Posted by raucous on 4/30/2014 8:58:00 PM (view original):
45% increase since 2007 of min wage?  I wish I could have gotten 45% more in my paycheck since 2007.

The actual dollar amount matters, not just the percentage. If minimum wage was $2.00 in 2007 and we raised it to $8.00, that would be a 300% increase on top of the prior wage, but minimum wage earners would still be poor as ****.

Posted by examinerebb on 5/1/2014 2:06:00 AM (view original):

You're using its absolute peak value, a possible statistical outlier, to make that assertion.  Looking at this chart, the value of the minimum wage (in 2012 dollars) is as high as it's been in the last 30 years (save the 2010 spike).

That's the point. A dollar eighty (or whatever it was in 1970) was worth more then than $8.00 an hour today. The fact that minimum wages haven't kept pace with the rest of the economy is a problem.

The economy was much more insular then that it is now. You're comparing apples to oranges. With the current global economy, wouldn't wages have to be compared more globally now? If the answer is no, then how would we compete in a global economy?

I'll also make what has now somehow become an unpopular argument. You are not supposed to be able to support a family making minimum wage. I've made minimum wage twice in my life: my weekend job as a pin setter at the local bowling alley in high school, and as a waiter in college (where I also made tips). Minimum wage did for me exactly what it is supposed to do: it allowed me to pay the bills that someone just starting to strike out on their own would have. When I wanted more from my life and career, I learned a trade in an industry that paid better. This idea that you should be able to support a spouse and children while working a minimum wage job is silly. You're not supposed to make a career out of a minimum wage job.

Posted by examinerebb on 5/1/2014 1:28:00 PM (view original):
The economy was much more insular then that it is now. You're comparing apples to oranges. With the current global economy, wouldn't wages have to be compared more globally now? If the answer is no, then how would we compete in a global economy?

I'll also make what has now somehow become an unpopular argument. You are not supposed to be able to support a family making minimum wage. I've made minimum wage twice in my life: my weekend job as a pin setter at the local bowling alley in high school, and as a waiter in college (where I also made tips). Minimum wage did for me exactly what it is supposed to do: it allowed me to pay the bills that someone just starting to strike out on their own would have. When I wanted more from my life and career, I learned a trade in an industry that paid better. This idea that you should be able to support a spouse and children while working a minimum wage job is silly. You're not supposed to make a career out of a minimum wage job.

The answer is no. Wages, for the most part, aren't compared to the global economy (they aren't even always compared to the economy in other states or, in extreme cases like New York and San Francisco, other cities). How much does a computer programmer make in India? Far less than a computer programmer in California. Employees at the bottom of the pay scale in developing countries literally earn pennies a day. 

Maybe minimum wage isn't designed to support a family but some people are stuck doing just that. Do you know who's picking up the bill when people on minimum wage don't make enough to afford the basic necessities? We are. A minimum wage too low to survive on is essentially a giant wealth transfer from tax payers to companies that employ minimum wage workers. We pay for food stamps, welfare, EIC, subsidized daycare, subsidized health care, and countless other social safety nets so that companies like McDonalds and Walmart can keep their labor costs low and their profits high.

Posted by examinerebb on 5/1/2014 1:28:00 PM (view original):
The economy was much more insular then that it is now. You're comparing apples to oranges. With the current global economy, wouldn't wages have to be compared more globally now? If the answer is no, then how would we compete in a global economy?

I'll also make what has now somehow become an unpopular argument. You are not supposed to be able to support a family making minimum wage. I've made minimum wage twice in my life: my weekend job as a pin setter at the local bowling alley in high school, and as a waiter in college (where I also made tips). Minimum wage did for me exactly what it is supposed to do: it allowed me to pay the bills that someone just starting to strike out on their own would have. When I wanted more from my life and career, I learned a trade in an industry that paid better. This idea that you should be able to support a spouse and children while working a minimum wage job is silly. You're not supposed to make a career out of a minimum wage job.

I think a lot of people making more than minimum wage(2% of the workforce?) have trouble supporting a family on what they make.    And that's the Catch-22.   Let's lift up everyone who's having trouble(below the poverty level) by increasing minimum wage thereby moving the $8 an hour to $11 and the $11 to $14.50 and so on.  But you know what that does?   Raises the poverty level.    The Coburg dairy farm, paying 50 people $8 an hour to muck stalls but now being forced to pay them $11, isn't going to eat that cost.  They're going to raise the price of milk.  The CEO of Best Buy, realizing his dollar isn't going as far because milk products are so damn expensive, is going to raise the price of electronics.  And so on down the line.

Some people are always going to struggle to make ends meet because the people setting the prices aren't cutting into their bottom line so MinimumWageJoe can have an iPhone.

Please stop trying to explain economics. You think the federal government can reduce its deficit by selling more treasury bonds.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/1/2014 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 5/1/2014 1:28:00 PM (view original):
The economy was much more insular then that it is now. You're comparing apples to oranges. With the current global economy, wouldn't wages have to be compared more globally now? If the answer is no, then how would we compete in a global economy?

I'll also make what has now somehow become an unpopular argument. You are not supposed to be able to support a family making minimum wage. I've made minimum wage twice in my life: my weekend job as a pin setter at the local bowling alley in high school, and as a waiter in college (where I also made tips). Minimum wage did for me exactly what it is supposed to do: it allowed me to pay the bills that someone just starting to strike out on their own would have. When I wanted more from my life and career, I learned a trade in an industry that paid better. This idea that you should be able to support a spouse and children while working a minimum wage job is silly. You're not supposed to make a career out of a minimum wage job.

The answer is no. Wages, for the most part, aren't compared to the global economy (they aren't even always compared to the economy in other states or, in extreme cases like New York and San Francisco, other cities). How much does a computer programmer make in India? Far less than a computer programmer in California. Employees at the bottom of the pay scale in developing countries literally earn pennies a day. 

Maybe minimum wage isn't designed to support a family but some people are stuck doing just that. Do you know who's picking up the bill when people on minimum wage don't make enough to afford the basic necessities? We are. A minimum wage too low to survive on is essentially a giant wealth transfer from tax payers to companies that employ minimum wage workers. We pay for food stamps, welfare, EIC, subsidized daycare, subsidized health care, and countless other social safety nets so that companies like McDonalds and Walmart can keep their labor costs low and their profits high.

I thing you're missing e-ebb's point.  Many of the non "traditional brick and mortar" businesses are being manned by offshore resources.  How much an employers has to pay to domestic resources compared to how much he has to pay to offshore resources cannot be ignored.  Forcing employers to have to pay higher wages to domestic/local resources may actually dissuade them from staying local, and instead ship their work offshore.  Which in turn exacerbates the problem.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/1/2014 4:18:00 PM (view original):
Please stop trying to explain economics. You think the federal government can reduce its deficit by selling more treasury bonds.

Rather than dismissing his comments out of hand, maybe you can respond to his post and tell him why he's wrong (if you, in fact, thing he is wrong).

That's kind of how dialog/debate works.

He can't.  He's a dumbass.   Which is why he's blocked.   Well, that and when he realizes he can't win a point, he starts with "You're stupid".    Pretty much how every exchange with him ends up.

"How dumb are you?"
"Not as dumb as you!!"
"Are too!!!"

It's pointless.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/1/2014 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/1/2014 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 5/1/2014 1:28:00 PM (view original):
The economy was much more insular then that it is now. You're comparing apples to oranges. With the current global economy, wouldn't wages have to be compared more globally now? If the answer is no, then how would we compete in a global economy?

I'll also make what has now somehow become an unpopular argument. You are not supposed to be able to support a family making minimum wage. I've made minimum wage twice in my life: my weekend job as a pin setter at the local bowling alley in high school, and as a waiter in college (where I also made tips). Minimum wage did for me exactly what it is supposed to do: it allowed me to pay the bills that someone just starting to strike out on their own would have. When I wanted more from my life and career, I learned a trade in an industry that paid better. This idea that you should be able to support a spouse and children while working a minimum wage job is silly. You're not supposed to make a career out of a minimum wage job.

The answer is no. Wages, for the most part, aren't compared to the global economy (they aren't even always compared to the economy in other states or, in extreme cases like New York and San Francisco, other cities). How much does a computer programmer make in India? Far less than a computer programmer in California. Employees at the bottom of the pay scale in developing countries literally earn pennies a day. 

Maybe minimum wage isn't designed to support a family but some people are stuck doing just that. Do you know who's picking up the bill when people on minimum wage don't make enough to afford the basic necessities? We are. A minimum wage too low to survive on is essentially a giant wealth transfer from tax payers to companies that employ minimum wage workers. We pay for food stamps, welfare, EIC, subsidized daycare, subsidized health care, and countless other social safety nets so that companies like McDonalds and Walmart can keep their labor costs low and their profits high.

I thing you're missing e-ebb's point.  Many of the non "traditional brick and mortar" businesses are being manned by offshore resources.  How much an employers has to pay to domestic resources compared to how much he has to pay to offshore resources cannot be ignored.  Forcing employers to have to pay higher wages to domestic/local resources may actually dissuade them from staying local, and instead ship their work offshore.  Which in turn exacerbates the problem.

Jobs that require only minimum wage level employees that can be outsourced have already been outsourced. Almost all minimum wage jobs in the US are retail/food service and manual labor. Jobs that can't be outsourced.

It doesn't matter how much a company in Bangladesh pays its employees to make a cheeseburger, that restaurant isn't competing with the McDonalds in Boston. The Walmart in Cleveland can't outsource Tshirt folding and shelf stocking. Both companies may come up with a way to automate jobs away (self checkout kiosks, etc.), but they are already looking to do that and will when it makes business sense, whether or not the minimum wage is $7.50 or $10 an hour.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/1/2014 5:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/1/2014 4:18:00 PM (view original):
Please stop trying to explain economics. You think the federal government can reduce its deficit by selling more treasury bonds.

Rather than dismissing his comments out of hand, maybe you can respond to his post and tell him why he's wrong (if you, in fact, thing he is wrong).

That's kind of how dialog/debate works.

Mike blocked me. Why would I take the time to address his dumbass arguments?

Better to dismiss him for the moron he is and debate the issue with someone else.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/1/2014 4:18:00 PM (view original):
Please stop trying to explain economics. You think the federal government can reduce its deficit by selling more treasury bonds.

That's hardly a response.  Mike's post is entirely reasonable.

Any regulation, tax, fee, act of God, etc. has consequences.  Forcing employers to pay more for labor puts pressure on profit.  Those who go into business do so in the hopes that their profit exceeds the amount they would make if they invested - risked - their money elsewhere.  Absorbing the cost is not a realistic option if there is an opportunity to do better by taking another action.  A company can:

1.  Raise prices of its product or service to maintain the required return on their investment
2.  Reduce the cost of providing the product or service to maintain the required return on their investment.  (through fewer jobs)
3.  Some combination thereof.
4.  Choose the opportunity of eliminating their investment in the affected enterprise and investing in something different.

Every one of these options ultimately doesn't squeeze the big guy, as minimum wage advocates intend, but instead end up indirectly hurting the very people they are "trying to help".  Increased prices, job losses (check the CBO February 2014 estimate of job loss related to minimum wage hike), or companies moving out (more job losses) all affect those who work these positions.

If you don't consider context and ramifications of change, you'll never see how this stuff works.

By the way raising taxes on "the rich" or "corporations" exerts the same type of pressure, which is why targeted tax hikes on whoever makes more than me don't accomplish what their advocates publicly claim (but most privately don't believe).

Posted by silentpadna on 5/1/2014 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/1/2014 4:18:00 PM (view original):
Please stop trying to explain economics. You think the federal government can reduce its deficit by selling more treasury bonds.

That's hardly a response.  Mike's post is entirely reasonable.

Any regulation, tax, fee, act of God, etc. has consequences.  Forcing employers to pay more for labor puts pressure on profit.  Those who go into business do so in the hopes that their profit exceeds the amount they would make if they invested - risked - their money elsewhere.  Absorbing the cost is not a realistic option if there is an opportunity to do better by taking another action.  A company can:

1.  Raise prices of its product or service to maintain the required return on their investment
2.  Reduce the cost of providing the product or service to maintain the required return on their investment.  (through fewer jobs)
3.  Some combination thereof.
4.  Choose the opportunity of eliminating their investment in the affected enterprise and investing in something different.

Every one of these options ultimately doesn't squeeze the big guy, as minimum wage advocates intend, but instead end up indirectly hurting the very people they are "trying to help".  Increased prices, job losses (check the CBO February 2014 estimate of job loss related to minimum wage hike), or companies moving out (more job losses) all affect those who work these positions.

If you don't consider context and ramifications of change, you'll never see how this stuff works.

By the way raising taxes on "the rich" or "corporations" exerts the same type of pressure, which is why targeted tax hikes on whoever makes more than me don't accomplish what their advocates publicly claim (but most privately don't believe).

By that logic we should lower or eliminate the minimum wage, right? I mean, allowing employers to pay employees $3.15 would create way more jobs.

>>We pay for food stamps, welfare, EIC, subsidized daycare, subsidized health care, and countless other social safety nets so that companies like McDonalds and Walmart can keep their labor costs low and their profits high.<<

We don't do that for that purpose.  Their profits are "high" (whatever that means) because they have a business model that works.  We pay for what we value.  The reason pay is not high for McD and WM workers is that their skills are in high supply.  It's not hard to find people who can perform the skill.  People who have that skill would charge more if there was a higher demand for them.  Just like any other commodity, product or service.  The safety net is there publicly (through government) because that's what society has decided is government's job.  If you start your own business making lemonade, you're going to buy the lemonade at as low of a price as you can, and you're going to charge for lemonade the most you can and still make whatever you deem your risk to be worth.  If your profit margin isn't high enough, you're not going to do it...

Posted by bad_luck on 5/1/2014 5:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/1/2014 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/1/2014 4:18:00 PM (view original):
Please stop trying to explain economics. You think the federal government can reduce its deficit by selling more treasury bonds.

That's hardly a response.  Mike's post is entirely reasonable.

Any regulation, tax, fee, act of God, etc. has consequences.  Forcing employers to pay more for labor puts pressure on profit.  Those who go into business do so in the hopes that their profit exceeds the amount they would make if they invested - risked - their money elsewhere.  Absorbing the cost is not a realistic option if there is an opportunity to do better by taking another action.  A company can:

1.  Raise prices of its product or service to maintain the required return on their investment
2.  Reduce the cost of providing the product or service to maintain the required return on their investment.  (through fewer jobs)
3.  Some combination thereof.
4.  Choose the opportunity of eliminating their investment in the affected enterprise and investing in something different.

Every one of these options ultimately doesn't squeeze the big guy, as minimum wage advocates intend, but instead end up indirectly hurting the very people they are "trying to help".  Increased prices, job losses (check the CBO February 2014 estimate of job loss related to minimum wage hike), or companies moving out (more job losses) all affect those who work these positions.

If you don't consider context and ramifications of change, you'll never see how this stuff works.

By the way raising taxes on "the rich" or "corporations" exerts the same type of pressure, which is why targeted tax hikes on whoever makes more than me don't accomplish what their advocates publicly claim (but most privately don't believe).

By that logic we should lower or eliminate the minimum wage, right? I mean, allowing employers to pay employees $3.15 would create way more jobs.

I'm not advocating the elimination of minimum wage, but wages would settle out somewhere just based on supply and demand.  The fact is that there are jobs that are not worth people's time if the pay is not enough.  But reversing that for a minute, if you simply raised minimum wage, something has to happen in response.  Why not just raise minimum wage to $50/hour?  That way everyone would make six figures.  Would that work?  The question still remains:  who is helped and who is hurt by raising the minimum wage and what is that action intended to accomplish?  Does it accomplish what it's supposed to?  If it doesn't, do we raise more?  And then more again? 

Businesses are going to profit or they are going to go away.  You cannot legislate that part out or businesses would never start.  If there is a demand for the product or service, they will profit as long as they can supply it at a price people are willing to pay.  If you put upward price pressure enough people won't demand the product.