on here that get it. They won't be poor, no matter how much money they make. There are a few that don't, and can't stand someone being better than they are. They got a few too many participation awards when they were kids. They wouldn't be happy as millionaires. Someone would always have something or do something they didn't like. They will always cry out for more laws and more limits on freedom.

That is a demeaning statement to many many people and simple not true. I'm one of the strongest supporters on here of the minimum wage. I've never earned minimum wage in my life, I'm not complaining that I'm underpaid or that my CEO is over paid. My first job out of collage in 1990 in the UK I earned more than the minimum wage here now, not inflation adjusted, that doesn't mean I think the minimum wage here is too low and should be higher, probably moved to around $10/hr in today's economics, maybe more in some city areas, but that is up to individual local governments.

nocones wrote: My thoughts are that it should be set at a value at some date in time and then be indexed against the median wage. If the Median wage is stagnant minimum wage is stagnant, if the Median wage rises by 5% it should rise by 5%. I think it is more appropriate to index to Median wage for the concerns most here are pointing out. If the "rest of us" are on average not getting income adjustments sufficient to keep up with inflation why should the floor? If the rest of us on average are increasing our earning then the Floor should raise a similar amount.

I like this idea a lot, it's the best solution so far.

All I know is that stuff is seriously expensive, and people need to eat. $16,000 pre-tax per year is not a lot of money to live on the in the US. I think the poverty rate is like double that.

In reply to pinchvalve:

Then they need to stop spending their money on smart phones and their food stamps on lobster. Seriously, I see this EVERY time I'm at the grocery store. I don't feel sorry for them. Good people that are determined eventually find their way to a better life. Those that want to feed off the rest of us will do that the rest of their lives. It's just the way it is.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to pinchvalve: Then they need to stop spending their money on smart phones and their food stamps on lobster. Seriously, I see this EVERY time I'm at the grocery store. I don't feel sorry for them. Good people that are determined eventually find their way to a better life. Those that want to feed off the rest of us will do that the rest of their lives. It's just the way it is.

On a similar note, I get in line behind the people that are buying their name-brand groceries with my money on the SNAP EBT card and then run a second order through for $60-$80 of cash for smokes and beer. Meanwhile, I'm buying Kroger-brand everything and forgoing ribeyes for pot roast or whatever else is on sale so I can stay in my budget, put my kids through school, pay my bills, and afford to put something away for retirement.

PHeller wrote: What I don't get is why we, the 99% advocates not ourselves, but instead for the preservation of 1%. The chances of any of us ever becoming millionaires is pretty damn insignificant compared to the chances of us needing a good paying second job, or a good paying first job, or a government service to help us get back on our feet. I would much sooner pass up things I don't need like fast food or fancy color schemes at the grocery store for the assurance that if I ever need a job at one of those places I'd get paid decently. By saying "people shouldn't get paid $15/hr to flip burgers" your essentially saying "people shouldn't get paid $15 million to bounce a ball." There are certainly a lot more burger flippers out there than professional basketball players.

Hold on a second. The 99% doesn't get paid minimum wage.

3% does. If you aren't getting paid minimum wage, then you aren't advocating yourself by supporting a $15/hr minimum wage anyways.

This is a "know your place" type deal. You can't lump everyone into the 99% in a discussion that's really about a much much much smaller number.

Something that continues to amuse me in this thread; everyone seems to treat this like something that would affect only those currently being paid at the minimum wage, and not those above. There's a lot of people not making minimum wage that are still under $15/hour currently.

This would have big changes in the pay that a lot of people see currently.

And I really haven't seen a convincing argument, in this thread, for not raising it. I've seen a lot of "stuff will cost more!" but not a lot of research into how much. And if the 3% concept was to be believed, the change would be tiny, right? The prevailing attitude seems to be "a long time ago I got paid minimum wage and I worked hard and go somewhere and now the kids are buying the damned smart phones and they need to get off my lawn".

You know, a long time ago, when we didn't have discussions about how great it is to buy cheap imported junk at Harbor Freight and there were a lot more manufacturing and other jobs that don't exist in near the numbers they do today. When unions were still valued instead of derided (remember that time I talked about the media?) and you could get all kinds of work on a highschool diploma and now you have college grads flipping burgers at... the minimum wage.

In reply to Datsun1500:

What if people in the community where Company X is now have a lot more money in their wallets to buy the goods and services provided by Company X?

Someone earlier said that this was really a reaction to inflation and reduced consumer buying power, and I think that makes sense.

In reply to Swank Force One:

I'm guilty of going all off topic on a rant about income disparity. I admit it.

PHeller wrote: In reply to Swank Force One: I'm guilty of going all off topic on a rant about income disparity. I admit it.

You? NO.

If raising the minimum wage resulted in doubling the price of fast food I'd support it on that alone.

gay slur

Datsun1500 wrote: Minimum wage is now raised to $10 so the 2 new guys will make $10. Will the guys that worked for over a year to get to $10, be OK with the guy walking in the door making the same? Assume you now have to raise everyone up the $2 just to keep the same ratio for the guys that have been there for awhile. Payroll now becomes $5760 a week, a $1600 increase, or $80K a year. Where is that $80K going to magically come from?

It's only an increase of $800/week. $2/Hr-Person * 10 person * 40hr/wk = $800. I wasn't sure if you were suggesting Hireing 2 new people @ 10/hr in addition to adding $2/hr to each existing employee. If that's the case you would indeed be adding $1600/wk to payroll however you would be paying 12 total workers.

Why wouldn't you be Ok with it? If your annual merit increases were only such that they kept up with inflation you have not actually shown an increase in value to the company. You are essentially making the same rate as you did when you started adjusted for inflation. You are still working at the "entry level" position.

Let me give a real example. A person was employed as a Mechanical engineer straight out of college. The starting salary was 48,000. 5 years later they were making 55,000 essentially keeping pace with inflation. At this time an additional engineer was needed and they to where hired straight out of school. Their starting salary was 55,000. This happens EVERYDAY. Base pay for salaried positions adjusts over time in response to inflation. New employees are hired at the same pay rate as anyone who has not received an actual raise but have simply kept pace with inflation. Having Minimum wage ape this behavior is what I am in support of. If you have gained wage based on your performance you will outpace inflation and someone starting at a wage that matches inflation will not be making "more" than you did when you started.

mazdeuce wrote: Our government stepped in and unionization happened.

Sorry chief. The government didn't unionize anyone. The government actively fought unionization to the point of using the National Guard to massacre women and children in a tent city to avoid unionization of a workforce of miners. It was the common worker who unionized the nation and created a counter force to Corporations taking advantage of workers in various ways. Ludlow Massacre

If you want to learn more about this please read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. You could also read Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen . Lies is an easier read and potentially more entertaining.

Datsun1500 wrote: I grew up poor. I didn't like being poor. I worked at McDonalds as a high school job. I did jobs I didn't like, and worked hard, because I didn't like being poor. I took chances, while my brother made excuses. I took risks while raising my family, because I didn't like being poor. I am no longer poor, my brother still is. People now say I should feel bad for those people that can't do better. Why should I? No one felt bad for me when I was poor.

The risks you took..if they had turned out differently you would now be in the same predicament as the people you evidently aren't generous enough to assist. You were helped many times over in your life to get where you are whether admit it or not. I hope you repay the favor in the future and help others along the way.

Datsun1500 wrote: Who owes you a job? Walmart would need to raise the wages IF people didn't take the jobs, Walmart is not setting the rate, the market is. If I can put out a job offer for $8 an hour and find someone willing to do it for $8, it's not my responsibility to pay $10 an hour

People take the jobs because they have no other option. Therefore Wal-mart does set the market for the pay scale as competition is very low at this point and time. Wal-mart also relies in you, as the tax payer, to subsidize those low wages with assistance programs since Wal-mart doesn't pay enough for a worker to live on. Even a 40+ hr a week worker who works as hard as you do and spends just as wisely.

Just because someone is poor doesn't mean the deserve your scorn or to be looked down upon. For the most part they are working just as hard as you and have struggled. To say that all of them has earned their way to being destitute is willful blindness on your part.

Then they need to stop spending their money on smart phones and their food stamps on lobster. Seriously, I see this EVERY time I'm at the grocery store. I don't feel sorry for them. Good people that are determined eventually find their way to a better life. Those that want to feed off the rest of us will do that the rest of their lives. It's just the way it is.

On a similar note, I get in line behind the people that are buying their name-brand groceries with my money on the SNAP EBT card and then run a second order through for $60-$80 of cash for smokes and beer. Meanwhile, I'm buying Kroger-brand everything and forgoing ribeyes for pot roast or whatever else is on sale so I can stay in my budget, put my kids through school, pay my bills, and afford to put something away for retirement.

So because you saw a few folks committing what looked like fraud to you we should cancel the programs? Let's get some real data instead of "I once saw a guy buy a whole cow with a WIC card!"

Also, report that $hit. There are easy ways to do it. Google 'report wic fraud ' That way you can stop jack jawing and do something about it.

Here's the data. A great article from The Guardian on the issue.

Looking for fraud? Don't look at food stamp recipients, look at Wall Street

You should read the whole thing as it talks about how Wall St. is committing fraud on a much grander scale, and to more damage, than any welfare recipient. But hey, that would mean you'd have to stop worshiping the rich and actually care about the poor. Tall order I'm sure. But...I digress.

The part you'll like, or not, is where they have a link to facts about the SNAP program. That link is here.

Basically, food stamps keep about 47 million people fed, legally and efficiently. A tiny amount of fraud, estimated to be only 1.5% of the system. There! Your fears are all for nothing! 1.5% of fraud. See. It's not nearly as bad as you think. I'm sure you feel better.

Next question, we all know fraud occurs. Why are you only concerned with the poor and not Wall St. or the Pentagon? Let us consider that the federal government spends double on defense than it spends on any assistance programs. That's a pretty fat cow we could surely cut some fat from. Link to data.

They waste much more than any poor person or army of poor people could. I'm sure you're hot to end fed government welfare subsidies to Exxon - the most profitable company in the world. Hell, I'm sure the executives of Exxon eat steak just about every night. They might even heat their mansions with steaks for all we know. They get government checks. All paid for by you and me.

Let's talk about the elephantine budgets at the Pentagon - F35 strike fighter, that have wasted trillions. Link to data. But no...I see the same people ranting about the demonic poor without a word of criticism for rich or the military.

BACK ON TOPIC

I'm for a minimum wage increase. I think it would help all corp's since then people would have more money to spend on their products. With corp profits at all time highs (US Corporate Profits at All-Time High as GDP Growth Holds at 2.5 Percent) I think they can afford it. The Waltons, who own Wal-mart, might then have the same amount of wealth as only the bottom 25% of Americans instead the bottom 30%. Six Waltons Have More Wealth Than the Bottom 30% of Americans

Also keep in mind this country is the strongest when the middle class is at it's strongest and most secure. Reference the 50's - 60's. Doing anything to strengthen the middle class even to the detriment of the rich and corporate (GASP!) is good for the nation.

Your argument would be a lot more effective if it wasn't couched with insults.

Maybe that should be said to those who insult the poor as if it was a defeciency on their part that led them to being poor and staying poor.

fritzsch wrote: Maybe that should be said to those who insult the poor as if it was a defeciency on their part that led them to being poor and staying poor.

Who?

I felt it was implied in some of the comments that I have read on here. When someone says they were able to pull themselves up through hard work, dedication, and others should do the same, it implies that those who remain poor do not work just as hard, or don't take risks. I agree that hard work and focus are very important but there is also more to it than just that. And some of the comments about food stamps, which I've never really understood how people can tell since it is a card and I am not looking over someone's shoulder when at the grocery store..., at least give off the impression that the commenter feels the majority are cheating the system or spending it stupidly.

I think the minimum wage should be adjusted for cost of living and inflation. And since it hasn't been and has decreased in real value, it should be bumped up a bit.

Quite simply put, I do an honest amount of work for an honest wage......I currently make just under this supposed $15/hr cap, but I can tell you that the work I do is easily 2-3x more difficult/complex than your ordinary fast food worker. I should know because I have been in their shoes.

I do echo datsun's advice though, if you're not happy, do something about it. Otherwise you will remain unhappy.

In reply to fritzsch:

Minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.

Datsun1500 wrote: That is only true if the clients are members of that community and need the products. Assume it's a local sign shop that now has to find an additional $80,000 in revenue to cover the increase, most sign shops don't sell much to the public. What if it is a service company (landscaping, cleaning,etc. that has no products?) People will have more money to buy stuff, however the stuff will be more expensive to cover the wage increase, so you are back to zero

The standard number of work hours in a year is a bit over 2,000. If a company were to raise the pay of all their employees by $2/hour that would mean they have about 20 full-time employees.

That also assumes that a MW bump would be $2 and that all employees would get the same bump. As pointed out, many raises that people get are just cost of living increases. If the minimum wage gets bumped, that does not mean you have to increase pay for all workers by that amount. The guy who has done a mediocre job and gotten $0.30 raises every year does not deserve or need a $2 pay bump. He still comes out ahead because his mediocre performance has allowed him to earn a wage that has kept up with inflation rather than slowly losing purchasing power.

You also have it backwards. Stuff is already more expensive. That's what inflation is. Now that it is more expensive we are saying the time has come around again to bump up the pay on the lowest workers so that they can continue to afford to be part of the local economy. Minimum wage increases are not driving inflation. Inflation is driving the minimum wage increase.

That is how minimum wage has worked for a while. Inflation continues to increase the cost of things. The value of minimum wage steadily falls. It gets to a point where it is out of balance. The minimum wage gets bumped up to be back in balance with the economy. It is not adjusted every year like a normal cost of living increase. It gets bumped up about every 5 years or so. We are now at the point where it is low and is time to bump it up again.

The real question is not "should minimum wage get increased occasionally?" the real questions are, "Is minimum wage out of balance?" (Signs point to 'yes') and, "What is an appropriate bump to minimum wage to keep up with cost of living and inflation increases?"

DaveEstey wrote: In reply to fritzsch: Minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.

shame I can only plus-juan this once

DaveEstey wrote: Minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.

What something was meant to be does not necessarily dictate what it will become.