[QUOTE=UltraVires;18605098 ]
And, even more, where should the wage be set? At sustenance levels or that “living wage.”
[/QUOTE]
When it was originally passed, it was to guarantee a decent living, not just subsistence wages, as I have already cited.
Fortunately, I never cited the Preamble.
So you propose a different minimum wage based upon the situation of the employee? If I hire a doctor’s wife whose basic needs are met, then I am exempt from the minimum wage?
I’m undecided on whether a phone is a “luxury.” It certainly isn’t something that a person will die because he doesn’t have one. People survived in civilization for thousands of years without telephones.
You mention that a person should have phones and dial-up internet to search for jobs. Is it really your contention that when I employ someone that I must give them the tools to end our employment contract and seek another? That is an astounding suggestion. We agree that $X/hr is fair pay for your work, but here is $Y/hr so you can try to get out of this shitty employment contract, even though we agreed that X was fair.
Others have cited that the original minimum wage would equal four dollars and change by 2012 standards. Further, we still haven’t agreed on what a “decent living” is. If I have 11 kids that I have to support, I need more money than a guy with no kids. If I took out an interest only mortgage in 2006, then I need more money than a younger guy who lives with his grandmother.
This concept of “decent living” is wholly dependent on individual circumstances that an employer largely had no part in deciding.
And it didn’t apply to most workers.
I never said the employer pays. Nor did I demand certain expenses as vital. I was merely suggesting a way to determine the local living wage.
The way I see it, the employee is paid what ever wage the employer offers but at least minimum wage. The employee the receives a payment from the gov’t to bring him/her up to the living wage.
And frankly, what was the norm thousands of years ago has no bearing on modern life.
The increase in cost of living is far higher than the increase in MW and wages in general from 1938.
So you distinguish between the “living wage” that we have yet to define and a minimum wage set by law. You concede that this minimum wage does not rise to the level of a living wage. Then upon what do we base the minimum wage? We just pick a number?
Your second paragraph seems to come to some sort of agreement with my position. If an individual, through whatever circumstances, does not have enough marketable skills such that he cannot make a wage that meets his basic necessities, then it is incumbent upon society as a whole to make up for that deficit, and not any one individual such as his employer.
Yes, standards change, but a phone? How is that necessary for survival? If it is, can’t someone use the computers at the library or buy a burner phone?
That’s what I was trying to get at all the time. Just not very good at making my point clear.
In a lot of areas, libraries were victims of the recession.
Try doing without a phone for a while and get back to me.
FTR, I and others on this Board (perhaps including some conservatives) would prefer a non means-tested base “salary” for everyone: free healthcare, free childcare, old-age pension, food stamps, cheap housing. With that in place there might be no need for minimum wage.
But without such basic support, restoring minimum wage back to at least the level it had decades ago may be one of the best practical ways to combat poverty.
It’s easy to concoct a scenario. Acme Widgets employs 1000 workers and exports 1000 widgets. After a wage hike, they produce only 990 widgets with 990 employees but, even after paying taxes to provide the laid-off 10 with food stamps, the 990 have much extra money to spend. With this increased prosperity, an entrepreneur can afford to open a pizza shop, employing 20. 990 + 20 > 1000.
I’m not sure this is the most realistic scenario, but it does disprove your “no logical means.”
Uh oh. Orwell didn’t research my question, as asked. It looks like you didn’t either. If you’re too lazy to Google “minimum wage elasticity” just think for a moment: What percent of expenses are paid out in minimum wages? If the number is less than 100%, what happens to your argument?
I win! 
When I concocted my question I had a hunch that anyone opposing minimum wage hike would be happy to starve the beast and award a big tax cut to the rich.
BTW, the Lifeline Assistance program started under Reagan and was expanded to cell phones by Bush.
Snopes on “Obamaphones”.
Why? The majority of people are able to provide through their labor or investments a means to earn enough money to pay for their own healthcare, childcare, food, etc. Why should we institute a government program for everyone to provide these things when most people are able to provide for themselves?
I’m not sure how to dissect this. I would ask for a cite that only 1% of the workforce would be laid off. Further, the new pizza shop would have to pay these higher wages, and I would also ask for a cite of 20 employees versus the 1000 of the Acme Widget company. Again, you are assuming a perpetual motion machine theory, that money paid to employees comes straight back to the employer through spending. It simply doesn’t work that way, and even if it did, the spending wouldn’t be pure profit.
It is still valid. My expenses are fixed and accounted for in current wages. If my labor expenses go up by $X, there is no way apart from a perfect perpetual motion machine that I will get $X back in increased profits.
The profit part bears further explanation. Say I sell widgets at retail for $10. I pay $8 for them. An employee (of mine or another business who is now flush with cash because of an increased minimum wage) can now buy this widget. I make $2 on the sale. You have to show how an increased expense of almost $8 per HOUR can compensate me for making a $2 sale (or many $2 sales).
Unless we assume that each and every penny of the $8/hr increase of my employees’ wages will come back to me as profit (not including 2.7% unemployment state tax, 6% unemployment federal tax, workers compensation tax, FICA and Medicaid tax), then your argument is invalid.
I didn’t explain this well. My employee has $10 extra that under the perpetual motion theory comes straight back to me. I only can bank $2 of that as I must pay my supplier. I am out $8 (at least) on the deal.
No, but “No college, no job skills and unable to drive. And Divorced by dad when I was 12.”
is not our problem.
You’re wrong. That’s what society means. Unless you think society means “Fuck you, I got mine.”
Actually, I’m not wrong. Being part of society is taking care of your own gd self.
That’s being apart from society.
Why can’t you take care of yourself?
Because sometimes shit happens.
We, as a society, have decided that providing for the less fortunate is more moral than allowing them to die.
The “less fortunate” aren’t dying. Dial back the rhetoric, please.