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?