Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6959082)

It was your logic.

And I agree.

I think minimum wage is a false floor when people who choose to accept minimum wage just supplement it with government assistance.

Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 6959110)

By my rough math and Google search, the max EITC for 2011 for family of four is $5112. In looking at the IRS tables, to have that kind of tax liability, your taxable income would have to be $38k. Back out the two personal exemptions of $3700 per adult and child tax credits of $1000 per child and you can gross that income up another $9400. So that means $47,400 in gross income for two earners with two kids before they pay dime one of fed. income taxes. Anything less than that and you're getting more EITC back than you paid in taxes, i.e. welfare. $47,400 divided by two earners is $23,700. Assuming 40 hrs. per week, 2000 hrs. per year, that means you have to earn more than $11.85 per hour before you pay dime one of net fed. income taxes. That's more than any state or fed. min. wage.

I'm pretty sure that kind of income level qualifies for plenty of non-taxable assistance from various fed/state/local agencies too.

Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6957474)

Another Pelican got me thinking...

Are minimum wage laws still relevant? Are they working?

**PLEASE let's keep this out of PARF**
While the topic may have political components, it's fair to discuss the foundations and principles without talking about political parties. More importantly, let's do it without the name calling and bullying, okay?

Here's my take:

Without talking about why they exist and what happened long ago, I think they aren't relevant now.

I can only use examples here in my resident state of Minnesota based on studies released two weeks ago:
Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS)

We have a labor force of a little over 3 million people
Of those, 93K were making $7.25 or less (US Federal Minimum Wage)
That's a little less than 3.1% of the working population

Of those making minimum wage or less, a little over 32K were age 15 to 19, representing 34% of all minimum wage earners. Another 24K were aged 15 to 24. That's 56K of 93K total, leaving 37K over the age of 24 (1.2% of the entire labor force).

35% of the workforce making minimum wage or less are in the food service/preparation industry where 53% of them made tips, commissions, or other OTC.

Part-time workers made up 72% of all workers making minimum wage or less.

I'm not sure how it ties together, but there are few people over 24 years old that are actually making $7.25/hr in their full time job. If the statistics carry, they may represent 47% of 28% of 1.2%..... about 4900 people out of 3 million workers.

That's 0.16% of the population

I arbitrarily picked 24 years and up as they're likely not college students and/or still being subsidized by family. They're more likely (in my supposition) to be head of household. Same with part-time, thinking that they may be supplementing a job that pays more.



Sooooooo.........



If 99.84% of the 'adult' full-time wage earners are making MORE than minimum wage, is this evidence that the free-market system is working to find stasis (market equilibrium) at wages more than minimum wage?

If we eliminated minimum wage, would we see wages decrease? How many people would really be effected in an "I can't pay for my food/shelter" way?



It seems to ME that minimum wage is largely irrelevant.


Who can live on minimum wage anyway? $7.25/hr x 40 hrs/week x 4.3 weeks/mo = ~$1250 per month. Taxes, SS, other deductions leave --what, $1100?? (I could look it up, just guessing)

Please discuss, I haven't locked in my position. Just looking to hear your points in a non-PARFy way. Thanks.

Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6959137)

Then Matt's idea of promoting spending via tax cuts is irrelevant to anyone earning minimum wage or anywhere close to it -- they don't pay tax anyway. Am I interpreting this right?

So even at $11/hr minimum wage we wouldn't be collecting more taxes, just cutting business profits so we'd collect LESS taxes at the same tax rates?

Originally Posted by Cannonball996 (Post 6957584)

when you factor in all the government money, the minimum wage goes a lot farther then you think. I look at my own employees who I pay a little more minimum wage, and everyone of them gets food stamps (in texas its the lone star card) I know a few of them get some sort of housing allowance because they call me to verify their employment.

I think the real question should be, why does someone with a job still need government money?

Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6959137)

Then Matt's idea of promoting spending via tax cuts is irrelevant to anyone earning minimum wage or anywhere close to it -- they don't pay tax anyway. Am I interpreting this right?

So even at $11/hr minimum wage we wouldn't be collecting more taxes, just cutting business profits so we'd collect LESS taxes at the same tax rates?

Originally Posted by Head416 (Post 6959264)

I like this question. Since you're an employer, can you help me out with some hard numbers? How much do you pay a certain employee? What is their take home pay after taxes/deductions/whatever? I want to try to put an actual number to it. $350/week take home? More/less?

How much is an apartment in your area? Let's do the math and see if we think they should be able to live without government money or not. I'm not trying to bait you, I really want to run the numbers and see.

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy (Post 6959333)

Originally Posted by Head416 (Post 6959349)

This may be the most shocking thing I've read all year. I'm going to need some time to recover from this. Just one more reason why I need to leave CA.

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 6959408)

I don't see how anyone can work for minimum wage. The minimum wage is an insult to humanity in this country. It's there I suppose because some would pay even less if they could get away with it.

Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 6959426)

What would you pay your subs if there were no min. wage? Would you pay prevailing wage or more because it makes you feel better?

Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6959434)

Half the subs in California are working illegally anyway. No minimum wage law would apply.

Originally Posted by RWebb (Post 6959530)

A minimum wage can increase overall employment as the additional dollars will be spent by the employee on goods and services.

That's the macro-economic story....

Originally Posted by

$9/hr x 40 hrs x 4 weeks = $1440/mo
$450/mo for a nice apartment in a nice area
Groceries $100/mo
Gas for car $100/mo
Water $20/mo
Electricity $40/mo

Deducting those [U

necessities[/U] leaves you with $730/mo left over. I'm obviously not deducting taxes from the check, and not including perceived "necessities" such as cell phone, cable TV, internet, new car payment, etc. Most of my wife's siblings are living this exact life while going to college. Can you raise a family on this? Hell no. But if you're trying to, shame on you for not taking responsibility and trying to make a better life. Even manual labor around here pays much better than $9/hr.