What a bunch of dicks!

[Dob]

A new bill to increase minimum wage is being introduced into congress, details here

The asshats in congress have tied this long overdue wage increase to several other measures including a tax cut on multi-million estate taxes. Words fail me.

On some lvl tho, I admire the republican parties balls. They know this will be seen as an election year ploy to garner votes from their working class base, but they just dont give a shit. If they did, they would have passed the same bill not more than a few months ago!! Right after they gave themselves a pay increase!!!!!!

How, as a government, did we freakin get here?

[friedo]

Hey, if employers are going to be forced at gunpoint to pay higher wages for unskilled labor, it would be nice if they were forced at gunpoint to pay a little less in taxes.

It's just good manners.

[John Mace]

They're trying to take away one of the trump cards the Dems will play in Nov. It's very cynical, yes, but OTOH it's also a popular thing to do. Most states have higher MW laws anyway, so this won't make that much difference. Besides, the gay marriage issue is runing out of gas...

[Robot Arm]

The article doesn't give enough details about what estate tax changes the Republicans are proposing. I've read previous news items about attempts to raise the threshold amount that an estate must be worth before it becomes subject to federal estate taxes. I suspect that this is the same, but if anybody can find out the details, please let me know.

Inflation is a fact of life for everyone. If the minimum wage is going to go up by 40%, then it seems fair to increase the cap for untaxed estates by 40%, too.

But if it's any more than 40%, the Democrats should extend their collective middle finger and tell the Republicans to spin on it.

[XT]

Seems like a decent political move to me...though I'm unsure how the REAL economic conservatives are going to view it. Though I suppose they have no real choice anyway...they kind of have to vote Republican (or vote some 3rd party).

Dicks? Certainly. Though for myself, I'd call them 'politicians'...which, to my mind, is actually worse.

-XT

[Syntropy]

Originally Posted by friedo

Hey, if employers are going to be forced at gunpoint to pay higher wages for unskilled labor, it would be nice if they were forced at gunpoint to pay a little less in taxes.

It's just good manners.

Could you give me an example of an employer being forced to pay an estate tax on a multi million dollar estate?

[Squink]

Originally Posted by friedo

Hey, if employers are going to be forced at gunpoint to pay higher wages for unskilled labor, it would be nice if they were forced at gunpoint to pay a little less in taxes.

Permanently eliminating the estate tax isn't about business owners, it's about keeping Paris Hilton happy.

[Loopydude]

Dicks or not, it was shrewd, and right out of the Clinton playbook, really. Steal the other guy's idea, modify it in such a way as to mollify your base and enrage the party you're stealing from, and serve up with a shit-eating grin. Drives your enemy hopping mad, makes them look like fools (which they are, for the most part, at least when it comes to strategy), and leaves the wealthiest contributors largely unscathed.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by friedo

Hey, if employers are going to be forced at gunpoint to pay higher wages for unskilled labor, it would be nice if they were forced at gunpoint to pay a little less in taxes.

It's just good manners.

Employers don't pay an Estate Tax. The Estate Tax is an inheritence tax which actually affects very few people (the wealthiest 2%, IIRC).

[Terrifel]

I personally have no problem with the wealthiest 2% of employers being forced at gunpoint to reap the immediate benefits of a reduced Estate Tax. I just never imagined it would be the Republicans who would enact such a policy.

[friedo]

Originally Posted by Maureen

Could you give me an example of an employer being forced to pay an estate tax on a multi million dollar estate?

I was being facetious.

Although, since I didn't RTFA I admittedly didn't know it was the estate tax they were talking about.

[Syntropy]

Originally Posted by The OP

The asshats in congress have tied this long overdue wage increase to several other measures including a tax cut on multi-million estate taxes.

But I do agree, if a small business is going to have to pay a large increase in wages, they should get some kind of break. As for mega-corps like Wal Mart, well...screw 'em.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by xtisme

or vote some 3rd party

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away. A-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaa!

[Baldwin]

Robot Arm:

Inflation is a fact of life for everyone. If the minimum wage is going to go up by 40%, then it seems fair to increase the cap for untaxed estates by 40%, too.

Why? Seriously, what does one have to do with the other?

[Syntropy]

I suppose the tortured logic is that the only people seriously affected by a hike in the minimum wage are people who would benefit from a raised cap on estate taxes. Which is, of course, bullshit; small and medium sized businesses, restaurants, etc. will be impacted by this on a far larger scale, and their only means of recouping will be to raise prices, unfortunately.

[Robot Arm]

The $5.15 minimum wage was passed in 1996. But that $5.15 does not buy as much now as it did 10 years ago.

Similarly, once upon a time (but more than 10 years ago), leaving an estate of $100,000 dollars to your heirs would have been considered a fortune. Now, it won't even buy a condominium in most cities.

Congress tends to pass laws with specific numbers. (Computer programmers would call this "hard coded".) Inevitable changes in society have the effect of of slowly altering the effects of those laws. LIfe expectancy has increased considerably since social security was enacted, but the age to receive benefits has stayed the same.

It seems fair to me that if the minimum wage is to be adjusted for inflation, that the size of an estate before it becomes subject to taxes be similarly adjusted. The standards for public policy, large and small, should be based on quality-of-life and purchasing-power, not specific numbers.



Which is not necessarily what I think is happening with the current bargaining in the congress. I got the impression (though the article does not proved enough details to back this up) that the Democrats are being asked to accept a permanent change (major adjustment or repeal of the estate tax) in exchange for a periodic adjustment (raising the minimum wage).

I think that would be a bad deal on the part of the Democrats. Inflation will continue, and in ten years we will need to raise the minimum wage again. There will be no more estate tax. What will the Republicans put up as their bargaining chip then?

[elucidator]

The dire threat of android marriage.

[Syntropy]

That's just a slippery slope to women marrying their vibrators, and I for one will have none of it, buster.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by Maureen

But I do agree, if a small business is going to have to pay a large increase in wages, they should get some kind of break. As for mega-corps like Wal Mart, well...screw 'em.

Regardless of the company, what should be the definition of small business? Which get the tax breaks, and which don't? What'sthe threshold? Number of workers? Sales? Profits?

The tax break angle is bullshit anyway. What DC loses in those tax reductions, it makes up for in increased taxes on wages. Say what you want of the government, but don't kid yourself about one thing. The government is smart enough to work it out so they never actually take in less money. How would they pay for the raises and lifetime benefits?

As far as the dismissal based on a profitable company? They're smart enough, as well, to know how to keep those profits up. If the higher wages cut into the bottom line, the prices go up. And mega-corps like Wal-Mart, Target, etc are often the very places the MW workers do the majority of their shopping.

So all of a sudden a kid flipping burgers is making more money per hour, but paying a higher price for the standard goods he's used to. See a pattern here?

Also, in the case of the MW, it doesn't fall into the "A rising tide lifts all boats." If the MW goes from 5.15 to 6.65, what do the people making 7.50 do? They can't really demand a 1.50 increase since they're high enough on the pay scale where the employer doesn't have to worry about them leaving for a MW job. OTOH, you'll have people that were at least qualified enough to get a job paying more than $2 over MW realizing a part-timer in high school is les than $1 away from them.

There is a way to form a "fair wage" policy, but people much smarter than I for decades haven't figured it out. So I'll not even bother trying to come up with any ideas of my own how to do it. All I can do is harmlessly post opinions. That's good enough for me.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by Maureen

That's just a slippery slope to women marrying their vibrators, and I for one will have none of it, buster.

But it would be one hell of a Bachelorette party!

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by duffer

The government is smart enough to work it out so they never actually take in less money. How would they pay for the raises and lifetime benefits?

There's this thing called the national debt...

I don't think I've ever seen any politician accept, or acknowledge in any way, that revenue and spending are related.


And as a proud Mechano-American, I'm not liking the trend this thread is taking.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

There's this thing called the national debt...

I know. I heard about that 20 years ago. It's like a rash, keeps coming back.

[Squink]

$ 8 , 4 2 8 , 8 2 3 , 5 4 6 , 0 0 3 . 5 6

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by duffer

The tax break angle is bullshit anyway. What DC loses in those tax reductions, it makes up for in increased taxes on wages. Say what you want of the government, but don't kid yourself about one thing. The government is smart enough to work it out so they never actually take in less money. How would they pay for the raises and lifetime benefits?

In absolute terms, sure, but as a percentage of GDP, which makes more sense, not true.

Here is a graph of corporate tax revenues as a percentage of GDP, this shows various sorts of receipts as a percentage of the GDP.

As far as the dismissal based on a profitable company? They're smart enough, as well, to know how to keep those profits up. If the higher wages cut into the bottom line, the prices go up. And mega-corps like Wal-Mart, Target, etc are often the very places the MW workers do the majority of their shopping.

So all of a sudden a kid flipping burgers is making more money per hour, but paying a higher price for the standard goods he's used to. See a pattern here?

Since wages are not the only component of prices, the MW worker will do better. Yeah, McDonalds wages will go up, but not the price of beef or potatoes.

Also, in the case of the MW, it doesn't fall into the "A rising tide lifts all boats." If the MW goes from 5.15 to 6.65, what do the people making 7.50 do? They can't really demand a 1.50 increase since they're high enough on the pay scale where the employer doesn't have to worry about them leaving for a MW job. OTOH, you'll have people that were at least qualified enough to get a job paying more than $2 over MW realizing a part-timer in high school is les than $1 away from them.

You neglect the $6.00 worker who will now make 7.25, etc. The pushup of the intervening levels will tend to raise the pay of the lower paid hourly workers, though I'm sure there will be more wage compression as employers save money by not paying the better paid ones (better, more experienced workers, right?) the same raise the MW workers get.

I'm old enough to have lived through several MW wage increases, and the doomsday scenarios have never come to pass.

[ivylass]

Why should the government be involved in employer-employee contracts anyway? What, do you think if there were no minimum wage, employers would only be offering $2 an hour?

Do away with the MW altogether, I say.

[SmartAleq]

Minimum wage in Oregon is $7.50/hr. We manage to have businesses of all sizes continue to operate in spite of this dreadful situation and a shit burger at McDonalds here costs the same as a McDonald's shit burger anywhere else. The government is needed to step in to legislate a minimum wage because there is always someone out there hungry enough to take a job for any wage at all and employers willing to undercut everyone else if they can get away with it.

With all that said it's pretty shitty trying to live on $7.50 and hour and I bet it's just way more shitty at under six bucks. If the CEOs of major corporations took a ten percent wage cut they could probably afford to raise wages significantly for their bottom tier employees and the CEO wouldn't be exactly starving, y'know. I'm just ashamed I live in a country where a decent minimum wage and health care are still considered to be negotiable items. You'd think we'd have come a bit further...

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by ivylass

Why should the government be involved in employer-employee contracts anyway? What, do you think if there were no minimum wage, employers would only be offering $2 an hour?....

If they could get away with it? You bet! When questioned, they intone somberly about their sacred duty to their stockholders. Sometimes they dab at thier eyes with a mongrammed hanky. Unregulated capitalism is a monster that eats people and shits poison.

[Terrifel]

Originally Posted by Voyager

I'm old enough to have lived through several MW wage increases, and the doomsday scenarios have never come to pass.

9/11 changed everything.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by elucidator

If they could get away with it? You bet!

I'd expect that the consequent rapid expansion of the International Union of Fast Food Workers of America would soon put a stop to wages that low. Maybe we'd have a few years of 'Burger strikes' and 'pizza lockouts', but the market would adjust, and even republicans would be forced to conclude that 'union label' fries are a healthier food choice than scabby tatertots. If the elitists want class warfare in America again, they can get it.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by elucidator

If they could get away with it? You bet! When questioned, they intone somberly about their sacred duty to their stockholders. Sometimes they dab at thier eyes with a mongrammed hanky. Unregulated capitalism is a monster that eats people and shits poison.

I honestly didn't think it was possible. But in your time off you've become even more bitter than before. I'd go so far as to say that now, by comparison, Diogenes looks like a conservative!

Unregulated capitalism? What the hell is regulated capitalism then? I'm not sure what your situation is right now, but the frequency of your posts to a message board indicates you may actually be doing alright in life.

Ever notice when talking to people that say the economy is shit they usually talk about friends or neighbors? For the most part it goes something like this:

"Well, I'm doing OK, but my neighbor is getting fucked over."

And if you ask the neighbor, he'll often say the same of his neighbor.

Now, I have to ask a serious question. Do you honestly think a company would hire legal workers at $2/hour if they could? Do you have any grasp of reality left to realize how fast that company would sink?

I get the hyperbole in your new style. But based on your posts in the past few days, I'm not sure you do.




BTW, Voyager, I'll read your response closer. Seems to be a few good points there.

[Shayna]

Originally Posted by duffer

Now, I have to ask a serious question. Do you honestly think a company would hire legal workers at $2/hour if they could?

Of course they would! What alternate universe are you living in? They're already doing it with illegal workers. What on Og's green earth makes you think they wouldn't rub their hands with glee if they could get away with doing so legally?!!

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

If the CEOs of major corporations took a ten percent wage cut they could probably afford to raise wages significantly for their bottom tier employees and the CEO wouldn't be exactly starving, y'know. I'm just ashamed I live in a country where a decent minimum wage and health care are still considered to be negotiable items. You'd think we'd have come a bit further...

Wal-Mart has about 1.2M employees worldwide. Assuming that half of them are full-time and half half-time, that's an average of 30 hours a week per employee. That's an average of 1560 hours per year per employee. That times 1.2M is 1.872 billion hours of labour.

The CEO of Wal-Mart had a total compensation of $17,543,739 in 2004.

http://www.ips-dc.org/projects/globa...rt_pay_gap.htm

Let's take 10% of that. That's $1,754,373. Dividing that between the 1.872 billion labour hours yields a whopping $0.000937 per hour. Let's take his entire salary - now we're up to about $0.00937 per hour - about a penny per hour.

Not a very good solution. As a stretch, I'd reckon that's why it doesn't get employed as such.

[XT]

But that $0.000937 per hour would really add up you know...

Originally Posted by Shayna

Of course they would! What alternate universe are you living in? They're already doing it with illegal workers. What on Og's green earth makes you think they wouldn't rub their hands with glee if they could get away with doing so legally?!!

You are right...they would. Assuming they could get away with it of course. Get away with it? Yeah...IF they could find folks willing to work those jobs at that rate, then they certainly would do it. And if they could...well then, that sort of tells you something right there (well, it would tell ME something anyway).

However, you said it yourself...these are ILLEGAL workers. Their choices and options are very limited. They usually don't speak the language very well, they are usually uneducated and unskilled laborers working in niche, vertical markets (like the farm industry). This wouldn't exactly translate into every business suddenly getting to rub their hands with glee and dropping their wages to the rock bottom. Because you (like many who make this arguement) have forgotten that labor works both ways...and the laborers ALSO get to choose if they wish to sell their labor at such a price. Perhaps some will...most won't however. Most will determine that $2/hour isn't worth it for their time and effort and so will go to the smart companies who are paying more...and thus actually have employees to work for them.

The hand rubbing, top hatted fat cats, lighting their cuban cigars with $100 bills and offering jobs at $2/hour will rapidly find out that its kind of hard to run a business without employees...

-XT

[if6was9]

Originally Posted by Maureen

But I do agree, if a small business is going to have to pay a large increase in wages, they should get some kind of break. As for mega-corps like Wal Mart, well...screw 'em.

Or perhaps the hardline pubs could increase the MW a little every year, instead of a BIG increase every nine years (or whatever) so it wouldn't hurt so much. But nah, increasing the MW is bad for business. Maybe next year...

[Hostile Dialect]

Originally Posted by friedo

Hey, if employers are going to be forced at gunpoint to pay higher wages for unskilled labor, it would be nice if they were forced at gunpoint to pay a little less in taxes.

It's just good manners.

"Forced at gunpoint?" Nobody's forcing anybody at gunpoint to do anything here. Nobody forced those people to start or run businesses. They can step off the perch and live on $5.15 an hour like the rest of us any time they want to.

It's not like $5.15 is a generous wage and we need to apologize for demanding more, and give the rich something in return. No. $5.15 is a ridiculous 1990s wage. The rich owe their employees the difference, not the other way around. They can afford to get a little bit lopped off the top of their millions, and still go out and buy people (at the new, extortionist minimum wage) to drive cars I wouldn't mind living in.

That said, if the current estate tax affects people with an amount of money that is no longer plentiful (which is possible), then yeah, the threshold should be raised. I don't know those numbers, but somehow I doubt that people are getting financially crippled by estate tax in the same way that people are financially crippled by working for minimum wage.

Meanwhile, my classmate (in a state with a MW $1.60 higher than the federal) whose main goal is to get a degree and start a college savings fund for her son before she dies of cancer, lives 40 miles away from the suburbs (nevermind the city proper), has to sell pieces of her movie collection to buy gasoline so she can drive down the hill and get to class on time, and she and her son very simply would not eat without food stamps, nor could they undergo medical procedures more involved than applying Band-Aids without one of the nation's better state health plans, which still doesn't cover most of her vital medical expenses (see "trying to earn some money to build a decent life for her son before she dies of cancer").

(I see now that you were being facetious, but I still think I've made some good points here.)

Originally Posted by John Mace

Most states have higher MW laws anyway

Err..yeah...if by "most" you mean 18 out of 50, eight of which are small Northeastern states not called New York. Most states have the same state minimum wage as the federal, six don't have any minimum wage at all, and one has a lower minimum wage than the federal; presumably those seven are hoping that the federal minimum wage is decreased somehow. $5.15 an hour is a ridiculous amount of money to try to make a living and go to school on*. $6.75, California's minimum wage, is not a rational wage to expect people to live on when contrasted against California living expenses.

* OK, I concede I wouldn't know if you can make it on $5.15 an hour in Wyoming. I know it's pushin' it in Arizona, though.

Originally Posted by Maureen

But I do agree, if a small business is going to have to pay a large increase in wages, they should get some kind of break.

If a small business is decent and caring about their employees' welfare (presumably this is why you're making a distinction between small businesses and Wal-Mart), they're already paying above the minimum wage, because the minimum wage is not livable. If they can't afford to pay reasonable wages, too bad, they should come up with a better business plan or get better loans.

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

Congress tends to pass laws with specific numbers.

Except, conveniently, the one which automatically raises their pay, which I understand to be algorithmic.

Originally Posted by ivylass

Why should the government be involved in employer-employee contracts anyway? What, do you think if there were no minimum wage, employers would only be offering $2 an hour?

Yes. Have you ever heard of slavery? How about child labor? These things are not without precedent.

[elucidator]

It seems like a charicature, the fat cat Wall Street running dog Republican, determined to wrest some sort of compensation for his ruling class masters to assuage the discomfort of extending a bit of decency. Its a cheap parody, more Scrooge McDuck than Barry Goldwater.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by elucidator

some sort of compensation for his ruling class masterstending a bit of decency. Its a cheap parody, more Scrooge McDuck than Barry Goldwater.

$300 billion-plus over 10 years. That should be enough compensation to cover the cost of this 'gun to the head' charity, but you never know. Maybe, to be on the safe side, we should just stop taxing anyone who makes over five million a year.

[Long Time First Time]

In this morning's paper in Red-state Indiana, this little bill is getting a large article. The headline is:

GOP tries to couple minimum wage increase with estate tax cut

The article quotes several senators saying that the GOP is trying to blackmail the poor, and the only time it is referred to as the "death tax" is in a direct quote from a Frist staffer. It also notes that the congress managed to give itself a pay raise with no strings attached.


I predict this ploy is going to come back and bite the GOP in the ass.

[Harborwolf]

If this tax cut is supposed to offset the increase in the minimum wage, why make it the so called "death tax" that gets cut? The business owners will pay more out in wages and their children will be the ones that recieve relief in the inheritance. Who does this make sense to?

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by duffer

Unregulated capitalism? What the hell is regulated capitalism then?

Pretty much what we've had since the New Deal. It's worked pretty well, too. Unregulated capitalism gave us the Depression.

Now, I have to ask a serious question. Do you honestly think a company would hire legal workers at $2/hour if they could?

If that was the market rate, certainly they would. That's how the Great God Free Market works, innit?

[Uvula Donor]

Originally Posted by duffer

Now, I have to ask a serious question. Do you honestly think a company would hire legal workers at $2/hour if they could? Do you have any grasp of reality left to realize how fast that company would sink?

Go to the library and check out a copy of The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Pay particular attention to the passages dealing with working conditions and how companies treated labor at the time. And after you've read it, ponder this serious question: Do you honestly think a company would not hire legal workers at $2/hour if they could?

The company I work for has systematically gutted my benefits over the past ten years. They've taken away vacation time, reduced sick leave, fucked over our retirement plans, all in the name of "remaining competitive." You bet your ass they'd hire legal workers at two bucks an hour if they could. And I'm talking about a major multi-national corporation here, not just some pissypants little corner sweatshop.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by fetus

Err..yeah...if by "most" you mean 18 out of 50, eight of which are small Northeastern states not called New York. Most states have the same state minimum wage as the federal, six don't have any minimum wage at all, and one has a lower minimum wage than the federal; presumably those seven are hoping that the federal minimum wage is decreased somehow. $5.15 an hour is a ridiculous amount of money to try to make a living and go to school on*. $6.75, California's minimum wage, is not a rational wage to expect people to live on when contrasted against California living expenses.

* OK, I concede I wouldn't know if you can make it on $5.15 an hour in Wyoming. I know it's pushin' it in Arizona, though.

Good call! I thought that more had higher MW. Note, however, that several states with MW = 5.15 have already passed increases that kick in shortly. Namely, the not so tiny states of PA, MI, and NC. So, I'll rephrase my statement as most Americans live in states where the MW > 5.15. TX being the one very large state that stands out with a MW = 5.15. And lets not foget that municipalities often set MW higher than the state MW. The NM MW = 5.15, but in Santa Fe it's 9.50.

I don't expect people to "live on" the MW. It's meant to be an entry level wage-- anyone making MW for more than a few years needs to get some new skills.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by John Mace

...I don't expect people to "live on" the MW. It's meant to be an entry level wage-- anyone making MW for more than a few years needs to get some new skills.

Its "meant" for something? An entry level wage, which is, until such point of time that the entering worker has acheived as skill level that will justify a higher rate of pay.

"Fries with that?" "No, no, 'Do you want fries with that'.." So, then, we could expect that rather few workers would be so poorly paid, just those workers who are "in training"? Do statistics support this rosy view, John?

And about that rather brisk advice: "get some new skills". But of course! A quick trip down to Skills 'R Us, perhaps, grab up some COBOL programming, or typewriter repair. Maybe something in the way "Entreprenuership 101"?

OK, lets just buy that. Lets just go ahead and pretend it were that easy to apply new skills to oneself as simply as one buys new clothes (a sure sign of trouble, I'm given to understand...)

Who, then, will do our scut work? Those jobs that we need, we demand, but jobs that don't provide a leveraged bargaining position. Do we simply shrug our collective shoulders and say "Well, life isn't fair, if you were smarter, you would have picked parents who could afford college..."

How we treat the least of us is the measure of ourselves as a nation. I am not proud. How 'bout you?

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

It seems fair to me that if the minimum wage is to be adjusted for inflation, that the size of an estate before it becomes subject to taxes be similarly adjusted.

The sheer reasonableness of this proposition is only belied by facts.

Even before this bill was passed, the exemption on the estate tax was going up and up as a result of the 2001 tax cut. The exemption is being phased up from $675,000 in 2001 to $3.5 million in 2009. If the minimum wage were to keep up with this inflation, it would reach $26.71 in 2009. Insert your own wisecrack here.

[Throatwarbler Mangrove]

I'm sort of late to the discussion, but there are several points about the pro-MW argument that I simply cannot grok.

1) Minimum wage workers are too stupid to learn new skills. "A quick trip to Skills 'R Us" is exactly the reason why those of us who make more than $5/hr do. Why is the idea of learning new skills so reprehensible? Yes, it's a financial burden and requires discipline, but surely policies should be centred around helping people learn new skills? How would the minimum wage help this?

2) Employers owe their workers more than $2/hr. Why? Why does the employer owe their workers anything besides safe working conditions and the freedom to quit and seek new employment?

I think that the minimum wage is a big component of the cost of fast food around here. I love fast food of all kinds, but because the MW makes it so expensive, Mcdonald's burgers are only a rare luxury for me. So I must endure home cooked meals and a lower quality of life while both the owner of the Mcdonald's and the worker suffer a loss of income. No one is winning here.

I can understand the social engineering aspect of the MW, since presumably without it the proletariat will certainly launch into armed insurrection or some such, but I can't see any moral or ethical justification for it.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Its "meant" for something? An entry level wage, which is, until such point of time that the entering worker has acheived as skill level that will justify a higher rate of pay.

"Fries with that?" "No, no, 'Do you want fries with that'.." So, then, we could expect that rather few workers would be so poorly paid, just those workers who are "in training"? Do statistics support this rosy view, John?

Yes. Only 2% of MW worders are 25 or older. If you want to quibble with my use of the word "meant", I'll come up with a better one. Somehow, I think you know what I "meant" by that word, though.

And about that rather brisk advice: "get some new skills". But of course! A quick trip down to Skills 'R Us...

The word you can't seem to think of is "school".

OK, lets just buy that. Lets just go ahead and pretend it were that easy to apply new skills to oneself as simply as one buys new clothes (a sure sign of trouble, I'm given to understand...)

Who, then, will do our scut work? Those jobs that we need, we demand, but jobs that don't provide a leveraged bargaining position. Do we simply shrug our collective shoulders and say "Well, life isn't fair, if you were smarter, you would have picked parents who could afford college..."

I don't demand any jobs. But 25% of all MW workers are teenagers. I have no poblem with teenagers doing "scut work". I did it, you porbably did it. It's how you start, if you can't do anything else.

How we treat the least of us is the measure of ourselves as a nation. I am not proud. How 'bout you?

The MW is not a good way to administer welfare, as we've discussed in every MW thread. A better approach would be something like the earned income tax credit. But I prefer these types of things done at the state level anyway. One size does not fit all.

[Shayna]

Originally Posted by xtisme

You are right...they would. Assuming they could get away with it of course. Get away with it? Yeah...IF they could find folks willing to work those jobs at that rate, then they certainly would do it. And if they could...well then, that sort of tells you something right there (well, it would tell ME something anyway).

However, you said it yourself...these are ILLEGAL workers. Their choices and options are very limited. They usually don't speak the language very well, they are usually uneducated and unskilled laborers working in niche, vertical markets (like the farm industry). This wouldn't exactly translate into every business suddenly getting to rub their hands with glee and dropping their wages to the rock bottom. Because you (like many who make this arguement) have forgotten that labor works both ways...and the laborers ALSO get to choose if they wish to sell their labor at such a price. Perhaps some will...most won't however. Most will determine that $2/hour isn't worth it for their time and effort and so will go to the smart companies who are paying more...and thus actually have employees to work for them.

The hand rubbing, top hatted fat cats, lighting their cuban cigars with $100 bills and offering jobs at $2/hour will rapidly find out that its kind of hard to run a business without employees...

I think I'd like to live in your and duffer's world -- it sounds so nice! However, I think you seriously misunderestimate (sic) the degree of desperation that many, many poor people may feel in accepting something instead of nothing when they're hungry and need to sleep somewhere other than a cardboard box. Not to mention that in your scenario, there would be much fiercer competition for those jobs that employers are willing to pay more for, making those jobs much more difficult, if not impossible, for unskilled workers to even get.

[Hostile Dialect]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Good call! I thought that more had higher MW. Note, however, that several states with MW = 5.15 have already passed increases that kick in shortly. Namely, the not so tiny states of PA, MI, and NC. So, I'll rephrase my statement as most Americans live in states where the MW > 5.15. TX being the one very large state that stands out with a MW = 5.15. And lets not foget that municipalities often set MW higher than the state MW. The NM MW = 5.15, but in Santa Fe it's 9.50.

Good info. (Apparently I need to move to LA or San Francisco!) But the only cites with any apparent connection to actual government agencies are the map I posted, one California site and one Washington site. I'm not saying those are dubious figures, but without substantial cites contradicting the DOL's numbers it's a little tougher to call balls and strikes. If those numbers are true, though, that does make something of a difference; Pennsylvania is one of the most highly populated states (I'm almost positive it's in the top 15) and MI and NC are not far behind IIRC. (I used to have the relative order pretty well memorized, but it's shaky these days because I don't really care as much anymore about the precise numbers.)

Originally Posted by John Mace

I don't expect people to "live on" the MW. It's meant to be an entry level wage-- anyone making MW for more than a few years needs to get some new skills.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was "live on for the few years it takes to learn skills/advance". As in, "live on" throughout college or vocational school. I also don't have much sympathy for anyone making MW for more than a few years unless there are extenuating circumstances (in which case our society should pick up a little bit of slack through other means, but I can't pretend to be knowledgeable in the particulars of that). However, most of my classmates barely make ends meet for the several years they're in college, compounded by the difficulties of student loans and the debt some of them get themselves into because of not being very educated about financial management. (If I ran the world every freshman would take a financial management class their first couple semesters, no matter their situation, but I digress.)

What I'm sayin' is we need to give people a reasonable wage to get through school on, at the very least. I live at home, but many of my friends who don't, scrape the bottom of the barrel every month. $6.75 (CA MW) x 40 hours (a very liberal figure considering they're full time students as well) = $270/wk * 4 weeks = $1080/mo. Rent is $600/mo if you want to live within reasonable distance of school, gas was $3.219/gal the last time I filled up (low-octane, at a members-only discount station), San Diego is very hilly so it's easy to suck up gas, car insurance is pretty darn expensive here, books suck out money in the hundreds each semester, and classes at my school cost $26 a unit for California residents. California is great about financial aid, but just living and driving ($45/mo for a student bus/trolley pass, but it takes an hour or two to get to class from most of the county and if you have to work too you can cut drastically into your working hours) on even a 40 hour workweek--which leaves a full-time student about negative four hours of free time a week after work and homework--on our state's abnormally high minimum wage is a tight scrape. Again, that's not even factoring books or classes in for unmarried students under 24 without military service (the vast majority at my college) whose parents claim them as dependents but don't pay for their school expenses.

[duffer]

OK, so it seems many think Big Business would pay $2/hr if they could. Fine, I'm not going to argue the point. I'll concede it. However, is this something that anybody thinks could honestly happen? Sure, in very limited and rare cases, but you get enough people making $2/hr and how the hell are they going to be able to afford to buy anything from the companies?

How do the companies afford to pay that wage to workers when their sales all but dry up? I still think as a practical matter the idea is preposterous, but some see things differently I guess.

[Syntropy]

It seems for the most part to be working very well by outsourcing jobs to factories with laxer child labor laws and a lack of minimum wage. What, you think they did that because they wanted to be nice and give people in other countries a shot at a good American owned company job? Of course not. Their primary focus is their bottom line. American workers are expensive and there are requirements (benefits for full time employees) that make them even more so. If it's possible to find a way to maintain the same number of employees while cutting cost, they'll do it. I think it's rather amusing you're treating the question as a hypothetical.