You have drawn an incorrect conclusion. Families include people who aren’t working full time. And higher wages mean less debt, which can reduce poverty later in life.
So, just so I understand… When you say “wages”, are you talking about what workers on the shop floor earn, independent of those suits with the stuffed pockets?
Or do you include the “wages” that the suits are also sacrificing in these oh-so-tough (profitable) economic times?
…wait, we set economic policy here? Color me surprised.
Pretty sure there’s a “they,” Mr. Mace.
But this also encourages businesses to hire said teenagers instead of adults. you have to remember that, if they were people, most businesses would be sociopaths who care about one thing–making profits. That’s why we have to regulate them, the same way we have to regulate amoral individuals. Left to themselves, businesses would destroy the country if it meant they made more money.
Capitalism does provide some disincentives of its own, where destroying the country destroys your own wealth. But the consequences are necessarily long term in nature, and many businesses are just concerned with the short term. Remember, any of the owners of said business can bail before things get bad. We have a stock market where you can sell all your stocks. The CEO can, like with Hostess, arrange so that they get a bunch of money out before the shareholders even know there is a problem.
We as a government do not need to support these types of things. We need to create financial incentives to help out the people who need it most. We have to create the consequences that otherwise do not exists. We have to make businesses have true personal responsibility.
As for whether raising the minimum wage is worth it: I agree that it will probably impact the middle class, but I do think it’s worth it. Sure, everyone focuses on the 1% because they obviously have too much, but even the middle class usually has a bit more than they actually need. I’d be all for some suggestion to get both classes more from the top, but I’m okay with redistributing a bit from the middle class to the lower class if that’s all we can do. It’s still, as far as I can tell, dealing with small amounts of money of marginal utility to those who currently have it.
The upper middle class, for sure, can take a hit, and the middle middle class wouldn’t feel much. It’s only the lower middle class we’d have to worry about.
What’s wrong with paying teenagers the same wage as adults doing the same job? When I was making minimum wage as a high school student, it certainly wasn’t being used for pizza and beer (OK, maybe the occasional pizza) - it was mostly being saved to pay for my share of college expenses, which have raced way the hell ahead of the minimum wage since then. And it was a damn good thing, too, because my mom ended up with some protracted period of unemployment (and din’t make much even when she was working - thank you, nonprofit social service orgs!), which meant my meager savings and summer job (and winter break) earnings were also covering part of her share. I imagine the situation is that much worse for college students in today’s economic environment.
People have mentioned a “living” wage, but I’m not sure what that is. You can do just fine on minimum wage provided you can find enough work. That’s difficult without regular hours. I did fine* back when I was able to pull in 70 hours/week, but that would have been impossible if I’d had two jobs with schedules that changed.
*Purchases non-employer health insurance, maxed my IRA contributions, and ate well.
Us, the American people who elect the legislators. Was that really not clear? If not, I hope this clarifies it.
No, I don’t think it necessarily means that. It’s better to quote people precisely rather than reading into what you think they said.
No, I’d like you to read post 58 and respond to it.
Oh, duh, I see. Just like how advocacy organizations frequently exhort people to write letters to…other random US citizens.
I’d actually forgotten the fact that elected representatives don’t actually do anything, they merely replicate exactly what a random sample of their constituency would choose.
Don’t pretend you weren’t simply being snidely dismissive of what andrewbub and were standing on some sort of principle of precision.
Eh. If you have a problem with me, you’re welcome to start a pit thread.
As it is, I’m unconvinced that we should raise the nationals minimum wage to a level dictated by one person’s particular need to pay off his loans. If you think that’s a good argument, you are more than welcomed to champion it.
Those minimum wage workers will be earning 24% more than they had been before the increase. Now suppose labor costs are 30% of the costs of making your product, and a minimum-wage worker spends 20% of her income on products that are similarly sensitive as yours to increases in the minimum wage. That means the min-wage worker’s cost of living has just gone up by 6%, while her income’s gone up by 24%.
Looks like a win to me.
Ok, you got me. The articles do not directly support it beneffitting the economy greatly or is there a consensus. However, I think the point still stands.
It’s been demonstrated that raising the min. wage will not lead to more unemployment. People are going to fill positions where their needed, and if they didn’t they would have cut them by now. Also, as others pointed out if this min. wage increase is going to put a company under they didn’t have a stable foundation anyways. Also, it cannot be clearly determined if raising the min. wage will simply raise prices on everything else almost ASAP making the whole thing a wash. Can we agree on that much?
Now, the economy is largely driven by consumerism. We buy shit and when we do, it keeps the market going and keeps other people employed. Raising the min. wage will give more people more purchasing power thus improving the marketplace itself.
Is it completely right? No. I’m sure there’s some pitfalls associated with the raise. But I think there’s more benefit to it than not.
Besides, what’s the alternative? Do nothing? Would it be better to have no min. wage at all? Prices are going up on goods but wages aren’t. We have a min. wage for a reason but it does us no good if we don’t make adjustments when necessary.
That’s all I’ve been asking about, and it’s not just me asking this. Apology accepted.
No, it doesn’t. The amount of money we are talking about, relative to the economy as a whole, is such that we cannot measure if it helps or hurts. That’s why I asked you early on to do the math. It’s a few hundredths of a percent.
I’m sure the folks who get a raise are thankful, and maybe their lot in life is better. But claiming this is “good for the overall economy” is nonsense. Not only that, but clearly there is some point at which a mandated MW will be bad for the economy. Finding that alleged inflection point is a fool’s errand.
Ok, but you still didn’t answer my question. What is the alternative?
I see three choices here:
- Do nothing and leave min. wage as it is.
- abolish min. wage altogether
- adjust it to inflation as necessary
I think I’ve stated at least twice in this thread already that if you’re going to have a MW, it should be tied to inflation. Doing so gets us out of the ordeal of having the same debate every year, and allows businesses to better plan in advance.
Ok then I think we can agree it should be raised to at least $9?
I’m OK with it. I’m not really a fan of the MW, but I don’t think small increases will have measurably bad effects on the economy.
The MW has the advantage of being an extremely low, or no, overhead welfare system. That’s a plus. OTOH, it’s a hidden cost welfare system, so we don’t really know how much we’re paying, which is not so good a thing.
But, if you’re going to use it, then use it right, and that means indexing it to inflation.
There is a huge secondary effect everyone here has missed. All of the MW workers I’ve interacted with and hired were in some way special needs. Picture the guy in Target with a tennis ball at the end of a stick that goes around cleaning scuff marks. In all of these cases they receive other forms of government assistance, and those tend to have income cut offs. So raising the MW for this group means they’ll either lose benefits or have to cut back on hours–unless the income cut offs are adjusted.
The most obvious is SNAP (food stamps) which provides “top up” money that decreases as income increases. So are they going to readjust all of those metrics in response? If they don’t then I guess the government would save quite a bit of money.
The other thing people here forgot is that just because you set a minimum hourly wage there isn’t a set minimum number of hours. My labour budget will be the same the week before the change and the week after. This means that instead of getting 37.5 hours per week people will get closer to 33. That shortfall will get passed off to salaried workers.