Sometimes, ya gotta admit, Pat actually hits it spot on! :D

Supe, Slow, I look forward to drinks someday, and I'll PM you Slow.

OK, guys one thing that I don't think has really been touched on, when the MW is increased, there will be another increase, an increase in illegals will to work for less, and there are far too business owners who would be will to hire them and pocket the savings. Before we raise the MW we should clamp down on those who hire the illegals, and give the American workers a chance!!!

Doesn't matter if there is an R or D, the owners who hire illegals should be punished and made an example of!!!

Byron, I'm glad you brought that up. As I've said, actually fixing the immigration problem is the LAST thing you will see the Republican Party doing. This is cheap labor we're talking about. And not just a little of it. A HUGE amount of it that basically forms the foundation of our wealth and prosperity. Like for example, the ENTIRE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY.

It has been said here that a MW increase will cause substantial inflation. I know that's not true and I know the people making that remark have not reviewed the econometrics. Another thing I know is that if the illegals were kicked out of American today and not allowed to return.......trust me on this one.......you would see wage inflation the likes of which you could have never imagined in your wildest hallucinations.

Of course that's completely not true. See Ed Rubenstein's articles for a full picture of the economics of immigration.
http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/index.htm

Quote:

It has been said here that a MW increase will cause substantial inflation. I know that's not true and I know the people making that remark have not reviewed the econometrics. Another thing I know is that if the illegals were kicked out of American today and not allowed to return.......trust me on this one.......you would see wage inflation the likes of which you could have never imagined in your wildest hallucinations.

The negative economics of the minimum wage are irrefutable. I've posted all anyone needs to see that. Superman knows this fact, but refuses to acknowledge it.

Does anyone on here have children that go to college full time on here or they themselves go to college full time?

I will admit I have a personal tie to my opinion as my girlfriend is living on her own, does not take any government assistance and goes to school full time. She was offered a job at 9 bucks an hour with an average of 20-25 hours per week. At this rate she can pay rent for an apartment...

But, as natural gas is rising (not due to wage increases) here in Alaska, and many other utilities (not due to wage increases) she pays almost 200 for her cut of the utilities. The math is pretty simple, minimum wage is pathetic. And she is MORE than capable of doing many kinds of work, but she is a full time college student toughing it out on her own. Not many jobs are available to a student with high hopes of making something of themselves with a full time school schedule. Not to mention that school fee's and books are always on the rise too.

If a business can't handle a small increase in wages...that business is already doomed. If you can't see that...then I suggest that perhaps you should step out of your shoes for just a second.

But considering that business are booming, insurance companies, oil companies, and tons of other types of business are making record profits...we the working class all the way up to the high class are benefiting (if you have stock or other investments.) So I think that the hike in prices are due to NON lower class citizens being more efficient with the same amount of money we made 5 years ago leaving us with more disposable income.

Still no one as answered Pats question, does anyone really know someone over 21 who still makes MW??

BTW, like Pat, I haven't made MW since a teen and even then, wasn't on it very long, and I worked two jobs to pay for my college, no help from Gov or from my parents. If prices go up, to pay the higher wages, people tend to spend less, look what happened when gas prices went up, people cut back on spending. The reason oil companies are making record profits is the huge number of cars on the road, volume means profit. BTW Supe, I do ***** at my Repblican reb (who is Cuban) for not doing anything about the illegal problem.

THe going rate for ILLEGAL ALLIENS is $10 per hour PLUS Lunch!

The going rate for high school students is $5.10 per hour, but they only work 1/4 as hard as illegals.

Both my kids started working at 16 and have never earned less than $10 per hour.

Anyone else making mininum wage is worthless and should be paid NOT to work.

I love made up statistics. They're especially handy at cocktail parties.

Personally, I don't know any Islamic terrorists or Chinese Communists. I still think they exist due to statistical and circumstantial evidence. Doesn't really matter. To some, an increase in MW is the death knell of modern capitalist society. To others, its no big deal. There are excellent (reasonably unbiased) economic arguments for both sides of this discussion - bad and inflationary or good and stimulating. The effects are probably too volatile to be measured in any significant way.

And it probably does both at the same time in different parts of the economy.

So there. :p

So you are saying that an unskilled person can make enough to live on working 20-25 hrs per week with wages set competitively.

On the other hand, why would you not expect an increase in minimum wage to hurt your girlfriend. If the folks who are paid less get a raise...do you not expect her rent or other expenses to go up?

It's not a question of there being NO people earning minimum wage, it's the problem of the minimum wage being a job killer for low or non-skilled people. So should we allow the USG to set a minimum wage to assist a nearly non-existent group of people when the process actually causes harm for a fairly large group of people?

That doesn't even get into the fact that there's absolutely no Constitutional authorization for the federal government to act to set a minimum wage. Just one more example of a lawless government empowering itself.

Such a peculiar view of the Constitution is disheartening.

There is no definitive answer to this argument. There is just as much evidence an MW increase is a benefit. It has existed for a long time in many different countries with many different economies and many different demographics without destroying low and non-skilled jobs. Instead, there are substantial studies that answer both sides of this issue affirmatively and negatively. This tells me that the minimum wage is just a variable in a complex economy rather than an organizing principle. It is a small part of the larger question of WAGES.

64% of all statistics are made up out of thin air.

You made that up.

We just have to get back to the robber barons...No problems, no questions, no rights.........

An arcane comment based on a character from 'Lil Amber:, an industrialist called General Bullmoose: "What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA!!"

Could have come directly from Pelosi's mouth (First 100 hrs).

Like Ronald Reagan would say:

"Now there you go again....."

There is no evidence based on empirical data showing any benefit to the minimum wage, and lots of date (which I posted) showing just the opposite.

My view of the Constitution is that it formed the federal government as an agent of the states, was ratified by the states, and is an envelope within which the federal government must remain to be lawful.

That's pretty far from peculiar, is it not?

Interesting that you bring up the so-called "Robber Barons". I just watched a History Channel program on them, and as usual they had a mixture of the real robber barons and those that were not robber barons at all.

To be a genuine Robber Baron you had to have, as your primary benefactor, the US or a state government in direct partnership in your enterprise. Almost all of the Railroad giants after 1850 were Robber Barons, as was Andrew Carnegie, and a few others. One of those mentioned in the show, John D. Rockefeller, was not a Robber Baron because his success was made despite government interference, not because of it.

Labor unions put the robber barons at bay, but the robber barons had the troops of the US govt. on their side. Check out the steel union’s early history in Pittsburg.

Pat is correct. The US constitution has words prohibiting activity such as setting minimum wages and nothing to support that authority. They just did it, and they have the biggest guns.

I have an idea. All the attorneys that won those huge tobacco awards should pool their money and start suing the feds for every unconstitutional law or action the feds have taken. The US Supreme Court can then set things straight.

I don't like cut and paste - from wikipedia merely to refute the idea that no empirical data supports the benefits of mw increase.

"Views of Card and Krueger - The more common debate is on changes to minimum wages. This unified view was challenged by 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."

The same article posts valid disagreements with this study - supporting my premise - that one position will never be really verified.

On the other hand, "an agent of the states" ? What does this mean ? This is exceedingly peculiar. The federal government was formed for the express purpose of superceding state governments that could not agree upon any cooperative mechanisms or "treaties" between themselves. The Articles of Confederation failed. Federalism has not.

Do you own a business, if so do you start then at MW?? There was a great piece by David Finkel in todays paper

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901812.html?nav=rss_nation

http://belowthebeltway.com/2007/01/10/the-real-cost-of-a-minimum-wage-increase/
Another good read,

Byron - I agree a mw increase will have different effects for different people at different times. Reread my posts. In the longterm, IMHO, the benefits of raising the groundfloor outweigh the drawbacks of absorbing the inflationary effects.

I'm a manager in a business where a significant number of workers are paid MW when they don't meet commission goals. CA minimum wage is already higher than the fed proposal and has been for awhile. Despite the predictions of chaos, CA's economy is robust with the higher MW and has been for a number of years.

Total fking bs about most min wage workers. Most are first time kids in their first job, not people supporting a family, which they shouldn't have had in the first place if they in fact are trying to make a living on min wage. BU T WAIT JUST A FKING MINUTE. Add to min wage all the perks the person that actually makes that wage has. No income tax, in fact NEGATIVE income tax if they have kids, add in food stamps, and other benefits and they come out better off than the guy making $15 bucks an hour!!

This pisses me off. The lazy bums are living off the sweat of others. Just like in Plymouth colony, the lazy mfs are getting their cut but contributing nothing.

The sorry incompetent stoops that support this kind of thing are ruining america and all we stand for. And yes I am proud that we are not like our sick euro brothers. In fact if your really want that kind of life, I will buy you a one way ticket there, just leave my freedom alone. america is for americans.

What about all the businesses we hear about leaving CA?? Remember, what is true in CA isn't true in the rest of the country, I mean, isn't CA one of the largest economies in the world?
Place without such a strong economy may not be able to support the raises, plus people should earn their money, not have it handed to them. BTW, we are talking about 9% of workers, yet instead of letting them work out of MW, the rest of us will have to pay. As a manager, you know how much on the tax end it cost.

The illegal aliens in front of my Home Depot get $10/hour. In Thousand Oaks, a richer area, they've stuck together and negotiated $15/hour. And thats all take home pay, no SS, no state or Federal taxes, no medicare, none of that stuff. If the illegals can get at least double minumum wage and effectively 3 times a legal minimum wage at Home Depot, why are you working at McDonalds?

It's simple, the minimum wage law doesn't help anyone.

Here's the scorecard:

Intent: I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
Result: Absolutely the opposite of the intent.

The minimum wage law discriminates against workers who are only capable of work that is worth less than $7.25 per hour. They will not get hired. Watch the attached:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6813529239937418232

No matter how goofy your beliefs are, there are research articles that support them. When I worked for our state labor department, we administered and enforced laws bearing on the agriculture industry. The Central Washington area, particularly Yakima, is a very productive agricultural area. Apples obvious. Cherries. Melons. Walla Walla Sweet onions. Just about everything. Labor laws bearing on the agriculture industries are pathetic. They are not subject to minimum wage, for example. Industrial welfare laws are similarly weak. Owners complain that it's just impossible to provide adequate sanitary facilities. Do you guys know where Ecoli bacteria comes from?

Anyway.....we were able to enforce the age restriction. That's a big problem. Eight and ten year-old children. Everyone is paid a piece rate. All...ALL....of the faces are brown. It is a rare crop worker that speaks English.

More FOS made-up statistics. According to the BLS, in 2005 there were 1,882,000 workers earning minimum wage or less. Interestingly, 1,403,000 (almost 75%) earned less than minimum wage. About 53% are under 25 years old. About 47% are 25 years old or older.

Interestingly, the vast majority are white.

Or we can pretend this is an alternate universe and make up some statistics about how most of them are teenagers still living at home. It wouldn't be honest, but it might scare some people who are ignorant.

SUP you totally ignored the actual wages of these people. Child credits add thousands to their income, food stamps, rent assistance, heat assistance, free bus rides to school (the rest of us have to pay extra for this), free school lunch, free medical care, free tuition to college even more, add it all up.

Snow, go back and read my posts in this thread.

The only thing Sup left out is the percentage of adults with tip income. The reason 75% make less than MW is precisely because the job pays so well in tips. You know it's true Sup.

Think about it guys, every waiter, every waitress, every bartender, every topless titty dancer...they almost always make MW or less as a base, and almost all make much much more from tips.

Smartypants.

That is because many are the folks you left coasters have little concern for; they are from the vast "fly-over" portion of the country where that is a "living wage." Many of their jobs will go away....but libs will not care, because they know it is easier to buy more votes in the urban areas.

You sound like a Keynesian, are you? A rising tide "floats all boats" argument.

Quote:

On the other hand, "an agent of the states" ? What does this mean?

It means enough power was delegated by the states to the federal government in order to accomplish specific tasks, that's the 8 powers expressly delegated by the states to the federal government in the Constitution.

Quote:

This is exceedingly peculiar.

No, it's historical, and the view of most of the founders, only a handful wanted an all powerful centralized megastate.

Quote:

The federal government was formed for the express purpose of superceding state governments that could not agree upon any cooperative mechanisms or "treaties" between themselves.

No, that's completely false. The Constitution was more centralizing, certainly, but never intended to superceed the states, a fact made into law by the 10th Amendment.

Quote:

The Articles of Confederation failed.

In fact, the Articles of Confederation was quite successful, and was to be amended only at the Constitutional Convention. The federalists demanded a new form of government and, unfortunately, managed to get it ratified.

Quote:

Federalism has not.

Federalism has failed utterly, giving us the leviathan state we deal with today.

I don't know that I would characterize your position as "peculiar", but I'd certainly say that it is ahistorical.

Very true, $3.80 an hour I believe, of course the gubbmit still taxes the employer on the full MW amount, while also taxing the tips (double dipping):mad: One bartender I now made over $50K last year, but she is one of the MW earners:D

But that is my whole point. All the while property taxes (here in Alaska) have stayed right at the cap. But mysteriously the value of property has skyrocketed along with all other required living expenses (heating, electricity etc etc.) in the past three + years. This is not caused by wages increasing. This is caused by different sections of the government needing more money to make horrible decisions (an opinion of course, but could probably have a good arguement to support that opinion.) The issue here is not whether someone at a higher income can afford that new Porsche. What I'm getting at is that MOST living expenses are rising and NOT because of wages of any one group of people.

As long as wages are adjusted throughout the entire country based on prices in a few large metropolitan areas...wages will never match up well with local cost of living. The artificially induced wage increase will cost many folks their jobs in the middle of the country. That is why the market must determine wages. If the work that one does will not merit more pay based on supply and demand, then the natural course of events will cause fewer folks to be willing to do the work. The result will be either the job will go away or wages will increase to attract workers.

Except for the higher price restaurants, where did all the waitresses go? Self serve is everywhere, gas stations, McDonalds, even some grocery stores. I say the minimum wage killed them.

Your scenario assumes an abundance of jobs, so employers would have to compete for workers by offering higher wages. When it's the other way 'round, the employer will tell the would-be worker to pound sand.

Let's try another scenario: what if we reduced MW to $1/hr? How many employers would drop wages to that level, and how many employees would they retain?