By Jack Lee
Minimum wage hikes hurt the poor – not help them. How many times do we have to go over this? Almost anyone who has passed a high school government class should know how this works, when you raise the minimum wage it raises the cost of everything else. This is one of the ways we get inflation. The working guy never wins from inflati0n. However, in the very early stage of a minimum wage hike we see the poorest workers get hammered first and worst. Their hours are either cut back, or they get laid off, or they are tasked to do more (more productivity) because those wages must be in line with the profit margin. In some cases of cut backs this will mean their health insurance is cancelled because they are not getting in enough hours. An expensive minimum wage has a direct impact of reducing the available number of jobs in the workforce…starting with those on the bottom rung. it’s always been like that and why Obama can’t figure this out is shocking!
The only people who like the minimum wage increase are the big Unions who have a contract with their employers to keep a certain parity spread with the prevailing minimum wage. Minimum wage goes up 10%, then high end hourly wages in the union often go right up 10% too, and that keeps the parity spread.
So, Obama is not really helping anyone by boosting the minimum wage, except for the unions who helped pay to get him elected. The poor Obama is supposed to be helping will most definitely get hammered just like the always do. Every single time this wage goes up, we drop more jobs from the labor force. And often times this results in automation so employers won’t have to deal with a costly employee anymore…ever. Jobs lost. And how does all this help the struggling entry level worker? Better ask Obama, because I sure don’t know.
This is a little off topic, but it’s too bad we have so many slavish devotee’s in the news media or else more people would be hearing about the downside to minimum wage hikes.
If Barry keeps up his financial blunders I’m thinking he will go down in history as America’s worst president. He sure is racking up a long list! Hey, while we’re talking money, uh, does anyone want to buy some of my Solyndra stock… cheap?
Related articles http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/obamas_minimum_wage_increase_fallacy.html
The term “community organizer” is becoming more and more like one of those four-letter words . . . .
Glad to see you are back in business! I was worried for a while there. You should really put some contact information up for you and Tina, I had no idea what either of your e-mail addresses were.
Now back to correcting your many factual and logical errors. đ
“Minimum wage hikes hurt the poor â not help them. How many times do we have to go over this?”
At least until you provide some actual evidence for this claim, instead of just repeating it.
The actual data shows that raising the minimum wage usually has a positive effect, not only on workers, but on businesses as well. It is a fact that states with higher minimum wage laws than the federal minimum have had faster business growth and lower unemployment. Here is a study from the Fiscal Policy Institute which demonstrates this:
http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPISmallBusinessMinWage.pdf
But how can this be, when Republicans insist that the current problems with the economy are the result of an oppressive business climate? Well, as usual, Republicans are ignoring the main problem in the economy right now: lack of demand.
Small businesses are suffering because of lack of demand. In other words, their potential customers simply don’t have the money to buy from them. The most direct solutions to our economic problems is to get more money in the hands of consumers–not corporations. This is why, when the CBO made a list of the most economically stimulative policies, they ranked extending unemployment benefits and food stamps near the top of the list, and tax cuts for corporations and the rich near the very bottom. Lack. Of. Demand. Is. The. Problem. I feel like yelling that into a megaphone.
Bloomberg cites many studies showing the stimulative effect of raising the minimum wage here. A quote:
“The studies find minimum-wage increases even provide an economic boost, albeit a small one, as strapped workers immediately spend their raises. A 2011 paper by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that a $1 minimum-wage increase lifts household income by about $250 and increases spending by about $700 a quarter in the following year. The spending increase is driven by a small number of households that primarily buy vehicles.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-16/u-s-minimum-wage-lower-than-in-lbj-era-needs-a-raise.html
Republicans are focusing on the “supply” end of the economic equation, arguing that the best we can do to stimulate the economy is to loosen regulations and cut taxes on business owners. But since the problem is demand, not supply, this will never work.
“Almost anyone who has passed a high school government class should know how this works, when you raise the minimum wage it raises the cost of everything else. This is one of the ways we get inflation. The working guy never wins from inflati0n.”
The obvious problem with this statement is that, since 1968, we’ve had tons of inflation, and the minimum wage has actually fallen. Most estimates put the minimum wage in 1968 at between $10-$12 per hour when adjusted for inflation. So workers are already seeing inflation with no corresponding gains in wages.
Do you really think it is right that minimum wage workers in today’s economy make less than their grandparents did at their minimum wage jobs, Jack? That’s not acceptable to me. That’s not the American Dream.
“However, in the very early stage of a minimum wage hike we see the poorest workers get hammered first and worst. Their hours are either cut back, or they get laid off, or they are tasked to do more (more productivity) because those wages must be in line with the profit margin.”
You’re still describing things that have already happened, and will continue to happen, without any increase in the minimum wage.
Worker productivity has gone up steadily over the past 40 years, while wages have stagnated. The gap between productivity and wages has grown larger since 2000.
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/
In other words, Jack, people are working harder than ever, and not seeing any benefits from doing so.
According to one study, if the min. wage had kept pace with inflation and worker productivity, it would be nearly $22 an hour today:
“President Obama’s call to increase the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour was one of the more significant proposals he laid out in his State of the Union address Tuesday night. But $9 an hour is still a far cry from what workers really deserve, a 2012 study finds.
The minimum wage should have reached $21.72 an hour in 2012 if it kept up with increases in worker productivity, according to a March study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. While advancements in technology have increased the amount of goods and services that can be produced in a set amount of time, wages have remained relatively flat, the study points out.
Even if the minimum wage kept up with inflation since it peaked in real value in the late 1960s, low-wage workers should be earning a minimum of $10.52 an hour, according to the study.
Between the end of World War II and the late 1960s, productivity and wages grew steadily. Since the minimum wage peaked in 1968, increases in productivity have outpaced the minimum wage growth.
The current minimum wage stands at $7.25 an hour. In 2011, more than 66 percent of Americans surveyed by the Public Religion Research Institute supported raising this figure to $10.
The last time the federal minimum wage increased was in 2009. Currently observed in 31 states, the federal minimum wage translates to an annual income of about $15,000 a year for someone working 40 hours per week.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/minimum-wage-productivity_n_2680639.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
$9 is a joke, Jack. Our work is worth much more than that.
“The only people who like the minimum wage increase are the big Unions”
Blatantly false. As the HuffPo article states, 66% of Americans favor a higher minimum wage. You are completely out of touch.
“Every single time this wage goes up, we drop more jobs from the labor force.”
That’s just not true, as the many articles above show.
Here’s another, from the New York Times, comparing a low-wage state with a higher one:
“But instead of shriveling up, small-business owners in Washington say they have prospered far beyond their expectations. In fact, as a significant increase in the national minimum wage heads toward law, businesses here at the dividing line between two economies â a real-life laboratory for the debate â have found that raising prices to compensate for higher wages does not necessarily lead to losses in jobs and profits.
Idaho teenagers cross the state line to work in fast-food restaurants in Washington, where the minimum wage is 54 percent higher. That has forced businesses in Idaho to raise their wages to compete.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/us/11minimum.html?hp&ex=1168578000&en=bf304392cdc5baf4&ei=5094&partner=homepage&_r=0
“And how does all this help the struggling entry level worker? Better ask Obama, because I sure donât know.”
Or you could just take five minutes and Google this stuff and find out for yourself. It is not that hard. The evidence is overwhelming that raising the minimum wage is good for everyone, including business owners.
Even conservatives are starting to see the light. Here is an article from the American Conservative advocating a higher minimum wage:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/raising-american-wages-by-raising-american-wages/
I don’t see anything conservative about ensuring that more people will be on government assistance, Jack. If you don’t like your taxes going to welfare recipients, you should be demanding businesses pay their workers more. Did you know that 80% of Wal-Mart workers are on some form of public assistance? You should be demanding that the private sector live up to its responsibilities so that you don’t have to keep subsidizing them.
Don’t fall for corporate propoganda, Jack. Raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do. It will increase demand and help our economy.
Here ya go Chris, a few examples that you asked for and glad to see you haven’t left us:
House Speaker John Boehner summed it up this way in his response to the president: âWhen you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it. At a time when Americans are still asking the question âWhere are the jobs?â why would we want to make it harder for small employers to hire people?â
Michael Saltsman, research director for the conservative Employment Policies Institute in Washington, D.C., agrees. “Over 85 percent of [economic] studies in peer reviewed journals say job loss occurs after an increase in minimum wages,â he said. âEconomists are not divided on this issue.”
For large increases to the minimum wage, the impact is obvious, Saltsman said. Imagine how businesses would react if they had to pay every employee over $100,000 a year. But even small increases can hurt the bottom line of a business, particularly those in low profit margin industries, Saltsman said. Businesses in competitive markets react by passing costs on to customers or finding ways to make do with fewer employees. Saltsman uses the example of grocery stores that have responded to higher labor costs by installing self-checkout lanes.
Chris, did you read that part about “…85 percent of [economic] studies in peer reviewed journals say job loss occurs after an increase in minimum wages,â and “Economists are not divided on this issue”? Over 85% of studies say that…but you really don’t need that much info because common sense should tell that unless our economy is frozen it will react to a raise in minimum wage because it is required too in order to maintain profit margins.
Employers expect a profit based on the value they can generate on a product or service they offer verse the cost of doing business. Simple enough, and the consumer is the one that dictates need or demand of the goods. So if the consumer is burdened with higher prices (created by increased costs AKA Minimum wage) and they stop buying or look for cheaper alternatives, then what happens is income lost due to businesses closing. A minimum wage was a entry level number for those starting off in life, never a living wage. Sadly we have to deal with Obamas lack of caring about the economy and now over qualified people are taking these jobs as a only resort. given these facts how can anyone believe that economic growth can be created through minimum wage increases. Lets remember that given lack of real employment eliminates demand for many impulse items, and many of those impulse item just moved into the luxury category due to the lack employment opportunities. Yes it is a vicious circle that can be argued by both philosophy’s. I think Chris’s posting of links to info is less than applicable in this economy. What I would like to see is a link to a economic plan that stimulates the economy, not a reckless comment designed to place blame on employers.
Jack, I couldn’t verify Saltsman’s claim that “85 percent of [economic] studies in peer reviewed journals say job loss occurs after an increase in minimum wages,â but I did find a few rebuttals that challenged his other facts. They also pointed out that the most recent economic research contradicts his claims.
Here’s a response from the Concord Monitor:
“Michael Saltsman criticized our column supporting an increase in New Hampshireâs minimum wage. Weâd like to respond.
Our column pointed out that according to recent economic research, raising the minimum wage does not lead to declining employment. There are several reasons for this, as we discussed. The primary research that we cited was conducted by economists Arindrajit Dube of the University of Massachusetts, T. William Lester of the University of North Carolina, and Michael Reich of the University of California. In attempting to undermine our reasoning, Saltsman claimed that this research used âflawed methods.â
No so fast, Mr. Saltsman. The research we cited is solid and has been praised by some of the nationâs most respected labor economists. And there is a substantial body of additional analysis and research showing that modest increases in the minimum wage do not exert downward pressure on employment.
By contrast, the sources cited by Saltsman relied on research methods that have been discredited for more than a decade.
We stand by our position. It is impossible to live on the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Every other New England state has recognized this. We can raise the minimum wage by a reasonable amount without causing job losses. New Hampshire workers deserve a raise.”
http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/4457208-95/minimum-research-wage-saltsman
Another response, from the Economic Policy Institute:
“Michael Saltsman has trouble with his facts from the very first sentence of his op-ed on the minimum wage. Saltsman asserts that President Obama made a campaign pledge to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour and that four members of Congress have âintroduced bills to make this promise a reality.â In fact, President Obama argued for raising the minimum wage to $9.50 last year, and there is only one bill in the House that would set a similar figure: H.R. 5727 (and it would raise it to $9.80 by 2014, not $9.50). Sen. Tom Harkinâs Rebuild America Act would also raise the minimum wage to $9.80 in 2014. But facts just get in Saltsmanâs way.
Saltsmanâs economics are no better than his legislative research. The old Economics 101 textbook theory he recites â that a higher minimum wage will necessarily reduce employment â was not supported by empirical research. As a 1995 paper in the Journal of Economics Literature put it, âThere is a long history of empirical studies attempting to pin down the effects of minimum wages, with limited success.â No one found significant employment losses when President Truman raised the minimum wage by 87% in 1950. When Congress raised the minimum wage by 28% in two steps in 1967, businesses predicted large employment losses and price increases. As the Wall Street Journal reported six months later, âEmployment and prices show little effect from $1.40-an-hour guarantee.â Empirical studies even before Card and Kruegerâs landmark New Jersey study found no increase in the unemployment rate for teens and young adults from a 10% rise in the minimum wage, while it was clear that higher wages were bringing housewives into the workforce.
Saltsman wants readers to believe that economists have discredited Card and Kruegerâs finding that a 19% increase in New Jerseyâs minimum wage did not cause job loss. Heâs just wrong. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman says the study âhas stood up very well to repeated challenges, and new cases confirming its results keep coming in.â And even the most ardent conservative critics could not claim that the New Jersey increase caused statistically significant job loss. Furthermore, a groundbreaking peer-reviewed 2008 paper (that Saltsman chooses to ignore),âMinimum wage effects across state borders: Estimates using contiguous counties,â generalizes the landmark Card and Krueger study to all contiguous county-pairs in the US that straddle a border, finding no adverse employment effects of increases in the minimum wage.
University of California, Berkeley (and former Economic Policy Institute) economist Sylvia Allegretto wants policy advocates to know about recent economics research about the minimum wage because it is so clear and convincing. Allegretto and colleagues Michael Reich and Arindrajit Dube carefully studied data on teen employment from 1990 to 2009 and found âthat minimum wage increasesâin the range that have been implemented in the United Statesâdo not reduce employment among teens.â Previous studies to the contrary used flawed statistical controls and âdo not provide a credible guide for public policy.â
The fact that more than 550 economists signed a statement calling for an increase in the minimum wage in 2007 cannot be dismissed because they were not all âlabor economists.â No one claimed they were, and itâs irrelevant: agricultural economists and macroeconomists understand, just as labor economists do, that when reality doesnât fit a model, itâs the model that has to change.
Saltsman has a loose regard for facts, but the fact is that economists no longer unthinkingly accept a nineteenth-century model that doesnât fit the data, which show that modest minimum wage increases of the kind we have enacted in the past do not cause job loss.”
http://www.epi.org/publication/economic-research-supports-raising-minimum/
Chris I can appreciate economic theories as well as the next guy, but in my personal experience I have found that raising the minimum wage never once achieved the desired results because inflation reduced it back to where it was or worse. The worse is people get laid off because employers can’t afford to pay the wages and this will be especially true under Obama care. So I can show my ex[erts and you can show me yours, but the I’ve seen the results so there is no question in my mind what the outcome will be. Regional areas can raise the minimum wage and get away with it longer than a national wage increase for obvious reasons…need I say why? Also many very credible people are saying exactly what I am saying, take a look at the comment above, theres a Nobel prize winner agreeing with me.
Why is it that Washington state’s entry-level job applicants faced one of the highest rates of unemployment in the nation this year? The state’s unemployment rate is 15 percent higher than the national average and 42 percent higher than it was five years ago when the state introduced a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum.
Washington state is not alone in experiencing this perpetual high state unemployment. Oregon, Washington and Alaska are among the five states with the highest unemployment rates. It is perhaps no coincidence that these three states have the highest state minimum wages in the nation. Decades of research confirm Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker’s observation: “A higher minimum will further reduce the employment opportunities of workers with few skills.”
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/High-minimum-wage-high-unemployment-1132951.php#ixzz2LWENt89Q
Now that Obamaâs calling for a 24% increase in the minimum wage to $9 per hour, it might be instructive to review what happened the last time the minimum wage was increased â from $5.15 per hour in 2007 to $7.25 in 2009 (in three stages, see chart). Those most affected by increases in the minimum wage are the least skilled, least experienced, and least educated workers, i.e. teenage workers. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in 2010:
âA higher minimum wage has the biggest impact on those with the least experience or the fewest skills. That means in particular those looking for entry-level jobs, especially teenagers. And sure enough, as nearly all economic models predict, the higher minimum has wreaked havoc with teenage job seekers, well beyond what you would expect even in a recession.â
And thatâs exactly what happened when the minimum wage rose by 41% between 2007 and 2009 â it had a disastrous effect on teenagers. The jobless rate for 16-19 year olds increased by ten percentage points, from about 16% in 2007 to more than 26% in 2009. Of course, the overall US jobless rate was increasing at the same time, from about 5% to 10%. Therefore, the graph attempts to better isolate the effects of the minimum wage increases between 2007 and 2009 on teenagers by plotting the difference between the teenage jobless rate and the overall jobless rate, i.e. âexcess teen unemployment,â and the minimum wage.
During the 2002-2007 period when the minimum wage was $5.15 per hour, teenage unemployment exceeded the national jobless rate by about 11% on average. Each of the three minimum wage increases was accompanied by a 2 percentage point increase in the amount that the teenage jobless rate exceeded the overall rate, from 11 to 13% after the 2007 increase from $5.15 to $5.85 per hour, from 13% to 15% following the second hike to $6.55 per hour, and from 15% to 17% following the last increase to $7.25. The 17.5% âexcess teen unemploymentâ in October 2009 was the highest on record, going back to at least 1972, and was almost 5 percent higher than the peak teen jobless rate gap following the last recession (12.7% in June 2003).
Bottom Line: Artificially raising wages for unskilled workers reduces the demand for those workers at the same time that it increases the number of unskilled workers looking for work, which results in an excess supply of unskilled workers. Period. And another term for an âexcess supply of unskilled workersâ is an âincrease in the teenage jobless rate.â Despite the wishful thinking of politicians like President Obama, the laws of supply and demand are not optional. The recent history of raising the minimum wage demonstrates its disproportionate negative effect on the least skilled, least experienced and least educated workers â teenagers. And if the minimum wage is raised to $9 per hour, we can expect further increases in teenage joblessness, which can have long-term consequences that might adversely affect teenagers throughout their lifetimes. Hereâs how the WSJ explains that possibility:
âMost readers remember the work habits they learned from their first job. Showing up on time, being courteous to customers, learning how to use technologyâsuch habits are often more valuable than the actual paycheck. Studies have confirmed that when teens work during summer months or after school they have higher lifetime earnings than those who donât work. So raising the minimum wage may inadvertently reduce lifetime earnings.â
Jack, I would like to add to your statements that Theorist and Academia types that have not been actual captains of industry (so to speak)are sheltered from the actual real world of capitalism by ivy covered walls. I would ask each and anyone of those authors of theory to attempt to start up or save a declining business model using their thinking, in this regressive economy. While the current employment picture Might be stabilized for a bit by past seasonal and government hiring, but it is private industry, the actual people in the trenches that will be a savorier of our economy by doing more to facilitate business growth and prosperity of the US, then any “paper published” theoretic economist.
Thanks Hal, so true! I recall this little mom and pop grocery store in our old neighborhood and they were always willing to hire teens after school, but then minimum wage hikes finally put an end to it. I thought it was neat to work in a grocery store and it provided great experience and a little extra cash. Nobody ever looked at these after school jobs as something you could actually live on.
Good comments – great common sense and we sure need more of that in this world.
I have a lot to say on this subject unfortunately free time this week is limited. I will say that one thing we can depend on with studies is that they are sometimes designed to make a point for political outcome rather than inform and as such they often lack vital information that would harm the position they set out to “prove”. For instance, according to a report from CATO, two thirds of min wage workers move on from that min wage job within a year. That would indicate that “entry level” is a real world fact and these jobs supply a temporary means of supplementing income or gaining entry to the workforce when workers have no experience.
Another CATO study finds: “…decades of economic research show that minimum wages usually end up harming workers and the broader economy. Minimum wages particularly stifle job opportunities for low-skill workers, youth, and minorities, which are the groups that policymakers are often trying to help with these policies.” Chris’s economists argue that “recent research” or the latest research, finds, blah blah, blah. Obviously they have chosen to set aside the “decades of economic research” that is available in order to make their dubious case.
Finally to believe the progressive liberal notion that raising the cost of production or service will not cause an adverse change one must must totally ignore basic logic. Higher employee costs will force the employer to make adjustments.
This brain dead bunch wants to pile a higher minimum wage on top of higher taxes and regulations with promises of even more taxes and expensive regulation in a failing stagnant economy with an already high rate of unemployment. Stupid doesn’t begin to express how unworkable this idea is.
(bold)It does provide a distraction from the incredibly horrid economic record resulting from the Presidents policies. While we discuss the case made by Chris’s pointy headed magicians the inability of this President to create an atmosphere of economic vibrancy and opportunity is not discussed.
Obama’s economic ideas stink. They do not lead to economic opportunity or a better life for low wage earners or the middle class…just the opposite. Chris if you want to complain about something I suggest you begin to address the total disaster that has followed Obama’s progressive redistribution big government control model and that would include the insanity of raising the min wage.
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/negative-effects-minimum-wage-laws
http://www.cato.org/blog/minimum-wage-hikes-deserve-share-blame-high-unemployment
Jack, I could post more articles pointing out the flaws in those studies, but first I’d like to ask you a few questions.
First, do you think it’s a positive or negative thing that the current minimum wage is less than it was in 1968? Do you think that has a positive or negative impact on our economy?
Second, do you think the minimum wage should keep up with inflation and worker productivity?
Third, since you are against raising the minimum wage, what policies do you support that would have a *direct* impact on low-wage workers? Remember, the CBO has consistently determined that policies which *directly* address the needs of the poor and middle class are more stimulative than those which directly address the needs of businesses, corporations, and the rich. So lowering taxes or regulation on business owners would not count as a direct measure to help low-wage workers.
Finally, let me address the points you and Harold made about young workers.
Harold wrote:
“A minimum wage was a entry level number for those starting off in life, never a living wage. Sadly we have to deal with Obamas lack of caring about the economy and now over qualified people are taking these jobs as a only resort.”
Harold, it has never been the case that minimum wage workers are primarily teenagers just starting off in life. Teenagers have always comprised a minority of minimum wage workers. Today, about 88% of minimum wage workers are at least 20 years old:
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib341-raising-federal-minimum-wage/
Other alarming stats from that link: about 42% of minimum wage workers have some college education, and 54% work full time.
Also, it is illogical to blame the rise in older minimum wage workers on Obama. As the BLS data shows, teenagers have comprised less than a quarter of minimum wage workers since 2007, a year before Obama was elected president. Before 2007, the number was only slightly higher.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011tbls.htm#1
The reason there are more older people in minimum wage jobs today has more to do with the decreasing power of workers in relation to employers. Excessive outsourcing and the disintegration of organized labor puts workers at a distinct disadvantage. This is especially true in this recession, which, I’ll remind you, predates Obama’s presidency. Workers simply don’t have the bargaining power to negotiate fair wages for themselves. The percentage of unionized workers is at a seventy year low (and yet, conservatives insist unions are the cause of our economic problems). Corporations and businesses hold all the cards.
There is currently no immediate incentive for employers to raise wages. With the unemployment rate as it is, workers know they can be replaced in a second. Where I work, employees are often afraid to bring concerns or complaints to their managers, because they are afraid of losing their jobs. I do believe that a higher minimum wage, since it would increase demand, would help businesses in the long term. But, historically speaking, really successful business leaders are not always great at planning long-term. They are often more interested in short-term profit over long-term sustainability. The recent financial crisis should leave no doubt about this.
Republicans have offered nothing to address this situation, instead focusing all their efforts on increasing the power of business owners while further decreasing the power of their employees. This can only have the effect of widening income inequality even more.
Obama hasn’t done enough to counter this problem, but the main opposition to increasing the power of workers has come from Republicans.
So again–and this is to both Harold and Jack–what are you willing to do to directly help the average worker? Because everything I am hearing from your side of the aisle focuses on increasing the power of their bosses while diminishing the power of workers, while arguing that ultimately workers will benefit from this growing imbalance.
The government has no business getting involved in determining what wages shall be in the first place. Workers should be responsible (grown up enough) for negotiating personally with the employer for his wages. Workers don’t all bring the same abilities and skills to the table or once hired perform in the same way on the job. Different areas of the country have different economic challenges. An IT guy working in San Francisco will have much higher personal expense needs than an IT guy working in Butte Montana..his employer is aware of these challenges when he sets his pay scale. Employers don’t all have the same expense considerations. State corporate taxes in Nevada arer zero but in California…OMG! Its a lot easier for an employer in Nevada to offer more jobs and better pay. Entry level jobs don’t all require the same skill levels so restaurant dishwashers shouldn’t automatically expect to make the same wage as someone who starts out in an accounting office, although he might depending on the restaurant.
Employers are not mom and dad. Employers offer jobs because they have work that needs to be done. The work has a value and jobs are either worth taking for employees or they are not. This is not something that can be determined by the federal government. Not all situations are the same. We are not robots or numbers on a page.
I believe that the elimination of the minimum wage, as part of a larger pro economic growth plan, would create amazing opportunities for teens, low skilled workers, those who want to supplement their incomes (elderly, housewives), and college students. I believe it would open up many good training situations in a variety of industries. Employers are willing to take the time to train if they can make pay decisions based on merit and commitment.
But since we get to deal with government sticking its nose into everything we also get to live with the consequences of its involvement. Let’s see four years ago Obama promised that his ideas would lead to economic opportunity and prosperity. According to Wikipedia he wrote the following in 2006:
“We should be asking ourselves what mix of policies will lead to a dynamic free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility […] we should be guided by what works.”
His own record proves that he and his advisers don’t know “what works” and he is too either too filled with pride or too ideologically driven (or both) to admit his failure and change course.
Those who believe you can raise the cost of doing business without consequence by raising the minimum wage also believe you can create a big healthcare bureaucracy without incurring extra expense. They really never explain how their own theories work they just assure us that “studies have shown”. Big whoop. I trust those who have actually had to meet payroll to know what happens when the government decides.
Inflation is the other big consideration. If employers have to give entry level workers more they will also have to raise the salaries of their other work who will expect a raise in pay. This greater expense is bound to lead to higher prices for consumers and the effect is that higher minimum wage doesn’t result in greater buying power.
the cost of a loaf of bread was nine cents in 1930. In 1960 it was twenty-two cents. By 1980 it was fifty cents and by 2009 inflation made bread a $2.97 item. Inflated prices are caused by many things but most of them are government driven…taxes, regulation, and yes, the minimum wage.
Big government types will turn themselves into knots attempting to keep the public from finding out just how much the government is costing them.
I’ve missed you too, Tina. I don’t know anyone else who can bemoan the existence of agenda-driven studies in one sentence, and in the very next, cite an agenda-driven study from a partisan think tank, without any trace of irony or self-awareness. đ
I wasn’t going to comment again until I got an answer from Jack or Harold, but I just saw this headline and it’s too important not to share:
40% of Americans Now Make Less Than 1968 Minimum Wage
http://thecontributor.com/40-americans-now-make-less-1968-minimum-wage
How can anyone see this information and then argue that our current minimum wage is too high? Why don’t you have a problem with Americans not being paid the value of their work?
Chris your argument is so full of holes a 747 could go through it with out a problem. However I will comment on your closing inquiry, You ask, what am I doing to directly help the average worker, I can only answer by saying more than you will ever be capable of with your narcissistic attitude of life. All I ever take from your posts are links to other people opinions, what are yours? What are you doing these days that will better the average worker?, are you employing people, trying to make a payroll? or are you another disgruntled employee who figures your efforts alone are making the boss a fat cat. I believe I once read your a teacher or a educational intern, well sir, my work efforts pay for your salary, how about a thank you for myself and all the other workers left in California, I mean thats the least you could offer us now that we are in the minority. The decay of self reliance in the youth of today is a sad state of affairs, but it is what you seem to want, your generation own it. If you want to see what it like to benefit the average worker, please go out into the real world and attempt achievements on your own, then with the knowledge of real effort to succeed in the private sector along with the sacrifice it takes, come back and engage Jack or myself about the risks and rewards. Most likely you will have something else to contribute other than theory. Open your eyes to the possibilities of self reliance, you’ll find it way more rewarding than Governmental control of your life.
Chris if you go back and read again you will see the significance of pointing to the Cato study was the “decades of data” and not the opinion or conclusion expressed by CATO. The point is that a “new study” that ignore decades of data doesn’t necessarily provide proof of causality.
The truth is that government (and union) pressure on wages and business leave us in a situation where we do not know the real value of work. Government established minimum wage sets up a false bottom that presses all wages higher and causes consumers to pay more for products and services than they would otherwise have to pay. This inflationary condition makes it hard on consumers but especially on the poor and the young because the dollars they need for necessities, like energy, clothing, and food don’t go as far. (Also why we have so much cheap clothing from China). If government got out of the way market forces would establish the true value of work and products and it would be more equitable for everyone.
I find it fascinating that progressive policies lead to inflated prices and then when an employees dollar doesn’t go very far progressives blame the lack of buying power on the stingy employer rather than their own stupid policies.
http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Wayne%20Crews%20-%2010,000%20Commandments%202011.pdf
How much more does bread and cereal cost the poor family because of these ridiculous compliance costs?
Government is entirely too intrusive and controlling. It’s a damn shame that so many young people in America today think of government as a caring parent/savior rather than the uncaring, power tripping, EXPENSIVE entity its become. (The cost of higher education is likewise infected)
Raising the minimum wage will not uplift the working poor. There is only one way to a better life and that is by making personal decisions to get training and or education and a better job.
More ugly truth:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Entrepreneurial-Mind/2010/1004/Rising-regulatory-costs-strangling-small-business
Here’s an update since 2008:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/regulation-nation-drowning-in-rules-businesses-brace-for-cost-and-time-for/#ixzz2LbIvZDJ0
Obama plans even more regulatory burdens through the EPA…soon minimum wage discussion will be useless because there will be no work to be had!
Tina:
“Workers should be responsible (grown up enough) for negotiating personally with the employer for his wages.”
Frankly, I find it quite insulting of you to insinuate that the reason workers have a hard time negotiating with their bosses is because they are somehow not “grown up enough.” Especially since, in reality, the reason workers are at such a disadvantage in negotiations is because of anti-union, pro-corporate policies that you support.
Talk to some min. wage workers some time, Tina. They are often afraid to ask for a raise or an increase in benefits because they know they can be replaced in an instant. Employers hold all the cards in a recession. Workers are told we should be lucky just to have a job, and not to ask for anything more.
And besides, this isn’t an individual problem. Your glib rebuttal that workers should just try and negotiate or quit and find another job if they aren’t happy, aside from being ridiculous, ignores the bigger issue. Low wages affect our entire economy, and they affect it for the worse. A low minimum wage has the effect of depressing wages for all workers; that’s why nearly half of Americans now make less than the average worker in 1968. And really, once you know that statistic, it becomes desperate to the point of unhealthy for you to keep acting as if individual workers are just not trying hard enough. At this point, it’s time for you to begin to wonder if the system is rigged.
And right now, you’re helping rig it. Your anti-union policies have helped increase the imbalance of power between employees and employers, putting workers at an even worse disadvantage.
At times like this, the government must step in. Businesses are not meeting their responsibilities to society. You support Citizens United? Fine. But if you want corporations to be treated as people with rights, then you should at least recognize that they have corresponding responsibilities.
“Employers offer jobs because they have work that needs to be done. The work has a value and jobs are either worth taking for employees or they are not.”
The whole point I have been trying to get across is that employers are NOT paying their workers the true value of their work. This should be crystal clear by now. Productivity has gone up, inflation has occurred, and yet people are being *paid less* than they were 40 years ago. That can mean one of two things: either people today are severely underpaid…or your generation, when you were my age, was severely overpaid. Which is it, Tina? Do you really believe minimum wage workers in 1968 were being paid too much?
“I believe that the elimination of the minimum wage, as part of a larger pro economic growth plan, would create amazing opportunities for teens, low skilled workers, those who want to supplement their incomes (elderly, housewives), and college students.”
I’m dreadfully curious: have you asked any minimum wage workers if they agree with you? This is an important question, and I hope you’ll answer.
“I trust those who have actually had to meet payroll to know what happens when the government decides.”
Why do you only trust people who have “had to meet payroll” to know the effect of minimum wage laws? I’m curious, again: do you trust the opinions of actual minimum wage earners?
I just find it so…strange, that even when asking people here to consider what we can do directly for the average worker, every reply I get continues to center around business owners. It’s like you can’t imagine decentering them from the discussion. I realize you are a business owner yourself, Tina, but it would be good to step outside your perspective for a moment.
Here’s an Econ 101 question. Which group of people are the main drivers of the economy: business owners, or consumers?
Most economists agree that the answer is “consumers,” but the replies I see here all seem to rely on the assumption that business owners are the group our policies should be directly adressing. This does not make sense to me.
“Inflation is the other big consideration…the cost of a loaf of bread was nine cents in 1930. In 1960 it was twenty-two cents. By 1980 it was fifty cents and by 2009 inflation made bread a $2.97 item. Inflated prices are caused by many things but most of them are government drivenâŚtaxes, regulation, and yes, the minimum wage.”
As I pointed out above, this argument makes no sense, because the minimum wage has actually gone down relative to inflation over the last 40 years.
“Big government types will turn themselves into knots attempting to keep the public from finding out just how much the government is costing them.”
And big business types will turn themselves into knots attempting to keep the public from finding out just how much the corporatocracy is costing them.
Harold, I’ve thought long and hard about how best to show my gratitude for your generous, not at all begrudged contribution to my future teacher’s salary. I could send a fruit basket, or start a Harold Ey fan club. But then I realized that I am getting to paid to educate your damn children, and I thought, that’s thanks enough.
“Chris your argument is so full of holes a 747 could go through it with out a problem.”
Shame, then, that instead of addressing these alleged holes in my argument, you spend the rest of your comment making presumptuous, class-based personal attacks.
“However I will comment on your closing inquiry, You ask, what am I doing to directly help the average worker, I can only answer by saying more than you will ever be capable of with your narcissistic attitude of life.”
Perhaps I was not clear, Harold. I was asking which government policies you support that would directly increase the financial well-being of the average American consumer. So far every comment in this thread has focused on indirect, “trickle-down” solutions which assume that gains made by business owners will translate to gains for everyone. Even if this theory were not contradicted by the last 40 years of widening income inequality, it would still not be satisfactory; we can’t wait for trickle-down to occur. We know that the best way to stimulate the economy is to increase demand, and that this is best done on the consumer level, not the employer level. And yet, I still have not seen a single consumer-centered solution from any of you.
“What are you doing these days that will better the average worker?, are you employing people, trying to make a payroll?”
Once again I am seeing this idea that unless you “make a payroll,” you are unable to have a realistic opinion on the economy. Only business owners know what’s best; those of us who work for businesses know nothing. This strikes me as quite classist.
“how about a thank you for myself and all the other workers left in California, I mean thats the least you could offer us now that we are in the minority.”
I’m sorry, did you just say that workers in California are a minority? At this point I have to wonder if you are trying to make yourself look as ignorant as possible.
“If you want to see what it like to benefit the average worker, please go out into the real world and attempt achievements on your own, then with the knowledge of real effort to succeed in the private sector along with the sacrifice it takes, come back and engage Jack or myself about the risks and rewards. Most likely you will have something else to contribute other than theory.”
Harold, like the majority of welfare recipients, I work for a living. I am paid slightly above the current minimum wage (which, I’ll remind you, is still below the minimum wage in 1968). I was raised by a single mother who worked and received food stamps. I think this gives me plenty of perspective to judge for myself what is best for my situation. I think that gives me a little more than just “theory.”
I am sick of your insistence that the only way I could know what I am talking about is if I tried to set up my own business, and that by not doing so, I am somehow being lazy or unmotivated. Do you know what a large group of people you are smearing with this idea?
“Open your eyes to the possibilities of self reliance, youâll find it way more rewarding than Governmental control of your life.”
It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives find class warfare rhetoric such as the above completely acceptable, as long it’s directed at the poor. You have such a stereotypical view of people on government assistance and government workers. Your comments are rude, uncalled for, and reflect worse on you than on me.
I must say, one of the big upsides of this blog being down for so long was that I was able to go an entire month without having a complete stranger directly call me a lazy, ungrateful government moocher who doesn’t know the value of work. Yet I can’t go two days here without getting that undeserved treatment again. And you wonder why the Republican party is a sinking ship.
Come on Chris, accept the fact that all comments I make are directed solely at you or your opinions, which are 180 degrees from mine on the subject of minimum wage. If you want to try and make them class-based personal attacks or racist, other than youâre out right spew you will have to put a better spin on it then that. So your upset by snarky jabs at you, it seems you dish it out but cant take it, so as others have said prior, clean up your act and weâll (I will at least) respond in kind. I can not say I am sorry that you feel so abused by my posts toward you. I also feel the same toward much of your liberal ideology. Should Obama continue on the same theory, (minimum wage), he is not going to improve anything for the better in the USA. I realize that currently Obama and his administration have their hands full with a failing administration and as well as damage control that ranges from failed support that created four American deaths to executive use of drones. With all this going on, sadly jobs and the economy is not real important to him, so the more people like yourself that buy into his theory, instead of examples offered by successful business entrepreneurs, the longer any measurable recovery is going to take. I had to laugh like hell at your comment about âyouâ teaching my âdamn childrenâ, yep that will happenď, but it was clever. So I guess any Thank You is out of the question, and weâll just have to leave it at that.
You also made a remark about showing ignorance, in regards to real time employment numbers; you might want to use real life numbers that reflect actual conditions, and not the fictional ones that Obama and Brown are spinning. When you take into account all those who âgave up lookingâ, are underemployed and those with expired benefits California has WAY more than 2 million plus not working (the entire above plus welfare and homeless) verse the reported 12 million employed.
Chris, I can only assume by your posts you are a classic study of Government dependency and sadly youâre not alone, but this is a democracy, and if a majority of our fellow-citizens are content to live as wards of the state, subsisting from cradle to grave as dependents, we are, frankly, screwed. There is only one place where freedom and a proper constitutional balance can be restored: the ballot box.
Chris you make a lot of assumptions about employers and their motivations.
“…the reason workers are at such a disadvantage in negotiations…”
They are at a disadvantage if they have nothing to offer. They are at a disadvantage if they have been lousy on the job, are always late, or call in sick all the time. They are at a disadvantage if the job just isn’t worth what they are asking in wages. It is up to the employee to prove his worth but he also can’t have unrealistic expectations of the employer. Wages are compensation for work performed. They are not handouts or allowances.
It is not the employers responsibility to make life better for others. He has work that needs to be performed and he has a pretty good idea what the limit is for his payroll. Payroll is the largest expense item for most employers and there is usually very little wiggle room.
Workers can improve their chances to advance. An employee that is reliable and hard working has a better chance than one who is lazy and uninterested. If the boss sees that an employee has actually saved the company money, improved the quality of the product, or attracted more business through the door he might be surprised to find he is at a distinct advantage in negotiations. The ultimate point being that the employees needs and concerns are not the only concerns involved. Sometimes its possible to get more and sometimes it just isn’t. I don’t think having a negative attitude about your employer is helpful or smart.
You are quite right that in this lousy economy with high unemployment you are lucky to have a job and it’s definitely not the best time to seek higher pay. I pray that will change but I don’t expect it to for at least for to six years or more depending on what happens.
“…is because of anti-union, pro-corporate policies that you support.
This may fit in your personal work world; I was speaking in general about all kinds of jobs and employers. My own remarks are based on personal business experience as well as employee experience and decades of data.
You have told us you work for Wall-Mart. It is well known that Wall-Mart employees have resisted unionizing in the past. I’d like to suggest that if those who are pushing for a union at Wall-Mart now win the entire concept for the company will have to change and the poor people who rely on Wall-Mart’s low prices will have to look elsewhere for their products. A union will destroy the Wall-Mart business model. Perhaps the dollar store will expand to include more items.
The employee’s job if he wants more pay or a better job is to demonstrate that he is valuable or has improved his skills. Unions remove the need for employees to compete or excel and improve. They replace achievement with mob intimidation and extortion. All employees are equally deserving regardless their ability, reliability, or desire to improve and move ahead. But if people choose to be part of a union or can’t work without joining one I don’t hold that against them.
I argue the point because I believe people have a lot more going for them than they realize. I think people often sell themselves short or let their considerations hold them back from realizing their full potential. I also think there are a certain number that exchange the satisfaction of personal achievement for the gratification of mob power and intimidation.
I also strongly believe that unrealistic union demands disturb market forces that hold prices down and can bring ruin to a company. Unions bosses don’t seem to care if a company (or a state or city) survives and thrives.
One of your articles began as follows:
There is one flaw in the thinking of this writer. He is leaving out the fact that unions drove wages up for decades before companies started moving to other countries for cheaper labor. Unions thought their bargaining power was unlimited and they found out there was a limit.
Note the writer also uses the word “exploited” to describe workers who are willing to do the job for less.
The worst trait of the progressive is his absolute unwillingness to take responsibility. The above example is priceless. GREEDY union bosses lied to the workers and demanded more in pay and benefits than the company could sustain and then blamed the employer for taking survival measures by offering the jobs to those in other countries who would do the work for less. He then goes on to insult the intelligence of workers in other countries who are willing to do the work for less and ecstatic to have the opportunity!
The middle class is being destroyed but it isn’t because people are getting rich. It’s because people don’t have even a basic understanding of what it takes to make a business work. It is also because too many of us believe they don’t have to effort to improve their circumstances and are content to live off of others. it is because the government has placed too many burdens and rules on all of us. it is because government burns up a disproportionate amount of wealth and produces only dependency, waste, and inferior services.
Their is a path to greater prosperity for Americans but it isn’t the path we’ve been on for the past sixty to seventy years.
Your evaluation of the responsibility of business people, and I assume the wealthy, is unbelievable. Someone is feeding you BS and you’re eating it like it was candy.
WHERE would you seek work if the business owners and investors of American suddenly decided to stop CONTRIBUTING and being responsible? You don’t know what responsibility is until you have risked your own money and invested your time, sweat, and worry to be in the position to offer jobs and then faithfully, year after year, met the payroll and other obligations to sustain it all. I know you are young but the level of ingratitude you display and the absolute inability to appreciate the contribution business people make to all of our lives is astounding!
Inflation and expensive government are the two biggest enemies of the American poor and middle classes. Both destroy our buying power. Progressive policies and thinking cause higher prices and unemployment. When market forces work companies offer the best products and the lowest price to attract customers. Low unemployment puts the employee in a better position to advance AND INVEST AND SAVE…which is his ticket to a better life.
Conservatives like the idea of making money but we also like to see everyone make money and believe opportunities abound when government gets out of the way and market forces are allowed to work.
Progressives lie about what is possible, force pay structures that are unsustainable, drive the cost of goods and services up, and then look for a strawman to blame in order to avoid admitting their culpability. In this decade its “the rich” or “the rich corporations” that have been targeted to take the wrap for the failure of progressive ideas. Progressives have been “winning” for decades and things are lousy for the middle class and they have no responsibility for the mess? Unbelievable!
The wealthy/investor pays most of the taxes, funds the business sector, makes it possible for others to make money and is the bulk of support for most of the population that doesn’t work or is in jail but they don’t do enough and it is they that have caused your buying power to shrink?
“do you trust the opinions of actual minimum wage earners?”
What experience do they bring to the subject? I don’t doubt they have financial challenges…been there, done that. I don’t doubt that life looks mighty bleak at times…been there, done that. But if one can achieve others can achieve. The problem in America is that most people don’t believe in themselves anymore. They have been taught values that are defeating…resentment, for one. They don’t trust American values anymore…they prefer (progressive) France (where workers work three hours a day and get six weeks of vacation every year) or the now/near defunct Greece with its high unemployment and bankrupt government.
Has anyone noticed there is very little progress in progressivism. It is a destroyer. It is morally corrupting and lacking in basic civility. it is a poser, promising the moon and delivering death. It is threatening to take us all back to the dark ages.
I’m done for the night.
I’d like to take this opportunity to express my delight that we have made it back, thank the ER for making it possible, and apologize for my own slow start. I have really missed our discussions and all of you, the great friends who take the time to contribute here.
Tina,
You have not answered any of the questions I have asked you so far, but I am hoping you will at least answer this one. It is a very simple, factual question.
Over the past 40 years, has the bargaining power for the average worker gone up, gone down, or stayed the same?
The answer to this is very easily determined, and very important to our economic crisis. But your analysis above about employer-employee negotiations completely ignores this answer, and is thus hopelessly naive. You make it sound as if this is an individual problem. The only reasons you can imagine for why an employee would have a hard time negotiating with a boss, is if somehow the employee simply weren’t working hard enough. This despite the fact that, as you know, worker productivity has steadily risen over the past 40 years, while worker pay has decreased. So the problem can’t be that people just aren’t working hard enough; it is impossible to look at the facts in front of you and logically come to that conclusion.
The problem is a systemic one. Conservatives tend to avoid discussion of systemic problems; it’s much easier to blame individuals for lacking responsibility, that way you don’t have to do the hard work of de-rigging the system. Then you blame organizations like unions who speak out against systemic problems, and argue that they themselves are actually the root of the problem.
Did you know, Tina, that the percentage of people in unions is smaller today than at any time in the past 70 years? How can it be, then, that unions are the cause of our problems, when our economy has actually flourished at times when unions were much, much stronger?
There is a direct correlation between the strength of unions and the strength of the middle class. This chart shows that union membership and middle class share of aggregate income have fallen at nearly identical rates:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2011/09/13/10394/new-census-data-show-middle-class-continues-to-struggle-2/
I know it’s much easier to use unions as a convenient scapegoat, even though today only 7% of the workforce is unionized, then to deal with the real problems. But again, once you know that worker pay has gone down despite inflation and worker productivity going way up, there’s really no excuse for you to keep acting as if workers are the source of the problem.
You also write:
“It is well known that Wall-Mart employees have resisted unionizing in the past.”
No. It is well-known that Wal-Mart *employers* have resisted unionizing, to the point of using illegal intimidation methods and spying on employees:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/26/walmart-firings-linked-to-anti-union-intimidation-campaign/
http://www.thenation.com/blog/172748/walmart-workers-back-strike-over-new-wave-alleged-threats#
As you know, Tina, 80% of Wal-Mart employees are on some form of public assistance. Perhaps if Wal-Mart workers could unionize, they would be able to negotiate a wage that would allow them to get off of public assistance. I fail to see how your anti-union stance benefits you or the economy; lower wages means more people using your tax dollars for welfare. Why don’t you have a problem with Wal-Mart asking you to pay the tab for their employees?
“You donât know what responsibility is until you have risked your own money and invested your time, sweat, and worry to be in the position to offer jobs and then faithfully, year after year, met the payroll and other obligations to sustain it all.”
I’m sorry you can’t see how elitist and narrow-minded this sounds to those of us who have not started a business, or to those who have, but still think that it’s wrong to imply that those who have not somehow “don’t know what responsibility is.” I think a single mother working two jobs to support her children has a pretty good idea of “what responsibility is,” despite not having the time or resources to devote to opening her own business. Clearly, you disagree; clearly, your party has little interest in courting anyone aside from business owners; and clearly, this is not doing you a whole lot of favors at the ballot box.
This goes for Harold as well: this class warfare rhetoric against the poor is not going to get you anywhere. It’s gotten you this far because money = political power, but people are starting to wake up and realize that letting our democracy be decided by whoever has the most bank accounts is kind of corrupt.
I wrote:
âdo you trust the opinions of actual minimum wage earners?â
Tina replied:
“What experience do they bring to the subject?”
So I can only assume that Tina has not asked any minimum wage earners if they agree with her that eliminating the minimum wage will help them out.
Perfection.
Also, I’d like to point out that two days and several comments later, no one here has even tried to offer a consumer-centered solution to our economic crisis. Every solution offered has centered on what we can do for business owners, even though you all know that the central problem in our economy is lack of demand.
Classic Post Scripts.
To get back to Jack’s earlier point about prices going up and layoffs happening due to a minimum wage increase, here is what The American Conservative predicts:
“With direct replacement via outsourcing or automation unlikely, employers responding to a higher minimum wage would be faced with the choice of either increasing the wages of their lowest paid workers by perhaps a couple of dollars per hour, or eliminating their jobs. There would likely be some job loss,[vii] but given the simultaneous rise in labor costs among all competitors and the localized market for these services, the logical business response would be to raise prices by a few percent to help cover increased costs while also trimming current profit margins. Perhaps consumers would pay 3 percent more for Wal-Mart goods or an extra dime for a McDonaldâs hamburger, but most of the jobs would still exist and the price changes would be small compared to typical fluctuations due to commodity and energy prices, international exchange rates, or Chinese production costs.
The resulting one-time inflationary spike would slightly raise living expenses for everyone in our society, but the immediate 20% or 30% boost in the take-home pay of many millions of Americaâs lowest income workers would make it easy for them to absorb these small costs, while the impact upon the middle or upper classes would be totally negligible. An increase in the hourly minimum wage from the current federal level of $7.25 to (say) $12.00 might also have secondary, smaller ripple effects, boosting wages currently above that level as well.
A minimum wage in this range is hardly absurd or extreme. In 2012 dollars, the American minimum wage was over $10 in 1968 during our peak of postwar prosperity and full employment.[viii] The average minimum wage in Canadian provinces is currently well over $10 per hour, the national figure for France is more than $12, and Australia has the remarkable combination of a minimum wage of nearly $16.50 together with 5 percent unemployment.[ix]
Even a large increase in the minimum wage would have very little impact on Americaâs international competitiveness since almost everyone employed in our surviving manufacturing export sector â whether in unionized Seattle or non-union South Carolina â already earns far above the current minimum wage. The same is also true for government workers, resulting in negligible increased cost to taxpayers.
Leaving aside the obvious gains in financial and personal well-being for the lower strata of Americaâs working class, there would also be a large economic multiplier effect, boosting general business activity in our weak economy. Americaâs working poor tend to spend almost every dollar they earn, often even sinking into temporary debt on a monthly basis.[x] Raising the annual income of each such wage-earner couple by eight or ten thousand dollars would immediately send those same dollars flowing into the regular consumer economy, boosting sales and general economic activity. In effect, the proposal represents an enormous government stimulus package, but one targeting the working-poor and funded entirely by the private sector.”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/raising-american-wages-by-raising-american-wages/
So some jobs could be lost and prices would go up by a few percent, but this would be made up for by the much larger percentage increase in worker take-home pay and increased demand. In addition, some businesses would have to trim their profit margins to be more realistic.
“Perhaps consumers would pay 3 percent more for Wal-Mart goods or an extra dime for a McDonaldâs hamburger…”
As if consumers only bought hamburgers and an occasional item at Wal-Mart.
No! Consumers will pay higher prices for EVERYTHING THEY BUY. Look in the average family grocery cart and you will see a lot of extra dimes…week after week. Energy prices, clothing prices, fertilizer for the lawn, cat litter, dog food, movie tickets, bicycles. Raising the minimum wage forces all wages higher.
These guys are supposed to be smart but they certainly seem to minimize the total impact this move would have on our economy and every Americans wallet. Can the American public stand many more financial challenges? Seen the price of gasoline lately? How about the bill for healthcare? Higher taxes will bring more struggles. (In fact is this on the page now because the Obama administration just took that payroll tax break away from the average worker?
The stock market is cursed as the only place where money being made…bad bad bad! The stock market is held up as proof the economy is doing well. But guess why the market sits at around 1400? Guess who is putting most of the money in to prop it up…Old Ben using newly printed dollars that make our money worth a lot less. Its an artificial market with shallow trading and most individuals don’t trust it. Meanwhile the middle class is stifled with rising prices for goods and services and higher taxes.
This administration is killing the middle class and without it the low income worker hasn’t a prayer of truly bettering his circumstances.
Ronald Reagan knew how to unleash the power of the American middle class. His policies encouraged them and gave them breathing room to be entrepreneurial and grow the economy. We need a leader that understands what Reagan understood. Big companies and wealthy people will do fine in any economy. The middle class and the poor suffer under a stagnant economy. THIS ECONOMY STINKS OF STAGNATION. Raising the minimum wage might help a few people buy a few more groceries but ultimately that buying power will evaporate. Raising the minimum wage will do nothing to create a vibrant and growing economy and that is the only thing that will give people a real chance to improve their circumstances by working, gaining experience, knowledge, and skills, seeking promotion, and lifting themselves up!!!
A $2.00 an hour raise is government forcing you onto the same bottom rung, plastering a smile on your face, and sending you to the voting booth to vote for more stagnation and big government oppression.
Tina, why won’t you answer ANY of my valid questions? To remind you, I asked, “Over the past 40 years, has the bargaining power for the average worker gone up, gone down, or stayed the same?”
Please answer this question.
Tina: “Raising the minimum wage forces all wages higher.”
Uh, yeah. Since the average worker now makes less than the average worker in 1968, that would be a good thing. Wages SHOULD be higher. I already posted the numbers above, and have done so many times.
I’ll ask you what I asked Jack: do you believe it’s a positive or negative thing for our economy that the average worker is paid less today than 40 years ago? How can falling wages possibly be a good thing for the economy? (I doubt you will actually answer, since you’ve dodged every other question, but your silence speaks volumes.)
I also asked you earlier if you believed that the average worker in 1968 was overpaid. If you think the current minimum wage is “oppressively” high (when it is actually oppressively low), then you must also believe that workers in 1968 were being paid too much. Of course, this assumes that your beliefs are logically consistent with each other, which has in the past proved to be…an overly generous assumption.
“Higher taxes will bring more struggles. (In fact is this on the page now because the Obama administration just took that payroll tax break away from the average worker?”
*sigh* I’m really trying to avoid the words “liar” and “shameless hypocrite” in my conversations with you, since it’s only been a few days since the site’s been back up, but already you are making it very difficult.
We discussed the payroll tax months ago. In that discussion, I pointed out that Obama did not “take it away,” as you falsely claimed both there and in your most recent comment. And that in fact, Obama is the one who passed the payroll tax cut in the first place. You called that tax cut “stupid.”
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2013/01/02/dc-votes-to-raise-taxes/
In that discussion, I pointed out the numerous Republican politicians and pundits who argued that the payroll tax cut was a bad idea in the first place, and I made the following prediction:
“No doubt many of these same people will now turn around and blame Obama for not extending a tax cut they initially opposed. Indeed, Gretchen Carlson and Dana Perino have already done exactly that.”
Looks like my prediction was 100% right, and I can now add the name “Tina Grazier” to the list of Republicans who are trying to blame Obama for not extending a tax cut that they opposed.
“Can the American public stand many more financial challenges?”
I find it shocking that you don’t see crippling wage decreases as a financial challenge faced by the American people.
“Ronald Reagan knew how to unleash the power of the American middle class.”
Meanwhile, in reality, the 1980s were an extremely punishing period for the middle class, which began shrinking during that decade and never recovered. Here is a TIME magazine article from 1986 bemoaning the problem of the shrinking middle class:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C143633%2C00.html
This is directly linked to growing income inequality–you know, that thing that you pretend doesn’t exist.
Chris writes: Also, Iâd like to point out that two days and several comments later, no one here has even tried to offer a consumer-centered solution to our economic crisis. Every solution offered has centered on what we can do for business owners, even though you all know that the central problem in our economy is lack of demand.
Chris the main point that everyone has offered in rebuttal is you can not add cost to goods with Minimum Wage increases NOW in a staggering economy and expect the consumers to buy more. The cost of payroll is a important part of manufacture and distribution. Whom would you imagine covers those added costs, it is a viscous cycle that cause inflation (just what we need NOW!) with reduced dollar buying power. You have asked and it was answered, many times, I just believe your resistant to those facts make all your replies contumacious and without merit.
Harold: “Chris the main point that everyone has offered in rebuttal is you can not add cost to goods with Minimum Wage increases NOW in a staggering economy and expect the consumers to buy more. The cost of payroll is a important part of manufacture and distribution. Whom would you imagine covers those added costs, it is a viscous cycle that cause inflation (just what we need NOW!) with reduced dollar buying power. You have asked and it was answered, many times, I just believe your resistant to those facts make all your replies contumacious and without merit.”
No, my question was not answered. You are telling me why you think raising the minimum wage will not work…but you’re not offering any alternative solution of your own to the problem of low worker wages/low demand.
Again: what policies do you support that will directly increase consumer demand and spending?
Chris asks AGAIN; Again: what policies do you support that will directly increase consumer demand and spending?
OK then, what I would do after hiring someone at minimum wage, train them to work effectively, watch their growth and how they improve my business, then give them a raise or bonus in front of the rest of the work force and see who else is motivated enough to add to my business’s growth, then reward those people the same. As to the rest that continue to rely on minimum wage, fire them and replace them with more of the producers. After all it is my business and I am here to be productive, and I’ll leave welfare to the government.
Chris,One area you might revisit, because you seem so keen about CBO studies and their predictions. In 1995, The CBO predicted the deficit in 2000 would be well over $200 billion. We ran a surplus of $236 billion.
The CBO have no idea what future conditions will be, so theoretical guesses is the best they have to work with, sort of on plane with Obama’s Golden BS (G.B.S) about a $9.00 minimum wage that will stimulate the economy, by creating DEMAND. How about he approach it by instilling some CONFIDENCE in the American consumer to actually go out and spend. At best his G.B.S. (I think I like that đ ) will only benefit a few low income workers, while hurting many more.
I am done with this, Post Post Post my friend, but like a minimum wage earner with no growth potential I am through with this, I have work to do! and productive employees to encourage. Because if I fail they go to minimum wage some where else.
Like I said before business is a viscous cycle, especially with all the Government G.B.S
Harold: “OK then, what I would do after hiring someone at minimum wage, train them to work effectively, watch their growth and how they improve my business, then give them a raise or bonus in front of the rest of the work force and see who else is motivated enough to add to my businessâs growth, then reward those people the same.”
This is not a direct solution. You are approaching the problem of low wages as an individual one, rather than a systemic one. Your solution won’t do anything for our economy as a whole.
So, 30 replies in, and still no one has proposed any policy that would directly stimulate consumer demand. Are you getting the picture yet? Conservaties don’t HAVE any proposals that will stimulate demand, because you’ve been stuck on the myth that the central problem with our economy is a “bad business climate” for so long, that you can’t even imagine anything that doesn’t fall into that paradigm.
“As to the rest that continue to rely on minimum wage, fire them and replace them with more of the producers. After all it is my business and I am here to be productive, and Iâll leave welfare to the government.”
Wow. I just…wow. It is exactly this attitude that has made caused so many workers to have to depend on government assistance. You really do believe that it the job of government to take care of working citizens when their bosses can’t be arsed to pay them a decent wage. That’s not conservative; that’s pure Dickensian. “Are their no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”
I ask the other conservatives here: do you agree with Harold? Is this how all of you really think the system should work? Is all your complaining about people on welfare just a charade? Do you secretly not care at all about the number of people on welfare, as long as business owners aren’t asked to pitch in anything more than they want to?
The selfish attitude of certain (not all) business owners who do not value the contributions of their employees really sickens me.
Most minimum wage workers *are* producers, Harold. We could not live without them. And their productivity has gone up over the last 40 years, while their wages have gone down. No one here can provide a justification for that fact. So you ignore it, because it doesn’t fit into your myth of the sacred free market.
Chris contends the following:
We have however proposed stimulating growth in the overall economy by giving the American people relief from big government spending, debt, complex regulation, unsustainable programs and snarky leftist delusions that government can take money from the people and feed it back to them and create growth…and the further delusion that printing piles of money will do anything but weaken our buying power and create massive debt! We have shown you these things along with proof that the power to grow the economy resides with the American people, an idea that has worked under presidents of both of the major political parties. We have explained how pro-growth policies of low taxes and minimal regulation works and we have shown the positive results they have always had.
More Chris:
It sickens me that you are so shortsighted and unwilling to learn. It sickens me that you cannot tell the difference between a general policyh discussion and a personal story. It sickens me that you make assumptions about people you do not know to try to prove a point. You should be ashamed of yourself for condemning business owners who “do not value the contributions of their employees”. You have no idea how business owners treat or think about their employees. You certainly don’t have any idea what it takes to hire and consistently pay employees month after month. You have no idea how many employers here treat their employees very well, as individuals who contribute to their company.
We can point out that an influx of immigrants willing to do the work for less has contributed to this trend…something that shows minimum wage laws are useless as anything other than a political tool of Marxist manipulation. We can point out that higher minimum wage standards have pushed all wages higher forcing employers to look for ways to replace workers, often by going offshore which did not help minimum wage earners or their fellow experienced workers one bit. We have pointed out that the high unemployment experienced by teens is a direct result of the forced minimum wage. There are many things that contribute to the economic picture Chris.
The market will establish wages that are equitable…if immigrants can survive and thrive on less and find ways to better their circumstances Americans can too. Americans have become used to someone else taking care of their problems and they often don’t realize they need to be imaginative or self motivating to better their circumstances. The minimum wage earner moves on to a better position. You act like it is a permanent position, something to aspire to. I think it is you who thinks so little of the minimum wage earner that you believe his only recourse is help from government coercion of wages. Sick!
Chris is sticking with the progressive big government solutions that demonstrably have not worked in the past and, as we all are painfully aware, have not worked under Obama.
We suffer under high unemployment, massive and growing debt, high energy prices with promises that they will rise higher, rising inflation, an neconomy that is bumping along and threatening to sink into recession and a President that enriches his Wall Street, entertainment, and green energy friends while stinking the screws to the middle class with few opportunities. he pretends to care for the poor but unemployment for minorities remains very high…over 8 million jobs have disappeared and a piddling few have sprung up to replace them.
Chris you don’t have a leg to stand on nor do you have any real world evidence that progressive solutions for the economy work for the middle and lower classes.
Minimum wage workers are entry level workers. They bring nothing but low skilled labor to the table. That doesn’t mean they are bad people or unimportant. It means they have little experience or skill to offer in the work place. How many of those you work with have remained at the same job for years without attempting to better their own circumstances through education or job training? Why do you think it is up to the government and the employer to improve their lot in life?
Tina, you asked me a lot of questions there, and I would like to respond to them, but first I would like you to respond to the question that I have asked you twice already. I think that is more than fair, don’t you?
Over the past 40 years, has the bargaining power for the average worker gone up, gone down, or stayed the same?
This question is highly relevant to our discussion, especially since you are now claiming that wages have been “forced up” to a point that employers cannot afford (even though you know that wages have fallen since 1968). If you cannot acknowledge how much power workers have lost in the last few decades in relation to their bosses, then you cannot hope to grasp the issues we’re discussing.
Harold’s complete lack of concern about pushing his minimum-wage workers onto the welfare rolls inadertantly reveals the strategy at the heart of the modern conservative movement. Anti-labor policies pushed by the right have dramatically weakened the power of working people. They have caused wages to fall, allowed jobs to be shipped overseas, widened income inequality, weakened demand, and dramatically weakened unions, all while taxes on the rich and corporations have fallen to historically low levels and corporate profits have grown to record highs. All of this has caused more people to need government assistance.
Then, after all this is done, conservatives will blame liberals for the disastrous consequences of their own actions by making claims that fly in the face of objective reality–that wages are too high, that corporations are forced to oursource to survive, that income inequality is not a real thing, that supply-side economics will work at a time when the problem is demand, that unions are too strong, that taxes on corporations on the rich are too high, and that if the rich were simply allowed to make even more money than they already are, without government interference, the wealth would trickle down. Then they will claim that all of these factors have led to more people being on government assistance, while at the same time blaming welfare recipients themselves for not wanting to work to earn a living.
All of these claims are easily demonstrated as false–but if conservatives acknowledged that, the entire house of cards would fall apart.
But every now and then, someone slips and gives away the game. It is clear from Harold’s comments that he doesn’t actually care about the number of people on welfare. He pretends to, when he can blame it on Obama. But unfortunately, some people are paying attention. Harold has just shown us that the Randian selfishness of certain business owners is the real culprit behind the increase in welfare recipients. This is the modern conservative strategy: push people onto welfare due to low wages and outsourcing, and then bitch about there being too many people on welfare. The Romney campaign would be proud.
Tina,
you’re in way over your head, Hon. Have your afternoon milk, take a nap, and let the grown-ups discuss the important stuff.
HEY Chris, What she said!!!!!!!
Now, another comment because you rode this horse into the ground and whipping ain’t gonna get you the ride you want. You ask me what policies I would support, well sir those ARE my policies and my business and the people I employ are thriving. You asked ME and I informed you, don’t like the answer, sorry, but my polices are not your call, nor your business. Some times a intern needs to learn before instructing. Listen to what we are saying, and learn.
Oh, do come off it Harold. Methinks the cream of wheat and Metamucil have clouded your brain. Clearly you run your business, such as it is, like a pettifogging tyrant. You don’t want employees, you want indentured servants.
So I am posting away here and after I post, I notice Chris has spun my earlier post around to make his point of view the White Knight of change, what a pile of Liberal BS.
Chris states:
Haroldâs complete lack of concern about pushing his minimum-wage workers onto the welfare rolls inadvertently reveals the strategy at the heart of the modern conservative movement.
Then Chris follows up with:
But every now and then, someone slips and gives away the game. It is clear from Haroldâs comments that he doesn’tât actually care about the number of people on welfare. (actually Chris is part right on this, he just spins it into more Liberal BS. I don’t care about the abusers or life style welfare addicts, The economy would be better off without them and more could be directed toward those trying to better themselves)He pretends to, when he can blame it on Obama. But unfortunately, some people are paying attention.(obviously not Chris) Harold has just shown us that the Randian (I’m sure you mean random) selfishness of certain business owners is the real culprit behind the increase in welfare recipients.
Chris, ARE YOU VACUOUS OR WHAT?, welfare it self is the real culprit, it encourages people to depend on more welfare. If anything I encourage people to prosper, to do for themselves. Here again you have proven you just wish to be quarrelsome. Lord help us, as a teacher you must have a crayon book as a lesson plan, or your going to clown college, either way you are showing your lack of positive encouragement toward helping people improve their lives, you DO NOT enslave them with Government handouts, that only takes more money from otherwise hardworking Americans, and increases the already high percentage of welfare fraud.
Good god this is from the next generation, sigh!
Shawnee, sweety, this grown up would like to hear something of substance from you, otherwise grab your blanky & go back to your tinkertoys or we’ll have to confine you to your playpen.
We do serious discussion here at Post scripts. We welcome all opinions but we are not above meeting snarky, undisciplined, drive-by smears snark for snark.
I hope you will continue to join us but come on, surely you have more to say that the drivel you have posted so far.
Chris: “Over the past 40 years, has the bargaining power for the average worker gone up, gone down, or stayed the same?”
The bargaining power of any worker depends on his skills and experience. Most businesses could care less about the minimum wage when it comes to their employees. they care about hiring people who want to work and do a good job, who are eager to learn and participate, and who are honest and present themselves well.
My point, Chris, is that a lot of forces have created the condition you are worried about. You are unwilling to learn about the other conditions or consider how making other changes might improve conditions for min wage workers…like keeping prices from inflating by raising the minimum wage (and the wages above min wage that will also go up)
You are sure full of yourself for someone so young and inexperienced. You are easy to manipulate…all it takes is a progressive study that speaks to a narrow aspect of the problem and fits your worldview that businesses are beholding to workers.
My employees earn more than min wage but a lot of the little restaurants around the country are going to have to charge patrons a hell of a price for their meals or lay off a few workers or shorten their hours…YOU WILL GAIN NOTHING with this screwy idea.
Harold: “Chris, ARE YOU VACUOUS OR WHAT?, welfare it self is the real culprit, it encourages people to depend on more welfare.”
Harold, if anything is vaccuous, it is the above piece of circular logic. Welfare does not create the need for itself. What creates the need is low wages and lack of jobs.
Your illogical belief that welfare programs create the demand for themselves is unfortunately all-too common among conservatives. Many point to social welfare programs created in the 1960s as the source of our current economic woes, and claim that these programs are failures which should be eliminated or at least drastically scaled back.
This conveniently ignores the much more damaging economic trends that began in the 1960s. As you know, wages have gone down since 1968 even as worker productivity has gone up. Even though I’ve brought this damning statistic up many times, no one here has cared enough to address it. Nor have you addressed the rampant outsourcing that has destroyed our manufacturing industry; in fact, Tina has in the past even argued that outsourcing is *good* for our economy. Another significant trend is the dramatic decline in union membership since that time period. A chart I posted in an above comment showed a direct relationship between the decline in union membership and the decline of the middle class. Income inequality has grown since the ’60s as well, but conservatives don’t want to talk about that.
It is a fact that people are being paid less today than they were for an equivalent job in 1968. THAT is the reason that we have so many people on welfare.
People don’t just decide to go on welfare because of some abstract sense of “dependency.” The majority of welfare recipients work, and many of them work full-time jobs. Most people go on welfare because of very real needs, needs that are not being met in the private sector.
Clearly, the problem isn’t that welfare recipients don’t want to work. They are working. It’s not enough.
The problem is that people are not getting paid the true value of their work.
This is through no fault of the average worker. It is the fault of those who have helped rig the system against the average worker in the name of “supporting small business.” Well, small business isn’t doing so great now, because we’ve systematically lowered the income of most of their customers.
Maybe when Republicans realize it’s hurting them at the polls to keep pinning the blame on social programs, we can begin to talk about the real problems in this country.
Tina, thank you for finally acknowledging my question, though I notice you still did not exactly *answer* it.
You argue that “The bargaining power of any worker depends on his skills and experience.”
While these are two factors that may influence a worker’s bargaining power, they are clearly no longer the most significant factors. If they were, wages would have risen instead of fallen over the past 40 years, as the average minimum wage worker is older and better educated now than at any other time:
“The share of low-wage workers with less than a high school degree fell by half, from roughly 40 percent in 1979 to roughly 20 percent in 2011. At the same time,
the share of low-wage workers with a high school degree increased, from 35.4 to 37.0 percent, and
the share with some college education (but not a four-year degree) rose dramatically, from about
one-in-five (19.5 percent) in 1979 to one-in-three (33.3 percent) in 2011. By 2011, almost one-tenth
(9.9 percent) of low-wage workers had a four-year college degree or more, up from 5.7 percent in
1979.”
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage3-2012-04.pdf
Today’s minimum wage worker is more skilled and experienced than at any other time. Clearly, the bargaining power of workers depends on a lot more than just skills and experience.
“Most businesses could care less about the minimum wage when it comes to their employees. they care about hiring people who want to work and do a good job, who are eager to learn and participate, and who are honest and present themselves well.”
But as you know, worker productivity is up as well. So again, based on your criteria for what makes a good employee, we should expect wages to be up, not down. That hasn’t happened, which means other factors than worker’s abilities and work habits are responsible for the decline in pay.
“My point, Chris, is that a lot of forces have created the condition you are worried about. You are unwilling to learn about the other conditions”
No, I have discussed the conditions you have brought up and found that they do not match with the results we’ve seen. You are the one intentionally ignoring the conditions I’ve brought up, such as the decline in wages, the rise in outsourcing, the decline in union membership, widening income inequality…it is you who continues to imply that workers who are not being paid above the minimum wage are simply doing something wrong. You don’t want to acknowledge the systemic problems.
“or consider how making other changes might improve conditions for min wage workersâŚlike keeping prices from inflating by raising the minimum wage (and the wages above min wage that will also go up)”
As previously pointed out, the real minimum wage has not been raised once in the past 40 years, and has in fact fallen, so this makes no sense.
Chris: “You are the one intentionally ignoring the conditions Iâve brought up, such as the decline in wages, the rise in outsourcing, the decline in union membership, widening income inequalityâŚit is you who continues to imply that workers who are not being paid above the minimum wage are simply doing something wrong. You donât want to acknowledge the systemic problems.”
My position has never been that minimum wage workers (entry level workers) are “doing something wrong” and I have discussed the various contributing factors many times on this blog. But your context is such that you will never see the error and folly of progressive ideas so this is a useless discussion other than to express different opinions. You are of the opinion that employees advance only when employers are forced or are kind enough to help their employees by giving them more money. That is a child’s perspective, a victims hell.
My opinion is based on years of experience as an employee (started at min wage pricing children’s clothing) and as an employer. It is based on years as a personal witness to the abundance of the periods following sound tax and money policies adopted by administrations both democrat and republican. It is based on study, observation, and comparison. And it is based on the notion that human beings are capable of more than they realize and the most satisfying thing any individual can do is strive to improve his own circumstances. Handouts and forced earnings can never substitute for the personal satisfaction that standing on your own two feet brings. My opinion is based also on the real world notion that business is not charity and work is not slavery. After transitioning to the employer side of the issue I don’t believe most employers are stingy. More than often they are struggling when others are struggling. I do know that before I became a business owner I had no idea what it took to run a business.
If the highly educated today are forced to take min wage jobs it’s because the economy STINKS. The Obama administration has FAILED to create a vibrant recovery from recession…only about four out of ten Americans is currently employed!!! Unfortunately about 1/3 don’t care if they ever work according to the article I link to below. That is unacceptable.
Most people who enter the work force at minimum wage move to a higher wage job within six months. Clearly entry level wages are not what people live on. thise jobs are transition jobs. there will always be a need for those jobs. If you raise the wage artificially jobs will disappear.
This website has some interesting stats.
I do hope that one day you have the opportunity to experience living through a vibrant and growing economy where jobs are plentiful and the dollars you make have real buying power. We will not get there on the current path or by raising the minimum wage. The union does not pay workers. Unions are notoriously greedy and self interested and ultimately destroy business and government budgets. Government takes from both business and employees to pay the people it hires…no help there. You cannot be anti-business or support anti-business polices and expect to have good jobs that pay well. The cost of government is the biggest drag of all on the economy and your personal wallet.
As to any given individual the very best way to better oneself is to get more education and/or training…period! Work some, save some, and spend very wisely.
The economy contracted last month. We are all on edge because this month isn’t looking all that great either. If this month also contracts we are back in recession…and without ever really coming out of the last one. This is what we told you would happen. This is what we warned against if Obama was elected the first time! This economy is unacceptable as a whole and all you can think about is the minimum wage. If the economy doesn’t grow ain’t nobody gonna have a job. Wake up for heavens sake.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341589/gao-report-obamacare-adds-62-trillion-long-term-deficit-andrew-stiles
From what I gather the report finds that early projections were dependent on the sustainability of cost controls. To me that translates to the problem with most progressive ideas, they assume that conditions will remain static and people wonât change behaviors.
Yikes, 6.2 trillion! This must never happen. What are the low information voters thinking, we all knew it was going to greatly add to the national debt and put the country at economic risk. How can the voters be so oblivious? I’ve decided I am no longer ashamed of Obama, I am ashamed of the dolts that put him in office. Our greatest worry should come from stupid voters – they’re dangerous. Time for a return to the Monarchy! lol
Jack, if you’re concerned about “low information voters,” you should be concerned about yourself, Tina, and everyone else who uncritically accepted the misleading report of the National Review in Tina’s cited article.
The National Review claims, “Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today.”
This is a lie by ommission. What the GAO actually reported was that the health care law will add 6.2 million to the deficit over 75 years *IF* the cost containment measures in the bill prove unsustainable. The GAO drew no conclusions about whether these cost containment measures will work; they ran one analysis assuming that they would, and one assuming that they wouldn’t. They also found that if the cost containment measures do work, the deficit will decrease.
http://gao.gov/assets/660/651702.pdf
The National Review and other conservative sites are reporting that the GAO unambiguously found that Obamacare will add to the deficit, without mentioning the big “if” involved. This is dishonest, but that is to be expected from conservative sources of news.
Those who haven’t realized this yet are the real “low-information voters.” And so are you, Jack, if you chose not to research this issue further. Had you done so, you would have realized that the information Tina posted was misleading.
Chris, you make a fair point with supportive professional opinions so I’m not going to say Y-O-U are wrong. However, I’m going to say the numbers you cite and the numbers Tina found are based on certain assumptions, okay? And to see the truth one must look at our history and the fine print within this healthcare plan. Then deduce by logic which of the two scenarios is likely to happen. This is where your numbers get into trouble Chris and remember, I am saying this in the light of past practice by the federal government to underestimate cost projection.
CATO has about as many smart people in their room at any one time as could be found anywhere else and here is what CATO said, and it’s really worth noting Chris… “Then thereâs the additional $208 billion that Democrats plan to spend on physicians who participate in Medicare. Democrats moved that into a separate bill to reduce the apparent cost of the main health care bill. Including that spending in the estimate completely wipes out the Obama planâs professed $138 billion of deficit reduction. After correcting for that gimmick (and accounting for how the two measures would interact), the CBO estimates really indicate that the Obama plan would increase federal deficits by $59 billion over the next 10 years.
Even worse, Democrats hid another $1.5 trillion by preventing the CBO from scoring the legislationâs hidden taxes. At present, when Congress takes money from workers and gives it to private insurers, the CBO counts that as a tax. The Obama planâs âindividual mandateâ would force workers to give money directly to private insurers, which the presidentâs economic advisers admit is also a tax. If history is any guide, those hidden taxes would cost roughly $1.5 trillion â but you wonât find any such estimate in the CBOâs score.
If youâve been keeping count, weâve revealed the actual cost of the bill is nearly $3 trillion. But to believe this legislation would cost âonlyâ $3 trillion, we would have to assume that after President Obama signs it into law, it would be rushed to the National Archives and entombed within an impenetrable vault where it would never again be touched by God or man.”
If you want to read the full article it’s at http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/do-math-obamacare-would-increase-deficits-$59-billion
Chris I think we all want to be intellectually honest here, right? But, sometimes you call us flat wrong, as if we are deliberately lying, yet no verdict had been rendered by the jury.
When you engage in ad hominem attacks it doesn’t advance our debate and it doesn’t help when you confuse opinions with fact. There is NO evidence that Tina or I am wrong on Obamacare costs and we’re well informed voters. We just have opinions different than yours. We’re coming from a different political perspective with relevant information gained outside your circles. You should try stepping outside your rigid confines sometime, get a new perspective – we’ve tried it and it didn’t kill us!
Please don’t reject our opinions only because they don’t agree with your narrow leftwing biased source material, there’s a lot to be learned, especially from Tina. She has really gone the distance to help you be an informed voter.
Chris after listening to President Obama’s news conference today your concerns about dishonesty by conservatives is laughable. The president spent the entire time telling one big lie after another. He can’t get away with blaming the state of our economy and the destruction his policies have wrought on the nation on Bush anymore. This year is not looking good with a lot of companies laying off more people; some are predicting another recession. His policies are a complete failure. He desperately needs someone or something new to blame. He has chosen to blame the republicans over the sequestration. What an A-*ole. This was was his tough guy idea, and he never expected it to happen. it was supposed to make him look good and it has backfired. he is making a total fool of himself over the “draconian” cuts, something he can control and something for which there is plenty of pork, waste, and inconsequential spending to choose from to meet sequestration levels.
Jack, thanks for the response. I did not mean to accuse you or Tina of “deliberately lying,” but I do think you (and a lot of conservatives) jumped onto this story and assumed that the GAO unambiguously concluded that Obamacare would add trillions to the deficit, even though that was not an accurate reading of the GAO. I found it ironic that you called others “low-information voters” whilst operating on low information yourself. And I think there is a pattern of this kind of misreporting in the conservative media.
But I’d like to get back to the minimum wage discussion. Tina wrote:
“My opinion is based on years of experience as an employee (started at min wage pricing childrenâs clothing) and as an employer.”
In other words, Tina, you received an advantage–enforced by the government–that you now believe should be denied to others. Not only were you effectively paid more in your minimum wage job than minimum wage workers are paid today, you believe that employers should be allowed to pay their workers even less than they are today.
Unless you believe that you would be better off had you been paid LESS at your starting job, I find this quite hypocritical.
“Handouts and forced earnings can never substitute for the personal satisfaction that standing on your own two feet brings.”
Tina, the minimum wage is not a “handout,” and it is not something that people don’t work for. In fact, the very existence of minimum wage laws were gained by people who “stood on their own two feet” and worked hard for a cause they believed in. Our nation is better off because of their efforts; you should appreciate them more, since they have directly benefitted you.
A good minimum wage ensures that people are paid the value of their work. Unfortunately, because the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation or worker productivity, this has not happened.
“If the highly educated today are forced to take min wage jobs itâs because the economy STINKS. The Obama administration has FAILED to create a vibrant recovery from recession⌔
Tina, as pointed out earlier, this trend has been going on for decades. To blame it on Obama is ignorant.
“Most people who enter the work force at minimum wage move to a higher wage job within six months.”
Yes, and those jobs still pay less than they would if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation and worker productivity. A low minimum wage depresses all wages.
“The union does not pay workers. Unions are notoriously greedy and self interested and ultimately destroy business and government budgets.”
Tina, how do you explain the fact that strong unions are historically correlated with a strong middle class, and weak unions are historically correlated with a weak middle class?
“You cannot be anti-business or support anti-business polices and expect to have good jobs that pay well.”
I am not anti-business. The majority of small business owners say that the main problem they are seeing is not government intervention, but lack of demand.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/review_businesses_say_demand_not_regulation_kills_jobs_20111005/
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/09/13/small-business-hangs-demand-wanted-sign/
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2011/12/small-business-owners-its-lack-of.html
Higher wages increase demand, which helps business. Raising the minimum wage is pro-business AND pro-worker in the long run. Your policy of eliminating the minimum wage–at a time when the average American is paid less than ever–is only good for some businesses in the short term, and bad for all workers.
“As to any given individual the very best way to better oneself is to get more education and/or trainingâŚperiod! Work some, save some, and spend very wisely.”
But, as you’ve consistently ignored, minimum wage workers are already doing this. They are better educated and better skilled than any previous generation.
We are doing everything you’re telling us we need to do. It’s not enough.
Chris: “In other words, Tina, you received an advantageâenforced by the governmentâthat you now believe should be denied to others.”
There is no way to know that the min wage was an advantage or disadvantage to me. I might have been started at less but without the government mandate I might have been started at more…the point is the employer would determine the wage based on my age and experience and what she could afford to offer me. I would then have made a decision to take the job or look elsewhere. With government out of the way the employer has room to make employee decisions based on his circumstances and what the market will bear. If he offered too little his competition would leave him with the least qualified/reliable.
Employers are not all the same. Most manufacturers can afford to start an entry level person at a higher wage than, for instance, a fast food restaurant can. The governments one size fits all model means that a lot of jobs are lost to those with no experience and a lot of businesses that might survive are lost. You could understand if you were not so convinced that everyone who has a business is an a**h*le. Restaurants in small towns and cities like Chico are especially vulnerable to the fixed entry level pay and the higher prices for groceries that min wage helps to drive up. There are a number of homeless folks that might get a hand up with a dishwasher’s job if wage, tax, and regulatory burdens didn’t drive them out of business.
“the minimum wage is not a ‘handout’â
Oh but it is and it’s the worst kind of handout. It is the foot of the government on every employer’s neck, no matter his circumstances, to pay a fixed wage at the bottom. Call it an enforced subsidy if you prefer. One way or the other it is artificial. Some jobs are just not worth the trouble and expense of hiring another person. (Jobs for teens are lost this way)
“you should appreciate them more”
I appreciate those who stood up to the mining companies and others because they were being treated horribly. I do not appreciate the communist influence that took what was a just cause and turned it into a political/mob mentality intimidation machine that helped to destroy manufacturing in America and that now is destroying cities, counties and states across America because the tax payer never had a seat at the bargaining table.
“A good minimum wage ensures that people are paid the value of their work.”
No! A minimum wage standard ensures that nobody knows the value of work. All wages are artificial and just to make it even more interesting the resulting inflation of prices mean that nobody knows the true value of goods and services. This is nothing more than a political scam on those who can least afford it…brought to you exclusively by the progressive arm of the Democrat Party…the little Marxists!
“because the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation or worker productivity”
Unreasonable union demands and the forced minimum wage are largely responsible for this condition. As I said there are other factors that also have contributed. The failing educational system and a society in steep moral decline have also added to the problem. Those who actually care to work and improve their lot in life are burdened because of the lack of competent help in some sectors. Government burden on business in the form of a complex, noncompetitive tax system has also not helped. Emerging nations have given the unprepared American worker some big competition. It is dumb to put all of the blame on minimum wage law…but it is the kind of political carrot that the schemers throw out to all of you slavish believers as red meat to DISTRACT from the utter failure of the President to turn the economy around. You scream and yell on cue like a good little comrade.
“as pointed out earlier, this trend has been going on for decades. To blame it on Obama is ignorant.”
Which is why I said “today”. Today we can blame it on Obama because he has made the situation MUCH WORSE! HALF of college graduates are unemployed or underemployed…they are putting downward pressure on the low skilled worker by taking all of the entry level jobs. His policies have cause more than one senior looking at retirement to stay in the workforce too. Instead of moving on they are staying put.
There’s a story today that illustrates his hand in work and wage conditions:
Obama decided to give workers a holiday on their payroll taxes to “create demand” and spur the economy. The policy failed. Then when the scheme expired guess what? Families and individuals that were used to that fat increase in their income saw a big cut in take home pay and oh, by the way, this is going on when their groceries, gas, energy and medical are also going up. Obama has wasted a ton of tax money on green energy that has been wasted, that has sent jobs overseas, and that in the long run will not be reliable and have added to our current problems. He did this while attempting in every way possible to blunt coal and oil production. His third big idea was to tax the rich to get more revenue. This caused companies to spend some of the tightly held cash for dividends to stock holders so they would be taxed at the lower 2012 rate. He’s either a total blockhead or he is intentionally destroying our economy (and the military)…oh…his policies are also destroying the dollar and put us at a disadvantage ion trade agreements…what a guy!
“A low minimum wage depresses all wages.”
Minimum wage laws force all wages up and create higher prices. It is backwards thinking to suggest that the cause of the problem is low forced wages.
“…how do you explain the fact that strong unions are historically correlated with a strong middle class, and weak unions are historically correlated with a weak middle class?”
I think the correlation is faulty. As I said before many things contribute to the conditions we have experienced over the last few decades not the least of which is the greedy union demands that send jobs overseas, destroy companies and force prices up. (And let us not forget what unions have done to government budgets at the state and local levels)
You live in a free country, Chris, where it is possible to lift yourself out of poverty. You can move not only into the middle class but to billionaire status like Oprah did!
People don’t get where they want to go by using the force of government to make it happen. Think about the many people all over the world who live under dictatorships and tyrants that would give anything to live in America because of the freedom and opportunity that freedom creates. Read what those who have managed to come here and succeed have to say about the oppression of government. And notice those who have come from socialists nations for freedom sake only to vote for the same types of policies that they wanted to escape. Each has a story to tell and each should act as an inspiration and a warning.
We Americans do not appreciate what we have. too often we do not take advantage of the freedom we have to better our circumstances. To many have learned to put their faith in the government instead of themselves. It’s a damn shame. Instead of a vibrant, creative, diverse economy we have citizens attempting to put us all in little boxes of the same color and type.
“I am not anti-business. The majority of small business owners say that the main problem they are seeing is not government intervention, but lack of demand.”
You haven’t talked to enough small business owners. Lack of demand will remain a problem as long as our government stands in the way of the industry of the American people by creating barriers, burdens, and uncertainty. This president has created all three in spades! We now have the worst recovery the country has seen since the great depression and the same kind of thinking that prolonged that non-recovery is driving this one to all time lows. People are not going to buy when they can’t see a positive future, when they see prices going up, when the solutions government enact only add to the problems. It also doesn’t help that we have Harry Reid playing doorstop in the Senate and a President that campaigns and refuses to put his own ass on the line to lead.
“Higher wages increase demand, which helps business.”
How? How can small to medium businesses that are under pressure just pay more out in pay and payroll tax when their sales are down, their costs have been increased, and their futures look so uncertain? They are more likely to lay off people or shorten their hours if you raise the minimum wage. That won’t create demand it will just take money from one pocket and put it in another while it increases the unemployment numbers. Even if it did give a few folks a few more dollars to spend it would not be sufficient or long lasting enough for real recovery, much less help to create a vibrant economy.
“But, as youâve consistently ignored, minimum wage workers are already doing this.”
Wrong. They are surviving at best. They can’t do much to improve their circumstances when the economy stinks and they have no hope of a better/different job. Obama has created a condition where we are all hanging on by our teeth and holding our breath.
You are a single minded guy, Chris. Unless you broaden your perspective you will never understand how life works in the free world. Unfortunately you will remain a slave to that leftist hogwash that believes everyone with a dollar more than you is a heartless, greedy b-tard out to oppress and exploit you.
I know there are hard working people who work entry level jobs. I also know that some are stuck in thinking they aren’t capable of more. Most every person who has made it in America has had to start with a low paying job. Too many of us in today’s world have not been taught that government is their only ally. Too many have been poorly prepared at home and at school to succeed by their own efforts. Given the wealth and freedom we have had in this country it is obscene that we find ourselves in this position.
Believing that raising the minimum wage would help improve this condition or the economy is a bit nuts. But then a new cause is always the answer for those who worship at the alter of big government and as I said, those who run the Obama political machine are happy to have you concentrate on min wage to distract you from their utter failures, broken promises, and lies.
Tina, it would be exhausting to try and respond to everything you wrote. I’ll try to hit the highlights:
“There is no way to know that the min wage was an advantage or disadvantage to me. I might have been started at less but without the government mandate I might have been started at more⌔
Tina, this literally makes zero sense. Minimum wage laws do not stop employers from paying their workers more than the minimum wage. They can’t possibly have that effect.
Of course the minimum wage was an advantage to you. Without it, your boss could have payed you a lot less. And if you decided, “Hey, I could always work elsewhere!” you’d likely find the next better paying job still didn’t pay enough to make it worth it, because without minimum wage laws, all wages would be lower.
You are totally unwilling to admit how government has helped you.
Tina, I really want you to think about your argument. At a time when wages for the average American are lower than they’ve ever been, you are saying that one of the biggest problems in our economy is that wages are TOO HIGH. I could call this idea many things, but I don’t need to. Merely describing it is enough to condemn it.
Do you get how that sounds to people barely getting by? Do you get how out of touch you are, not just with most Americans, but with the majority of Republicans on this issue? A slight majority of Republicans believe that the minimum wage should be raised to $9 an hour:
“A strong majority of Americans favor President Barack Obamaâs proposal to raise the minimum raise, according to a new poll. Among Republicans, by a slim margin, more support the move than oppose it.
In the poll from USA Today/Pew Research Center, 71% of Americans back increasing the minimum wage to $9 an hour from $7.25 currently, with 26% opposed. The plan, introduced by Mr. Obama in his State of the Union address, has 87% support among Democrats and 68% support among independents. Among Republicans, 50% back the measure, with 47% opposed.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/02/21/poll-strong-support-for-raising-minimum-wage/
Tina, if your party leaders go on TV and start saying what you’re saying right now–that a big problem with the economy is that average Americans are simply making too much money, and that we should eliminate a law that has protected workers from exploitation for over 70 years in order to accomodate their bosses, YOU WILL LOSE. Hard.
If your party leaders keep pandering to the extremist elements in your party instead of the moderate majority, they will destroy themselves.
“You could understand if you were not so convinced that everyone who has a business is an a**h*le.”
I have never said or even implied this.
“Oh but it is and itâs the worst kind of handout.”
Yeah, the kind of handout you work hard for is always the worst!
“I appreciate those who stood up to the mining companies and others because they were being treated horribly. I do not appreciate the communist influence that took what was a just cause and turned it into a political/mob mentality intimidation machine that helped to destroy manufacturing in America”
Bullshit. The minimum wage did not destroy manufacturing in America; most manufacturing jobs pay well above the minimum. Manufacturing jobs were destroyed by a lack of regulations on outsourcing. You yourself have argued that outsourcing is good and we shouldn’t do anything to stop American companies from shipping American jobs overseas, because freedom. So spare me the faux concern.
“and that now is destroying cities, counties and states across America because the tax payer never had a seat at the bargaining table.”
I’m sorry, are you under the impression that union members don’t pay taxes?
I said: âbecause the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation or worker productivityâ
You replied:
“Unreasonable union demands and the forced minimum wage are largely responsible for this condition.”
Again, you are not making sense, and I mean that in the truest way possible. There is no logical way to track what you just said from the sentence you were responding to. Had unions gotten their way, wages would have kept up with inflation and worker productivity. But because unions are much weaker today than they were in 1968, this has not happened.
I don’t even know how to respond to your assertion that “the forced minimum wage” is “responsible” for the minimum wage not keeping up with inflation and worker productivity, because that makes so little sense it makes my head hurt.
“Thereâs a story today that illustrates his hand in work and wage conditions:
Americans saw their income drop so dramatically in January that it marked the deepest one-month decline in 20 years.
Personal income decreased by $505.5 billion in January, or 3.6%, compared to December (on a seasonally adjusted and annualized basis). Thatâs the most dramatic decline since January 1993, according to the Commerce Department.â”
And…your solution to the problem of a steep drop in income…
…is to allow employers to pay their workers less than the minimum wage.
I’ll give you a minute to think about that, Tina.
Are you there yet?
How exactly do you expect people to gain more income when you want employers to be able to pay them LESS?
“I think the correlation is faulty.”
Do you have any evidence that the statistically strong correlation between strong unions and a strong middle class is faulty? Or are you simply basing this on dogma?
“People donât get where they want to go by using the force of government to make it happen.”
*headdesk* This is just so historically ignorant I don’t know what to do with you.
Here are a few examples of people using the force of government to help make this country better:
The Emancipation Proclamation
The 19th Amendment
Child Labor Laws
Brown v. Board of Education
Civil Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act
And, oh yeah…The Constitution.
I could go on, but I’m very busy today.
“We Americans do not appreciate what we have. too often we do not take advantage of the freedom we have to better our circumstances.”
Again: minimum wage laws exist BECAUSE people took advantage of the freedom they had to better their circumstances.
“To many have learned to put their faith in the government instead of themselves.”
As long as you are stuck in this false dichotomy, we will continue to talk past each other. You can’t comprehend the fact that people can have faith in themselves and work hard and still need government help. This puts you at a severe disadvantage in talking politics, becuase in order to believe in this false dichotomy you must ignore (or revise, David Barton-style) practically all of U.S. history.
“You havenât talked to enough small business owners. Lack of demand will remain a problem as long as our government stands in the way of the industry of the American people by creating barriers, burdens, and uncertainty.”
And yet, this is the opposite of what the majority of small business owners say when polled. They say that government regulation is not the problem, and that lack of demand is not caused by the “barriers” you describe. The evidence shows that it is you who have not talked to enough small business owners. You are simply projecting your own experience onto others.
I wrote: âBut, as youâve consistently ignored, minimum wage workers are already doing this.â
You wrote: “Wrong. They are surviving at best. They canât do much to improve their circumstances when the economy stinks and they have no hope of a better/different job.”
I’m sorry, are you denying that minimum wage workers today are more educated and experienced than in the past? What evidence do you have that contradicts mine?
You said that individual workers should try to educate and better themselves if they want higher wages. But like I’ve shown you, they are already doing this, and they are making less money than before. It’s really frustrating having to repeat the same points so many times.
Chris your mind is locked up in a box created by the PC education you’ve received. You wrote:
“Minimum wage laws do not stop employers from paying their workers more than the minimum wage. They canât possibly have that effect.”
I didn’t suggest that they did. I do notice that the source of all thinking in your mind is the powerful government. EVERYTHING depends on the mandates and restrictions put in place by government.
The point is without a government mandate employers can pay according to what their personal business budgets and the market will allow. The point is that an fixed bottom wage, that necessarily drives all other wages up, creates an artificial element in market forces. The point is in this environment we don’t have any idea what the value of work, or the true value of goods and services is. The point is that the government wage mandate is stupid since it is not based on what a worker will accept and consumers will pay. Government intrusion is not a social tool to help the poor; it is a political tool to aid progressive democrats in securing votes.
“Of course the minimum wage was an advantage to you. Without it, your boss could have payed you a lot less.”
I already said that. But market forces would have determined the appropriate wage and the actual cost of the food and gas and medical and clothing I purchase…and they would also be lower. I repeat, the only way to actually improve ones circumstances is to get more experience, training, or education. Entry level jobs start that process by giving people some experience. They are not intended as career choice jobs that you keep. Those who remain stuck in these jobs either want them because they just want some part time work (retirees, housewives, college students) or they have not learned that to advance one must gain some skills.
And if you decided, âHey, I could always work elsewhere!â youâd likely find the next better paying job still didnât pay enough to make it worth it, because without minimum wage laws, all wages would be lower.”
As would all prices on goods and services…particularly the ones where government and union intrusion and excessive demands have had more influence…education, health care, manufacturing, energy.
Sadly you are a victim of the times and the politics involved in shaping society and the educational system. Progressive polices have really done a job on our republic, education, and the capitalist system that once had the capability to put a man on the moon (and beyond) and became the envy of the world. It is unfortunate that you do not have a clue about your heritage.
“At a time when wages for the average American are lower than theyâve ever been, you are saying that one of the biggest problems in our economy is that wages are TOO HIGH.”
I have not said that at all!!!!!
Read again. The government mandated wage standard, known as minimum wage law, artificially establishes ALL wages. We have no idea what the work we engage in is worth. The minimum wage is about as useful as the government printing money which only makes our dollars, and therefore our buying power, worth less.
“Do you get how that sounds to people barely getting by?”
Do you realize how making the small business employer pay more at this time sounds to those employers barely hanging on and what their “out of business” signs will mean to people who are employed? A lot of them are going without pay themselves, or limiting their own pay, to make it possible for their employees to keep their jobs. Do you have any idea how the policies of this president have pulled the foundations out from under the job creators in this country?
There is a way to create a vibrant economy in America but people with your mindset refuse to let go of the idea that you are the smartest people in the room even though you have never run a business and never held a job that wasn’t government paid.
Chris this situation is going to get worse because, unlike Bill Clinton, President Obama refuses to get that, “the era of big government is over”. Obama is ideologically driven. He is delighted with this outcome. It is the price we must pay so that he can get what he wants.
“A slight majority of Republicans believe that the minimum wage should be raised to $9 an hour…”
It doesn’t surprise me a bit. They can read the wring on the wall and rather than sticking by principles and solid economics they too go for the votes. Low information voters are in great supply thanks to the Obama get the vote out machine and a lousy educational system. It’s all about votes rather than common sense, budgets that are balanced, or prices and wages that have real value. So the majority thinks it’s a grand idea…so what! If the majority is uninformed it means nothing!
I have never said or even implied this.
Oh but you have…you just don’t realize it. The continuing existence of the law implies that employers are greedy buggers who live to treat their employees like crap. The rhetoric that comes streaming from the mouths of progressive politicians, union thugs, and activists is rife with that type of negative language. The president has engaged in a constant stream of negative language. It’s not new. Hillary Clinton showed the total disregard progressives have for small business when she said that small business is “inefficient” back in the 90’s. Leftist leaders are mostly elitist snobs that look down on the poor and middle classes. They see themselves as the necessary element to manage the hapless mob. What is amazing to me is they get away with being in league with really big business people (that can better afford mandated wages) to maintain power and advantage…the hypocrisy, the manipulation, is astounding and the little guy is oblivious!
“The minimum wage did not destroy manufacturing in America; most manufacturing jobs pay well above the minimum. Manufacturing jobs were destroyed by a lack of regulations on outsourcing. You yourself have argued that outsourcing is good and we shouldnât do anything to stop American companies from shipping American jobs overseas, because freedom.”
You learned to read and comprehend in the modern American educational system didn’t you! All of that is wrong and totally misrepresents what I have said. See…you do not get it. (That means you don’t understand my arguments and yet you attempt to reply. It me4ans with further explanation you still do not grasp the basic concepts) You are all attitude and feelings and you know NOTHING. Do you care to know or are you just happy to stumble along believing the crap when you can see with your own eyes that over the past four years unemployment has not improved, the condition you care about is not changing or moving in a positive direction, the corporations are doing well but the small business sector is crippled, inflation is happening despite their attempts to hold it back, and some are saying we are likely headed for a second recession or worse. Chris…wake up! Proof that you don’t understand is in your next statement:
“Iâm sorry, are you under the impression that union members donât pay taxes?”
The point is excessive public sector unions have demanded and gotten unsustainable (artificial) compensation that ALL taxpayer cannot pay…they are busting budgets, Chris. They are helping to destroy cities, counties, and states across the nation! Wake the hell up!!!!! (And notice the difference in states where republican governors and mayors are moving to market based policies)
The damage done by progressive ideas for well over fifty years will take awhile to reverse but it is possible IF we can re-educate the people to know and understand their heritage: republican government, personal freedom and responsibility, and the free market.
“AndâŚyour solution to the problem of a steep drop in incomeâŚ
âŚis to allow employers to pay their workers less than the minimum wage.”
NO! my suggestion is to let the market, and each private business, determine wages based on what the market and his circumstances will bear. YOU thiunk about it!
“How exactly do you expect people to gain more income when you want employers to be able to pay them LESS?”
Really? We have to go through that again? And you think you don’t think only in terms of a handout?
How do you suppose the average business owner moved from his first low wage job to where he is today? Think about it.
How sad that your education has failed you. The only chance anyone has to better his circumstances is if the government does something. No wonder America is in decline. No wonder we have so many people who have no sense of the American, “can do” spirit. No wonder so many people remain stuck in low wage jobs or are totally dependent on government…or shiftless and homeless.Ever heard of taking the initiative on your own behalf? I know you have done that Chris and it will pay off for you in the future and you still don’t get it.
“Do you have any evidence that the statistically strong correlation between strong unions and a strong middle class is faulty? Or are you simply basing this on dogma?”
The union machine is based on progressive dogma! You really think your question is useful to understanding what has happened in America?
“Here are a few examples of people using the force of government to help make this country better”
First of all, beat your head on the desk a little more maybe it will knock something loose.
Try the seventeenth amendment that basically took all power away from the states in order to move the country in the direction of progressive inspired centralized power. Women earning the right to vote, as an example, was made possible by the structure of our Constitution. That doesn’t mean that everything activists have managed to push through works or is in the best interests of all of the people.
The seventeenth amendment, for instance, took power away from the individual states. that was one of the first salvos launched by progressives to undermine our republic and move it toward a big centralized (socialist) government. The result of this “progression” is the mess we live with today and the poorly educated youth who support the idiots destroying our country to make it more like Mussolini’s Italy (are you noticing what is happening in Europe…never mind you won’t get it)
“…minimum wage laws exist BECAUSE people took advantage of the freedom they had to better their circumstances.”
I should rest my case. Only a totally indoctrinated person could make such a statement with a straight face.
“And yet, this is the opposite of what the majority of small business owners say when polled. They say that government regulation is not the problem, and that lack of demand is not caused by the âbarriersâ you describe.”
“And yet, this is the opposite of what the majority of small business owners say when polled. They say that government regulation is not the problem, and that lack of demand is not caused by the âbarriersâ you describe.”
Well that’s an opinion. Here’s another:
Common Good
“You said that individual workers should try to educate and better themselves if they want higher wages. But like Iâve shown you, they are already doing this, and they are making less money than before. Itâs really frustrating having to repeat the same points so many times.”
Frustration cuts both ways.
You are denying that the economy STINKS under the leadership of Barack Obama!
You are denying that the educated are now taking jobs away from the uneducated or poorly educated because the Obama economy stinks.
You are educating yourself in order to move yourself ahead. The educated who are graduates and cannot find work in their field have. None of this demonstrates your point. It does illustrate the failed policies of this administration and the absolutely stinking economy.
“Progressive polices have really done a job on our republic, education, and the capitalist system that once had the capability to put a man on the moon (and beyond) and became the envy of the world.”
Tina,
In 1969–the year we put a man on the moon–the minimum wage was the equivalent of over $10, nearly a third of workers were unionized, and the top tax rate was over 77%. Thank you for proving my point for me.
The bottom line is this: when our public and private institutions work together to ensure fair wages and a decent standard of living for all, the economy does very very well. The middle class grows, we see tons of innovation, and businesses do well too because of high demand.
But when those at the top of the private sector gain too much power in relation to those below them; when they use that power to influence legislation at a level the founders would be appalled by; when they buy our politicians and construct monopolies under the guise of “free markets;” when they become too big to fail; when they tell us that we need to make even more concessions to them so that their wealth will eventually “trickle down;” when we allow them to outsource, hide their money in secret foreign bank accounts, craft law that allows them to skip out on their taxes; when they destroy unions and refuse to keep wages consistent with inflation and worker productivity…our economy starts to suck. The middle class stagnates and shrinks. Income inequality grows. Demand goes down. Small business loses to big business. Competition becomes a joke. The welfare rolls grow. Class divides become cemented. Social mobility goes down.
This has been the trajectory of our nation for the past 40 years. As Rachel Maddow pointed out, helping the very rich was a theory that we tried. It did not work out for anyone except the very rich.
At a time like this, the notion that we should further erode, and even eliminate, the few basic protections that workers still enjoy, should be undeserving of attention. And yet, that is exactly what one of the major parties is arguing.
I don’t believe the average American wants to re-fight the battles of the early 1900s, Tina. If your party takes up your idea of eliminating the minimum wage entirely, you will condemn yourselves to irrelevance. We know how workers were treated in the 1920s. We don’t want to go back to that.
I will also ask you kindly to stop personally attacking my education and my work ethic.
“I repeat, the only way to actually improve ones circumstances is to get more experience, training, or education. Entry level jobs start that process by giving people some experience. They are not intended as career choice jobs that you keep. Those who remain stuck in these jobs either want them because they just want some part time work (retirees, housewives, college students) or they have not learned that to advance one must gain some skills.”
Tina, you have a habit of repeating the same falsehoods over and over even after confronted with evidence that what you are saying is wrong.
I have already shown you that minimum wage workers today are older and more educated today than they ever have been. That means that minimum wage workers HAVE “gained some skills.” They have followed your exact advice. It’s not helping. That should indicate to you that the problem is not with the actions of the workers. It’s a problem with the system.
Rachael Madow is your expert? Okay….
Small to medium businesses employ most Americans. Please explain how raising the minimum wage will help these businesses to create jobs. Please explain how this will create confidence and a growing economy? Tell me Chris, where will the money come from to give minimum wagers, and all of the people above them who will want their wages raised, more in their paychecks? Where will the money come from to pay the business portion of taxes and other employee expenses?
You apparently think a big (Pelosi) hike in the minimum wage will cause a spending spree that will fuel a growing economy…how?
It will create added expense in a situation where businesses already face higher costs. It will create higher unemployment and or higher prices. It will hurt the poorest among us the most!
You can’t argue the point with any degree of authority when you cannot explain how the basic method you favor will work in practical terms and so far you haven’t. You have given me a laundry list of progressive talking points.
It doesn’t occur to you that a growing government, demanding more and more each year, and requiring more revenue just to pay interest on debt takes a big bite out of the economy. It doesn’t occur to you that that heavy load is already being carried by the wealthy who pay the biggest percentage of taxes and who also invest heavily from their resources back into the economy. It doesn’t occur to you that, right now, they are not using their wealth to grow the economy because of the risks this government has created and imposed.
The middle class is stagnating because government policy is anti-business and pro big government distribution. Government is sucking the life out of the economy and it is threatening the wealth builders with more oppressive regulations and costs. This administration (Obama) PROMISED that energy prices would “necessarily” go up, for instance, and he has kept his promise. That doesn’t give people or business confidence to spend and risk. He has created another big expensive bureaucracy (Obamacare) and it’s expensive regulations that have caused healthcare and insurance prices to rise. His money guy keeps pumping money into markets, somne of it overseas, and it devalues the dollar and causes inflation. All of that big government stuff has to be paid for and puts tremendous pressure on wages and spending power.
Minimum wage workers today are educated and have gained skills but they have those jobs because they are still finishing college OR because they can’t find a job in their field! In the last case they are taking the jobs others without skills would normally get! This is a problem but the problem isn’t the wage or the overqualified workers. It is a circumstance of the lousy economy.
This circumstance does not prove I am wrong! It proves that Obama has presided over a stinking, never ending, jobless no-recovery recovery. It proves that your big government/union solution isn’t the answer to wage disparity problems.
You had better do a little thinking before you accuse me of repeating falsehoods. It is common sense that to improve ones station one must improve ones skills…except, perhaps, in the mind of someone who believes that money grows on trees and everyone should be paid the same regardless of skills just to make life fair.
I need to get some sleep so I invite you to educate yourself a little by reading from the following:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/incomeinequality-myth
http://www.cato.org/blog/yes-land-use-regulation-does-increase-income-inequality
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/incomeinequality-myth
http://www.policymic.com/articles/12319/6-myths-about-income-inequality-in-america
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/defending-the-dream-why-income-inequality-does-not-threaten-opportunity#Part2
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577305302658158454.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577305302658158454.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
I don’t pretend to have all the answers or facts. I do think these articles show that many things contribute to the appearance that middle class incomes have suffered greatly. They show that at least some of the data is deceptive and the gap isn’t as great as some have indicated. They also indicate to me that this crisis is being used as a political football. The left adores creating a crisis and once it’s established in the minds of the low information public they never let it go to waste. It is particularly effective in a bad economy…amazingly they have sustained just such an economy!
Finally I resent the fact that you paint me as being against workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want people to make as much as they can but I think that for everyone to be well served their work should have real value. I also think the condition of the overall economy has a great impact on workers than does a starting minimum wage…I support policies that create opportunity and vibrancy so that all Americans can advance. I don’t support polices that cause prices to rise, dollars to be devalued, or that enhance collusion between government and unions or business.
Our government should be neutral!
Tina it’s interesting to note that Chris says how more older, seasoned workers are now drawing minimum and he doesn’t connect why? It’s obvious to me. Younger workers have been displaced by minimum. Employers have no financial incentive to hire a kid with no experience. Those days of training kids to do a days work are gone and so are rewards of being that young person learning about responsibility.
Tina, the fact remains that in 1968 the minimum wage was effectively higher than it is today. We did not see the devastating consequences that you claim come from minimum wage law. On the contrary, our economy and middle class was growing at that period. The problems started when wages began to fall behind inflation and worker productivity. I’ll say it again: your stance only makes sense if you believe that minimum wage workers in 1968 were grossly overpaid. Do you believe that?
“Small to medium businesses employ most Americans. Please explain how raising the minimum wage will help these businesses to create jobs. Please explain how this will create confidence and a growing economy?”
I’ve already explained this; raising the minimum wage directly stimulates demand, which is the #1 problem with our economy at the moment. But don’t take it from me; take it from some of these business owners who support raising the minimum wage:
http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/business-stories
http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news/00272/costco-eileen-fisher-and-small-business-owners-nationwide-support-fair-minimum-wage-act-i
The most recent research on the minimum wage corrects many of the old studies’ flaws, and shows that areas with a higher minimum wage are better off economically than those with lower minimum wages, according to the EPI:
“Despite the fact that contemporary economic research casts a long shadow of doubt on the contention that moderate minimum wage increases cause job losses, opponents still lead with this argument. This so-called âdisemploymentâ argument is particularly difficult to maintain given two relatively recent developments in the history of minimum wages. First, the quality of empirical minimum wage research rose steeply over the last decade, due largely to economistsâ ability to conduct pseudo-experiments 3. Such experiments, rare in empirical economics, typically utilize the fact that numerous states (12 as of today) have raised their minimum wage above that of the federal level. This variation between states gives researchers a chance to isolate the impact of the wage change and test its impact on employment and other relevant outcomes. As stressed in the Card and Krueger book cited above, these studies reveal employment elasticities that hover about zero, i.e., they solidly reject the conventional hypothesis that any increase in the minimum wage leads to job losses among affected workers.
Second, following the most recent increase legislated in 1996, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades. The fact that the employment and earnings opportunities of low-wage workers grew so quickly following that increase continues to pose a daunting challenge to those who still maintain that minimum wage increases hurt their intended beneficiaries.
Recently, the Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) released a study of the impact of higher minimum wages on small businesses 4. Their analysis focuses on various outcomes for businesses with less than 50 employees, comparing these outcomes between states with minimum wages above the Federal level and those at the Federal level. If the theory that higher minimum wages hurt smal
l businesses is correct, then we would expect there to be less growth in such enterprises in states with higher minimum wages. In fact, as shown in Figure 5, the opposite is the case.
⢠Between 1998 and 2001, the number of small business establishments grew twice as quickly in states with higher minimum wages (3.1% vs. 1.6%).
⢠Employment grew 1.5% more quickly in high minimum wage states.
⢠Annual and average payroll growth was also faster in higher minimum wage states.”
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_viewpoints_raising_minimum_wage_2004/
“It doesnât occur to you that that heavy load is already being carried by the wealthy who pay the biggest percentage of taxes and who also invest heavily from their resources back into the economy.”
It’s not that this hasn’t “occured” to me, it’s that I’ve evaluated this claim and found that it doesn’t make any sense. The rich (top 2%) are doing better today than they have at any time in history, and their taxes are lower than ever. The reason they, as a group, are paying such a large share of our nation’s taxes is because so many people have fallen below the poverty line due to low wages and lack of jobs. The rich have also been allowed to hide more of their money in secretive foreign bank accounts, meaning they are not investing as much into our country as they used to. Corporations have no loyalty to this country anymore, Tina. Apple gets all the benefits that come from America, but exploits workers in China to make their products. Does that seem right to you?
“It doesnât occur to you that, right now, they are not using their wealth to grow the economy because of the risks this government has created and imposed.”
Again, this has occurred to me, but then I did some research and realized that it was stupid. Corporate profits are through the roof and getting higher. The wealthy have no excuse to not be investing in the economy. The idea that government is somehow limiting the ability of the rich to get richer is objectively false, and can be proven so by even the most cursory glance at reality.
“The middle class is stagnating because government policy is anti-business and pro big government distribution.”
Tina, in case you hadn’t heard, the Dow hit a record high last week. How “anti-business” is that?
Obama has bailed out huge corporations and his Justice Department claims that they can’t prosecute corporate titans who smuggle drugs to terrorists. How “anti-business” is that?
Bruce Bartlett, the guy responsible for the Reagan tax cuts you swear by, says that the problems in our economy today are all on the demand side, not the supply side. You are myopically focused on what business owners want and need, but that’s not the issue right now. The average worker/consumer is who you should be focusing on.
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2343/why-reagan-tax-cut-worked-1981-and-why-it-wouldn%E2%80%99t-work-today
“Government is sucking the life out of the economy and it is threatening the wealth builders with more oppressive regulations and costs.”
Consumers are the real “wealth builders,” according to venture capitalist Nick Hanauer:
http://nick-hanauer.com/?p=44
“He has created another big expensive bureaucracy (Obamacare) and itâs expensive regulations that have caused healthcare and insurance prices to rise.”
Tina, I implore you to look at the real causes for the exhorbitant cost of healthcare in this country. The private sector grossly marks up the cost of medicines and procedures. This important TIME magazine story is very informative:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136864,00.html
“Our government should be neutral!”
You act as if laizess-faire capitalism has never been tried in this country. We did try it. It was a miserable failure that led to the Great Depression.
Chris: Tina, the fact remains that in 1968 the minimum wage was effectively higher than it is today.
A meaningless statement. All wages are effectively higher since 1968. We don’t know the actual value of work because of this artificial intervention into the free market. We also don’t know the true cost of products and services. Creating an artificial base pushes other wages up creating greater expense that is passed to the consumer or results in lost opportunity…usually for the lowest skilled among us.
The argument is POLITICAL! It buys votes for democrats but is a scam. It not based on free market economic principles where consumers and workers determine prices and wages. it is built on the socialist notion of fairness (rather than equality of opportunity).
“We did not see the devastating consequences that you claim come from minimum wage law.”
What “we” are you talking about? How do you count lost opportunity. It isn’t as if lost opportunity is one of the economic indicators announced by government on a regular basis…American businessmen chose not to hire 20,000 to 40,000 teens and college students this year according to the Department of Mind Readers.
“The problems started when wages began to fall behind inflation and worker productivity.”
What is the cause of inflation, Chris? and how to explain the disparity between private sector and government pay? Workers are more productive for three reasons: 1) They sense their opportunities for advancement or more earned pay are greater due to the vibrant economy, 2) They sense that jobs are in short supply and they better perform to hold on to the job they have, 3) the company they work for provides a satisfying atmosphere with incentives to work hard.
Businesses strive to make money by offering the best product at the lowest possible price. All of the leftist ideas that act as a drag on that goal hurt not only the business but consumers by driving costs, and therefore, prices up and creating inflation. This is basic stuff, Chris.
“Iâve already explained this; raising the minimum wage directly stimulates demand…”
Nice try but no banana!
In a crappy economy people are more careful with their cash. That’s why Obama’s big idea for a tax holiday on payroll tax resulted in exactly ZOT! More money in everyone’s pockets last year did not have the stimulative affect he thought it would have.
“take it from some of these business owners who support raising the minimum wage…”
I’m not impressed by the opinion of a womens’s business association or an association that uses COSTCO as an example. COSTCO is a multi-billion dollar company; of course they can afford to pay their workers a higher wage than can the local family owned restaurant! ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL.
“The most recent research on the minimum wage corrects many of the old studiesâ flaws…”
Not impressed! Studies don’t mean a thing without real world outcomes that can be tracked. One size fits all imposed wage standards HURT local small family businesses! GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE NEUTRAL. People and business workers can work out wage issues on their own. This allows consumers and workers to establish the real value of work. I hate to tell you this but if people could grasp this one simple concept the cost of everything would come down, including healthcare, groceries, gasoline, and yes A COLLEGE EDUCATION! Consumers would get real value from their dollars and have a clear understanding about what they need to do to make more money. Your ARTIFICIAL alternative blunts buying power, production, innovation, affordability of products and services. (Here’s the dirty secret…human greed drives this stupid idea that you can force higher wages (costs) without negative consequence)
“The most recent research on the minimum wage corrects many of the old studiesâ flaws, and shows that areas with a higher minimum wage are better off economically than those with lower minimum wages”
I can relate to this. Montana has a lower min wage than California…Expenses are higher here too!
Where is the evidence that the result in the finding is actually caused by the difference in min wage rather than other factors or a combination of factors.
Your sources don’t impress me at all!
“The rich have also been allowed to hide more of their money in secretive foreign bank accounts, meaning they are not investing as much into our country as they used to”
So give them reason to bring that money back to America. You can attract more bees with honey than you can with vinegar…a basic principle of life.
I’m at work and cannot continue all in one sitting. My responses from here forward will be random.
Teenagers often begin to defy their parents authority as they move toward adulthood. This happens so that they can begin to make their own decisions. It takes a lot of patience and discipline to see them through this period but the truth is, NOBODY wants to reach adulthood and still be managed by their parents. Businesses don’t want to be managed by a nanny government. Government policy that chases investors, risk takers and wealth builders to other countries, ties their hands with complex, expensive regulation, and imposes unreasonable tax rates that block their ability to compete in the global market is stupid policy and hurts American job seekers and American consumers, especially if they like to buy American.
“n case you hadnât heard, the Dow hit a record high last week. How âanti-businessâ is that?
The DOW does not reflect American businesses that would be hurt by raising the minimum wage.
The rising DOW is reflective of money that government printed and pumped into the system AND profits made in other countries. The Presidents policies STINK for America!
“The wealthy have no excuse to not be investing in the economy. The idea that government is somehow limiting the ability of the rich to get richer is objectively false, and can be proven so by even the most cursory glance at reality.”
They are investing in the economy…of other countries. Unless you want to live in a totalitarian state you have to realize that when the government raises taxes on people with money to invest they will look for investments that will not be immediately taxed. Buffet likes higher taxes for this very reason. His company is a safe haven for wealth when people are looking to defer taxes due to higher rates. The presidents manipulation to get more revenue will not work because people, being FREE, will choose not to play. If you want less of something tax it!
“Bruce Bartlett, the guy responsible for the Reagan tax cuts you swear by, says that the problems in our economy today are all on the demand side, not the supply side. You are myopically focused on what business owners want and need, but thatâs not the issue right now. The average worker/consumer is who you should be focusing on”
You assume things that are not true. The unemployment, underemployment, dropped out of the workforce picture is very bad in case you hadn’t noticed. this is the worst recovery under presidents of both parties since WWII. it is asinine to think that the policies chosen by the president are not the cause of this problem. It is asinine to think that demand will tick up when people cannot find work at all and so give up trying, when college grads are doing entry level work, when those looking for work can’t find work in their field. Wake the hell up, Chris. Get that chip off your shoulder about the motivations of those of us that have an opposing view or happen to be business owners…and think! Use your own common sense instead of relying on studies alone.
“You act as if laizess-faire capitalism has never been tried in this country. We did try it. It was a miserable failure that led to the Great Depression.”
Did you get that off a bumper sticker or out of the mouth of Rachel Maddow? Your history was written by died in the wool socialist that want power and control vested in government. You can’t consider that you have a broad education unless you also read the opinions of others:
Mises.org
I invite our readers to read the entire article as it is likely that you may have been taught history slanted toward socialist (democrat) ideals and policy.
Jack you’re right about hiring teens…the unemployment numbers for teens have been very high and started even before the latest recession. Remember when gas stations could no longer afford to be service stations. A lot of kids, boys mostly, were hired to pump gas, check the tires and oil, and wash the windshield. Higher minimum wage not only got rid of the service but the jobs were lost too.
Jobs that disappear due to higher costs are not always noticed. As I indicated to Chris, you can’t count them!