sevfiv Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/3989695.html it has been at $5.15 since 1997... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trophy Property Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/3989695.htmlit has been at $5.15 since 1997... that is amazing to me. The minimum wage should be at least $7. I do not run a business that uses cheap labor, but come on. there is no way to support yourself let alone a family on those wages. No wonder their are so many panhandlers. those guys rake it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I wonder if anyone took it seriously to begin with keeping in mind who's running the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Republican critics said the minimum wage was a job killer, not the boon to low-wage workers portrayed by Democrats."This is a classic debate between two different philosophies. One philosophy believes in the marketplace, competition and entrepreneurship, and the second is a philosophy that says government knows best," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga. He said France and Germany have high minimum wages, but also high unemployment. I always love this argument. Comparing US and French unemployment to kill off anything that may help a low-wage worker survive. But, the speakers who derisively talk of France's unemployment rate never mention how the rate is computed. France considers one unemployed if they work less than 75 hours in 4 weeks. The US, on the other hand, says you are employed if you work ONE hour per week in the last four weeks. Using the French definition of unemployment would give the US 8.8 percent unemployment, versus 9.2 percent for France. Plus, weighted for inflation, 1997's $5.15 per hour wage is only $3.88 per hour today. Let's hear it for the "marketplace, competition and entreprenuership". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Come to think about it, Congress get's an automatic pay raise each year: 2007, they will take a raise of $3,300 2006, they took a raise of $3,100 2005, they took a raise of $4,000 2004, they took a raise of $3,400 2003, they took a raise of $4,700 2002, they took a raise of $4,900 2001, they took a raise of $3,800 2000, they took a raise of $4,600 So average Joe and soldier, take what you get and suck on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I always love this argument. Comparing US and French unemployment to kill off anything that may help a low-wage worker survive. But, the speakers who derisively talk of France's unemployment rate never mention how the rate is computed.France considers one unemployed if they work less than 75 hours in 4 weeks. The US, on the other hand, says you are employed if you work ONE hour per week in the last four weeks. Using the French definition of unemployment would give the US 8.8 percent unemployment, versus 9.2 percent for France. Plus, weighted for inflation, 1997's $5.15 per hour wage is only $3.88 per hour today. Let's hear it for the "marketplace, competition and entreprenuership". If the Dems. think that a minimum wage increase is sooooooooo desperately needed, then why not just back the 2-stage $6.25 and hour increase ? BTW, I totally agree that it is needed, looks like nobody wanted to compromise though. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt..._wage_increase/ Come to think about it, Congress get's an automatic pay raise each year:2007, they will take a raise of $3,300 2006, they took a raise of $3,100 2005, they took a raise of $4,000 2004, they took a raise of $3,400 2003, they took a raise of $4,700 2002, they took a raise of $4,900 2001, they took a raise of $3,800 2000, they took a raise of $4,600 So average Joe and soldier, take what you get and suck on it. You're right, I don't Sen.Teddy handing that back and saying, no,no, I have plenty of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groovehouse Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 that SUCKS!! Congress got their pay raise... but the working man is stuck out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncoby Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 that SUCKS!!Congress got their pay raise... but the working man is stuck out. And this surprises you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VelvetJ Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Come to think about it, Congress get's an automatic pay raise each year:2007, they will take a raise of $3,300 2006, they took a raise of $3,100 2005, they took a raise of $4,000 2004, they took a raise of $3,400 2003, they took a raise of $4,700 2002, they took a raise of $4,900 2001, they took a raise of $3,800 2000, they took a raise of $4,600 So average Joe and soldier, take what you get and suck on it. Please, 9 years without an increase? That shouldn't make much difference to those people. Besides, those making minimum wage don't need a increase at all. All they have to do is simply pull themselves up by their bootstraps. (sarcasm) Yeah this is truly interesting also considering those that are making $5.15 per hour are helping pay for the increases congress has recieved since 97'. And one thing about ol Teddy, he may not have given his raises back but I'm sure if it were up to him the minimum wage would be raised which is more than I can say for many others across the aisle. Another thing, I simply cannot wrap my brain around the idea that there are those that find it necessary to justify themeselves needing pay increases over the past 9 years but can't seem to justify it for so many others. There are so many that call themselves people of God in a particular political party, yet they conveniently seem to never ask themselves WWJD when it is time to vote on issues such as these. Incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Yeah this is truly interesting also considering those that are making $5.15 per hour are helping pay for the increases congress has recieved since 97'.Actually, those that are in the lower income levels typically receive more of a tax refund than was paid in taxes to begin with. Underhanded subsidy already exists, and it comes from the general fund. If some form of welfare must be granted to unskilled workers, then I'd rather continue and increase this practice than pass a law that identifies a given amount as a minimum wage...at least then the deadweight loss to the economy is not localized within low-income labor markets, and is spread throughout the general economy.Afterall, a lot of populist/liberal types complain vehemently about the outsourcing of jobs (particularly low skill jobs) to countries where the prevailing wage can be about $2 per day...do they honestly expect that raising the cost of U.S. labor for employers is going to help stem the tide? Seems more like they're digging their own grave with that kind of policy. If they're going to screw (net) taxpayers, they should at least take care not screw their own constituency in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Actually, those that are in the lower income levels typically receive more of a tax refund than was paid in taxes to begin with. Underhanded subsidy already exists, and it comes from the general fund. If some form of welfare must be granted to unskilled workers, then I'd rather continue and increase this practice than pass a law that identifies a given amount as a minimum wage...at least then the deadweight loss to the economy is not localized within low-income labor markets, and is spread throughout the general economy.Afterall, a lot of populist/liberal types complain vehemently about the outsourcing of jobs (particularly low skill jobs) to countries where the prevailing wage can be about $2 per day...do they honestly expect that raising the cost of U.S. labor for employers is going to help stem the tide? Seems more like they're digging their own grave with that kind of policy. If they're going to screw (net) taxpayers, they should at least take care not screw their own constituency in the process.Hey why have a minimum wage at all? Let the market decide. Then we too can have a prevailing wage of two dollars a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 And one thing about ol Teddy, he may not have given his raises back but I'm sure if it were up to him the minimum wage would be raised which is more than I can say for many others across the aisle.Velvet, hate to tell you my friend, there was a Republican backed bill that would increase minimum wage also today, and it was shot down. So, it ain't just on the right side of the aisle pal.Read this to find out more.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt..._wage_increase/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Velvet, hate to tell you my friend, there was a Republican backed bill that would increase minimum wage also today, and it was shot down. So, it ain't just on the right side of the aisle pal.Read this to find out more.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt..._wage_increase/TJ, the link said the page expired, no story. But anyway Repub backed or not I'd be interested to see who voted for it and who voted against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 TJ, the link said the page expired, no story. But anyway Repub backed or not I'd be interested to see who voted for it and who voted against it. Wow, page expired already, hmmmm. Must be a left wing conspiracy. Let me get you some details. Here we go. This is priceless, apparently they were looking for the same wage increase amount. It's a shame that it missed by 3 lousy votes. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/20/...ain957660.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Hey why have a minimum wage at all? Let the market decide. Then we too can have a prevailing wage of two dollars a day.We aren't going to have that kind of "prevailing wage"...for that to happen the "prevailing wage" would have to already be at $5.15. If that's where you think it is, then you must be WAY out of touch. Even unskilled Spanish-speaking illegals hired at true market rates often get better than $5.15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 We aren't going to have that kind of "prevailing wage"...for that to happen the "prevailing wage" would have to already be at $5.15. If that's where you think it is, then you must be WAY out of touch. Even unskilled Spanish-speaking illegals hired at true market rates often get better than $5.15.So we should eliminate the minimum wage? If you think raising it would eliminate jobs then why should it be set at 5.15? Why not lower it and create jobs? What jobs would we lose anyway that haven't already been lost? You can't outsource McDonalds counter help to India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 So we should eliminate the minimum wage? If you think raising it would eliminate jobs then why should it be set at 5.15? Why not lower it and create jobs? What jobs would we lose anyway that haven't already been lost? You can't outsource McDonalds counter help to India.West, do you think the Rep. idea of hiking the minimum wage and giving the small business owners a tax break is a good deal, or are the small business owner's in the "rich" tax bracket already and don't deserve such breaks ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 West, do you think the Rep. idea of hiking the minimum wage and giving the small business owners a tax break is a good deal, or are the small business owner's in the "rich" tax bracket already and don't deserve such breaks ?The Repubs want to hike the minimum wage? Yeah good idea. Give business owners a tax break, probably a good idea, I have have to know the details first though. So if the Repubs want to do this why don't they? They are the majority. Could it be they can talk a good game but when it comes do getting anything of substance done are they politically impotent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 The Repubs want to hike the minimum wage? Yeah good idea. Give business owners a tax break, probably a good idea, I have have to know the details first though. So if the Repubs want to do this why don't they? They are the majority. Could it be they can talk a good game but when it comes do getting anything of substance done are they politically impotent?I found you a cbs news link. It is up there in my previous to last post.Their proposal got 57 votes, so why couldn't more Dems. get on board ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 So if the Repubs want to do this why don't they? They are the majority. Could it be they can talk a good game but when it comes do getting anything of substance done are they politically impotent? The Reps can't get 60 votes to get it to the floor especially when 8 of them voted with Kennedy's amendment. They can't even get enough votes for their own amendment. They really don't want it anyway-it would piss off their base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 The Reps can't get 60 votes to get it to the floor especially when 8 of them voted with Kennedy's amendment.They can't even get enough votes for their own amendment. They really don't want it anyway-it would piss off their base. Apparently, the Dems. want more to it than just a "wage hike" for their "base" or they would have voted yes to the Rep. proposal. This is all just typical, "you won't vote for mine, so I ain't gonna vote for yours !" old school politics. How come the majority of the media isn't reporting that the Rep. proposal got more votes, if 8 Dems. would have voted for the measure, it would have passed. Apparently we got the 8 votes back for the Republican side nmain, You can blame your boys for not voting this bill through, not mine. It takes 60 votes, per agreement, there are only 56 Republicans in the Senate, we got 57 votes. How do you explain that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Apparently, the Dems. want more to it than just a "wage hike" for their "base" or they would have voted yes to the Rep. proposal.It takes 60 votes, per agreement, there are only 56 Republicans in the Senate, we got 57 votes. How do you explain that ? Actually the Dem amendment was a clear cut raising of the min. wage. The Rep amendment had breaks and exemptions for small businesses. I think people are tiered of the Borrow and Spend Reps. They would have to borrow from somewhere to off-set yet another round of tax breaks for buisness. And they spend like drunken sailors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Actually the Dem amendment was a clear cut raising of the min. wage.The Rep amendment had breaks and exemptions for small businesses. I think people are tiered of the Borrow and Spend Reps. They would have to borrow from somewhere to off-set yet another round of tax breaks for buisness. And they spend like drunken sailors. The tax breaks are so the small business owner can afford to pay the higher wage. Isn't this the same exact thing the Dems. were bitching about. How the tax breaks are only good for the "rich". Here is a tax break included for the middle class small business owners, and a pay hike in the same package, but because Teddy wasn't smart enough to think about doing that himself, he rallies the troops to shoot it down. Typical. If you were a small business owner, you may think it is a pretty good idea. If you just raise wages, what happens to the business owners ? They have to cut back on personnel because they can't afford to pay everyone. Give more wage to more workers and they have more money to spend and more taxes to pay, so it all balances out when the business owners get a tax break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 The tax breaks are so the small business owner can afford to pay the higher wage. Isn't this the same exact thing the Dems. were bitching about. How the tax breaks are only good for the "rich". Here is a tax break included for the middle class small business owners, and a pay hike in the same package, but because Teddy wasn't smart enough to think about doing that himself, he rallies the troops to shoot it down. Typical. If you were a small business owner, you may think it is a pretty good idea. If you just raise wages, what happens to the business owners ? They have to cut back on personnel because they can't afford to pay everyone. Give more wage to more workers and they have more money to spend and more taxes to pay, so it all balances out when the business owners get a tax break. You know what they say: "A nickle here, a nickle there..." and everyone ends up paying for the Republican Borrow and Spend policies. You can't nail the Republican defeat on the Dems or anyone else. Like the record-breaking deficits, it's your baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 The tax breaks are so the small business owner can afford to pay the higher wage. Isn't this the same exact thing the Dems. were bitching about. How the tax breaks are only good for the "rich". Here is a tax break included for the middle class small business owners, and a pay hike in the same package, but because Teddy wasn't smart enough to think about doing that himself, he rallies the troops to shoot it down. Typical. If you were a small business owner, you may think it is a pretty good idea. If you just raise wages, what happens to the business owners ? They have to cut back on personnel because they can't afford to pay everyone. Give more wage to more workers and they have more money to spend and more taxes to pay, so it all balances out when the business owners get a tax break.Why do the businesses need the tax break. They are competing with other businesses that have to pay the same minimum wage. And what exactly is the tax break the GOP is proposing. Just saying "tax break" is pretty imprecise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 The tax breaks are so the small business owner can afford to pay the higher wage. Isn't this the same exact thing the Dems. were bitching about. How the tax breaks are only good for the "rich". Here is a tax break included for the middle class small business owners, and a pay hike in the same package, but because Teddy wasn't smart enough to think about doing that himself, he rallies the troops to shoot it down. Typical. If you were a small business owner, you may think it is a pretty good idea. If you just raise wages, what happens to the business owners ? They have to cut back on personnel because they can't afford to pay everyone. Give more wage to more workers and they have more money to spend and more taxes to pay, so it all balances out when the business owners get a tax break.I have owned 6 small businesses through the years, ranging from law firms to restaurants. I believe I may be qualified to comment on the impact of higher minimum wages on small businesses. I will start by saying I have never paid an employee minimum wage. An employer who pays minimum wage gets minimum effort. Any intelligent employer knows this. Unintelligent employers need more help than low wages to survive.My last restaurant employed half a dozen workers, all making $7.00 or more. The difference between what I paid and minimum wage would have amounted to $222 per week. If $222 would put me out of business, I would have been going out of business anyway. Additionally, a 10 cent increase in the price of a sandwich would have more than recouped the additional labor costs. In fact, the increase in the cost of cheese caused me far more problems than labor costs did.Few, if any jobs will be lost by an increase in the minimum wage. The number of families lifted out of poverty, and therefore, off of welfare rolls, will more than offset any loss of jobs. Since payroll is already deductible as a business expense, a $1.10 increase in wages only cost a business 80 cents. I don't know why a business needs an additional tax break to the one they already have. Further, if the myth that raising the minimum wage will result in job losses were true, every time one of us receives a merit raise, a co-worker would be laid off. It doesn't happen, because it isn't true.Inflation has increased 25% since 1997. Therefore, prices have increased 25%. Minimum wages have not increased. There should be additional profit on reduced costs, compared to inflated prices. If US productivity has increased as much as everyone claims, the money is there for a minimum wage increase. If the money is not there, then our elected officials are lying to us when they claim all of these economic gains.Most restaurant workers earn tips. A tip earner may be paid less than minimum wage, 60%, or $3.09 per hour. An increase to $6.25 means waiters will increase to $3.75, a 66 cent increase. Since this is tax deductible to the employer, the restaurant's cost is an extra 48 cents. Are we really expected to believe that thousands of restaurants will go under because they had to pay their waiters an extra $19 a week, the price of one meal at an average restaurant?This is not about businesses going under. This is about Congress letting 2.7 million Americans live on $10,712 per year so that their millionaire contributors can make a few thousand more. Welcome to the American Dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalparadise Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 When I was growing up, minimum wage was what high school kids were paid for their part-time jobs. I never heard of anyone over the age of about 20 earning minimum wage. By the time I turned 18, I had moved to Houston and started college. I worked part-time (30-35 hrs a week) and earned about $17,000 per year. even that works out to about $8.00 (assuming full-time hours) -- and that was 1987! -- which was one of the worst years ever for the Houston economy.I don't think I'm anything special. So, perhaps what we should discuss is, why are so many people being forced into minimum wage jobs? What's changed since one of the worst economies in Houston history to make it so tough to rise out of minimum wage? Even as a kid, without a high school education, I was able to get raises that lifted me above minimum wage. Why can't workers do that today? do they lack the work ethic? Are they just lazy? Is it easier to collect welfare and food stamps and work crap jobs for minimum wage?Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I have owned 6 small businesses through the years, ranging from law firms to restaurants. I believe I may be qualified to comment on the impact of higher minimum wages on small businesses. Your anecdotal experiences are linked by one commonality: you. I know you...you're a smart guy that I'm sure has money management skills. But what about the struggling entrepreneur without all the fancy education...perhaps running just a small deli in a strip center...maybe he's got more spirit than brains. His margins are consistently lower. $222 may not cause your business to fail...but what about his? Some folks (especially very small restauranteurs) live they're lives on a shoestring. if the myth that raising the minimum wage will result in job losses were true, every time one of us receives a merit raise, a co-worker would be laid off. It doesn't happen, because it isn't true.Merit raises are different from legally-mandated raises. Merit raises occur when an employee accrues value through experience and increased productivity. If the employer doesn't give a merit raise, then the employee will find another employer that will. This is what occurs in a competitive labor market.It also isn't simply a matter that if you increase the minimum wage, everybody who currently works for less than that will lose their jobs...it affects businesses (especially very small businesses) that are already on the margins. Inflation has increased 25% since 1997. Therefore, prices have increased 25%. Minimum wages have not increased. There should be additional profit on reduced costs, compared to inflated prices. If US productivity has increased as much as everyone claims, the money is there for a minimum wage increase. If the money is not there, then our elected officials are lying to us when they claim all of these economic gains. The fact is that, as you have stated, very few employers pay only $5.15. The reason is twofold: 1) many employees have had productivity increases (although the effect has occurred more among highly-educated workers than unskilled workers), and 2) an increase in the money supply affects wages and costs of goods equally in an unregulated environment. The argument that minimum wage should float in order to match inflation is inherently flawed because the arguments for minimum wages are flawed in the first place. Are we really expected to believe that thousands of restaurants will go under because they had to pay their waiters an extra $19 a week, the price of one meal at an average restaurant?Not all restaurants are full-service, Red...and most of those that are require that their employees have at least a comprehension of the English language, a sociable temperment, general people skills, and a well-groomed appearance. This is a different beast than limited-service eateries.This is not about businesses going under. This is about Congress letting 2.7 million Americans live on $10,712 per year so that their millionaire contributors can make a few thousand more. Oh, so it's Congress' job to ensure that the unskilled citizenry of the United States have adequately-paying jobs? It's not the individual's job to take advantage of the high school education made available to everyone? It's not the individual's job to advance and better themselves? It's the government's job... I wonder if anyone ever questions whether a guaranteed minimum wage would incentivize certain people from the lowest socioeconomic rungs to drop out of high school. After all, where's the risk if wage is guaranteed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Are you kidding me?I thought I'd read it all from the Far Right, but here it all is...If we raise the minimum wage to 6 bucks an hour, lazy folks everywhere will drop out of school because they'd be guaranteed a wage...If we raise the minimum wage by 50 cents, thousands of businesses will fail and we'll all go down the tubes...People should be able to work themselves out of the crappy minimum wage jobs because I did and what I do should be universally accepted as attainable for everyone else...If we raise the minimum wage to $6.39 an hour, chickens and cows will start to demand their right to marriage and traditional families will be destroyed...BLAH BLAH BLAH.Paying WORKING people below the federal poverty line is a moral issue plain and simple. By rejecting this slight increase, we as a society deserve what we'll get in return... higher crime rates, more children being raised in poverty, continued drug activity as a means to get out of the ghetto, continuing lowered educational standards, and more. Somehow though, I bet the Christian soldiers in the G.O.P. will find the funding for more prisons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 BLAH BLAH BLAH. I couldn't have said it better, Kinkaid. It's akin to Reagan's "trickle down" economy. People got trickled on, alright-by far right wingers who's ultimate agenda is to deny any right to a minimum wage because they see it as some kind of welfare scheme. Like you implied, it's really about human decency-which seems to be lacking on the far-right of our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.