|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 176 responses total. |
nharmon
|
|
response 25 of 176:
| 
Mar 11 02:58 UTC 2006 |
Here is what I see. A jump in the minimum wage will put some more money
in the pockets of teenagers and ex-cons. This increase might trickle up
to semi-low wage earners like those at Wal-Mart. But this increased cost
will result in increased prices of goods and services for everybody.
Someone else said nothing will change except the numerical values of the
dollar amounts. But that is not true. By increasing the wages, you drive
an even larger division between US wages and wages of other countries.
Thus, in turn, leads to more companies shipping work overseas.
Minimum wage made sense when we manufactored more, and traded in a
regional market. It served to improve competitiveness. But we live in a
gloval market now. Thus, it simply does not make sense any more.
Richard, I really think you lack a sense of basic economics. Hell, I
lack a sense of basic economics. But at least I'm not assuming that
money grows on trees and that magical increases in wages will take
people out of poverty. It will do worse. It will increase the cost of
living, and place said worker into a higher tax bracket.
LOGIC AHEAD === RW LOGIC AHEAD === RW LOGIC AHEAD === RW LOGIC AHEAD ===
I'm surprised liberals aren't against raising the minimum wage because
it is really just a form of regressive taxation.
AHEAD === RW LOGIC AHEAD === RW LOGIC AHEAD === RW LOGIC AHEAD === RW LO
(sorry about the banners, but I just had to ;)
|
klg
|
|
response 26 of 176:
|
Mar 11 03:10 UTC 2006 |
And a fine job, ideed.
|
slynne
|
|
response 27 of 176:
|
Mar 11 04:23 UTC 2006 |
Considering that most unskilled labor jobs are in industries that cannot
easily be outsourced overseas (foodservice, retail, cleaning, etc), I do
not think raising the minimum wage will result in too many jobs going
overseas. If the demand for those jobs is somewhat inelastic as a lot of
people think, it also will not result in too many fewer jobs. As for the
tax bracket issue...well, that seems kind of a weird thing to worry
about. I know that when I started to earn more money and got into a
higher tax bracket, it didnt leave me crying into my oatmeal. But if
that is really a concern, the obvious solution would be to change the
tax code and adjust the brackets. It is possible that raising the
minimum wage could lead to higher prices for things but probably not
enough offset the benefit of a higher minimum wage to the recipients of
said wage.
There is some validity about the argument that raising the minimum wage
might not benefit the people those proposing it would like to benefit
(i.e. the working poor). A significant number of people in minimum wage
jobs are teenagers and young adults who are still being subsidized by
their parents. This is especially so since the working poor cant afford
to take minimum wage jobs in a labor market where they could get a few
dollars more per hour at a place like WalMart or McDonalds.
Personally, I would like to see companies change their labor structure
by paying those at the bottom more and those at the top less. Their
overall labor costs would remain the same but would be distributed
differently. Unfortunately, I dont see how government regulation can
accomplish that. I suspect that if enough people cared about such
things, they could force companies to do that with market forces. They
could, as consumers, choose companies with such labor policies and they
could also as stockholders demand the companies pay the CEO less and the
bottom level workers more. I dont see that happening just yet though but
there are a lot of people who take those kinds of things into account
when choosing where to spend their money both as a consumer and as an
investor so such a trend could happen.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 28 of 176:
|
Mar 11 04:32 UTC 2006 |
The problem with demanding the CEOs and top-level execs make less in
order to pay the bottom-of-the-pole workers more is that you might tend
to lose deserving talent in those levels because they go elsewhere to
make more. I don't see an initiative like that gaining any traction
unless it was across the board in the form of a law or something.
I do not think you fully understand the dots I connected that leads to
more job offshoring. You see, raising the minimum wage will raise wages
for a lot of people who don't make minimum wage. The result is a wider
gap in US/non-US salary. This gap is the main driving force in offshoring.
In other words, it isn't the minimum wage jobs that will be offshored.
Its the close-to-minimum wage jobs like telephone customer service reps
that will be.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 29 of 176:
|
Mar 11 04:47 UTC 2006 |
You hit on the key, though I don't think you fully realize it. Executive
salaries in the US are crazy out of control. Each time a board votes an
increase in compensation, CEOs around the nation smile to themselves
knowing they can make the case for their next raise by simply pointing to
the new deal and saying "give me that or I'll go somewhere else to get
it." There are few market forces in this rarified realm, since there isn't
a whole lot of "competition" from upstart CEO wannabes a BOD would trust
with a large company. For this reason, I have no problem whatsoever with a
law that would link maximum compensation to some metric involving lower
paid employees.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 30 of 176:
|
Mar 11 06:38 UTC 2006 |
"But this increased cost will result in increased prices of goods and
services for everybody."
That's true of everything, not just minimum wages. What is making the
minimum wage go up? The "increased prices of goods and services". If the
economy is inflating, so must wages. Slow inflation has a lot of benefits.
The problem is keeping it slowl
|
nharmon
|
|
response 31 of 176:
|
Mar 11 07:17 UTC 2006 |
Well, I suppose if you're arguing that minimum wage needs to catch up
for inflation, then ok. But if you're saying you want to go beyond that,
then I suspect other motives.
|
keesan
|
|
response 32 of 176:
|
Mar 11 14:15 UTC 2006 |
Why would increasing minimum wage cause other wages to go up?
Increasing it might reduce the number of people collecting food stamps and
Medicaid while working full time.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 33 of 176:
|
Mar 11 15:16 UTC 2006 |
When the last minimum wage increase went into effect I was 16 years old
and had been working for Wal-Mart for a month. I was making something
around $7.00 an hour, and when the increase happened, they raised the
starting wage by about $.50, which bumped me up because I had not had my
first raise yet.
So you see, from experience I can say that a minimum wage increase would
cause other wages to go up through a trickle-up effect. Places like
Wal-Mart, and other semi-low wage employers pay slightly above minimum
wage in order to stay competitive. An increase in the minimum wage means
an increase in their starting wage in order to stay competitive.
I think an increase in minimum wage is simply the wrong way to go about
getting more people off of government assistance. The slight increases
these people might see that tips them over the welfare threshold are not
going to be enough to cover the loss of government benefits.
Case in point: I know of two people who have moved jobs in order to
avoid raises that would have put them over the limit for government
assistance. You can demean them all you wish, but when a single mother
is getting $700/month is subsidies, a $100/month pay raise is not going
to cover that.
IMNSHO, The best way to get people off of governmental assistance is
through educational grants and work training programs.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 34 of 176:
|
Mar 11 15:27 UTC 2006 |
no amount of education is gonna help if your job has been
outsourced.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 35 of 176:
|
Mar 11 16:43 UTC 2006 |
Sure it will. You can apply your education to areas which are not being
outsourced. The problem is we keep chasing our tails with wages and
price increases, while we deflate the value of our dollar, and ship jobs
elsewhere.
Maybe we should do like mexico, convert to a new currency and have a 1
for 2 sale. :P
|
slynne
|
|
response 36 of 176:
|
Mar 11 17:16 UTC 2006 |
Labor markets are complex and I dont doubt that places like WalMart
would have to increase their wages if the minimum wage were to rise. But
I am not worried at all that WalMart type jobs would be outsourced.
As for other types of jobs being outsourced...well I think that is more
a result of improved communications and transportation options and not
something largely influenced by the minimum wage. Even if raising the
minimum wage causes some increased wages in close to minimum wage jobs,
it is unlikely to cause wage increases much beyond that. I wouldnt
expect a raise for example. The outsourcing will continue even without
any change in the minimum wage.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 37 of 176:
|
Mar 11 18:01 UTC 2006 |
Ok, so why increase the minimum wage?
|
drew
|
|
response 38 of 176:
|
Mar 11 19:03 UTC 2006 |
Re #33:
The way to deal with this is, rather than having a step-function for
assistance versus income, have a continuous linear scale. To wit, you get $X
per month, minus your income, with a minimum of zero. The exact numbers for
the slope and zero-point to be determined.
That said, and re outsourcing et al, we do need to consider just exactly
what we want in an economy. ie, just exactly what people want/need money
*for*, and why we have a system of work-a-job-for-money-to-buy-stuff.Therein
lays the clue on what needs to be done about poverty.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 39 of 176:
|
Mar 11 19:36 UTC 2006 |
No, we want the 'Merican Dream. You graduate high school, your wife
doesn't work, and you have 5 children and live in a $400k house...all
paid for through your organized labor factory job.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 40 of 176:
|
Mar 11 20:08 UTC 2006 |
as opposed to the republican/libertarian idea
where everyone is an entrepeneur.
lol
|
richard
|
|
response 41 of 176:
|
Mar 11 20:40 UTC 2006 |
cyklone said:
" think #21 conclusively proves that Richard really is insane. And BTW,
please don't speak as if you represent liberals. As I've mentioned
before, your inability to present cogent arguments and clear thoughts
harms the liberal cause in ways that are probably beyond your limited
comprehension."
Once again cyklone resorts to personal attacks and cut downs while
making no effort to back it up.
All I said was I do not think the minimum wage is high enough to allow
poor people to be able to improve their circumstances, and that it
ought to keep up with inflation or be tied to inflation. What is
illogical about that? If it was tied to inflation, the minimum wage
would go way up right now, and it would cause business owners to
pressure lawmakers to find ways to make inflation go down. Because if
inflation went down, and the minimum wage was tied into it, the minimum
wage would go back down too.
I think cyklone and nharmon show a complete lack of compassion and
understanding for the plight of the working poor. I also think neither
has ever lived in a big city. Here in New York City, there are adults
working for minimum wage, people working at McDonalds and pushing mops
in offices after hours. Who are these adults working for minimum
wage? They are unskilled laborers, many of whom have moved to this
country and gotten green cards and are trying to support their families
and make a new start here. They do not know the language well, they do
not have the experience or training to get jobs that pay more, so they
take the lowest wage jobs and work very long hours.
nharmon you are SADLY mistaken if you think the only people working
minimum wage jobs are spoiled kids like you who only worked at Walmart
so you could afford your video games.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 42 of 176:
|
Mar 11 20:46 UTC 2006 |
Well Richard, you may be technically correct that I haven't provided any facts
regarding your position on minimum wage, although I was QUITE particular that
your particular "da man is keeping women down" view of the abortion debate
patronizes the very women you claim to support. As for your "thinking" I don't
understand the working poor, let me disabuse you of your notions: I was
"working poor" for many years and have a great deal of compassion for them.
And if I were to play your "I think" game, I would say "I think Richard is
probably a rich trust fund kid with liberal guilt who has no idea how the poor
live outside of NYC." See, two can play that game, and the outcome is pretty
meaningless.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 43 of 176:
|
Mar 11 21:02 UTC 2006 |
WA state has a minimum wage which is indexed to inflation, which means it
goes up automagically and is currently $7.63/hr, the highest in the nation.
Needless to say it has less of an impact in Seattle than it does in the
rural portions of state where wages tend to be lower; some businesses near
the border with Idaho complain that it makes it difficult for them to be
competitive.
Indexing the minimum wage takes the issue of periodic adjustments off
the table politically, which is probably bad for Democrats in the long
run.
I'll agree that executive compensation at large companies is completely
out of control, growing faster than is justified by inflation or demand
or performance or much of anything else, and shows that corporate
governance as currently practiced is ineffective. I'm not convinced
that some sort of "maximum wage" law is a good remedy, although I'll
confess that I'm not sure what would actually work. Recent changes in
which mutual funds disclose their voting practices seem like a useful
first step, I suppose.
|
richard
|
|
response 44 of 176:
|
Mar 11 21:09 UTC 2006 |
cyklone said:
"And if I were to play your "I think" game, I would say "I think
Richard is probably a rich trust fund kid with liberal guilt who has no
idea how the poor live outside of NYC."
first of all I grew up in Georgia and not in a big city. Second of
all, I am not/was not a rich trust fund kid and I have no
liberal "guilt" Third of all even if I didn't know idea how the poor
live outside NYC which I do, NYC is the most expensive city in this
country and it has the highest local taxes. Most of the people I know
here work at least two jobs and pay almost all their money in rent. It
is harder to be poor and live here than anywhere else. Evidently
people like nharmon and cyklone have never SEEN adults in their middle
age years working minimum wage jobs full time. I have, I see them
every day. It gives you a different perspective.
I do not think raising the minimum wage, even tying it to inflation, is
in and of itself going to get people off the welfare rolls. It has to
be part of a more comprehensive solution which includes controlling
inflation and providing more jobs and training and slowly changing the
rules for benefit payouts.
I'm trying to work towards a smaller, more effective government. I am
not the ones wanting to spend hundreds of billions of government
taxpayer dollars on overseas wars that we likely can't win and will be
in for a long time. I am not the ones who don't want the minimum wage
raised, so the poor stay poor and don't cause their own prices to go
up, and thereby force people to stay on medicare and welfare. That is
klg, nharmon and cyklone evidently.
I also think nharmon spreads the myth that most people getting
government benefit checks of one sort or another want to CONTINUE get
those checks. The vast majority of these people are proud, decent and
hardworking and don't want to spend the rest of their lives taking
charity. You do it to feed your family and keep the lights on, and you
do it as long as you have to, but that doesn't mean you are greedy and
lazy and don't want to improve your situation. That is a myth the
right wing propogates.
oh and marcvh is right, indexing the minimum wage and taking it off the
table as a political issue would be potentially bad for democrats.
Because its a good issue for democrats. But I'm more concerned about
doing the right thing than in keeping one of our pet issues alive just
so it can be an issue.
|
keesan
|
|
response 45 of 176:
|
Mar 11 21:36 UTC 2006 |
I don't understand how if Walmart is paying $3 over minimum wages and minimum
wages go up $2, Walmart will have to raise its wages (from $8 to $8.50) to
stay competitive against other jobs paying minimum wages (of $7).
|
slynne
|
|
response 46 of 176:
|
Mar 11 21:48 UTC 2006 |
It has to do with non-compensatory differentials, keesan. Not all jobs
are the same and there are things about certain jobs other than wages
and benefits that make people want them.
For example: You have two jobs paying the same wage. One of them is a
internship at large company. It is an office job. It is clean. It is
safe. It has a certain amount of prestige. The other job is in a coal
mine. It is dirty. It is dangerous. It has no prestige at all. Many more
people would choose the former job even though the wage is the same.
Now that is an extreme example, of course. But WalMart has the same
considerations. They probably have employees who are working there who
would prefer to have other jobs but choose not to because those other
jobs pay less. But if the minimum wage rises enough, Walmart might find
that the really good workers are able to get those other jobs because it
is always the good workers who are able to get and keep jobs. So they
raise their wage so it is still a couple of bucks above the minimum wage
in order to keep the good workers.
|
richard
|
|
response 47 of 176:
|
Mar 11 22:39 UTC 2006 |
good points in #46 Around here McDonald's paises above minimum wage,
but if the minimum wage is raised and you can suddenly make the same
or better money working somewhere else than McD's, you are likely
going to take it. Because who really wants to work at McD's in the
first place. So McD's would have to raise their pay.
Which isn't a bad thing, if places like McD's and Walmart suddenly
have incentives to pay their people more and give them better
benefits. Society as a whole is not going to crumble if everyone is
making more money. I thought that was the goal of capitalism.
|
slynne
|
|
response 48 of 176:
|
Mar 12 00:56 UTC 2006 |
resp:47 You dont want *everyone* to make more money because then you
would probably have inflation that would negate any advances made. You
want the lower paid workers to make more money while those on the upper
end of the scale make the same or less.
|
richard
|
|
response 49 of 176:
|
Mar 12 03:07 UTC 2006 |
re #48 good point. Bill Gates doesn't need to make any more money.
He says that himself. He was Time's co-man of the year because he has
given away a huge amount of his money. Yet the forbes list of the
world's 100 richest men just came out and he's number one again for
the umpteenth year and they said the gap between number one and number
two has never been greater. Also on the list, though well further
down, are the five members of the Walton family who own WalMart. All
five, Sam Walton and his kids, are multi-billionaires.
But the difference is that unlike the misers at WalMart, Gates has
made many many of his employees at Microsoft wealthy in their own
right. And he pays WAY above minimum wage, even for the janitors who
mop his office floors and the cooks in his cafeterias.
|