Obama Minimum Wage Proposal Should Be Supported

If the employer and the employee agree upon a wage why should the government come in and tell them that they can't?

Minimum wage laws assume that the employee has a right to the employer's property.

 

not a meaningful metric of min.wage vs inflation/unemployment/profit

I did not in your link however re: knoxville"

"Nonetheless, the city continued investing in infrastructure and fostering private investment, often using funds from the 2009 federal stimulus plan. The goals were to attract businesses and to keep people working on construction jobs such as a housing project for the elderly."

It would appear as tho without the stimulus and some common sense strategies, knoxville wouldn't be on the list.

 

"It would help business owners".........

.......the (D)umbest life forms to ever inhabit this planet.

Maybe they should make the minimum wage $1 million/per hour.....surely that would help business owners and the economy in the fantasyland you reside in.

.
.

 

Buying power eroded by the same inflationary policies that you support. I would hope the irony isn't lost on you, but I know that it is.

What's the "proper level" in your oh-so-worthless opinion? $20 an hour? $50 an hour?

 

More nanny state nonsense.

The minimum wage is a complete joke. Let the market set the wages, they tend to do better than the government.

Not to mention that if you are an adult trying to live on the minimum wage, you've got more problems than your wage. It means you are a lazy ass who refuses to make a better life for yourself, which means its NOT my problem.

 

There's a reason private sector labor unions have torpedoed from representing about 33% in 1945, to about 6.6% of the work force today.....and it's not because business owners are "greedy and mean"

 

which begs the question, about increasing the min wage effecting corp profits.

Okay, well I suppose you could just use the unemployment metric, but when discussing the min. wage and its impact on the economy, but it doesn't convey much information ythe way of effects on economy.
I think you also have to look at the number of working poor coupled with welfare costs, which shifts any burden for a "living" wage to the rest of the taxpayers, since these are the people need welfare, food stamps, and other assistance programs.

Of the states without a min wage, Every one of them has more people living below the poverty line than the nation average with the exception of Minn. (although Minn ranks 7th or 8th in total per capita welfare)

Also in accessing min wage impact, simply using unemployment does not reflect the distribution of industry.
Heavily industrialized states generally have higher unemployment rates in recessions. They are also generally more populous.

So from my standpoint using multiple metrics, it appears as tho raising the min wage would have positive impact or at very worst a neutral impact on the economy.

don't stay up too late.

If I claim its empirical data, it is. I should have provided some links for you to do your own number crunching. mea culpa.
So, here's a start.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey; B17001, "Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Sex and Age" and B17010, "Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months of Familes by Family Type by Presence of Related Children under 18 Years by Age of Related Children," <http://factfinder.census.gov/>, accessed January 2011.

 

It effects them because they offset cost. Either they cannot expand or they increase prices. That's inflation.

Poverty in America is very misleading. Identifying who is impoverished is also misleading. The census identifies someone in poverty as someone who earns some form of income, being the following:

Workers' compensation, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, public assistance, veterans' payments, survivor benefits, pension or retirement income, interest, dividends, rents, royalties, income from estates, trusts, educational assistance, alimony, child support, assistance from outside the household, and other miscellaneous sources.

However, someone who earns 0 income at all is not considered in poverty. These typically would be people who have no form of earned income. Looking at this, it's really impossible to know the living conditions of people who are in poverty in any of the states you have mentioned. Although, it's very easy to understand the living conditions of someone who is unemployed.

The poverty rhetoric holds no water when considering the minimum wage.

Majority of the industrialized states are filled with service sector jobs, which are the only types of jobs which are impacted by the minimum wage.

Your standpoint is based on your own opinions.

Your link doesn't work. Am I suppose to still take your word for it or do you want to try again? Either way, not really off to a good start.

 

My sister will lose her job. Period. She is mentally handicapped and only has her job because of the good will of her boss. She rolls silverware, slowly. If they have to pay her more, he won't be able to keep her. My sis is at her best when kept busy. Her job is a good source for that. If the minimum wage wasn't so high, she would probably have more hours than she does now. I know it's an extreme example, I know personally many others that are mentally handicapped and are in the same boat. Government needs to stay out of it and let a person (or their advocate) and their employer agree upon wages.

 

You cited Tennessee, I shot it out of the water.

 

Who ever told you that you deserve or are entitled to a wage that subjectively you consider "livable" lied to you.

 

It is a good idea but the rightists ill whine and cry with thier lies they tell so often and so much.
It will bankrupt small bussiness
It will put millions out of work
It will cause millions more of the evil scary brown skinned people to come here (but we're not racists)
On and on they whine.

 

9 bucks is a start at least.

- - - Updated - - -

Really? Union thug?
What does unions have to do with this?

 

So only scary brown skinned people make the minimum wage, huh?

 

Of course it isn't, it's just more right wing lies and made up crap to sound like they know what they are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Did I say that?
Can you show me where I said that.
Thanks

 

You're pretty defensive. I never said you did. I'm only asking. You said that the minimum wage "Will cause millions more of the evil scary brown skinned people to come here..."

So are you implying that only minorities earn the minimum wage or below the minimum wage?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-36944374/10-best--worst-states-to-make-a-living/

Partisan hack statement. Nothing more, nothing less.

And fallacious strawman.

Wow... your post just completed the full circuit of (*)(*)(*)(*) poor debate style.

 

Inflation. Well if it is inflationary, it is a small price to pay for regaining all of the lost ground that the minimum wage worker has experienced over the last 50 years or so due to non-wage related inflation. Here is a most enlightening chart showing the min wage from 1938 onward that shows both an unadjusted number and a present value number.

I find this illuminating when you consider a) corporate profits have steadily increased and b) worker productivity has also made dramatic improvements, and yet the purchasing power of the min wage has gone down by 30% in the past 35 years or so.

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/02/14/minimum-wage-history/

so none of the line jobs in manufacturing, the shippers, the warehouse guys, the order clerks, etc (non union of course) that pay min wage would impacted by an increase in the min. wage? Is that your opinion or do you have evidence to support this ? Here's an interesting international study on the manufacturing sector

http://elibrary.worldbank.org/content/workingpaper/10.1596/1813-9450-6147

"It shows that the estimated effects of minimum wage on employment are positive within a province (i.e., with province fixed effects), but negative within a firm (i.e., with firm fixed effects), indicating the importance of using firm panel data to reduce the endogeneity bias in estimates. It finds significant heterogeneous effects of minimum-wage changes on employment. The employment effects of minimum wages are significant and negative among small firms and less educated workers, but not among large firms and workers with high school education and above. The negative employment impact is more severe for non-production workers than for production workers. The analysis also shows that the minimum wage disproportionally affects women: most of the non-production job losses are experienced by female workers. Lastly, the paper finds that the minimum wage is more correlated with the average wage of small firms than that of large firms, suggesting that minimum wages are more binding in small firms."

think about that for a minute.

Snarky aren't we. don't like to be contradicted, or is this your general tone?

(And just an aside, if I say its based on a particular datasource, I ALWAYS mean it.)


this should work.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm#workpoor

 

I'm not implying anything, you are.
Show me where I said anything like you accuse me of.
I made a simple statement based on the right wings foam at the mouth ranting and raving in the past.

You didn't need that there , very much against the TOS

 

I'm not even sure you understand what is suppose to be presented in your source/chart. Nominally, the minimum wage was lower during the 1960s/1970's but its REAL value was more than the minimum wage today. The further you went north on the minimum wage, the less and less it was worth in real terms. Now, today's minimum wage is barely worth what it was in 1960, and apparently you want to keep this inflationary spiral going. Well, good luck with that.

[/QUOTE]

Corporate profits are not due to any sort of fundamentals regarding the economy. It all has to do with inflation. You create an inflationary environment, stock prices will go up along with corporate earnings. It's as simple as that. Increases in the minimum wage contributes to the inflation, as the demand for the cost of labor increases and the supply of money available remains constant. It's called "Cost-Push Inflation." Look it up.

Those are not service sector jobs, for one. Secondly, how well have those jobs been doing exactly with their minimum wage increases?

Yes, but your data sources are generally wrong, doesn't support your position or doesn't tell the whole story.. I mean almost anyone today can use Google.

And what am I suppose to be seeing here?

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/methods/definitions.html


http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html

If you have no income you aren't counted as being in poverty? You take the definition of sources of income, of course leaving out the first measure - earnings and then some how arrive at the ridiculous and obviously totally illogical conclusion that if a person is competely destitute then she isn't counted because she has no income!

Its not poverty rhetoric, its poverty reality. And for all the moaning and whinging about freeloaders and leeches and parasites and the 47% crap, a simple thing like a living wage should have two wonderful effects - 1. dramatically reducing welfare and support program costs 2. shutting up the mean prejudical partisan rhetoric to a large extent.

 

I didn't leave out earnings. Earnings are a byproduct of having some sort of income. Being unemployed is not. It's merely to show that the definition of who is classified as improvised is misleading. A quarter of a million veterans live in Georgia. 33 percent of the Arkansas population are retirees, and a portion of the Louisiana student loan debt by state is 46%. Veterans payments, College Students, Retirees, they all contribute to a poverty rate in some way, shape or form. It doesn't show how someone is truly impoverished. The only way to do that is to track live, flesh and blood individuals.

It should, except no sovereign state in the world has a living wage. Contrary, there are 6 sovereign states with no minimum wage at all. Except we get a very different result when it regards to our economy.

 

Many union agreements have wage scales pegged to minimum wage. Federal minimum wage goes up, the union wage scale goes up.

So union thugs are 100% behind seeing minimum wage go up.

 

No thanks, I dont need a 49.00 Big Mac.

 

I think it should be raised for large publically traded organizations and large profitable private businesses. Not for small businesses.