Raising minimum wage...how is this supposed to help?

[JSDSKI]

Originally posted by fastpat
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?

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.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
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.

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

Life at $7.25 an Hour
As House Prepares to Vote on Minimum-Wage Increase, Issue Is Complex for Those Who Earn, or Pay, That Amount

By David Finkel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 10, 2007; Page A01

ATCHISON, Kan. -- It was payday. Money, at last. Twenty-two-year-old Robert Iles wanted to celebrate. "Tonight, chimichangas!" he announced.

He was on his way out of the store where his full-time job pays him $7.25 an hour -- the rate that is likely to become the nation's new minimum wage. Life at $7.25: This is the life of Robert Iles, and with $70 in a wallet that had been empty that morning, he headed to a grocery store where for $4.98 he bought not only 10 chimichangas but two burritos as well.



CAPTION: Robert Iles works for $7.25 an hour in Atchison, Kansas - the rate that is likely to become the nation's new minimum wage. Robert Iles has his own version of a dollar's meaning, learned last February when store owner Jack Bower (left back) took him aside and said he would be getting a pay raise to $7.25. ?Okay,? Iles remembers replying, wanting to seem business-like. ?But inside I was doing the cha-cha-cha,? he said. ?It was like going from lower class to lower-middle class. (David Finkel - The Washington Post)



Phil Dempsey Jr., 8, comforts his father, Phil Dempsey, of Lithicum, after the Ravens were defeated by the Colts. (Jonathan Newton -- The Washington Post)


SEE FULL COLLECTION


Feedback



In Today's A Section
» More in Today's Print Edition


Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
spacebawl (the blog)
Snarky Bastards?? Prepare to be snarked.
JasonPye.com


Full List of Blogs (60 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook

From there he stopped at a convenience store, where for $16.70 he filled the gas tank of the car he purchased when he got his raise to $7.25; then he went to another grocery store, where he got a $21.78 money order to pay down some bills, including $8,000 in medical bills from the day he accidentally sliced open several fingers with a knife while trying to cut a tomato; and then he headed toward the family trailer 19 miles away, where his parents were waiting for dinner.

Today in Washington, the House is scheduled to vote on whether to increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. Passage is expected, with Senate approval soon to follow, and if President Bush signs the resulting bill into law, as he indicated he would, the U.S. minimum wage would rise for the first time since 1997, ending a debate about whether such a raise would be good or bad for the economy.

But even if the matter is settled in Congress, it isn't settled at all in Atchison, and Robert Iles's drive home is proof. Every stop he made on his ride home revealed a different facet of how complicated the minimum wage can be in the parts of America where, instead of a debatable issue, it is a way of life.

At the store where Iles works, for instance, the owner thinks the minimum wage should be increased as a moral issue but worries about which employees' hours he will have to cut to compensate.

At the store where he bought the chimichangas, the cashier who makes $6.25 worries that a raise will force her out of her subsidized apartment and onto the street.

At the convenience store where he bought gas, the owner worries that he will have to either raise prices, angering his customers, or make less money, "and why would I want to make less money?"

At the store where he got the money order, the worries are about Wal-Mart, which not only supports an increase but also built a Supercenter on the edge of town that has been sucking up customers since it opened three years ago.

As for Iles -- who keeps $70 out of every paycheck to cover two weeks' worth of food and gas and in a matter of minutes was already down to $26.54 -- his worry was as basic as how fast to drive home.

Drive too fast and he'd be wasting gas. But his family was waiting. And his chimichangas, best cooked frozen, were starting to thaw.

The Meaning of a Dollar
x

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

[JSDSKI]

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.

[snowman]

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.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
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.

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?

Economy of California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAccording to the California Department of Finance, if California were an independent nation, it would have had the seventh largest economy 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.

[Hugh R]

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?

[Lothar]

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

[Superman]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]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


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.

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.

[Superman]

Originally posted by snowman
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.

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.

[snowman]

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.

[Superman]

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

[lendaddy]

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.

[Superman]

Smartypants.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Superman
...Interestingly, the vast majority are white...

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.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by lendaddy
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.

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) One bartender I now made over $50K last year, but she is one of the MW earners

[wrcRS]

Originally posted by fintstone
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?

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.

[fintstone]

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.

[snowman]

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.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by fintstone
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.

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?