Raising the minimum wage

[S-T]

Raising the Minimum Wage (http://www.conservatibbs.com/2006/07/raising-minimum-wage.html)

Peter Grossman had an interesting column on the economic impact of the minimum wage in the July 11 Indianapolis Star (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060711/OPINION/607110345/-1/ARCHIVE). Opponents of an increase in the minimum wage argue that it will lead to unemployment, while supporters argue it will alleviate poverty. But if Congress is going to increase the minimum wage, why stop at $7.15 per hour? Why not increase the minimum wage to $10 or $12 per hour? For one thing, that would have a significant economic impact on the retail and service industries.

I think there are two larger questions that need to be answered here. Philosophically, is it appropriate for legislators in one city on the East Coast to be setting economic policy for a nation of nearly 300 million people that stretches all the way across the continent, or should this matter be left up to the states? This is an argument that has gone on since the Republic was founded and the Constitution was drafted. The role of federal power was a significant favor in the Confederacy's war for independence over 140 years ago.

More importantly, where in the Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html) does the Congress have the authority to set a mandatory wage floor for workers at the local supermarket? What about the Tenth Amendment (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html), which states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"?

I realize the question of Constitutionality is not the most fashionable thing to ask these days, and that the Tenth Amendment has been all but repealed. That question, however, is the most important question to ask any time the Congress passes legislation.

I'm not surprised that Democrats are pushing for an increase in the minimum wage. This is an election year, and they are hoping this is a populist issue that will wedge some of the blue-collar "values voters" away from the GOP. Since a minimum wage increase is also a goal of labor unions, this will likely help encourage unions to give more political help (both money and manpower) to Democrats in the coming election cycle.

I'm disappointed, yet not at all surprised, to see Republicans offer their own proposal for a minimum wage increase. While the increase is smaller than the increase proposed by Ted Kennedy, but it highlights the concern many fiscal conservatives have about the Republican Party. Fiscal conservatives often lament that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans will grow government at a slower rate than Democrats. For those who believe in limited government, this is not encouraging.

[DoctorDoom]

Since a minimum wage increase is also a goal of labor unions ...Why? A: because the unions base their wage demands on the minimum wage, and every increase of the MW drives union wages upward to maintain the gap.

... this will likely help encourage unions to give more political help (both money and manpower) to Democrats in the coming election cycle.Does the union exist that is NOT liplocked on RAT asses? Unions and RATs are political Siamese twins, joined at the wallet.

[Republican_Legion]

I just hate unions. Friggin communists that control you life and demand you go on strike and force you to look like an idiot holding a sign.
I'd never get a job that required union membership aka Ralphs & Albertsons.

[Rink]

Minimum wage isnt a union thing, its a cost-of-living thing that drives EVERYTHING up exponentially.

Everytime the Minimum wage goes up, the cost of everything else goes up also.

I think what the dems are wanting is to fuel a mini-economic downturn so they can whine incessantly that Bush and the GOP is destroying the economy with his programs and that the cost of living is impacting the 'poorest of America' where they can least afford it.

In other words yank and jerk the emotion button as much as possible after setting things up to hit the pocketbooks where it Does hurt the most without thinking of the long-term consequences of doin such things.

They dont care just as lng as they can unseat the GOP from the WH, its perfectly fine.

[pinqy]

Everytime the Minimum wage goes up, the cost of everything else goes up also.
Not really. Only a very small percentage of the population makes the Federal minimum wage or less (and 19 states have minimum wage laws set higher than the Fed minimum) and the increase in cost can be offset by hiring fewer workers. Looking at the last 2 raises in the Federal minimum wage (Oct 96 and Sept 97), there was no significant increase in the CPI. The CPI did go up, but it had been going up anyway and in fact the monthly percentage increase was much lower than it had been in early 96.

[Rink]

You obviously dont realize it do you?

Last year when WA state upped their 'cost-of-living' minimum wage, the price of basic things went up.

I noticed it right away from the cost of a simple McD hamburder.

[Naturalized-Texan]

But, pinqy, any increase in the minimum wage has a ripple effect throughout the entir economy because wages in so many labor contracts are tied directly to the minimum wage. Those wages increase proportionally to the increase in the minimum wage which in turn requires increases in non-union wages which in turn causes increased prices.

[Rhino]

Indirect costs, often overlooked.

[Rink]

if for example if a fast food business is forced to up their minimum wage, they HAVE to offset the cost to their customers by raising the cost of the foods they serve.

[pinqy]

You obviously dont realize it do you?I'm looking right at the numbers: CPI-U for Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton. Prices did go up, but there are no significant spikes when the minimum wage has gone up.

Last year when WA state upped their 'cost-of-living' minimum wage, the price of basic things went up.Washington state has upped the minimum wage every January since 2001. For the SeaTac Bremerton area, the CPI-U is calculated for even numbered months. From Dec 2004 to Feb 2005, the average rise in prices was 1.3%. Nationally prices only rose .8%, so there seems to be a minor effect. But prices also rose more than the national average from Feb to Apr. April to June National prices dropped, and Seattle prices dropped even more. The changes just don't seem significant. Seeing as how prices have dropped every December (due to Christmas sales) and jump back up by February

I noticed it right away from the cost of a simple McD hamburder.Food and beverage prices actually rose less than the average for all goods and services.

So yes, prices went up, but they would have gone up anyway. If it was purely minimum wage, why did you notice last year, but not this year? Or in 2004? Or 2003?

[pinqy]

if for example if a fast food business is forced to up their minimum wage, they HAVE to offset the cost to their customers by raising the cost of the foods they serve.
It depends. Around here a raise in the minimum wage would have minimal effect on the fast food industry because almost all are making above minimum wage anyway due to the labor market conditions. And costs can be offset by decreasing the amount of labor.

[pinqy]

But, pinqy, any increase in the minimum wage has a ripple effect throughout the entir economy because wages in so many labor contracts are tied directly to the minimum wage. Those wages increase proportionally to the increase in the minimum wage which in turn requires increases in non-union wages which in turn causes increased prices.
That can happen, but looking just at the Seattle CPI-U numbers I don't see it. They're not seasonally adjusted so trends might be hidden but seasonal adjustment compensating for items returning from sale would result in a lower raise in prices.

[Rink]

Pingy its obvious you're too enamored of the 'numbers' to look at reality.

Numbers can be fudged, reality cant be easily as fudged.

Time to pull the head out and start lookin at reality for once.

[pinqy]

Pingy its obvious you're too enamored of the 'numbers' to look at reality.

Numbers can be fudged, reality cant be easily as fudged.

Time to pull the head out and start lookin at reality for once.
But the numbers aren't fudged. I'd love to hear your evidence that tyey are. You're telling me that a carefully conducted survey that looks at thousands of items is less reliable than you saying "A big mac went up so everything went up?" This is your methodology? This is your version of reality? I'm looking at what the average prices actually did. You're using a half-assed memory of a few items that stood out in your mind and not the thousands of things that you didn't buy and have no idea what their price changes were. I'm fascinated why you think that's more accurate.

[S-T]

Rink & Pinqy: please return to your respective corners and cool off before this thread degenerates into a flame war. :)

We can debate the economic arguments back and forth, but I think the more important questions to ask are the philosophical and legal questions. Should the minimum wage be set by the federal government, or by the states? Where in the Constitution is the Congress given authority to set a nationwide minimum wage, especially considering the wording of the Tenth Amendment?

And why are the Republicans determined to be Democrat-Lite again?

[Wyatt_Junker]

It depends. Around here a raise in the minimum wage would have minimal effect on the fast food industry because almost all are making above minimum wage anyway due to the labor market conditions.


And the 'wage floor' raise becomes the new standard for which all new wages are based. I see it in California every wage hike. I have 100 employees. None of them make min. wage. I hire at least $1.00 more than MW. BUT, whenever I have the Cali leg. pass a new MW bill, I am still subject to a $1.00 raise for every single one of my 100 employees as they now all psychologically reference the new wage, looking over their left shoulder. I've dealt with the morale nightmare time and again. It creates major hostility and if I don't raise everybody's wage another $1.00, they feel cheated by only making "minimum wage" since its a slur.


And costs can be offset by decreasing the amount of labor.

Which slows service down, which reduces quality control, which kills customer service, which kills morale etc. etc.

Obviously you have no clue how the real world works, Numbers Guy.

[Wyatt_Junker]

BTW, for 100 full-time employees, that's exactly $208,000 that goes down the illusory shitter known as political pandering.

[CzechPrince]

Minimum wage needs to be abolished anyway.

[Rink]

Minimum wage needs to be abolished anyway.

If this were a TRUE free Market economy there wouldnt BE any 'minimum wage laws'.

But then again this isn't a truly 'free market economy' but a controlled micromanaged economy thats hamstrung by gov't bureaucracy and undercutted by cutthroat nations subsidizing their industries and flooding American markets with cheap goods at low wages, low costs, and using the premise of it all by singing the 'free market' agreements thats an outright lie foisted upon the American peoples.

[DesertFox]

C'mon, pinqy, tell us all about how that's all Wyatt's problem. You sound like MaximumSam. Sam's thing was, if it didn't touch HIM personally where HE lived, then it just wasn't a big deal. That seems to be precisely your attitude.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Minimum wage needs to be abolished anyway.
Right! It's none of the government's business how much an employer pays employees. An employee's wages are a private matter between the emloyer and the employee.

[S-T]

Minimum wage needs to be abolished anyway.
:claps:

Matthew 20:1-15

[Timberwolf]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Rink
You obviously dont realize it do you?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I'm looking right at the numbers: CPI-U for Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton. Prices did go up, but there are no significant spikes when the minimum wage has gone up.
REALLY? I think you need to read the next part of your own post.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Last year when WA state upped their 'cost-of-living' minimum wage, the price of basic things went up. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Washington state has upped the minimum wage every January since 2001. For the SeaTac Bremerton area, the CPI-U is calculated for even numbered months. From Dec 2004 to Feb 2005, the average rise in prices was 1.3%. Nationally prices only rose .8%, so there seems to be a minor effect. But prices also rose more than the national average from Feb to Apr. April to June National prices dropped, and Seattle prices dropped even more. The changes just don't seem significant. Seeing as how prices have dropped every December (due to Christmas sales) and jump back up by February.
No significant spike?? You call 62½% over the national average, "not significant"? Wow...what has to happen? That prices actually DOUBLE??

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">I noticed it right away from the cost of a simple McD hamburder. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Food and beverage prices actually rose less than the average for all goods and services.

So yes, prices went up, but they would have gone up anyway. If it was purely minimum wage, why did you notice last year, but not this year? Or in 2004? Or 2003?
EVERY time the minimum wage is increased:
Prices go up, more than off-setting the wage increase,
People get laid-off due to increased labor costs, which
Causes unemployment, which
Starts the ball rolling for MORE entitlements from DC.
Sorry, not my cup o'tea. Abolish the minimum wage because the higher it goes, the poorer we ALL become.

[pinqy]

And the 'wage floor' raise becomes the new standard for which all new wages are based. I see it in California every wage hike. I have 100 employees. None of them make min. wage. I hire at least $1.00 more than MW. BUT, whenever I have the Cali leg. pass a new MW bill, I am still subject to a $1.00 raise for every single one of my 100 employees as they now all psychologically reference the new wage, looking over their left shoulder. I've dealt with the morale nightmare time and again. It creates major hostility and if I don't raise everybody's wage another $1.00, they feel cheated by only making "minimum wage" since its a slur.That certainly is a difficulty. It does not hold true everywhere or for the majority of wages. It's not a general effect. So while it is absolutely a problem for you and others, when looking at the economy as a whole it's not a large problem. That raises the question of where the proper focus of attention should be.

Obviously you have no clue how the real world works, Numbers Guy.I have a very good idea of how the real world works. As part of my job I have to know and expalin how changes in the labor market effect the real world and when the stats are useful of not for addressing practical problems. You're looking at the micro and your individual situation. I'm looking at the macro and overall effects. Of course the answers will be different. For you others in your situation the problem is huge, but there aren't necessarily enough of you to in that situation to have a large effect.

Now, by theory, an raise in the minimum wage increases the pool of labor as those who might not normally work will take jobs now that the wages are high enough to induce them. This applies mostly to low or unskilled labor, secondary earners, teenagers, retirees, other part-timers etc. With a larger labor pool, employers can be more selective and choose only the better workers and so increase productivity with a rise in wages. If the increase in productivity outweighs the increased cost, then higher wages are a good thing (Henry Ford proved this 100 years ago). However, if you require skilled labor or the effect isn't very large in your area due to the demographics, then yes, you'll get screwed. But that doesn't mean everyone gets screwed or even that enough people get screwed to call it bad overall.

[Book]

Which slows service down, which reduces quality control, which kills customer service, which kills morale etc. etc.

Obviously you have no clue how the real world works, Numbers Guy.
I take it you've never heard of downsizing then. It happens in the real world and it does wonders for the bottom line.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I take it you've never heard of downsizing then. It happens in the real world and it does wonders for the bottom line.
But only if the employer does something, like more automation, to make the remaining employees more productive. Otherwise, production declines as well as sales and profits.

Which reminds me. The massive influx of illegal immigrants to perform menial jobs has greatly slowed the advancemant of automation in the main areas where those illegals work - farming and construction - because it's still cheaper to have it done maually by low-paid illegals. The claim that the illegals do jobs that Americans won't do is BS. Illegals do jobs that machines should be doing.

[Wyatt_Junker]

That certainly is a difficulty. It does not hold true everywhere or for the majority of wages.


A) Yes, but as a consumer....

Its your choice as a burger eater. You either pay .25 - .35 more pure burger, or, you pay no further increase in burger price and wait in the drive thru window longer in order to get your burger due to one or two less worker(s) per shift. Time or money.

Then, after the subtle necessary inflationary changes occur over a period of time, you don't notice the .25 -.35 price increase as you masticate your burger. But, what you did do, is help get a democrat elected. Quite a lot of unnecessary histrionics and procedural hoo haa to go through for businesses everywhere just to have some fat ass politician sit in a leather chair. Is the vanity of this gay little political production really worth it?

B) As to the wage earners who look at their check stubs as a form of pride...

Why would an ear, nose and throat specialist give shit one about changes in min. wage in his inner circle? It doesn't affect him nor his peers. Even the .25 more for the burger. It doesn't affect him. A dollar min. wage increase is merely chaff scratched free off the morning's foreskin after waking up.

The majority of non-salaried but hourly wage earners are directly affected by min. wage due to the totem pole effect that I already described.


It's not a general effect.


Maybe that's your problem. Your argument is infected with 'generalities' and not the real world.


So while it is absolutely a problem for you and others, when looking at the economy as a whole it's not a large problem. That raises the question of where the proper focus of attention should be.

Why should that raise anything? And why is it your business to insinuate yourself into such a position of self-made arbiter in the first place? Why are pretentious do-gooding assholes even given the venue to speak their typical soft forms of marxism anyway? Since when is such prototypical nosy social needling and bourgouis/proletariat fukkery 'proper' as you say? Why is it 'proper' for you to get involved? Stay out of where you do not belong. Stay out of my freedom and reinvent your communist notions elsewhere.



I have a very good idea of how the real world works. As part of my job I have to know and expalin how changes in the labor market effect the real world and when the stats are useful of not for addressing practical problems.


Which is why lobbying firms suck ass. They are the modern day equivalent of coconut shuffling street magician panhandlers who skew numbers for hire in order for another group to tell lies to dipshits through the media so that one political whore can win an election instead of another political whore. The 'numbers' mean absolutely zero when compared to the 'motive'.


You're looking at the micro and your individual situation. I'm looking at the macro and overall effects. Of course the answers will be different. For you others in your situation the problem is huge, but there aren't necessarily enough of you to in that situation to have a large effect.

Probably because they're aren't enough first time noobs in the job sector compared to all people who have jobs. Which raises the question: why should zit-faced teens entertaining their first job be rewarded with political giveaway cash? Have they earned it? Why should a young twentysomething be subsidized for simple broom use instruction when he or she has no experience?


Now, by theory, an raise in the minimum wage increases the pool of labor as those who might not normally work will take jobs now that the wages are high enough to induce them. This applies mostly to low or unskilled labor, secondary earners, teenagers, retirees, other part-timers etc. With a larger labor pool, employers can be more selective and choose only the better workers and so increase productivity with a rise in wages.


Until, of course, things settle down and prices adjust and we habituate back to the new slur of min. wage again. Its momentary hype at best.

What I do is refine my selectivity. Every min. wage hike, I absolutely refuse to hire working noobs. They are SOOL. I don't have the time or money to train them.


If the increase in productivity outweighs the increased cost, then higher wages are a good thing (Henry Ford proved this 100 years ago). However, if you require skilled labor or the effect isn't very large in your area due to the demographics, then yes, you'll get screwed. But that doesn't mean everyone gets screwed or even that enough people get screwed to call it bad overall.

If I can squeegee out $208,000 more dollars in profit in productivity, then your theory will hold true. It will mean that I will have to do $1.2 million more in annual sales next year than this year. If what I sell is not justified by the public to offset that or reflect such a price change adjustment, it won't happen. A nail is a nail. The public knows what a nail costs. They like the price of a nail. They think 'nail', .05 cents. Now they will have to be reeducated to think 'nail', .07 cents. At first they will not like this mental adjustment. They will forget after awhile I'm sure. But its an unnecessary and artificial game of hokey pokey economics that only serves Washington which is the whore's game you play and I assume work for.

[Wyatt_Junker]

I take it you've never heard of downsizing then. It happens in the real world and it does wonders for the bottom line.

Then read the very post you quoted a second time, genius...


Originally Posted by Wyatt_Junker

Which slows service down, which reduces quality control, which kills customer service, which kills morale etc. etc.

[Book]

Then read the very post you quoted a second time, genius...

[/i]Originally Posted by Wyatt_Junker

Which slows service down, which reduces quality control, which kills customer service, which kills morale etc. etc.
It was a joke Wyatt, relax.

At the end of the day, minimum wage needs to go up, at least in-line with inflation or it doesn't serve its purpose.

[gnome]

I would be willing to support the abolishment (or adjustment) of minimum wage laws if a solution were proposed to the problem it was intended to solve. It isn't a great solution. It amounts to a price floor in the labor market which, due to the machinations of supply and demand, lead to a labor surplus (unemployment). (if I have analyzed that correctly--it's Monday and my brain may be backwards on something).

The question is; what to do about a job that doesn't pay a living wage, and yet which people still line up to take because slow starvation is preferable to quick starvation?

[DeclinetoState]

The more common debate is on changes to minimum wages. This unified view was challenged by empirical research done by David Card and Alan Krueger. In their 1997 book Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (ISBN 0-691-04823-1), they argued the negative employment effects of minimum-wage laws to be minimal if not non-existent (at least for the United States). For example, they look at the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In each case, Card and Krueger present evidence ostensibly showing that increases in the minimum wage led to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs. That is, it appears that the demand for low-wage workers is inelastic. Also, these authors reexamine the existing literature on the minimum wage and argue that it, too, lacks support for the claim that a higher minimum wage cuts the availability of jobs.

Critics of this research, however, argue that their research was flawed[9]. For example, Card and Krueger gathered their data by telephoning employers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, asking them whether they intended to increase, decrease, or make no change in their employment. Subsequent attempts to verify the claims requested payroll cards from employers to verify employment, and ostensibly found that the minimum wage increases were followed by decreases in employment. On the other hand, data analysis by David Neumark and William Wascher, economists who are usually critical of minimum-wage increases, supported the Card/Krueger results.[2]Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage)

[pinqy]

REALLY? I think you need to read the next part of your own post.And I think you need to learn basic statistical analysis.


No significant spike?? You call 62½% over the national average, "not significant"? Wow...what has to happen? That prices actually DOUBLE?? No, it's not significant. Let's pick some items A,B,C,D and E, that in both WA and in Springfield USA cost $1, $10, $100, $1,000, and $10,000 respectively. Prices go up in WA by 1.3% and in Springfield by 0.8%. Now A is 1 cent more in WA than in Springfield, B is 5 cents more, C is 50 cents more, D is $5 more and E is $50 more. I wouldn't even notice the difference between $10.08 and $10.13. Or even $10,080 and $10,130. It's 1/2% more in Washington, not 62 1/2% more.



EVERY time the minimum wage is increased:Prices go up, more than off-setting the wage increase,
People get laid-off due to increased labor costs, which
Causes unemployment, which
Starts the ball rolling for MORE entitlements from DC.
Untrue. And as a matter fact it's entirely possible for employment and unemployment to both go down at the same time. And more...in a controversial 1995 study by David Card and Alan Krueger of mostly fast food workers, they found that in many cases, employment went up when the minimum wage increased.

[Rhino]

And more...in a controversial 1995 study by David Card and Alan Krueger of mostly fast food workers, they found that in many cases, employment went up when the minimum wage increased.
That was identified in the previous post as a flawed study.

[pinqy]

That was identified in the previous post as a flawed study.No, it was noted that critics claimed it was flawed, which is not the same thing as it actually being flawed. Card and Krueger of course claim that their critics' studies were flawed. I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed studies that contradict Card and Krueger. That being said, the limitations of their studies to teenagers and the fast-food industry have to be kept in mind and it would not be correct to make the blanket statement that minimum wage raises increase employment. In some particular cases it appears that they can. Teenagers are historically marginally attached to the labor force and an increase in wages can cause some teenagers, some retirees and some housewives/husbands to enter the labor force when they were not in it before.

[Rhino]

I merely said it was identified as a flawed study in the previous post. I made no attempt to agree or disagree with that identification. My only point was that the validity was questioned, and it was.

[pinqy]

A) Yes, but as a consumer....

Its your choice as a burger eater. You either pay .25 - .35 more pure burger, or, you pay no further increase in burger price and wait in the drive thru window longer in order to get your burger due to one or two less worker(s) per shift. Time or money.The "shock" to average prices in Seatlle-Tacoma-Bremerton after the 2005 wage increase was 1.3% (Dec-Feb 2 month percentage change) compared to the US city average of 0.8%. The increase to "food away from home" was 0.4% compared to the US city average of 0.6%. So despite the increase in minimum wage, restaurant food cost did not increase in Seattle as much as it did in the rest of the country. For a 25 cent increase in a hamburger with only a 0.4% increase in restaurant meal cost, that hamburger would have to have gone from $65.40 to $65.65 Somehow I doubt that's what happened.

B) As to the wage earners who look at their check stubs as a form of pride...

Why would an ear, nose and throat specialist give shit one about changes in min. wage in his inner circle? It doesn't affect him nor his peers. Even the .25 more for the burger. It doesn't affect him. A dollar min. wage increase is merely chaff scratched free off the morning's foreskin after waking up.

The majority of non-salaried but hourly wage earners are directly affected by min. wage due to the totem pole effect that I already described. Which is no different from what I was saying. A minimum wage increase doesn't affect that many people.



Maybe that's your problem. Your argument is infected with 'generalities' and not the real world.Generalities are the real world. Your particular circumstances do not define the real world for the rest of us. You're taking one small chunk and saying that should apply to everything. Which is ridiculous.



And why is it your business to insinuate yourself into such a position of self-made arbiter in the first place? Why are pretentious do-gooding assholes even given the venue to speak their typical soft forms of marxism anyway? Since when is such prototypical nosy social needling and bourgouis/proletariat fukkery 'proper' as you say? Why is it 'proper' for you to get involved? Stay out of where you do not belong. Stay out of my freedom and reinvent your communist notions elsewhere.I have no idea what you're talking about. It makes zero sense.




Which is why lobbying firms suck ass. Why on earth did you bring up lobbying firms? You're making less and less sense. There actually is a topic here. You could try sticking with it.


Probably because they're aren't enough first time noobs in the job sector compared to all people who have jobs. Which raises the question: why should zit-faced teens entertaining their first job be rewarded with political giveaway cash? Should I throw back your own question and ask why you get to be self-appointed arbitrater of what other people should do? And since teenagers don't have to be paid the Federal minimum wage, your argument has already been answered by Federal law.


A nail is a nail. The public knows what a nail costs. They like the price of a nail. They think 'nail', .05 cents. Now they will have to be reeducated to think 'nail', .07 cents. At first they will not like this mental adjustment. I really doubt that that many people care as much as you seem to think.

[pinqy]

I merely said it was identified as a flawed study in the previous post. I made no attempt to agree or disagree with that identification. My only point was that the validity was questioned, and it was.This is a question of semantics....saying "identified as flawed" implies that the study was in fact flawed. "Claimed as flawed" is different and I believe I covered that by stating that is was controversial.

[DoctorDoom]

I gather that the pingy person is being a faithful, Big Gov libeRAT, defending everything it does without question even when what is done is not justifable by the Constitution. The consequences to the economy of fedgov intrusiveness and micromanagement are utterly irrelevant, as long as libeRATs can feel good about themselves.

The major error was in allowing the libeRATs to dictate that the MW must be a living wage on which one can support a small family, rather than a starter wage for newcomers to the work force and old folks looking for a little supplemental income. It was never intended to be a career wage. However, the pampered asswarts in Congress, most of whom never did a day's honest labor, trolled for votes at the expense of small businesses that couldn't afford mandatory wage increases for unskilled labor and still maintain a profit.

Fact time: sweeping floors, washing dishes and flipping burgers are not careers. They're entry-level or second-income jobs. DC's mandate that a person must be able to support a family by asking, "Do you want fries with that?" is ridiculous.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I would be willing to support the abolishment (or adjustment) of minimum wage laws if a solution were proposed to the problem it was intended to solve. It isn't a great solution. It amounts to a price floor in the labor market which, due to the machinations of supply and demand, lead to a labor surplus (unemployment). (if I have analyzed that correctly--it's Monday and my brain may be backwards on something).
Once again, the government has no business even knowing how much an employee earns, much less dictating what that employee earns. Federal minimum wage laws are clearly unconstitutional.

The question is; what to do about a job that doesn't pay a living wage, and yet which people still line up to take because slow starvation is preferable to quick starvation?
Almost no one who works at a minimum-wage job is actually trying to make a living from that job. Nearly everyone working at a minimum-wage job is doing so to supplement the family income or to get a little spending money - i.e., spouses of the gainfully employed or students.

[gnome]

Almost no one who works at a minimum-wage job is actually trying to make a living from that job. Nearly everyone working at a minimum-wage job is doing so to supplement the family income or to get a little spending money - i.e., spouses of the gainfully employed or students.

Where are you getting your figures from? I'm having trouble finding a good source of this kind of information--it is very relevant.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Where are you getting your figures from? I'm having trouble finding a good source of this kind of information--it is very relevant.
I have seen dozens of articles showing those statistics. I don't remember the percentages, but the majority of minimum-wage employees are either teenagers or in their early 20s. Look here (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004tbls.htm) for 2004 data.

Of 57.8 million hourly workers age 25 and over, 982,000 are paid at or below minimum wage. Of 16.3 million hourly workers aged 16 to 24, a little over 1 million are paid at or below minimum wage.

Less than 21 percent of minimum wage workers are the sole breadwinners of their families (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/WM19.cfm) and less than 5 percent are sole breadwinners that work full-time year-round. Less than 5 percent of minimum wage workers are poor single mothers over 18 years old.

[Wyatt_Junker]

The "shock" to average prices in Seatlle-Tacoma-Bremerton after the 2005 wage increase was 1.3% (Dec-Feb 2 month percentage change) compared to the US city average of 0.8%. The increase to "food away from home" was 0.4% compared to the US city average of 0.6%. So despite the increase in minimum wage, restaurant food cost did not increase in Seattle as much as it did in the rest of the country. For a 25 cent increase in a hamburger with only a 0.4% increase in restaurant meal cost, that hamburger would have to have gone from $65.40 to $65.65 Somehow I doubt that's what happened.

And yet the payroll increase wasn't an illusion, right? It was legislated. It was a fact. A fact backed up with dictatorial force. You cannot open up a business in Seattle without paying workers their MW. You are either forced out or you submit. And if the price of a hamburger didn't go up, that money got knifed out of somewhere in the budget. It didn't just go away. Somebody had to take it in the shorts.

And whether that means the bottom line gets a hit or an owner's salary, MONEY is shifted away from the sovereign rights of the businessman to whatever the govt. feels is FAIR. Right? Sometimes a small business decides not to pass on the costs of goods to its customers. It has a relationship with the public that it doesn't want to destroy, an image. You would be surprised what the small business owner has to do in order to keep his customer happy at the expense of his own livelyhood. What this translates into is less and less of an incentive to go into business for one's self. Either lose customers with price increases or lose an employee or give yourself a pay reduction. And many times, it is the third option, a pay reduction, that an owner decides is the best course of action. Meanwhile, he helped get a democrat elected. Hur-fukin-ray.


Which is no different from what I was saying.

And what don't you get about $208,000? $208,000 out the door! Maybe I don't want to fire any of my workers because I want better customer service and I don't want to compromise my relationship with them. Maybe I view the hardship of MW enforced by the barrel of a gun(because that's what it is) as a cost that I'm willing to absorb, and that I will take that 208 and shove it so far up my ass that I vomit the change. Not that there would be any.

A minimum wage increase doesn't affect that many people.

You know what? Rape doesn't affect that many people. By and large, generally speaking it is a rare occurance. It is much rarer than people who've made or are making MW.

Does that make it right? Or even a good idea?


Generalities are the real world.


You got that backwards, ygnip.

Specifics are the real world, tried and tested.

The only thing authentic about your 'real world' is which MTV brat is going to be driving the Winneabago next season.


Your particular circumstances do not define the real world for the rest of us. You're taking one small chunk and saying that should apply to everything. Which is ridiculous.

And even this lame paragraph is a generalization. BTW, who is this nebulous 'us'?


I have no idea what you're talking about. It makes zero sense.


Then open up the drop down trap door and come down out of the attic into the real world my little insulated nun.

http://www.independentliving.co.uk/npower/roof-insulation.jpg



Why on earth did you bring up lobbying firms? You're making less and less sense. There actually is a topic here. You could try sticking with it.


You're in DC. You run stats with unthinking ideological bents attached to them. If you're not working for them, you are probably working for any number of political deadbeat suckerfish organizations.


Should I throw back your own question and ask why you get to be self-appointed arbitrater of what other people should do?


You could but it would make no sense. Here's why. You are saying that I should have no choice in my employee wage floor. NO CHOICE. I am saying that I want freedom. You are saying I should have no freedom by virtue of the fact of opening up a business alone. I am saying that that very freedom is what used to make America great.

You are saying that you want the government to be the self-appointed arbiter of what other people should do. I am saying no, let the free market play its hand. Let the people decide, both consumers, employees and businessmen. You are saying that freedom is too much of a responsibility for the common man. You despise freedom and you despise man.

[DesertFox]

:claps:

What Wyatt Junker said.

Standing O.

[Black Phoenix]

Pingy
Not really. Only a very small percentage of the population makes the Federal minimum wage or less (and 19 states have minimum wage laws set higher than the Fed minimum) and the increase in cost can be offset by hiring fewer workers. Looking at the last 2 raises in the Federal minimum wage (Oct 96 and Sept 97), there was no significant increase in the CPI. The CPI did go up, but it had been going up anyway and in fact the monthly percentage increase was much lower than it had been in early 96<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Actually there is a point here in saying, that in truth the min-wage is often set by state. Perhaps evaluated by government, there I don’t know, but set by the state. In any case, so many things drive up inflation, its hard to nail down any one cause. Common sense would tell you that if people are required to be paid more, employers will have to raise prices to pay said wage (nothing exists in a vacuum) and employers not effected so directly, will still raise prices to get more of a bottom line profit, since more money is available. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

In any case, yes, you self centered little brat, you hit the main problem. Instead of simply having to get along with less, people LOSE jobs, or those in higher rank in a company often have to take pay cuts (you know, those people who had to work extra hard to feed large families often… they get screwed so single people on min wage can buy cable television- yes, min-wage generally is enough to live on for a single man- (however, there’s another way out of a company getting hurt by min wage, cutting employee hours, which makes min-wage impossible to survive on))
<O:p</O:p

Pingy
Now, by theory, an raise in the minimum wage increases the pool of labor as those who might not normally work will take jobs now that the wages are high enough to induce them.<O:p</O:p



So what, until the wage goes up they what… sit on their butts?

If you're talking about people who make more money panhandeling and are happy to do so... I hate those little pieces of s***. Why should I care if they want to have jobs? They should recognize they need them and go get them. If not, they should be prepared to suffer the consiquences. He who does no work to ensure his future, will surely suffer for his lack of effort (there's something so few people have the guts to say).
<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p


Book
I take it you've never heard of downsizing then. It happens in the real world and it does wonders for the bottom line.
<O:p</O:p

Like I said, insensitive jerks. I guess the downsizing won’t effect you so you won’t care. Personally I’m a bottom rung man right now, so it most definitely does. You know the meaning of the term, “laid off due to downsizing”?
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p

Pingy
No, it was noted that critics claimed it was flawed, which is not the same thing as it actually being flawed. Card and Krueger of course claim that their critics' studies were flawed. I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed studies that contradict Card and Krueger. That being said, the limitations of their studies to teenagers and the fast-food industry have to be kept in mind and it would not be correct to make the blanket statement that minimum wage raises increase employment. In some particular cases it appears that they can. Teenagers are historically marginally attached to the labor force and an increase in wages can cause some teenagers, some retirees and some housewives/husbands to enter the labor force when they were not in it before.<O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p

In this society, since by law they can’t have enough hours to earn a decent living, why should anyone care if teens have jobs? They usually don’t need them anyway. I’m sure when the wage goes up ten-year-olds are encouraged to take advantage as well.
<O:p</O:p

[Black Phoenix]

On the principal of things.

First off, we republicans resort too often to saying "it's not in the constitution". Neither is the right to life, but nonetheless such should be respected.

I believe employee abuse should be illegal. If it is determined you are obligating someone, without foreknowledge, to great risk, yes, there should be a penalty for such action. (Notice, I said, "foreknowledge" translation: if you knew it was dangerous to be a stunt man, getting hurt was your own fault not your employer's.) If you break contract and pay someone less than the agreed upon price, or skip a pay check, the law should come down hard on you. However, if I, as an employee, agree to a wage, knowing I could either try to bid higher or continue looking for work else where, I have no right to be angry at my employer if the wage is too low.

[pinqy]

I gather that the pingy person is being a faithful, Big Gov libeRAT, defending everything it does without question even when what is done is not justifable by the Constitution. The consequences to the economy of fedgov intrusiveness and micromanagement are utterly irrelevant, as long as libeRATs can feel good about themselves.Then you gather incorrectly. All I've been talking about are the consequences to the economy, never even mentioned the Constitution or even the right or wrong of min wage laws, only the consequences which are not as severe as either the posters here or the extreme left claim.

The major error was in allowing the libeRATs to dictate that the MW must be a living wage on which one can support a small family, rather than a starter wage for newcomers to the work force and old folks looking for a little supplemental income.No one considers the minimum wage to be a living wage to support a family. Most liberals think that's what it should be and are pushing hard for it (ignoring the real consequences) but no one thinks the current minimum wage fulfills that role. Additionally, the government has recognized that teenagers and students don't need to be paid as much. The Fed minimum wage is two tiered with a lower min wage (currently $4.25) for those under 20 in their first 90 days of work. Retail stores, agriculture, and colleges and universities can get a certificate from Dept of Labor to pay full time students a min wage of 85% of the Fed min wage ($4.38). High school students in vocational tech courses only have to be paid 75% of min wage ($3.86).

Fact time: sweeping floors, washing dishes and flipping burgers are not careers. They're entry-level or second-income jobs. DC's mandate that a person must be able to support a family by asking, "Do you want fries with that?" is ridiculous.Except there is no DC mandate saying that. There are a bunch of liberals pushing for that, but it's never gotten into law. For the most part though, you are right. There are some exceptions of course. A 2001 article in the Monthly Labor Review, Do some workers have minimum wage careers (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/05/art2full.pdf) looked at results of the 1979 National Longitudinal Study of Youth and found that there is a non-trivial number of people who still make no more than $2.00 more than the minimum wage after 10 years in the work force. I still don't think that's a significant number, though...the average for the first ten years of work is only 3.46 years at no more than $2 over minimum wage.

[pinqy]

And yet the payroll increase wasn't an illusion, right? It was legislated. It was a fact. A fact backed up with dictatorial force. You cannot open up a business in Seattle without paying workers their MW. You are either forced out or you submit. And if the price of a hamburger didn't go up, that money got knifed out of somewhere in the budget. It didn't just go away. Somebody had to take it in the shorts. Sure....I never said any different. I was only refuting your exaggerated claims of the effect.

And whether that means the bottom line gets a hit or an owner's salary, MONEY is shifted away from the sovereign rights of the businessman to whatever the govt. feels is FAIR. Right? Sometimes a small business decides not to pass on the costs of goods to its customers. It has a relationship with the public that it doesn't want to destroy, an image. You would be surprised what the small business owner has to do in order to keep his customer happy at the expense of his own livelyhood. What this translates into is less and less of an incentive to go into business for one's self. Either lose customers with price increases or lose an employee or give yourself a pay reduction. And many times, it is the third option, a pay reduction, that an owner decides is the best course of action. Except for your misunderstanding of the word "sovreign," you're basically right, though again it does not apply to everyone across the board. No I wouldn't be surprised, though, I have spent many years studying this kind of thing. The irony of course is that your main complaint is that it isn't fair to force you to pay more.



You know what? Rape doesn't affect that many people. By and large, generally speaking it is a rare occurance. It is much rarer than people who've made or are making MW.

Does that make it right? Or even a good idea?Of course not. But neither does it make every man a rapist nor does it mean that every woman needs to go out heavily armed every time to prevent rape.



You got that backwards, ygnip.

Specifics are the real world, tried and tested.Nope. One specific situation tells us diddly about everything else. If you want to know what the economy as a whole is doing, you have to look at the economy as a whole and not one business in one town.

You're in DC. You run stats with unthinking ideological bents attached to them. If you're not working for them, you are probably working for any number of political deadbeat suckerfish organizations.Absolutely wrong on all counts.



You are saying that I should have no choice in my employee wage floor. NO CHOICE. I am saying that I want freedom. You are saying I should have no freedom by virtue of the fact of opening up a business alone. I've said nothing of the sort. You really should get your head out of your ass and actually read what people write instead of inventing nonsense.

You are saying that you want the government to be the self-appointed arbiter of what other people should do. I am saying no, let the free market play its hand. Let the people decide, both consumers, employees and businessmen. You are saying that freedom is too much of a responsibility for the common man. You despise freedom and you despise man.Again, I've said nothing of the sort. Please point it out. All I've done is refute your exaggerated and completely invented claims about the dire effects of the minimum wage.

Raise it, lower it, abolish it, whatever, the effects will not be that great.

[pinqy]

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Common sense would tell you that if people are required to be paid more, employers will have to raise prices to pay said wage (nothing exists in a vacuum) and employers not effected so directly, will still raise prices to get more of a bottom line profit, since more money is available.Common sense is not always right and the real world gets rather messy. A number of things can happen depending on the specific circumstances. Let's say a raise in the minimum wage draws more workers seeking employment (teenagers, retirees, spouses, none of whom really need a job but will take one now that they pay enough), and that allows a greater competition so that the equilibrium level of wages would be below the minimum wage. This creates a surplus of labor and an employer can be more selective in hiring and quicker to fire. Hiring only the best workers, the increase in productivity could outweigh the additional cost of labor and profits go up without a price hike. No, this won't be the most common situation, but it could happen.

Instead of simply having to get along with less, people LOSE jobs,Taking a look at Washington state, which has raised its minimum wage every January for the last few years, the min wage hikes don't seem to have had much of an effect. For 2005, unemployment went down overall. or those in higher rank in a company often have to take pay cuts (you know, those people who had to work extra hard to feed large families often… they get screwed so single people on min wage can buy cable television- yes, min-wage generally is enough to live on for a single man- (however, there’s another way out of a company getting hurt by min wage, cutting employee hours, which makes min-wage impossible to survive on))And you'd prefer to screw the minimum wage earner so a CEO can buy a yacht? Stick with facts, not emotional appeals. The fact is that there does not appear to be any large ill or positive effect from small changes to the minimum wage.
<O:p</O:p

Now, by theory, an raise in the minimum wage increases the pool of labor as those who might not normally work will take jobs now that the wages are high enough to induce them.<O:p</O:p



So what, until the wage goes up they what… sit on their butts? Do you really think all teenagers, all retirees, all spouses work? Currently only 44.5% of all teenagers (not in jail or the military) have work or are looking for work. Only 15% of people 65 and older. Higher wages will induce some of those to start looking for work.

[Rhino]

This is a question of semantics....saying "identified as flawed" implies that the study was in fact flawed. "Claimed as flawed" is different and I believe I covered that by stating that is was controversial.
Tell that to the people who did the identifying. They listed the reasons why they felt it flawed, and I found their reasons quite valid.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Sure....I never said any different. I was only refuting your exaggerated claims of the effect.

And what's exaggerated about the $208,000 direct effect of a MW hike?


Except for your misunderstanding of the word "sovreign," you're basically right


Hmmm. It was used correctly. But what's worse, your misspelling of it or my correct use of it?


, though again it does not apply to everyone across the board.


More poorly written, useless generalities based upon assumptions that come across as ill-informed clichés, or worse; excessive verbiage.


No I wouldn't be surprised, though, I have spent many years studying this kind of thing.


But haven't lived any of it.


The irony of course is that your main complaint is that it isn't fair to force you to pay more.

'The irony of course'...?

M'kay. Show me the 'irony' in your point here.

i·ro·ny http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Firony) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/imacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-nhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif, http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/imacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifr-)
n. pl. i·ro·nies


The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wit)<SUP>1</SUP>.
Where is the humorous incongruity in the government forcing me to pay more money to employees?

Or is 'the irony of course' another one of your meaningless verbal tics?

The reason why you're a poor writer is that you are a conceptual moron. Perhaps if you knew what it is you believe in a simpler, more honest format, you wouldn't feel it so necessary to inject your diction with, in some cases, as much as 35% - 50% of pure lard as a way to dress up your ignorance.


Of course not. But neither does it make every man a rapist nor does it mean that every woman needs to go out heavily armed every time to prevent rape.

And neither does every worker need the protective shield of the government to be their 'agent'. Either we live in a free market economy or a quasi, compromised one. The incremental effects of government intrusion happen so insiduously that no one even questions them. You are just another frog slowly boiled to death, thinking its in a jacuzzi.


Nope. One specific situation tells us diddly about everything else. If you want to know what the economy as a whole is doing, you have to look at the economy as a whole and not one business in one town.

No. What you have to look at are the effects of unchecked intrusion into a supposedly free market and how that meddling will translate into every sector of the economy, including the lower tiers of the business world where products and services have a set price point with no other variables with which to manipulate in order to offset costs.

They either eat the increased labor costs or, in some cases, become extinct. Their price point is fixed for whatever reason. A wage hike is like an artificial limb that doesn't work, useless synthetic matter attached to the organism. Let's say a fake hand painted a strange orange that doesn't look human.

Meanwhile Hong Kong's 'lazy hand' economics looks real because it is real. Over there, workers and businessmen alike can decide for themselves, SOVEREIGNLY, whatever in THE HELL they want to do. If Business A wants to pay its burger flippers a higher wage, more power to them. If Business B wants to pay its burger flippers in high fives and attaboys(IOW, in self-esteem), that's their right. If workers are dumb enough to work for Business B, that's their right. If patrons want to pay more for a burger at Business A, that's their right. How does that sound? Works all the way around for me. The problem is that the American government is increasingly becoming the father of self-esteem, a psychological uncle, which has no place in the real world.


I've said nothing of the sort. You really should get your head out of your ass and actually read what people write instead of inventing nonsense.


Please, let's not play the macho card now. You really aren't very good at it. 'Kay?


Again, I've said nothing of the sort. Please point it out. All I've done is refute your exaggerated and completely invented claims about the dire effects of the minimum wage.

You've refuted nothing, but its funny that you fooled yourself into thinking so.

Anyway, you're missing the point. How about you send me a check for $208,000 and we'll call it even. You get to keep your ideology and I get to keep my money. Sound good?

[DoctorDoom]

Most liberals think that's what it should be and are pushing hard for it (ignoring the real consequences) but no one thinks the current minimum wage fulfills that role.And that is the motivation for demanding that it be raised until it IS a living wage.

[Black Phoenix]

Common sense is not always right and the real world gets rather messy. A number of things can happen depending on the specific circumstances. Let's say a raise in the minimum wage draws more workers seeking employment (teenagers, retirees, spouses, none of whom really need a job but will take one now that they pay enough), and that allows a greater competition so that the equilibrium level of wages would be below the minimum wage. This creates a surplus of labor and an employer can be more selective in hiring and quicker to fire. Hiring only the best workers, the increase in productivity could outweigh the additional cost of labor and profits go up without a price hike. No, this won't be the most common situation, but it could happen.

A raise in the min wage may intice some who would ordinarily stay home for lack of need of a job, to go work (honestly I don't care either way there). Trouble is, that's only a rather superficial short term result. Economincs does not, and can not work in a manner so as, we make a change, and the next day we see the results. The minimum period to observe real economic change is three or more years.


Taking a look at Washington state, which has raised its minimum wage every January for the last few years, the min wage hikes don't seem to have had much of an effect. For 2005, unemployment went down overall.


In only two years, there'd be no way to tell what the effect was. You're sounding like one of those libs who accused Bush of "talking down the economy", when in reality, at the time, nothing he did could have had much to do with that economy.

And you'd prefer to screw the minimum wage earner so a CEO can buy a yacht? Stick with facts, not emotional appeals. The fact is that there does not appear to be any large ill or positive effect from small changes to the minimum wage.


CEO's and company owners are often known by repubs as the tax eaters. They're the last ones hit because they control the payroll. I was talking more like third rung, ya know, guys like the Arby's manager down the street. Only an idiot would think he could buy a yacht, but often people like that have family's or some other reason for needing their money.


Do you really think all teenagers, all retirees, all spouses work?


I was refering to people whom actually need work. If you're talking about people who don't... actually lets go into that one, because I'm not buying this hook line and sinker. Are you honestly telling me, experienced retirees and house wives (house wives often give up good careers to become so), re-enter the work force so they can get that wonderful minimum wage... more than likely less than half what their worth? The teens I'll believe.


And that is the motivation for demanding that it be raised until it IS a living wage.


Okay Doom... starting to worry me... that was sarcasm, right? I don't need to tell you, that's impossible save for short term, right?

[Rhino]

The fact is that there does not appear to be any large ill or positive effect from small changes to the minimum wage.Then why change it?

[pinqy]

And what's exaggerated about the $208,000 direct effect of a MW hike?Nothing. But just because you are severely impacted by it doesn't mean that the overall effect is negative. It might be, but you'd have to show that. The exaggerated claims were, looking back, not mainly you, but the general claims that everything goes up and the whining about how devastating a min wage hike is. Nobody has come up with any evidence of overall ill effect. Sure, some people get hurt, and some people benefit, that's true for practically every policy change.

Hmmm. It was used correctly. But what's worse, your misspelling of it or my correct use of it? Your usage was not correct:

One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:<LI type=a>A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
A national governing council or committee.
A nation that governs territory outside its borders.A business owner is subject to the laws and regulations of his city/county/state/country. Therefore not supreme and not sovereign.


'The irony of course'...?

M'kay. Show me the 'irony' in your point here.

You referenced, but failed to quote, definition 2:
<LI type=a>Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).
An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ironic)It is ironic for someone to complain about one group wanting things to be fair while at the same time complaining that things are not fair. When deriding workers for wanting to increase wages so they are fair, it is incongruous for you to complain about how an increase in wages isn't fair.



And neither does every worker need the protective shield of the government to be their 'agent'. Either we live in a free market economy or a quasi, compromised one. Pure free market, just like any other pure economic theory, runs into problems in the real world. The assumptions used in the model don't always hold true. Sure, the minimum wage laws don't protect that many people, but as long as the floor is below equilibrium it doesn't harm the overall economy and doesn't hurt that many businesses. Whether or not to implement min wage laws and at what level is a purely political matter as long as the floor isn't too high.


No. What you have to look at are the effects of unchecked intrusion into a supposedly free market and how that meddling will translate into every sector of the economy, including the lower tiers of the business world where products and services have a set price point with no other variables with which to manipulate in order to offset costs.Other than anecdotally, you haven't shown these ill effects. We have a very strong economy in the US and I'm curious as to your evidence of all these horrible things happening because of minimum wage.

Meanwhile Hong Kong's 'lazy hand' economics looks real because it is real. Over there, workers and businessmen alike can decide for themselves, SOVEREIGNLY, whatever in THE HELL they want to do. If Business A wants to pay its burger flippers a higher wage, more power to them. If Business B wants to pay its burger flippers in high fives and attaboys(IOW, in self-esteem), that's their right. If workers are dumb enough to work for Business B, that's their right.And here's where reality intrudes. Business A can only hire so many workers. Under pure theory if the wages are too low, a worker won't work there. In reality, people will take a job they'll starve it in order to starve slowly rather than quickly. Theory assumes perfect information and perfect ability to change jobs and locations and the employers will maximize efficiency. In reality, information isn't perfect, changing jobs and locations has real costs, and many employers ignore efficiency and just try to minimize short term costs. If pure theory held, then slavery never would have existed in this country because wage workers are cheaper and more efficient than slaves.

The problem is that the American government is increasingly becoming the father of self-esteem, a psychological uncle, which has no place in the real world. Giving some minimal protection to low level workers is part of the "general Welfare," isn't it? Markets, especially in a country as large as the US, don't work perfectly so some government intrusion can be beneficial. The trick is knowing when is enough. Unemployment Insurance helps the economy, but too generous Unemployment Insurance (such as in Europe) hurts. A minimum wage protects a number of workers while too high a minimum wage, such as the $10/hour proposals, would hurt.

[pinqy]

Most liberals think that's what it should be and are pushing hard for it (ignoring the real consequences) but no one thinks the current minimum wage fulfills that role. And that is the motivation for demanding that it be raised until it IS a living wage.Ah, I thought you were saying that people thought the current minimum wage was supposed to be a living wage. It's not and no one thinks that that is what it was supposed to be, but many thinks that what it should be. They're wrong, of course, because it just won't work.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Nothing. But just because you are severely impacted by it doesn't mean that the overall effect is negative. It might be, but you'd have to show that. The exaggerated claims were, looking back, not mainly you, but the general claims that everything goes up and the whining about how devastating a min wage hike is. Nobody has come up with any evidence of overall ill effect. Sure, some people get hurt, and some people benefit, that's true for practically every policy change.

And you have yet to prove that a MW hike doesn't have a negative result. Your link is not compelling, especially since the results are not immediate nor do they account for the point I already made about a business abosorbing the increase in payroll which goes unreported.


Your usage was not correct:

One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:<LI type=a>A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
A national governing council or committee.
A nation that governs territory outside its borders.

No. My usage was correct.

Click the link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sovereign).

Now, look at my usage of the word in my post; it was a modifier, an adjective. I wasn't referring to a nation or the government or even Prince Charles. Re-read the post. It wasn't a noun. Again, look at the link I provided, especially number 3 and 4.

adj.

Self-governing; independent: <CITE>a sovereign state.</CITE>
Having supreme rank or power: <CITE>a sovereign prince.</CITE>
Paramount; supreme: <CITE>Her sovereign virtue is compassion.</CITE>

Of superlative strength or efficacy: <CITE>a sovereign remedy.</CITE>
Unmitigated: <CITE>sovereign contempt.</CITE>
So, in your view, you can only use the word 'sovereign' unless one is referring to the late Princess Di? If I am a business owner, I can sovereignly decide to fire you and hire you. I can get up late or early. It is my decision and mine alone. And anything that doesn't fall within my en total say so, is an abrogation of that sovereignty.


A business owner is subject to the laws and regulations of his city/county/state/country. Therefore not supreme and not sovereign.

It depends where the business is. Hong Kong has next to near economic, laissez faire sovereignty. A refreshing anarchic approach that I'm afraid we're losing touch with. America has a bit more entrepreneurial sovereignty compared to India and India has more compared to Switzerland. To take your narrow definition of sovereignty to its extreme, then, in the end, only God is sovereign, but then even He is limited to His word.



You referenced, but failed to quote, definition 2:

<LI type=a>Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).
An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ironic)It is ironic for someone to complain about one group wanting things to be fair while at the same time complaining that things are not fair. When deriding workers for wanting to increase wages so they are fair, it is incongruous for you to complain about how an increase in wages isn't fair.


Wrong. The word 'fair' is a curse word that losers use. 'Fair' is communism's siren song. Again, re-read my post.

Here.

And whether that means the bottom line gets a hit or an owner's salary, MONEY is shifted away from the sovereign rights of the businessman to whatever the govt. feels is FAIR. Right? Sometimes a small business decides not to pass on the costs of goods to its customers.

Whatever the govt. feels is fair. I espressly don't want fair, don't like fair and understand that 'fair' is the pitch that the have not's use to siphon off money from the have's even when the haves have earned it.

No. And get this straight. Here's my word. Freedom. I want freedom. This is what I don't want; Al Gore's green fee bullshit, the ADA law that Bush 1 signed into law bullshit, the new whistle blower law bullshit, the EEOC bullshit, OSHA's bullshit, the EDD's bullshit and the MW bullshit. All the incrementalism, year after year, and refined bullshit that gets run an inch under my nose.

Here's a peek into my world. I used to have a 1.7% UI rate. Why? Because I'm a good employer and I fire bums after thorough documentation. I took pride in it. It was a good number and my tax rate was relatively low. Then, to no fault of my own, Bush 2 stretches the time limit one can collect on their unemployment. What happens? My rate goes to 4.8% overnight. Not only does it raise my payroll cost, on the other end, the jobless are disincentivized from looking for new work. There's no urgency. Meanwhile, Bush 2 does nothing about the illegals.

Its an easy enough problem to fix. Either remove the illegals or reduce the UI claim time or both. Bush does neither. Who gets to pay for it(the illegal problem and the UI slackers)? I do. The employer. And this is the problem with govt. Every single societal ill becomes the burden of the businessman even when he has no responsibility for it. This is Atlas Shrugged in real time.


Pure free market, just like any other pure economic theory, runs into problems in the real world. The assumptions used in the model don't always hold true. Sure, the minimum wage laws don't protect that many people, but as long as the floor is below equilibrium it doesn't harm the overall economy and doesn't hurt that many businesses. Whether or not to implement min wage laws and at what level is a purely political matter as long as the floor isn't too high.

Well at least you finally admit wage hike manipulation is an at-root political motive and that it isn't really necessary. It causes immediate morale problems for me, sure, but hey, if it helps get a democrat elected, it was worth it, right? I mean, I can't hire another employee. Quality control goes down. Customer service goes down. Morale goes down the tank. I can't reward the good employees as much as I'd like because the wage gap has been narrowed and now the noobs are making a dollar more than the tier directly above them. Every single wage from $5 - $15 an hour is directly affected by min. wage hikes. Every single wage in that tier, either directly or psychologically and morale is not fun.

Its communism. Its black bread for everyone. All wages meet more in the middle. I cannot create incentives and reward good employee behavior. I have to cap a ceiling on raises and freeze performance reviews. Everyone from $5 - $ 15 an hour looks at the new crop of help that got daddy govt's dollar raise and they want it too and if they don't get it? Its my problem. But, I got to help a democrat get elected right? It was all worth it.


Other than anecdotally, you haven't shown these ill effects. We have a very strong economy in the US and I'm curious as to your evidence of all these horrible things happening because of minimum wage.


Funny. You deride anecdotes and then, here's your next paragraph...

Anecdotes.


And here's where reality intrudes. Business A can only hire so many workers. Under pure theory if the wages are too low, a worker won't work there. In reality, people will take a job they'll starve it in order to starve slowly rather than quickly. Theory assumes perfect information and perfect ability to change jobs and locations and the employers will maximize efficiency. In reality, information isn't perfect, changing jobs and locations has real costs, and many employers ignore efficiency and just try to minimize short term costs. If pure theory held, then slavery never would have existed in this country because wage workers are cheaper and more efficient than slaves.

And what's funny about your anecdotes is that they aren't true. They are made up. Mine are true. I have lived them.

I also like your anecdotes because they're especially dramatic. Workers will STARVE SLOWLY RATHER THAN QUICKLY. Then to top it off, you play the R card. Yes, lets' go back to before the emancipation to make our point. Nice one. Perhaps you should stick to just being Mr. Numbers because Mr. Anecdote is like a bad daytime soap.


Giving some minimal protection to low level workers is part of the "general Welfare," isn't it? Markets, especially in a country as large as the US, don't work perfectly so some government intrusion can be beneficial. The trick is knowing when is enough.


So, its a 'trick' then. Neat. I like magic tricks.

Giving employees 'minimal protection' may be 'minimal' to you, but to me its felt maximally. But, you don't have to worry about that, do you? Its not you living it. And 'the trick is knowing when is enough' so as not to kill some businesses entirely. Just enough social chemotherapy. Not an ounce more.


Unemployment Insurance helps the economy, but too generous Unemployment Insurance (such as in Europe) hurts. A minimum wage protects a number of workers while too high a minimum wage, such as the $10/hour proposals, would hurt.

More SOSO social reengineering, do-gooder bullshit. I suppose your next post will be *surprise surprise* a brilliant repeat of the recycled monotony.