After reading this thread, I got to wondering a few things about the minimum wage, primarily having to do with how prevalent making the minimum (or very near) actually is.
Turns out that it’s roughly 5% of the workforce that actually gets paid minimum. That 5% tends to be young, part-time, unmarried, and work in the hospitality industry (i.e. wait staff).
Which makes some sense, because most of them are reliant on tips for a large proportion of pay, and after tips are considered, don’t actually make minimum wage.
So my questions now are:
Is the fight about the minimum wage law maybe a situation of making a mountain out of a molehill, because it doesn’t seem like many people really make minimum, and those who do probably don’t make it for long (as shown by the fact that they’re predominantly young?)
Also, does the rising tide of a minimum wage law, really lift all boats (people’s wages) or does it just more or less wipe out many people’s pay raises over time? (i.e. people who started at 7.25 and who now make 9 would be making minimum again).
In the mid-nineties, at least, the University of California had hundreds of jobs that were tiered and tied to the minimum wage. If minimum wage went up, the rates for all of those jobs went up. You just can’t maintain the tiers if you don’t do that.
In an absolute sense, you’re still making $9, but I’m sure it feels like either the new people or underperformers making minimum got something unwarranted, or like all your hard work to get pay raises up to $9 were pointless, because the government just gave that same wage to any schlub able to get hired.
Not just wait staff - think of all the kitchen staff and fast-food workers, and retail store workers, who work minimum wage and don’t get any tips at all.
I work in retail and all our store associates start at minimum wage. And there is high turnover (over 100% anually in that role) so we don’t have very many associates making over $9.
If the minimum was raised to $9, all of our experienced associates would need raises too, because you can’t fairly pay them the same as someone coming in the door. So as I said in the other thread, this proposed increase could easily cost us $150 million per year which would have to be passed on to our customers.
I’m not saying that’s bad; I’m personally in favor of raising wages. But it will have a big impact on industries that rely on a low-paid workforce to provide affordable products and services.
That number making exactly the minimum wage is pretty much irrelevant since, at the very least, everyone making between the minimum wage and the new proposed minimum wage will definitely get an increase…and this is many more people. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, even those making more than the new proposed minimum wage will probably see increases.
so california alone has, what, like 10% of the national population? that’s a big chunk of the population who legally could not even be eligible to fit into this 5% figure, but a good share of them are still making california’s minimum wage.
i would be pretty interested to find the percentage of people in this country making within a dollar of minimum wage.
Weird…I posted to this thread earlier, but I don’t see my post. Not that it was anything profound, just answering the OP title. The percentage of people who earn minimum or below minimum wage is currently approximately a touch more than half a percent, or around 3.8 million (out of a work force of around 60 million).
Agree with what jshore said. The relevant number would be the number of people earning less than the proposed minimum wage, not the number earning equal to the current minimum wage. The percentage of people earning minimum wage currently could be quite misleading for this discussion, because (for example) maybe 5% are earning exactly minimum wage, but maybe another 35% are earning seven cents above minimum wage, and all of those people stand to benefit if the minimum wage goes up (by more than seven cents).
Did you click on the link in the post just before yours? It’s less than 1% for both the combined groups that earns less than minimum wage and currently earns exactly minimum wage. As to the group that earns between the current and projected new minimum, I’d be shocked if it was 35%…or even 5%. Or even 1 full percent. If anyone has any data, feel free to link as it would be interesting to know.
i’m using ca stats for some reason. www.irle.berkeley.edu/research/minimumwage/ab48.pdf
little out of date, but useful. and all i could find on pg 1 of a google search. ca’s minimum wage was 6.75, they were looking at the effects of raising that by a dollar.
so that’s a sizable proportion of the worforce within $1 of a state’s minimum wage. obama’s proposed increase is $1.75. i have to figure that’s pretty significant in a lot of states.
now, if you look at the BLS link in the original post, texas, mississippi and georgia are at 8-10% of the hourly paid workforce making exactly or less than minimum wage. (and other states are dragging the national average down, because they have their own minimum wages set higher, so they can’t meet the parameter.)
so if you’ve got 8-10% of hourly paid making exactly or less than minimum wage, and assume that their similar to california and have maybe 13% percent making a dollar more, then another n% making another $0.75 more than that…that’s a pretty big number of people. then you also have to factor in the people making a little more than minimum who get the indirect benefit of an increase.
this kind of data should really be a lot easier to find…
you really think less than 1% of our workforce makes between $7.25 and $9 an hour?
[QUOTE=Morissey]
you really think less than 1% of our workforce makes between $7.25 and $9 an hour?
[/QUOTE]
Well…yes, honestly. Certainly if you have statistics to back up an assertion that it would be more than 1% of the work force making between the current minimum and the proposed new minimum I’ll be happy to look at them…as I said, I don’t know. I can merely say that the number of workers that make less than or exactly the current minimum makes up a touch more than half a percent, and since I assume that includes a lot of workers who make less than minimum because things like tips are expected to take them over the limit, I don’t see how it’s a bad guess. But if it is, then it is, and I’ll be happy to concede that point if someone can demonstrate it. It’s certainly not going to be the 5% or 35% that I was actually responding too, and that was my main point.
But we don’t. I’m not disputing your cite (I honestly haven’t read through it unfortunately but will take your word it’s accurate and up to date), but that seems to be for CA only…while my cite is for the entire US and is based on the federally set current minimum wage. And comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which I presume is an accurate source.
Something seems to have gone wrong with your calculation, from your link.
“In 2011, 73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of all wage and salary workers. … Together, these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers.”
So 5.2% of hourly-paid, and at least 3% of all workers.
As a conservative, free market type I’m mildly opposed to the minimum wage, but reading several different economist’s take it would appear the consensus appears mixed about whether it has much of a positive impact or much of a negative impact. Essentially, it doesn’t appear there is strong evidence it helps anyone much or hurts anything much, so I’m only mildly opposed to minimum wage increases.
One key point that is often brought up, is that a large portion of the beneficiaries of the minimum wage are not the poor, but the middle and upper middle class families–this is because many of the workers who directly get larger paychecks because of increases in the Federal minimum wage are part time kids from those demographics. The “real poor” tend to make a few dollars above minimum wage if they’re employed, because few jobs keep you at minimum wage for consistent periods of time if you’ve kept the job.
If you paid close attention to Obama’s State of the Union he’s basically promulgating a type of social state in which the government tries to nudge us closer to a more European social state model but through government mandates on private business. This is primarily because of the legislative and political impossibilities of a more statist approach.
Personally I think the best way to help the poor isn’t a bunch of programs and ad hoc policies here and there putting more and more requirements and burdens on business; but instead would just be a simple negative tax available to a pre-defined portion of the population. You would structure it so that individuals eligible for it could receive their negative tax in regular monthly increments, so they aren’t struggling all year just to get a big cash payout come tax filing time.
In another thread, right-wingers complained that Obamacare “freeloaders” would game the system (insist on medicines for common colds?), raising costs. This claim was made despite the fact that in the present system, insurees without copays already have the same “incentive” to game the system. That Obamacare would reduce costs overall was of no interest to the right-winger in the thread; he just didn’t want “freeholders” to get something undeserved. I asked him if his argument was a matter of “morality”; he said No, but repeated the same “argument” that sounded very “moralistic” to me.
So the man earning $9 may not have been too eager for a raise to $10, but he sure wants to know he’s making more than the underperformers and schlubs.
I’ll say it again. It’s easy to see how plutocrats have an easy time playing off the Middle against the Botton to support their right-wing political agenda.
I agree with you. However, I do fascinating that we spent a half-decade arguing whether the tax rates for less than 1% of the population should go up to 4%; yet, the very idea of whether 3-5% of the population should receive what amounts to earn $1.25 more an hour is unconscionable.
It is my opinion that Americans will rarely agree on doing something for fellow Americans because they enjoy bathing in the misery of their fellow citizens. It’s the reason why we give Israel millions of dollars to build a museum but increasing funding on research and education is lard-filled legislative dreams. It’s the reason why the State of Michigan reduces payments to Detroit by $700 million over ten years but pretends be shocked and appalled when deficits start to mount. It all amount to the ridiculous idea that Americans must be a cruel taskmaster to its citizens while pretending to be a beacon of liberty and light to the world (e.g. The star-bangled, liberty-laced U.S image after WWII after freeing the Jews and liberating Europe vs. How the U.S treated their very own citizens: Emmett Till, Medgar Evans, et al.). This keeping up with the Joneses coupled with a desire to see their peers suffer is why the U.S can never have nice things.
Not that it was anything profound, just answering the OP title. The percentage of people who earn minimum or below minimum wage is currently approximately a touch more than half a percent, or around 3.8 million (out of a work force of around 60 million).