Proof, We Don't Need A Minimum Wage Increase

[Seabee]

New Job Report Shows Wage Gains Are on Track

The U.S. economy may be at that point now. Employees are enjoying substantial raises. Even as productivity growth has slowed, workers' wages have risen rapidly. Over the past 12 months, average hourly wages have increased by 4.1 percent. Earnings have not risen this quickly since February 2001, right before the collapse of the tech bubble.[6] (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1282.cfm#_ftn6) The same also holds true after taking account of inflation. Inflation-adjusted wages have risen 2.8 percent over the past year, the fastest rate since August 1998.[7] (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1282.cfm#_ftn7)
Companies are giving their employees the raises that their increased productivity has earned them, and in response, incomes are rising. Arguments that companies are not passing on productivity gains to their workers appear set to join the complaints of two years ago—about the "jobless recovery"—in the trash bin.

Full Report: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1282.cfm


Sorry for spreading lies and conservative propaganda about a decent wage and economy. I just cannot help myself.

[DesertFox]

Nope. Don't need it, never did. But as Wyatt has pointed out, the unions use the minimum wage as a floor figure for their blackmail negotiations.

Also, since the minimum wage puts young people out of work, it recruits for the Democrat Party, which puts 'em outta work and then recruits 'em for unemployment and welfare bennies. The outta-workers then vote Democrat.

[Seabee]

amen brutha

[Wyatt_Junker]

Preach it!

[DeclinetoState]

Also, since the minimum wage puts young people out of work, it recruits for the Democrat Party, which puts 'em outta work and then recruits 'em for unemployment and welfare bennies. The outta-workers then vote Democrat.
Supporters of minimum-wage increases argue, however, that a higher minimum wage encourages people who are not seeking a job to enter the work force, thus causing a net decrease in joblessness.

[DesertFox]

They may think that, but nobody with any sense does.

[DeclinetoState]

The minimum wage has been an important part of our
nation’s economy for 68 years. It is based on the principle
of valuing work by establishing an hourly wage floor beneath
which employers cannot pay their workers. In so doing, the
minimum wage helps to equalize the imbalance in bargaining
power that low-wage workers face in the labor market. The
minimum wage is also an important tool in fighting poverty.

The value of the 1997 increase in the federal minimum wage
has been fully eroded. The real value of today’s federal minimum
wage is less than it has been since 1951. Moreover, the ratio of the
minimum wage to the average hourly wage of non-supervisory
workers is 31%, its lowest level since World War II. This decline
is causing hardship for low-wage workers and their families.

We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would
improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have
the adverse effects that critics have claimed. In particular, we
share the view the Council of Economic Advisors expressed in
the 1999 Economic Report of the President that "the weight of
the evidence suggests that modest increases in the minimum
wage have had very little or no effect on employment." While
controversy about the precise employment effects of the minimum
wage continues, research has shown that most of the beneficiaries
are adults, most are female, and the vast majority are members
of low-income working families.

As economists who are concerned about the problems
facing low-wage workers, we believe the Fair Minimum Wage Act
of 2005’s proposed phased-in increase in the federal minimum
wage to $7.25 falls well within the range of options where the
benefits to the labor market, workers, and the overall economy
would be positive.

Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have set
their minimum wages above the federal level. Arizona, Colorado,
Missouri, Montana, Nevada and Ohio, are considering similar
measures. As with a federal increase, modest increases in state
minimum wages in the range of $1.00 to $2.50 and indexing to
protect against inflation can significantly improve the lives of
low-income workers and their families, without the adverse
effects that critics have claimed.Economic Policy Institute (pdf file) (http://www.epi.org/minwage/epi_minimum_wage_2006.pdf)

The rest of the document is a list of the economists by name and position. No specifics are given as to why the assertions quoted above are or should be true.

[DesertFox]

Any economist who says we should even HAVE a minimum wage should lose his license to economate, or whatever it is economists do besides say idiotic things.

[DeclinetoState]

http://www.cbpp.org/CBLOGO.GIF (http://www.cbpp.org/index.html)May 29, 1998
New Findings from Oregon Suggest Minimum Wage Increases
Can Boost Wages for Welfare Recipients Moving to Work
by Ed Lazere (http://www.cbpp.org/staff.htm#Lazere)


Introduction and Summary

Debates over raising the minimum wage often focus on the issue of who will benefit from lifting the wage floor. Some claim that increasing the minimum wage does little for low-income families, because minimum wage earners frequently are teenagers or secondary workers in middle-class families. While the benefits of minimum wage increases are not targeted solely on low-income families, many of the workers whose earnings rise as a result of such increases are in low-income families. In addition, the large majority of minimum wage workers are adults, and many are the primary breadwinner in their family.

New evidence from Oregon suggests that minimum wage increases can have a significant effect on parents who leave welfare for work. As a result of a successful state ballot initiative, the Oregon minimum wage rose from $4.75 an hour to $5.50 an hour in January 1997 and then to $6.00 an hour in January 1998.(1) Data from Oregon's welfare agency show that the earnings of parents who moved from welfare to work were boosted as a result of these increases.
<ul><li>The average starting wage of Oregon parents leaving welfare fell five percent, adjusting for inflation, during the three years prior to the January 1997 increase in the state minimum wage.

<li>This trend reversed itself immediately after the increase. The average starting wage jumped from $6.15 an hour in the last quarter before the 1997 minimum wage increase took effect to $6.43 an hour in the first quarter following the increase. By the fourth quarter of 1997, the average starting wage had reached $6.65 an hour, an increase of more than five percent, adjusting for inflation, over the same quarter of the prior year.

These wage increases are unlikely to have occurred simply as a result of the state's strong economy. Economic growth in Oregon was solid prior to the state's minimum wage increase in 1997, but real wages for welfare recipients still declined during that period.

<li>The average starting wage for welfare recipients rose again following the second increase in the minimum wage. In the first quarter of 1998, welfare recipients who found work earned an average of $6.91 an hour, up substantially from the end of 1997. Overall, the average wage for these workers is now 76 cents an hour higher than before the state minimum wage increase took effect.</ul>

The minimum wage increase in Oregon boosted the earnings both of welfare recipients who found jobs at the minimum wage and of many who found jobs paying slightly above the minimum wage. For example, among welfare recipients who found full-time jobs, the proportion earning more than $6 an hour rose from roughly half in 1996 to two-thirds in 1997.

This analysis also examines whether the increase in Oregon's minimum wage had a negative overall effect on employment opportunities of welfare recipients. While no systematic study of this issue has been conducted, the available evidence does not suggest a negative change in employment opportunities. The share of welfare recipients finding work rose modestly in 1997 following the increase in the minimum wage. In addition, employment growth in retail trade, the industry most likely to be affected by a minimum wage increase, was positive in 1997 and followed the same pattern as overall employment growth in Oregon. Both overall employment and retail employment rose in 1997, although at a somewhat slower rate than in 1996. The change in employment growth between 1996 and 1997 reflects a modest general slowdown in the state's rate of economic growth, not the increase in the minimum wage. If the minimum wage increase had reduced job growth significantly, it is likely that the trend in retail trade employment would have been significantly worse than the trend in overall employment.
CBPP (http://www.cbpp.org/529ormw.htm)

[DesertFox]

You can force anything to work for awhile if you use the govt to make it happen. That doesn't mean it will work on its own, because it won't.

[DeclinetoState]

My problem with the minimum wage is that, while it may help some people for a period of time, those at the bottom of the economic ladder will remain there unless they are able to get the skills to earn more than the minimum, whatever it may be.

Suppose a store is working with a skeleton crew, paid at the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is increased, the store will have to either fire workers (not practical if it's already using a skeleton crew) or raise prices of the goods it sells. Raising prices at one store will have little effect on inflation, but if there are other stores in a similar situation, then eventually all of the other stores will also have to raise their prices. This, of course, will lead to inflation--which will eventually consume the wage increase.

[DeclinetoState]

June 28, 2001
Who is Paid the Minimum Wage and Who Would be Affected by a $1.50 per Hour Increase
by D. Mark Wilson
WebMemo #19

Who Works the Minimum Wage?

The 1.6 million paid-hourly workers who earn minimum wages can be broken down into two broad groups. 1 (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/WM19.cfm#1)

<ul><li>Over half (53 percent) are teenagers or young adults under the age of 23. More than half (54 percent) of these young workers live in families with incomes two or more times the official poverty level for their family size and 18 percent live in poor families. The average family income of these young workers is almost $50,500 per year. The average income for single young workers is $11,200. Over 63 percent are enrolled in either high school or college.

<li>The other half (47 percent) are workers ages 23 and up. More of these workers live in poor families (29 percent). Yet, even within this half of the minimum wage population, the average family income is over $38,100 per year. The average income for single workers is $19,300. Over 30 percent of these older workers did not graduate from high school and another 36 percent had only a high school diploma.

<li>Almost 43 percent of all minimum wage workers are children, 26 percent are married family heads or spouses, 11 percent are single family heads, and 17 percent are single people (another 3 percent are other relatives).

<li>Less than 21 percent of minimum wage workers are the sole breadwinners of their families 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.

<li>Over 57 percent of all minimum wage workers work part-time voluntarily. Only 25 percent work full-time year-round while over 28 percent work part-time part of the year.

<li>The average family income for all minimum wage workers is $45,200 and their wages account for 35 percent of their total family income. The average income of single-nonfamily minimum wage workers is $16,800.</ul>
Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/WM19.cfm)

[DeclinetoState]

I've never heard of WIN Radio, but it sounds like an imitation of Air America, though smaller (if that's possible):

http://www.laborradio.org/misc/winbanner.jpg (http://www.laborradio.org/)

Four years ago the state of Oregon set its minimum wage to increase each year along with the cost-of-living. Jesse Russell takes a look at the impact:

As the new year dawned Oregon’s minimum wage workers saw a .30 cent increase in their paychecks. In 2002 Oregonians approved a ballot measure that required the state’s minimum wage to keep pace with inflation - that automatically bumped it up to $7.80 this year. A report released this week by the Oregon Center for Public Policy suggests that opponents of the measure, who claimed nearly 30,000 jobs would be lost if the wage increase passed, have been proven wrong. The report finds that Oregon’s job growth is 11th fastest in the nation with restaurant jobs increasing by 13.5 percent.

Source (http://www.laborradio.org/node/4998)

[cerberus]

While i'm not against raising the minimum wage per se, doing so will not help those that the dems claim to be trying to help; i.e. the working poor. If they really wanted to help them they'd increase the Earned Income Tax Credit

[Maggie_T]

How will that help the poor?

[DesertFox]

It won't. In America, the truly poor earn nothing at all.

[Maggie_T]

Oh, I know that, Foxy. But I want to see our Mutt's "enlightened" explanation. :evilgrin:

[Lazarus]

Supporters of minimum-wage increases argue, however, that a higher minimum wage encourages people who are not seeking a job to enter the work force, thus causing a net decrease in joblessness.Yeah I have heard this fantasy, socialist economic theory... I had one of these idiots as an economics teacher in college... Luckily for me, he was counterbalanced in my second year by a brilliant teacher of the Milton Friedman school of economics...

So the socialists think that raising the minimum wage is good because it overpowers the laziness threshold of the welfare bum... What a cunning bunch these socialists are...

This sounds like Alice in Wonderland economics...

[Lazarus]

Oh, I know that, Foxy. But I want to see our Mutt's "enlightened" explanation. :evilgrin:This is what we call a "Duh!" moment, Maggie... It hasnt yet occurred to the "three heads" that the income level that defines them as "poor", places them below the minimum taxable level...

Somebody tell him...:rolleyes:

[Joe Btsflk]

Also, since the minimum wage puts young people out of work, it recruits for the Democrat Party, which puts 'em outta work and then recruits 'em for unemployment and welfare bennies. The outta-workers then vote Democrat.

Not to mention the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to interfere in the amount of money that an employer pays an employee, therefore it is unconstitutional to have a federally mandated "Mininum Wage." But then again, according to GW Bush, "It's just a GodDamned piece of paper!"

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

[DeclinetoState]

. . . nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to interfere in the amount of money that an employer pays an employee, therefore it is unconstitutional to have a federally mandated "Mininum Wage."Nowhere is it prohibited from doing so, either. Of course, the concept of a "minimum wage" was probably not even in the English language at the time. (One could argue that the minimum wage was zero (0), since that was the wage for slaves, but I digress.) A constitutionality debate would force us to look at the "loose construction" vs. "strict construction" debate that has been going on for over 200 years now.

[DesertFox]

Either Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams, one of those economists with his feet planted in the real world, said that if a minimum wage will solve poverty, then let's set it at $100 an hour. Then everybody will be rich.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: I find it hard to believe that W used God's Name in vain.

[Joe Btsflk]

Nowhere is it prohibited from doing so, either. Of course, the concept of a "minimum wage" was probably not even in the English language at the time.

Just the type of revisionist crap that has allowed the federal government to use the Constitution for toilet paper. You need to go back and pay attention in American history class. Your reasoning is exactly what the states feared when they were asked to ratify the Constitution. They feared that the federal government would usurp powers that were not authorized by the Constitution. They didn't fear the powers that were authorized. The federalists guaranteed them that it would never happen, that anything that the Constitution didn't authorize was forbidden. Using your idiotic conclusion, the government can listen in on any phone conversation, any time because the Constitution does not prohibit them from doing it and telephones weren't even heard of when it was written.

[Eagle1]

They feared that the federal government would usurp powers that were not authorized by the Constitution. They didn't fear the powers that were authorized. The federalists guaranteed them that it would never happen, that anything that the Constitution didn't authorize was forbidden. Using your idiotic conclusion, the government can listen in on any phone conversation, any time because the Constitution does not prohibit them from doing it and telephones weren't even heard of when it was written.

if you want to blame something for this your target should be the bill of rights

[DeclinetoState]

The federalists guaranteed them that it would never happen, that anything that the Constitution didn't authorize was forbidden. Using your idiotic conclusion, the government can listen in on any phone conversation, any time because the Constitution does not prohibit them from doing it and telephones weren't even heard of when it was written.I'll try to ignore the ad hominem attacks.

There's a "strict constructionist" position, which is often advocated by those out of power, and which can perhaps be supported by the 9th and 10th Amendments. However, there's also the "loose constructionist" position, which is often advocated by those in power, which basically says the government can do anything it wants to unless the Constitution says it can't.

Note that if the Republicans were out of the White House and a minority in Congress, they would be "strict constructionist," but if they were the majority and in the White House (as they have been for the past six years), they would be "loose constructionist." The Democrats are, of course, no different--except perhaps a few degrees worse.

[JohnSteel]

Nowhere is it prohibited from doing so, either.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 10

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.

Anything not metioned in the US Constitution? Then the federal goverment can't do it.

[DesertFox]

Not "anything," but "powers."

The difference matters, too. "Anything" would prohibit the bureaucracy from doing what was necessary to make govt function because the Constitution doesn't say a word about bureaucracy. That would make no sense at all, but that would come under "anything."

On the other hand, "powers" gets precisely at the idea of what most people think they mean when they say "anything."

There is a middle ground where the rubber meets the road -- bureaucracy usurping "powers." There is what you're really talking about.

If we have learned nothing else from modern liberals, we should have learned that words matter.

[DeclinetoState]

I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the power to rule on the constitutionality of any law. SCOTUS assumed for itself that role in Marbury v. Madison.