This doesn’t make any sense.
If there were a “race to the bottom” as was alleged, then the same race would be occurring now, and states would be paying as little as was allowed - the federal mimimum wage. They don’t - many states have a mimimum wage that is higher than the federal rate.
Come on, BG - you’re better than that.
Regards,
Shodan
The point is, the minimum wage is half the living wage. You’d have to have two full-time minimum wage jobs in Atlanta to make a living. Given that 40-hour work weeks are rare at minimum wage jobs, that’s not likely.
I don’t know, offhand. Neither do you, apparently. And corporations generally set wages for their own benefit, not their workers’, insofar as is possible… Otherwise, they’d all pay a living wage, eh?
There will always be exceptions that prove the rule.
It seems to me that so long as the actual wages for entry level jobs are below the living wage, that’s a pretty damned powerful demonstration that we ARE serfs. The reason that the entry level wages are above minimum wage is that the minimum wage is so low that poor people can’t AFFORD to stay in any such job for any longer than it takes to find other work. This is why retail has a 60 percent turnover at the entry level. Such a job doesn’t prevent you from losing your home or your car, it just stretches the process out.
So you are in favour of higher taxes to pay for welfare? And against the cutting of welfare benefits?
And of course Holmes is quite right. An exception does not prove a rule. It disproves a rule.
An exception promulgated in a rule may lead to the valid inference that the rule is intended to apply elsewhere: a paking sign that says “No Parking 2-3 PM” implies that parking is permitted at other times. See Cecil on the matter. But that’s not what you meant, here.
IMHO, how one answers that question determines one’s answer to the minimum-wage issue.
If one believes that the economy exists for the benefit of the citizens, and not the other way around, then the corollary is to raise the minimum wage as far as can be done without substantially impairing the competitiveness of the nation’s businesses, taken as a whole. IOW, get as many golden eggs out of the goose as you can without hurting the goose.
That’s what I believe, but I’m a librul and all that. I don’t expect Sam Stone, John Mace, Bricker, Shodan, etc. to adopt this assumption. Still, the point is that what answers one comes up with depend on what assumptions one starts with, and the only way to resolve the differences between fundamentally different assumptions is via the political process.
OTOH, if one believes the economy just is, and there’s going to be winners and losers, and that’s just life, then the next question is, why should the process of determining winners and losers not extend to the application of pure political power? There’s something arbitrary about saying all applications of economic power are OK, but heaven forfend that the people use their political strength to alter the rules within which the economic games are played.
ISTM that the same question has played out in the matter of political v. military power, beginning (in Anglo history) at Runnymede and working from there. King John’s lordly vassals explained to him that while he was easily stronger than any one of them, collectively they were stronger than he, and he wasn’t going to set the rules by himself. Seems to me that it makes equal sense for people today to say the same thing to Wal-mart if they feel the urge.
So in this view of things, people should demand a higher minimum wage because they can. End of story.
As a liberal, I don’t necessarily disagree- but what do you do when people advocating abolishment of the minimum wage are also pushing for abolishment of welfare and the dismantling of even our less than effective social safety net?
I can actually see how allowing employers to pay less for jobs, and allowing welfare t pick up the slack, might be better for the economy as a whole. As long as we do our best to make sure everyone has a a roof over their head, food on their plate, and some prospect to improve their lot (and that of their kids) regardless of their income level, then I’m in favor of alternate solutions.
Adopting this view, the minimum wage hasn’t been raised because the people DON’T have the power to force such a move. Right?
So, demand away. It’s good exercise.
Where did I say I was against cutting welfare benefit?. Look, this is a complicated issue, and no one is served by reducing it to sound bites. I’m OK with increasing welfare if we eliminate the MW. Whether or not you have to increase taxes to that is a seperate issue. I’d be more inclinded to shifiting spending priorities myself. A fedreal budget of > $10,000,000,000,000 plus whatever the states spend should be adequate to take care of those people who are truely destitute.
But you have to understand that the MW is welfare. One problem with it, as welfare, is that there is nothing to ensure that it goes to those who actually need it. I gladly worked a number of MW jobs in high school-- a time when my living expenses were exactly ZERO. That money was cash in my pocket, and I spent in on… well, let’s just say I spent it on what teenagers often spend money on.
Rather than saying “should the MW be raised”, I’d prefer we looked at the broader issue of poverty. What are the causes of poverty and what is the best way to address them.
Maybe I should have said ‘if’ rather than ‘because’!
IMHO, they do have the power to force it sooner or later, probably sooner. My guess is that the Dems will make it an issue this year, and enough Republicans will figure they’d better vote for it if they want enough people to vote for them.
But whether or not that prediction is realized, the principle holds: under this view of things, the people should get a minimum wage hike if they want it and can get it. And if they don’t or can’t, then they shouldn’t. Politics, red in tooth and claw.
It would appear that the votes are on your side, but quite a large margin. 
Hmmm.
From your cite:
So perhaps we can simply announce that Congress is setting the minimum wage at $6.15, and these people will be happy.
I’d like to see a cite that specifically shows the minimum wage was the cause that led to the demise of full-service gas station attendants. For all we know, full-service attendants have disappeared simply because the gasoline companies were looking for a way to eliminate payroll.
No!! That means they would want it raised even if it were higher than it is. But, in reality these folks are probably confusing state MW with federal MW. I would suspect that $6.00 is about right for the avg MW when you take state MW laws into account. The MW in CA is $6.75, and that accounts for 12% of the US poplulation right there.
You didn’t. Nor did I imply you did.
In recent years welfare has been restricted, and there are probably those who would abolish it altogether. I believe that many (most?) of those people who are in favour of cutting welfare are also in favour of cutting taxes. If taxes are cut, then programmes will have to be cut as well in order to save money. A favourite target of these cuts is welfare.
People have to live. If they do not or cannot make a living wage, then they must have welfare. So without the minimum wage, let alone a living wage, the government must spend more money on welfare. Thus, taxes must be higher to support it. If taxes are cut and welfare is not expanded, then what happens to the people? Perhaps they can receive more education. But who pays their living expenses while they attend school? Who pays for the school? Assuming that provisions are made, who watches the children? Suppose that everyone who needs a living wage (which, after all, is everyone) gets a higher education. Are there enough jobs for them? Or will we have more burger-flippers with college degrees?
Of course we can’t just say, ‘Too bad. If you can’t afford to live, then don’t live.’ What would a person do if he can’t make enough money to support himself or his family? What if welfare is cut because TPTB cut taxes and can’t afford it? They can make money selling drugs or stealing. Not a very good option, but people will do what they have to to survive.
I think working is better than welfare. ‘Idle hands’, and all that. The way I see it is that we either have a ‘living wage’, or we have welfare. (Rather, and we have welfare, since there will always be those who cannot work for one reason or another.) If people can live on what they make, then welfare roles will grow smaller and the government will save money. If they can’t, then welfare roles must grow and taxes must be raised to support it. We Americans want everything, but we never want to pay for it.
Residents of New Jersey, and those of us who drive through the Chemical State from time to time, will be surprised by this news. Every gas station in the state is full-service. They won’t let you pump your own gas.
You’ll be surprised to know, then, that gas isn’t any more expensive in New Jersey than in the surrounding states. They are free to charge more, but AFAICT, they don’t.
Not that this has anything to do with the min-wage question, but whaddaya mean ‘we’, paleface? I’m glad I can pull up, swipe my card, and get the pump started without waiting for the attendant to show up. I can be in and out of a gas station a lot faster nowadays than I ever could back when you had to wait for attendants to pump your gas. (I get kinda cranky when I have to stop for gas in NJ on account of this.)
My bad. That’s GDP. Make that a federal budget > $2,000,000,000,000.
Well, considering I had said the exact opposite several times int his thread, I think it was reasonable for me to assume you were implying it thru your question. It also helps if you ask a question by saying “Are you…” instead of “You are…”. Do you see the difference?
I don’t agree. Walmart makes about 280 billion in sales a year. Their wages would result in a 0.5% price increase per extra dollar in merchandise.
http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
Wal-Mart can cover the cost of a dollar an hour wage increase by raising prices a half penny per dollar. For instance, a $2.00 pair of socks would then cost $2.01. This minimal increase would annually add up to $1,800 for each employee.
I use walmart just as an example of how in a large scale service industry like retail there are tons of expenses, with low wage jobs being only one of them. The wages of everyone associated with walmart are going up. The engineers who helped develop the plastic used in Rubbermaid products sold in walmart probably made $55k a year in 1995, and now make closer to $70k. The advertisers who design walmart ads probably make 10-20k more now than they did 10 years ago. The people who mine for minerals to make vitamins probably experienced a wage increase from 40k to 50k in the same time frame. Everyone’s wages are going up, and walmart still exists. The same may not apply to a small scale retail situation (like a dominos pizza for example where low wage labor makes up a large part of the budget) but for a grocery store or large retail store or a hospital it can. I don’t think MW increases will result in unemployment because low wage workers make up such a small percentage of the budget that it won’t matter. Combine that with the fact that everyone’s wages are going up anyway and I fail to see how a higher MW will result in unemployment.
Take Kroger. Where I live there is a Marsh and a Kroger. Kroger has a union and pays $10-11/hr with benefits. Marsh pays $6/hr with no benefits. But because they are both grocery stores with tons of expenses and revenues it doesn’t cause Kroger to go bankrupt. The prices are the same in both stores.
It is not uncommon, especially in 2002 or 2003 to hear of 20 applicants for a low wage service job. If the employer decided to pay $3/hr instead of $6 then there would still be applicants. There are not an endless supply of $5 and $6 hr. jobs out there because nobody wants to take them. If they were dropped to $3/hr or so people would still take them.
Not familiar with Marsh. If they are a local business, then they are not able to take advantage of the same quantity pricing Kroger is able to pay for products. This would explain why their retail prices are similar.
Maybe you don’t get out much. Everywhere I go (and I travel a lot for work), I see help wanted signs for minimal skilled jobs. Many of them offering to pay much higher then the MW.
The business does this, not because it’s mandated by yet another government program, but because they are competing for dependable employees.