Minimum Wage hike, you for it?

wae wrote:

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.

Wouldn't this actually be an argument in favor of increasing the minimum wage? They are on food stamps because they do not earn enough money to cover expenses otherwise.

If you were to raise the minimum wage enough to keep them above the poverty line, it would then be reasonable to say they no longer need that SNAP card because they are earning enough to live on. That would make them responsible for managing their own budget. It actually puts the responsibility to balance food and cig expenses on them rather than the government dictating what their monthly food budget will be.

As a society we have pretty much already decided that our nation is wealthy enough that we do not want people to just starve to death even if they are lazy and want to contribute to society as little as possible. Once we have decided that, the question is then how best to cover the basic needs for these people to subsist on.

I think a minimum wage is one of the better tools for providing basic needs than to indirectly fund them through tax revenue funneled through bureaucracy.

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

Eh; "The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees. "

That sounds like a living wage to me.

source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minimum_wage

Datsun1500 wrote: They create jobs. They create opportunity.

Incorrect. They provide jobs. A healthy market and demand for products and services creates jobs.

Jobs are not created when companies make more money. Jobs are created when a company needs additional labor to supply demand and they will be able to make more money by enlarging their work force.

pres589 wrote:

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

Eh; "The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees. " That sounds like a living wage to me. source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minimum_wage

shame I can only plus-juan this once

Also I never did say it should be a living wage, it should be adjusted for cost of living increases and inflation.

No. Because the cost of goods and services will go up proportionally. Unfortunately, my income will not double (or go up at all) like the people making minimum wage in my area. My buying power will decrease substantially.

We area single income family, my share of benefits increases $300 in Jan. I earn a good wage, but there is only so much cash to go around.

I grew up as poor as almost anyone you'll meet in the US. I didn't want to live that way. I learned a trade (IT) and moved out of my rural Kentucky area to Texas to find work. Where there is a will, there is a way.

I would not use Walmart as anything but as a way to show how -not- to do business in a neighborhood friendly way. They have done more to destroy small business in America than the number of jobs they may or may not have created.

They are also well known for keeping their employees just below full time status, so even if they make a decent hourly wage, they never quite make enough to get above the absolute poverty line.

And for 1st hand experience. When I lived in Pa, my next door neighbor was an assistant manager at a walmart. She made good money and did a good job. They brought in a new girl on the premise of "we are opening a new store and want you to train her". They were opening a new store nearby, so it seemed ok. She trained the new girl and as soon as she was done, found herself out of a job (position was eliminated) and the girl she had trained took over under a new position that paid less... much less.

McDonalds at least is known as a stepping stone to bigger and better things. They encourage their workers who actually work to get training and to move up the food chain. Flipping burgers is just one of the steps towards a well paying job as a manager

Costco has already proven that it can play the Walton game and beat them at it while having happier employees and communities.

m4ff3w wrote: No. Because the cost of goods and services will go up proportionally. Unfortunately, my income will not double (or go up at all) like the people making minimum wage in my area. My buying power will decrease substantially.

The cost of goods and services has already gone up. Have you received cost of living raises at work or has your pay stagnated?

Let's suppose for a moment that there are people working minimum wage because they are lazy and just don't care. They want to do the minimum they can. They are complacent and nothing you can do will ever motivate them to try to improve their station in life.

If our society has the wealth to provide enough funding for these people to subsist, should it find a way to do so, or should it allow people to just die from starvation and lack of medical care? If we decide that people should have a minimum living standard, what is the best way to provide that?

Beer Baron wrote:

m4ff3w wrote: No. Because the cost of goods and services will go up proportionally. Unfortunately, my income will not double (or go up at all) like the people making minimum wage in my area. My buying power will decrease substantially.

The cost of goods and services has already gone up. Have you received cost of living raises at work or has your pay stagnated?

I have not received any cost of living adjustments, I have increased my wage by learning new skills and taking on more responsibilities.

Cost of goods and services haven't yet gone up nearly what they will when the clost to 10% of the workforce sees their income double or nearly double.

I would vote for a minimum wage increase, say 50%, if we completely eliminated welfare. Make them earn it.

Beer Baron wrote: If our society has the wealth to provide enough funding for these people to subsist, should it find a way to do so, or should it allow people to just die from starvation and lack of medical care? If we decide that people should have a minimum living standard, what is the best way to provide that?

I think we already had some posters state their opinions of "social Darwinism."

gofastbobby wrote: I would vote for a minimum wage increase, say 50%, if we completely eliminated welfare. Make them earn it.

Welfare is actually quite a few different programs, some helps kids, some help seniors, some help disabled folks, some help unemployed folks.

I would agree that I'd rather see an economy where even the lowest paying job pays really damn well and nobody needs government help, but capitalism kinda prevent this when the guy at the top (or shareholders) decides he wants all the riches.

Oh no...I'm going down that path again...

Assuming the welfare system exists and isn't going anywhere...

For me it comes down to having to subsidize those who are not working alongside those who are working but unable to sustain themselves using the same welfare program or subsidizing people who work differently.

Since doing it differently removes some people from the welfare till and isn't a "program" that requires yet another giant government oversight committee (already exists)... maybe it's cheaper for the tax payer to just pay the damn wage but the whole thing is done poorly as it stands so... My answer is really irrelevant. It's just shuffling the deck.

I've said it before, but I feel like its easier to motivate a poor person to work for good money than it is to motivate a rich dude to pay a bunch of poor dudes money to do jobs he considers worthless.

m4ff3w wrote: I have not received any cost of living adjustments, I have increased my wage by learning new skills and taking on more responsibilities. Cost of goods and services haven't yet gone up nearly what they will when the clost to 10% of the workforce sees their income double or nearly double.

So your pay has gone up. Has your pay gone up at the same rate or greater than inflation?

No matter what people put on poster boards, minimum wage is not going to double. The highest semi-reasonable number proposed is $10.10, a 39% wage increase for some part of the population. Looking at historical trends, a bump to $8.00-$9.00 is more likely. Roughly a 10%-15% increase.

Even if that increases the cost of goods, will it necessarily hurt the average middle-class purchasing power? It would also increase the amount of money that is moving around local economies, increasing demand for goods and services as more people are able to afford them.

In reply to PHeller:

The trouble with our welfare system is it has turned in to a safety net for people who don't want to work.

People need to opportunity to fail, just as much as the opportunity to succeed.

The danger is that in people failing, they become more reliant on the system, more costly, and in some cases they become chronically reliant on the system.

You want people to know (and get addicted to) success. There are lots of people in our country who have never known a long-term full time job with a good salary, so they think they'll never have an opportunity to do.

One last post, then Im out. Im having a hard time reading this thread and then remembering I came here because we like cars.

I dont know whats so hard to grasp. If you want more money, you have a few avenues, all of which are under your control...

If you work harder than the guy next to you, you should be compensated as such. Work harder = paid better (in general).

If you find that the extra effort isnt getting you anywhere with your particular employer, (so long as youre not contracted to work for them) no one is forcing you to stay at that job. You may have circumstances like geography and such working against you. Finding a way to work around them, and succeed, is your responsibility. Continuing to work for the same guy in the same place is your decision. The results that come from that decision therefore are your burden.

Finding a new job is ALWAYS an option. They are out there. Maybe you have to take a step down to get in the door. Maybe not. but the jobs exist. Jobs that pay better than minimum wage. Jobs that can offer a path to success. They are there. They will not fall magically from the heavens like Manna in the desert. At times, they may take diligence and persistence to find.

I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY SO FEW ARE WILLING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEMSELVES. I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY SO MANY FEEL THEIR LIVELIHOOD IS SOMEONE ELSE'S RESPONSIBILITY.

4CF, out

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.

Then stop shopping at Wal-Mart with the proletariat.

I never see such things at Whole Foods.

Datsun1500 wrote: A poor person that is motivated will develop the skills and/or work ethic to get a better job. Any poor person can find a way to work for good money. Raising the minimum wage is not motivating them, they will not suddenly work harder. Most people are not putting in less effort because they make minimum wage, they make minimum wage because they put in less effort.

Okay. So what?

If these people are not motivated and will not be motivated should we: let them die of starvation and exposure? Provide tax-funded subsidies (welfare) to keep them to provide basic quality of life? or pay them just enough to stay above the poverty line?

In reply to PHeller:

NO. Failure is you or your family going hungry because you have chosen to not work. Welfare has taken away the ability for people to fail.

Please understand me, we think differently. I respect your opinion that people should know success, in a perfect world I would agree with you.

Beer Baron wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: A poor person that is motivated will develop the skills and/or work ethic to get a better job. Any poor person can find a way to work for good money. Raising the minimum wage is not motivating them, they will not suddenly work harder. Most people are not putting in less effort because they make minimum wage, they make minimum wage because they put in less effort.

Okay. So what? If these people are not motivated and will not be motivated should we: let them die of starvation and exposure? Provide tax-funded subsidies (welfare) to keep them to provide basic quality of life? or pay them just enough to stay above the poverty line?

What would have happened to them 100 years ago?

How does a kid out of highschool, from a poor urban family that lives mostly on government assistance, make enough money to move out on his own when the nearest factory job is an hours subway or bus ride away and still only pays $10/hr? Hell, the nearest grocery is probably 25 minutes away.

He's got no experience working in a factory, he's got little work experience, and he can't just up and move because he's got no money.

Even if he's a good kid who's stayed out of trouble, do you really expect him to get the job over someone twice his age with prior experience and a car of their own?

Bobzilla wrote: What would have happened to them 100 years ago?

Why does that matter? Our society has changed in the past 100 years.