Federal minimum wage going up today

[AlphaCentauri]

Source: reporter news

An increase in the minimum wage will help cashier Sandy Martinez get caught up on rent. And housekeeper Carol Lopez can put away more money into a college fund for her 13-year-old son and 10-year-old daughter.

The question is, at what cost?

The wage hike “is going to affect everybody. It’s hard, especially with the economy right now,” said Courtney Harbin, center director for Anson Park Child Care in Abilene.

With business down, she explained that the wage hike could lead to higher fees for parents. Or, “as far as cutting hours, that could be a possibility with staff,” Harbin said.

The federal minimum wage increase takes effect Saturday, with the minimum rising to $7.25 an hour from $6.55.

It’s the third such hike in three years, but “this is probably going to have more of an effect than last time,” said Mary Ross, executive director of Workforce Solutions of West Central Texas.


Read more: http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/jul/17/federal-minimum-wage-going-up-saturday/

[lindisfarne]

1. According to US Dept of Labor, it kicks in July 24, 2009. Some states might have raised it

before then.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/flsa/

The caption under the pic in OP's link has it correct
On July 24, the federal minimum wage will go from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour.

but the headline & 5th paragraph have it wrong.
The federal minimum wage increase takes effect Saturday, with the minimum rising to $7.25 an hour from $6.55.

[mikekohr]

36. If Minimum Wage Was Tied To Inflation It Would Be +$10.00 Per Hour

When minimum wage was first instituted a person working minimum wage was at 110% of the poverty level. Today a minimum wage worker makes 80% of the poverty level.

In the 12 years Republicans controlled Congress. 1994 to 2006, they gave themselves approx. $30,000.00 per year in raises. Minimum wage workers got nothing.

Minimum wage must be tied to inflation and Congressional pay linked to minimum wage.

mike kohr

[ElsewheresDaughter]

43. I read that it should be $19 an hr.

[mikekohr]

50. Here Are A Few Sources:

http://ourfuture.org/makingsense/factsheet/minimum-wage states that if minimum wage were linked to inflation starting in 1968 the rate today would be $8.60 per hour.

The poverty level from the Census Bureau states that a two person houshold poverty threshold is $14,840 per year. The new rate of $7.25 @ 2080 hours, works out to $15,080.00 or 102% of the poverty level.

mike kohr

[Wednesdays]

80. 2080 hours = 40 hrs. /wk. x 52 wks./year. No vacation. No sick leave.

No personal leave time.

What a life. :eyes:

[mikekohr]

95. That's the compassionate conservative message:

minimum wage, no benefits, no vacation and we'd better be grateful for it or we are a bunch of crybaby socialists. But seriously if a livable wage with benefis and vacation time were paid who would be available to rake the upper class' leaves, cut their grass and watch their kids?

mike kohr

[lexanman]

84. it should be linked

to the cost of living, including food and energy. The inflation rate does not consider these, since they are deemed "volatile", which is a nice way of saying they go up so much and so fast, its convienent for us to leave those numbers out. Sadly, the minimum wage isnt linked to anything and there have been repeated calls to get rid of it all together.

[Zavulon]

64. Why not $50?

:sarcasm:

I can think of tons of jobs where the work isn't worth $19 an hour. Caqn you imagine the layoffs that would take place if you started paying no-skill labor that much?

[lexanman]

85. who decides what its worth?

List tons of jobs that you dont think are worth 19 a hour. I can imagine extreme profit margins going down to reasonable levels, not layoffs, but not in this economy where we have these types of talking points. Which are not progressive.

[WestSeattle2]

94. Supply and demand determine what a job is worth,

in most cases. Why would any employer pay someone $20/hour to do a body of work that millions of people could do, and are willing to do for half that?

Since almost everyone can be a cashier at a convenience store, of course the wage will be minimum. Since very few of us are rocket scientists, people with degrees in that field probably earn six-figure salaries.

I worked for an employer at one time who absolutely refused to give raises until people started walking out the door. If accounts payable staff started leaving the company, only then would he consider raising the salary --- for the new employees who replaced them. Hey, that was his prerogative, he signed the paychecks. Notice I said I worked for him? Past tense? I didn't want to work for someone like that, and that was my prerogative.

[Paladin]

96. All Part Of That Storied "Invisible Hand Of The Marketplace," Right?

You know, that hand that's now clenched into a fist and shoved into our nether regions. Helpful hint: when economic times are hard and sadistic employees use those circumstances to treat their workers like shit, those workers generally don't have the "prerogative" of simply leaving that job and walking down the street to where conditions are better---because there aren't any fucking jobs elsewhere. Catch a clue.....

[WestSeattle2]

108. You always have the perogative of leaving a job, no one

is forcing you to work anywhere, the choice is yours. Perhaps you should open your own business?

You may having something stuck up your nether regions, but I don't think it's a fist.

[JayMusgrove]

113. Yes, we can all choose to die of starvation, lack of shelter, running around naked in winter, too.

But few do choose that. Your post makes that much sense. I would like to tell you what you have stuck up YOUR nether regions, but it's all brown.

[lexanman]

127. supply and demand dont determine what a job is worth.

The owner does that. Problem is that previous employer you worked for is still allowed to treat anybody like shit, most probably.

[Zavulon]

106. Tons?

Sorry, I don't have time to list tons, but for starters fast food workers, cashiers, store clerks and lots of other unskilled positions aren't worth anything close to $19 an hour.

Your turn. Remove the sarcasm tag from my last post and explain to me why the minimum wage shouldn't be $50 an hour. List some (note that I'm not asking you for "tons") jobs that aren't worth $50 an hour and tell me why they're worth $19.

[lexanman]

125. you are right I agree.

No one said minimum wage should be $50 an hour. And those jobs you mention are not worth $19 an hour. They are however worth more than the current minimum wage. Much more. Here's a job thats not worth $50 an hour. CEO. Here's another Board of Director member. Worth way less than $50, yet they make many more times that an hour. Why? Because they can get away with it as CEO's and BOD's all play musical chairs at each others companies and circle jerk while they give each other millions at the expense of employees, customers and shareholders.

[ProudDad]

119. Wow

straw man, non-sequiter and a flaming red herring...

All in one foolish post.

Way to go! :sarcasm:

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. That's OK. It's also wrong about it hurting the economy.

They're just being consistent.

[BunkerHill24]

2. No one can live on $7.25/hr...I am afraid things will get worst before they gets better

"People, people
We got to get over
Before we go under
People, people
We got to get over
Before we go under

Stock market going up
Jobs going down
And ain't no funking
Jobs to be found

Taxes keep going up
I changed from a glass
Now I drink out of a paper cup
It's getting bad

Turn on your funk motor
I know it's tough
Turn on your funk motor
Until you get enough

Hey, give yourself a
Chance to come through
Tell yourself, I can
Do what you can do


People, people
We got to get over
Before we go under"


*James Brown - Funky President (People It's Bad)

[sasquatch]

3. In 1999, my starting wage for Delphi Automotive was $8 an hour

It was shit then and it's shit now.

[Amos Moses]

26. In July 2008, my starting wage at Martinrea Automotive Systems

was $9.25/hr.

[SOS]

58. In 1979, my wage as a book store clerk was $5 an hour

30 years later people are making $7.25
It ridiculous.

In Germany, the average non-managerial compensation is $44 an hour, here it is $16 (same as in 1970, adjusted for inflation).

Workers in this country are grossly underpaid. But you can always make up the shortfall with a Citibank Visa at 18%!

[Psephos]

4. Not everyone who takes a minimum wage job needs to cover an entire household

Many are teens, retired people with a pension or SS, second income earners in a household, on and on.

Just a reminder.

[lexanman]

5. is it ok then to take advantage of teens, retired people or second earners.

and on and on. You ok with that? The minimum wage, adjusted for inflation is a negative number in terms of purchasing power. The minimum wage is a pitiful amount and there are those who want to abolish it altogether. Maybe working for 45 cents an hour is acceptable, or is that the goal.

[MercutioATC]

6. Not every wage earner needs a "living wage"

Teens who are supported by their parents, seniors collecting pensions...these people already have an "income". While I do believe that the minimum wage should be both increased and legislatively tied to inflation, it's important to realize that not all minimum-wage workers need to LIVE on that income.

[lexanman]

8. wondering

why do you think not every wage earner needs a living wage. Who decides that? If that wage earner is working hard and producing, why would that person not be entitled to a living wage? Sounds like discrimination to me. Just because they are young or old, they dont deserve to be paid what their work is worth. hmmmm

[Zavulon]

63. "What their work is worth?"

Some people are already being paid more than what it's worth and the amount still isn't enough to live on. Those people should get second jobs, not more than their work is worth.

[lexanman]

83. if you think people are being paid more than they are worth

I have a bridge to sell you. No owner who wants to make a profit is going to pay his employees more than they produce for him. Thats crazy talk. The only people in companies paid more than they are worth are the CEO and top people, unless you think 490 times the average employees salary for a CEO is normal.

[Zavulon]

105. I assume that you are

one of those who believes one's mere presence at a job 40 hours a week entitles him / her to a comfortable living. Whether you are or not, I'm definitely not. Also, I refuse to use a CEO's salary as a basis for everyone else; if in fact a CEO is paid, it does not mean everyone else in the company is underpaid.

You are correct in your "No owner who wants to make a profit is going to pay his employees more than they produce for him," but many are forced to. There's a difference between what anowner wants to do and what an owner is allowed to do. If you think nobody in the country is being overpaid because of some law or union contract, I have a bridge to sell right back to you.

[lexanman]

112. one's mere presence?

sounds like you want a slave instead of an employee. Sure, you right a CEO pay has absolutely nothing to do with how much others are paid. The AIG CEO's labor is certainly worth 500 times the peon.:sarcasm: I call B.S. about how many CEO's and owners are "forced to pay" their employees more than they want. Show me one example and I'll show you millions of people fired and laid off every day. Complete and utter horseshit.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lexanman]

126. what really gets me

is this guy automatically blames unions. Union are like 7.5% of the entire workforce now. And dropping. Its amazing%7.5 is the cause of this piss poor economy. He probably is just fine with the Chamber of Commerce, though. Which is a union of businesses. These people really want people they can bully and piss on and pay as little as they can get away with.

[Zavulon]

133. Typical.

I don't march in step with the idea that a huge minimum wage is a good idea, so I must be a Freeper. I don't think a 40-hour work week should provide someone who has little or no job skills with a comfortable living, so I must be a Freeper. This also means that I "don't care about anyone but myself" and that I've never studied economics. :eyes: This is the most boring and intellectually bankrupt argument that a select few angry DUers have to offer (for example, you and the poster you're praising), and in my case is wrong on all counts. At least you provided some amusement by claiming that the poster who responded to me did so "eloquently." :lol:

Time to go to sleep, now that you've bored me into yawning and drowsiness. Thanks for the laugh.

[lexanman]

141. you'd know that CEOS and owners would prefer to pay no more than a dollar or two an hour,

This is from his post which he now ignores me because of. He wants a slave. At least he's honest, I'll give him that point.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lexanman]

9. this is a perfect argument

for unionization. Thats like telling your employees, well, because your just a student or an old geezer, you dont deserve to make enough to eat. Or go live in a basement while I pay you peanuts because you are young and I can get away with it.

[Donnachaidh]

40. you are really out of touch if you think SS recipients do NOT depend on those minimum wage jobs

Tell me - do you think YOU could pay rent, utilities, prescription costs and FOOD on the average of $700 per month that a lot of pensioners now receive?

Oh yeah, and those pensioners are now also faced with monthly charges for that obscene Medicare part D, which was a give-away to Big Pharma. Add another 50 bucks a month to the costs - and let's not forget that donut hole of 2500 bucks, that puts those same pensioners into a REAL bind, because they have to pay 100 PER CENT of the meds costs when they hit that little economic *pothole* the government gave them. AND many of them are having close to 100 bucks a month taken out for medicare.

I've seen 80 year old men who really should be at home, enjoying their elder years, bagging groceries for snotty impatient yuppies who cluck and carry on because he's not moving fast enough for them. They are so self-involved and clueless to anything other than their own needs and greeds they don't see the obscenity in forcing a senior back to a shitty job in order to pay for meds for his wife or himself.

The obscenity is that we have people in this country who still argue that *pensioners don't NEED those jobs* -- open your eyes. Take a REAL look at what is happening in this country. And feel some SHAME for the attitude that allows you to NOT see the devastation that is going on on a daily basis.

SHAME on this country!

[RebelOne]

138. Social security pays more than $700 a month now.

I am collecting $1,400 a month, but I am also working a full-time job for about another $1,400 a month. I would not afford to live just on social security. I am 70 years old now and would like to retire, but can't afford to. I lost quite a bit of my 401K savings in the stock market downturn.

[2Design]

55. important to know most jobs are paying that and huge amounts of

people who were downsized are trying to live on that and have been for the last 10 to 20 years

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. The point is not that some who make mininimum don't NEED a living wage -

it is that no one who makes minimum EARNS a living wage, even if they need it.

EDIT to correct inexplicable grammar fuck up.

[Zavulon]

65. Do you believe that workers should

be paid according to need instead of the value of their work?

Honestly, I've never understood the stance a lot of people take on this. Millions of people have worked two jobs, and yet most of what I read today is from people who seem to think that 40 hours a week automatically entitles someone to live comfortably. I'm not sure that's what you're saying - but if it's what you think, I disagree.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

68. Obvious straw man. A better minimum wage of, say, $15,

wouldn't stop competent people from earning $50, $100, and more.

Minimum wage hikes HELP the economy. Always. Brazil's economy has been getting better in the past 7 years because, under Lula, for the first time ever, minimum wage is gaining against inflation.

[lexanman]

86. you sure

you're progressive? Sounds like talking points from a Glenn Beck show.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

104. He's sure

he's not. So are we all.

[Zavulon]

66. Do you believe that workers should

be paid according to need instead of the value of their work?

Honestly, I've never understood the stance a lot of people take on this. Millions of people have worked two jobs, and yet most of what I read today is from people who seem to think that 40 hours a week automatically entitles someone to live comfortably. I'm not sure that's what you're saying - but if it's what you think, I disagree.

[Iowa]

74. Yes, I do beleive that...

"Do you believe that workers should be paid according to need instead of the value of their work?"

However, your question implies a false premise. You're implying that people must be paid EITHER "according to need" OR per the value of their work. It isn't an either/or proposition. People should be paid BOTH according to need AND according to the value of their work.

I believe that all work has value, and that the lowest "value" for 40 hours of work should provide sufficient income for food, clothing, shelter, basic transportation, and health-care. Can you name a single occupation where the value of the work isn't sufficient to provide the basic necessities of life? I can't think of one.

As a government employee (now retired) I earned 5 times the amount of people who worked twice as hard providing essential services (like nurse aids, janitors, child-care workers, cooks, farm-laborers, garbage collectors, etc). And I worked twice as hard as managers in my department who earned 2 to 3 times as much as I did (and those managers actually reduced productivity). Payment according to value of work is grossly out-of-whack across the board. We have minimum wage workers who are paid far too little. We also have a large class of highly paid workers, who produce absolutely nothing of value, and some whose productivity is actually negative... people who feed off the hard work of others (like some CEOs, bankers, middle-management, politicians, lobbyists, "consultants", etc.). These people are often paid far too much.

So yes... minimum pay should be based on the costs of the basic necessities of life AND the value of the work, which, at minimum, is worth whatever it costs for the basic necessities. And those on the higher end should also be paid based on both the costs of the basic necessities AND the value of their work. To do so would result in much more of a leveling of income and the restoration of a vibrant middle-class. Plus, it would prevent placing people into economic servitude that borders on slavery.

It's really not that complicated.

[Zavulon]

75. "It's really not that complicated."

Wow, aren't we a bit snide and condescending? It must really confuse the hell out of you when someone actually doesn't buy the brilliance you're selling.

Oh, and as for your argument - no sale. I'm not convinced that a 40-hour work week should provide a comfortable living no matter what your job is, and you failed to convince me otherwise. Wow, you worked harder than others and earned less, not as hard as others and earned more. Big deal. It happens. This idea that we can make life fair and equitable is absurd, and paying a burger flipper more than he's worth isn't the way to do it. People get second jobs all the time.

What would you suggest that we do - have the government evaluate each and every profession in each and every possible circumstance and then come to a decision as to how much someone should be paid?

[JayMusgrove]

115. You really seem to be dense, but that's just my take, if you answer this question...

you can clear up your straw man argument quite easily. Which jobs should be worked 40 hours a week and NOT provide a basic level of comfort? Which people should go without healthcare, food, shelter, clothing after working 40 hours? Which jobs are those?

You seem to think SOME people should have a "comfortable" lifestyle, based upon their work, and others should never get any level of basic needs met for their 40 hours... which is which?? Which people should be "comfortable" and which people should not even meet the minimum standards for basic necessities?

By the way, minimum wage workers do NOT work 40 hours and meet minimum standards for basic needs from their wage. So the next question.... which people should be FORCED to work more than 40 hours to meet those needs? Non English speaking? People of color? Illegal immigrants? Corporate executives? Congresspeople? Preschool teacher aides? Nurses? Doctors?

[Zavulon]

134. Let's pretend for a moment that I care what you think of me or my point.

If that were the case, I'd first tell you to consult your proctologist before taking my advice as to what you could do with your insults, and then I'd point out that completely unskilled labor can be filled by anyone physically able to work. Since most people have at least some basic skills and therefore wouldn't be likely to take such a job, there is little need on the employer's part to pay the holder of such a job more than the bare minimum required to fill it.

You seem to be one of those who views all labor as good and deserving of comfort, and all employers as evil for failing to provide a company car and stock options for people such as those who assembled my Big Mac combo meal yesterday. It is my position, on the other hand, that if someone can't make do on what they take home after 40 hours, they can go get a second job. Millions of people have done it, and in fact a few million are doing it right now. Your amazingly clueless question ("which people should be FORCED to work more than 40 hours to meet those needs?") along with what I can only assume are sarcastic options ("people of color?") is answered as such: Nobody should be forced to work any hours they don't want to, but those who don't have the skills to compete in good-paying jobs should be prepared to work more than 40 hours if they want to live at the same standards as those who have skills and training.

Here's another response to YOUR straw man argument(s). I never said there were "people (who) should not even meet the minimum standards for basic necessities," I merely don't think that 40 hours a week should be an automatic guarantee of it for unskilled labor. If 40 should be, why not 35? Why not 20? Why not 10? Don't these people you're so vigorously defending DESERVE lots of time off and a completely comfortable living regardless of what they bring to the table skills-wise and value-wise? I'm sure the employers will suck up the extra costs and not pass them on to the consumer, ( :sarcasm: ) and I'm also sure that if you jacked up the minimum wage to $19 or $20 the rest of the economy would stand perfectly still, allowing these people to live comfortable and prosperous lives. ( :sarcasm: )

Note that the above questions are rhetorical in your case, as your answers don't interest me in the least. Anyone who would even go down the road of "Well, he doesn't agree with me, so let's throw in the completely irrelevant 'people of color' argument and imply he's a racist" or assume that I think anyone should be FORCED to work at all is worthy of the ignore button, which I will be using after I post this. Life's way too short to deal with someone who accuses others of "straw man arguments" and then launches a series of his own. Plus, having recently seen what you consider to be "eloquent," the fault is mine for wasting this much time on you to begin with.

[lexanman]

129. The government, businesses, HR depts already do this.

all accross the country. Wages are not nor have they ever been paid arbitrarily. Limiting profit to less than %10 and actually being required to pay your employees what they are worth is something I support. Instead of the current system where the employer can make as much as he/she wants and pay as little to the employees as they can get away with. Its why you see illegal immigrants supplanting trades. Its why you see the H1B program, where the person coming over to work is an indentured servant where he is not allowed by law to compete or look for other employment. Its why you have outsourcing to countries who literally do have slave labor/child labor,
and last but not least its why you have a huge prison employment industry in this country, where prisoners have no choice but to work, no benefits, 40 to 75 cents an hour, no sick time, cant quit, no greivances. Its a Capitalists wet dream.

[AlphaCentauri]

61. There are 10 million single mothers

and 6 millions stay at home mothers who would not make it with 7.25 p/h

[Paladin]

93. National Chamber Of Commerce Propaganda.......

.....trotted out every single time there's a pending boost of the minimum wage, in an attempt deny such an increase to everybody concerned. You're not fooling anybody......

[JenniferJuniper]

7. I put myself through college making not much more than minimum wage back in the early 80's.

I think it was something like $3.35 or $3.65 back then.

Didn't major in math, but I suspect the relative value of those wages was just a tad more than it is now. Just a tad.

[lexanman]

12. I held two jobs in the 90's

and put myself through college with some grants and lived in a 1 room apartment with a side bathroom. No extras. Nothing. More than 10 million people now live on minimum wage, including full and part time, and many of them are single working mothers. Unionization fell off the charts and needs to come back full force, right now.

[JenniferJuniper]

15. Just did a quick check

When I started university as a freshman, my school's tuition (just tuition) was $2900 per year.

As of May 2009 - same school, same program - the tuition is over $27,000. Nearly 10 times more.

I had no grants, no scholarships, just a few federal loans and a kindly aunt who allowed me to live in her converted garage for low rent. But I was able to cover it all, going to school full time, on a 35 hour per week minimum wage job.

Just imagine trying to get that same education today at 27k per year working that same minimum wage job or jobs.

[lexanman]

16. right

these people are playing for keeps now. Unions dropped off the charts since the 50's. Down to about 8.5 percent of the workforce. We are being economically raped, and I hope thats not too strong of a term.

[ohio2007]

41. going out of buisness will be the "mom and pop" shoe srtring budget shoppes

Thats OK, they and thier 3 or 4 employees can go to work at Wal-Mart and make more.


"St Peter don't you call me
cuz I can't go......


I owe my soul to

the company store"



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boXa8c6OuRQ&feature=related

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. Not true. It is not true now, nor has it ever been true.

That's a seventy cent an hour increase. IF the employees get 8 hrs, that's 5.60 per day. $28/wk.

Frankly, any business that can't absorb that kind of increase is ALREADY doomed.

OTOH, that increase goes to everyone in the community who makes minimum, thus increasing their spending power, thus increasing the Mom & Pop shops' business, and making them MORE viable.

Those who feel this most will be the big box stores, the corporations which have thousands, tens of thousands of employees making minimum, and THEY will only feel it as a slight decline in profits. My heart bleeds for walmart.

[Psephos]

131. w/o arguing pro or con, it's about a 10.5% increase

Plus, payroll taxes paid by the employer as a percentage of the wage paid also increase, so when it's all tabbed up, it's about a 12% increase.

12% more cash out the door for zero more work. In the middle of a powerful recession, and astronomical unemployment rising by a half million per month. Profits are scarce. Losses are huge. Bankruptcies are a dime a dozen.

Wal-Mart isn't the issue. They actually do better in a recession because they sell what people need for less than everyone else. But the small companies who create more than 70% of new jobs in our economy are already hurting badly, and will simply hire fewer people.

Again, I'm more interested in hearing arguments both ways than taking a firm position. But those who maintain that a 12% hike in minimum wage labor costs, with no corresponding increase in productivity, isn't going to lead to fewer jobs, are simply innumerate.

Why are so many willing to believe that tax hikes on sin products like tobacco or gasoline will absolutely shape consumption and behavior, but that magically, these same behavior-changing effects of higher price won't happen when it comes to job creation and continuing employment?

Perhaps the trade-off is one we should make - I'd love to hear more discussion about that - but those pretending there isn't a trade-off are considerably more cruel to low-end wage earners than their "evil" employers, who after all, at least give them a check.

[Donnachaidh]

42. minimum wage was 4.15 in the 70's

You had to be making more than that in the 80's.

[benny05]

47. uh, no it wasn't

In 1974, it was $1.65. I remember this because my first job was at the Golden Starches and that was my rate. It went up to a $1.90 the following year, and I got a 10 cent raise for my hard work.

[Thothmes]

76. in the 60s it was $1.25 per hour

[Crabby Appleton]

88. The Federal minimum wage was $3.35 from Jan 81 to Apr 90

The Dept of Labor table is here:

http://www.dol.gov/ESA/minwage/chart.htm

[alphafemale]

99. Yeah. $3.75 tops in the early 80's. And if you worked as a server you didn't even get that.

I think I earned a base salary of around $2 an hour when I waited tables at this place for awhile. Of course they took taxes out of that based on the tips you reported I usually ended up with a paycheck of around $20 or so.

And it was a "family friendly" place kinda on the order of a Shoney's or Big Boy if you are familiar with those. Which means church people/lousy tippers/undisciplined food smearing brats and all the other joys that accompany it.

I was 17 and I was quickly motivated to getting myself to where I would never have to work a job like that again.

I did work as a server a few years later, but it was for a more upscale place where it wasn't nearly so awful.

[JayMusgrove]

116. Compared to college tuition and book and lab fee costs then and now

I would say your $3.35 or so, was equal to about $12 an hour now.

[BunkerHill24]

11. Just a reminder

you need to get out, outside, off from your full fridge, and pay attention to what's happening in the real world. n/t

[Psephos]

19. you don't know me, nor how I live, nor what my life experiences have been

so move on along and find something you actually know about

[BunkerHill24]

29. je m'excuse

my english is not so good...my mistake...I thought I was speaking with demented fat person who knew nothing of what it takes to have a meal, here in americas.

[bread_and_roses]

13. That's an old right wing arguement

When NY was fighting over raising its minimum wage, a study was done on this. The VAST majority - 70%? - I don't feel like looking it up, but high enough to render the arguement invalid - were ADULTS, not teens.

The minimum wage in this Country - including with this raise - is a disgrace.

[Psephos]

20. That's an old right-wing trick

using a label instead of an argument

How did you miss the part about retired people, second-income earners, and other adults in my post? Teens are a minority of the minimum wage workforce, and they were a minority in my post as well.

[bread_and_roses]

31. And that's a straw man - don't expect to use a right-wing talking point and not be challenged

You understand perfectly well the point to which I was speaking - your claim (or at least sounded so) that some workers do not "need" a higher minimum wage because they have other income in their household. As if the minor % of cases where that was true should dictate policy? As if retirees, for instance, go to work as Wal-Mart greeters or stand in high heels all day behind a cosmetics counter at the Mall when they don't "need" the money? And just how do we know which teens, for that matter, are working for CDs and which are working to contribute to the family or to put the clothes their parents can't afford on their own backs - not designer clothes, just clothes - things like shoes and warm coats? Given the wage stagnation in this country there are a good few who's family cannot provide for them - I guess they don't "need" a better wage?

As for labeling, notice that I did not label you, but the arguement - which is indeed a standard right-wing distraction thrown out every time the subject of raising the minimum wage comes up - no matter how far that wage has fallen from its original standard in real $$. Don't expect to use a right-wing arguement and not be challenged on it.

[Psephos]

130. umm, this is DU, not Burning Man

I'd be glad to discuss the merits, but you threw three bales worth of horse food at me there.

In rapid fire, first, no, I didn't understand perfectly well your point, but I do understand perfectly well that I know what I was/am thinking better than you know what I'm thinking. Next time, instead of assuming, try discussing.

Second, do you know the demographics by percentage of people who work minimum wage jobs, or are you just going by feel here?

Third, I know you did not label me, and directed your comment instead to my argument, but then, I did not label you, either, but instead, targeted the rhetorical device you use. Sauce for the goose....

I don't mind that we have different opinions...it's kinda the point here, right?...but (as a wise baker and florist once told me), don't expect to toss R-grenades around and not be challenged on it.

[LeftishBrit]

101. Also, I don't know about the USA, but in the UK and some other countries...

the minimum wage is lower for teens (known here as the 'youth rate') than for adults. I suppose the assumption is that they're either combining work with getting an education, or should be - it may also be just that youngsters are a bit easier to exploit!

[Hugabear]

18. So what's your point, do you even have one?

There are plenty of people who ARE trying to cover an entire household on minimum wage.

[Psephos]

21. umm, read the post I replied to, think hard, and see if you can figure it out ;)

[Yupster]

23. My first job paid me $ 2.15 an hour

Minimum wage was $ 2.10.

I was proud to be a Burger King "Expediter."

I worked there two months until I got my lifeguard license. Then life got better for this 16 year old in the age of bikinis and speedos.

That Burger King job actually was important to me though. It sure taught me that I didn't want to be working a job like that when I was 30. At my job interview, I came with all my straight A grades and the manager asked me if I knew how to mop. Turns out I didn't. He gave me a mop and showed me how to make figure eights. That job taught me a lot.

[gorfle]

81. LOL, me too.

My first job was working at Burger King cooking.

That job mostly taught me what I didn't want to do with the rest of my life. It taught me that jobs like that they treat you like shit because they know you have no other option than being there because otherwise you wouldn't be there. I made it my mission to make sure I had other options.

[Selatius]

28. True, but keep in mind not all of them are teens or retired people or second income earners.

There's a large group you're forgetting who are of "working poor" including single mothers and young individuals with little or no support from parents who either won't or can't support them.

[Psephos]

137. Agreed - and we should offer them additional direct support

The minimum wage raise is highly inefficient, because although it does increase the cash in the pockets of those who have a job, it keeps many thousands of others unemployed who would have had a job.

The demographics of the low-wage labor force are highly heterogeneous. The majority of those working minimum wage are not trying to support a household on a single minimum wage income. Why not target those who *are* trying to support themselves or dependents with additional assistance? (They already get assistance, by the way - food stamps, medicaid, EITC, etc.). We could ramp that support up without adding to already-nightmarish unemployment.

Why use a two-by-four when you can use a scalpel? If we don't run this economy better, there are going to be serious problems on voting day. Serious.

[Donnachaidh]

44. where have you been for the past year?

Hundreds of thousands of people have been thrown out of good paying jobs, and are now forced to take those minimum wage jobs in order to keep a roof over their family's heads. And those retired on SS are forced back to work to pay for the meds they get stuck with paying for, thanks to Medicare part D. And the rising costs of utilities, etc.

[Psephos]

135. So the answer is to decrease the number of available minimum-wage jobs?

When you raise the cost of the labor by 12% (wage increase plus associated increase in payroll tax on larger pay), but do not increase the productivity associated with that labor, and do it in the middle of a hard recession with deep dips in sales and profits, do you not expect some reaction?

The net effect is that those who keep their jobs make more, but others who would willingly work for $6.55 stay unemployed.

We have assistance for those who are trying to support themselves or dependents on low-wage jobs, including food stamps and EITC for starters. If you look at the stats, though, you find that the majority of low-wage workers are not making a career of it.

The sure way to increase what someone makes is to increase the value of their labor. Education, experience, placement resources, health/fitness support, on and on. Meanwhile, I would favor additional assistance (grants, increased EITC, whatever) to those who are running a household on a low-wage job...along with helping them enhance the value of their labor by acquiring skills, knowledge, or experience. That would avoid the collateral damage to the uncounted thousands of people who will become or will stay unemployed because of this price-fixing.

[ProudDad]

120. Good right-wing talking point (n/t)

[Psephos]

136. I dream that someday you'll make an actual argument instead of tossing the same old R-grenades ;)

[ProudDad]

142. OK. An argument...

I believe that all people are entitled to decent housing, adequate food, education as far as they are able to pursue it and meaningful work to do and decent medical care -- as a RIGHT.

I believe that these rights take precedence over "economic development", "property rights", or the right to say "I've got mine, Jack so screw you." that is and has always been the motto of USAmerika.

The minimum wage is a feeble and, over the last 3 1/2 decades, seriously eroded attempt to accomplish some semblance of decency in an indecent system.

I would much prefer a communitarian setup with a steady state economy and a Constitution that not only mentions these rights but Guarantees them...

However, we will NEVER achieve a Democracy or a decent society as long as the USAmerikan style of corporate capitalism is allowed to rule the society.

There!

An actual argument to answer your right-wing talking points...the same-o, same-o shit talking point against the minimum wage that I've heard from every puke from the 50s to today...

[Psephos]

145. well, that's an opinion, not an argument, but you might be surprised how much I agree

I agree with almost all of what you said there...and that's hardly surprising. Those are good and decent things to want. Each person should have enough claim to the fruits of this Earth and the fruits of their own labor to secure a good, even if moderate, existence.

Where we part company is on how to get there. That would be the argument part. What I see in minimum wage law is an attempt to subvert the natural laws of economics that say when we change the price of something, we change the demand for it.

No one seems to argue that if we raise the price of cigarettes, that people will smoke fewer of them. No one disputes that if we lower the cost of gasoline, people will buy more of it.

Why is it thought that raising the price of labor won't lower the demand for it? Especially in an economy like this one, an economy that's shedding half a million jobs each and every month? After adding in the automatic piggyback rise in payroll taxes, this is a 12% price hike.

Thinking rationally instead of emotionally, how could one not expect some people to lose their jobs, and others to not get one they might have gotten? All it does is make those who keep their jobs have to work harder, while preventing others from having jobs.

Some of the people working minimum wage are new entrants to the workforce. Young people, low-experience people, immigrants, people still working on training or education. These people tend to work minimum wage jobs for a relatively short time, and then advance to higher-paying work as they acquire skills, finish education, or gain experience. Others in these positions are people at the end of their worklife, such as retired people looking to supplement SS or pensions, or even, just to have something productive to do.

These are the demographics harmed by the job shrinkage that accompanies minimum wage hikes.

Another, completely different demographic is the head of household (with or without dependents) trying to scrape by on a minimum wage job. These people are challenged economically, socially, and personally, and deserve our support. They already do get support, in the form of food stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit payments ("reverse" taxes), medicaid, various state programs, etc. Why not increase the support they get? It would be a far more efficient way of helping those who need it, without harming those trying to enter the labor force. Direct assistance to those who need it, at a level that makes a decent, moderate life possible.

There are other ways to do this, too, and they deserve discussion. Unfortunately, the idea of forcing a payment from employers that's higher than the market value of the unskilled labor performed is easy to latch onto (especially if one thinks of all employers as evil, etc.), but no economic action takes place in a vacuum. There are always effects farther down the chain of causality. We should treat our economics as a scientific, rather than political, proposition. The literature offers numerous real-life examples of effects from wage and price controls. Anyone (especially a politician) advocating for such things without absorbing the data is acting irresponsibly. That doesn't mean that different readers won't reach different conclusions. It means that decisions will more likely be made based on evidence than emotion.

Now, let me address something more personal. I am here on this board to be exposed to a wide range of opinions. Some I will share, some I will not, and some I will be persuaded by enough to change my own.

I can't benefit from the opinions of anyone who calls me names or uses language about what I say that makes me bristle. I admire your passion, ProudDad. Let me also admire your civility in our future exchanges. Regardless of whether we ever agree on methods, I know that we want the same thing for others: a decent life, a fair shake, a bit of dignity, and freedom from those who would manipulate us. I hope you'll remember that next time our paths cross.

Regards.

[ProudDad]

146. There are no "natural laws of economics"

That's where the collective delusion begins...

There are imposed structures of which Capitalism is one of the worst. That is the economic paradigm no one in charge seems to be able to see beyond.

There is one difficulty though...too damn many big-brained bipeds occupy this planet and are pissing on it for their own short term gain and other species' long term loss.

Their "economic system" is one of their main weapons.

They don't believe they are part of the fabric of life but rather are above it, rule over it, manipulate it...all for their short term "economic advantage"...

They are an evolutionary dead-end waiting to expire -- I hope they don't take the planet with them...

You confuse "jobs" with useful work or a humane civil system of communities. After the great die off, if it's not too late and we're headed for Venus-hood, there will be a restructuring and believe me, minimum wage, bank bailouts and capitalist bullshit will NOT be part of that new orderly world...

The great god Profit is not inevitable nor is it necessary in a humane, steady state economy.

But you're right, I'd rather be civil and argue my points. We probably have more in common in terms of our own levels of compassion and humanity. If I offended, I apologize...

I just don't see ANY possibility of a humane society built on the current economic paradigm.

In the meantime, I'm sure we can agree that folks trying to survive on minimum wage should be able to, as I did when I was young and the minimum wage was at its highest purchasing power...but they never will be allowed to again...

Too many big-brained bipeds in the way...

[GinaMaria]

139. so unequal pay for equal work?

like women who have husbands that work, should be paid less for a job because it is a second income? That's a tough sell in this country.

[bitchkitty]

27. You can subsist, but barely.

I survive on a small fixed income that is probably equivalent to working 40 hours a week at minimum. Of course, I don't live in New York or any of the more expensive cities. And there's not a lot of room for the little extras that make life seem better!

[sandnsea]

10. That's an extra $112 a month

That is going to help so much. It's already been proven that states with higher minimum wages do better economically.

[onestepforward]

17. It will help a lot.

Most of it will also be put right back into the economy too.

[The abyss]

14. What is the proposed hourly rate for agricultural areas?

I believe they are separate scales.

Yes – No?

TIA

[slampoet]

22. THANK GAWD! I am under 40 years old and the Minumum wage has been stagnant for 20 years of my workin

life.

There have been two different periods where the min. wage has stayed the same for 10 years.

That is more than half of my life dammit! and i have only been working since i was 14

[Mari333]

35. but every yr CONGRESS gets a RAISE! nt

[slampoet]

67. Thankyou baby that looks like Truman Capote.

(Don't worry, We all looked like him at one time you'll grow out of it)

[Mari333]

70. truman kicked the bucket when he was younger then me

po boy.

[slampoet]

77. "younger THAN"

jeez

[Mari333]

79. younger than springtime are youuuu

keep singing !!

[ProudDad]

124. And I'm over 65

and remember when minimum wage would pay the rent, buy the food, fill the car with gas and allow me to see a movie once in a while...

But we interchangeable parts in the monstrous capitalist machine aren't supposed to "LIVE", we're just supposed to serve their purposes and when used up -- die.

[Divine Discontent]

24. that's still peanuts for poor souls living off that - but at least they get 100 more a month they

desperately need.

Amazing that the people that are so against it probably make 40 an hour or more, and have the indecency to complain about people getting 7 bucks an hour...

[troubledamerican]

25. Federal Maximum Wage going up, up, up, up, up today.

[pokercat999]

30. Want to see the minimum wage go up and I mean UP?

Institute a MAXIMUM wage pegged to the minimum wage, say ten times the minimum for every person in the US! My guess is the minimum would be like $75.00 per hour the in the same bill.

[zogofzorkon]

51. Even peg it at 20x the wage of the lowest paid employee

including all the perks and alternate comp. I doubt that wages would stand still for 6mos let alone 10yrs. Max wage pegged to lowest paid is a superb idea and of course has less than 0 chance of happening.

[Yupster]

109. I bet Kobe would be pissed

making 20 X more than the peanut salesman.

[Pharlo]

71. You don't need a 'maximum wage',

just a law limiting Congressional pay to federal minimum wage (x5).

Since the primary argument for the high congressional wage is 'multiple homes', and since congress deems minimum wage an adequate living wage, they only NEED federal minimum wage (x2).

But, due to the high cost of living in the D.C. area, I feel fmw (x5) is more than generous.

Once that law goes into effect, the speed with which the federal minimum wage will go up will make some kind of congressional record, I am sure.

[JayMusgrove]

117. But that would mean Congressional salaries today would be cut

to about half of what they are, and then they would have to give up all that health care insurance, too, since that amounts to many thousands a year for Congresspeople with families.

Congress currently pays itself about 20 times the minimum wage in real dollar terms, plus all those expense paid trips ...

[moose65]

32. One thing that bugs me!

Why do these articles like this always refer to it as a "hike"? They do the same thing whenever a tax increase is proposed. They always call it a "tax hike." Doesn't that word have a negative connotation? It automatically labels the increase as something bad. To me, a "hike" would be a situation like when your landlord comes in one day and says "Next month your rent is going to double" or when those credit card companies double your interest rate in one month. Increasing the minimum wage is not hiking it up arbitrarily.

[Robb]

38. Headline writing

Smaller words like "hike" are almost always better to work with than "raise" or "double."

Examine if you will the advent of the word "roil," which is never used except in headline writing. :)

[melm00se]

33. you can see the demographics of the minimum wage worker

here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2008tbls.htm

the minimum wage debate is a smoke screen to deflect from the living wage debate.

the living wage question raises many questions that are a challenge to answer and predict their overall impact.

a few that pop into my mind are:

1) what happens if/when a minimum wage worker (say a cashier at the local groceria)goes from minimum wage ($7.55 an hour) to a mandated living wage (in Wake county, NC where I live) of $9.65 (http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/counties/37183), a 27% increase? do prices go up to compensate? are jobs eliminated to compensate? does the retailer accept a lower profit? does the retailer devise a way to automate a low value add position?

2) what about the more skilled worker who, until the passage of a living wage, was making (using the numbers from above) $9.65 an hour? will he/she be content to be making the same wage as the, relatively, less skilled worker? will be/she demand an increase to be paid more than his/her less skilled counterpart? which then loops us back to question #1.

3) what are the macro economic impacts of questions 1 & 2? inflation? decrease in the labor force? something else? (I lean towards inflation). lets take the 1st 2: with inflation (especially with an inflation adjusted mandated living wage) the economy gets on a treadmill; prices spiral upward, the living wage is adjusted to match, triggering off more inflation. with decrease in the labor force (another strong candidate), it is impossible to mandate that an employer employ X number of people so to compensate for a 27% increase in labor costs (assuming that the employer only has minimum wage workers for this discussion), an employer might be forced to trim his workforce back by 27%. this of course would have secondary and tertiary effects which might force the employer to go back and rehire but then that puts us right back on the inflationary treadmill.

the living wage is a tough question with a myriad of effects both immediately visible and some that wouldn't crop up for a period of time.

The USA has attempted to address this via the federal "earned income credit" which provides a refundable tax credit to workers who meet the federal criteria whose details can be found (in prefect IRS-ese) here: http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96406,00.html

[Lucky Luciano]

34. #2 is a very valid point. Most skilled workers will demand

to get paid more than the lowest earners or they will say, "Why the fuck did I take out student loans to go to college?!" Or "why the fuck did I waste my time in that apprenticeship to learn skill A?"

[hayu_lol]

37. It is good to know that Oregon and Washington are still

above the NEW improved minimum wage. Voters in both of these states knew that the old minimum wage wasn't cutting it for the people who earned it. Time to raise the OR/WA minimum wage yet again...something around $9/hr comes to mind.

For those who have married, just starting to have kids, make sure you buy a house big enough so that both sets of parents can move in with you. Time for the extended family to resurface.

[Yupster]

110. West Texas is above the minimum too

not because of a law, but because of the oil boom. A year ago you couldn't find labor out here. Our unemployment rate was 3 % and every business in town was loking for labor. McDonalds and Burger King were offering $ 8.50 an hour to start, so the raise won't mean anything at all to us out here.

It will stop wages from going down as things get worse though.

[melm00se]

45. exactly

and with SGA costs (of which labor is a significant component) ~80% of a company's gross profit (if you want to check you look at a company's income statement) if there is a significant jump in a company's labor cost, to maintain profitability something's gotta give and there are really only 3 options: lower labor costs (fewer people or locating a cheaper source of labor), lower material costs (which drive those suppliers to adjust the previous items as well until you hit the bottom of the supply chain) or, more than likely, higher prices which will ripple upward until it hits the end consumer which would drive inflation.

this is a really sticky problem one which artificial external forces may cause more harm than allowing organic economic growth to grow hourly wages as has been the since 1998 when the number (and percentage) of hourly wage workers earning at or below the minimum wage decreased from 1998 to 2007 (and from a big picture point of view, really from 1979 to 2007). Again see table 10 here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2008tbls.htm.

one interesting piece of data is to look at the years prior to and just after an increase in the minimum wage: the numbers of workers working at or below the minimum wage was dropping prior to an increase, then with the spike upward when the minimum wage went up and then the drop reasserting itself afterwards. what might a good analysis is to look at things like: inflation rates, productivity changes and economic growth. I surmise that the impact of the increase in minimum wage in the late 90's was ameliorated by the incredible economic run during the same time.

[Regret My New Name]

87. You think?

I think most people earn skills to something they enjoy, not just for the money... Unless you lower the amount skilled workers make, then I see little reason why many would change their plans.

[mbperrin]

48. To really get straight in your mind what higher wages mean,

ask this question. "Are higher wages better for an economy, or are lower wages better for an economy?"

If you had the choice to start a business, and we gave you $2 million in start up money that you never had to pay back, would you locate it in Beverly Hills or in Wickett, Texas? You know something about Beverly Hills, and what you need to know is that Wickett is one of the poorest towns in Texas, with one of the lowest average incomes in the US.

You would naturally pick Beverly Hills, because people have no money to buy at your new business in Wickett.

People with money spend, and spending is good for business.

If that is not true, and we choose lower wages as better, then the lowest wage is zero. We would all immediately work for nothing. Sit back and watch the economy boom! Woo-hoo! Can't wait til payday! Wooops, no payday.

It's obvious that in terms of the macro economy, higher wages are better.

At the individual and greedy level, every boss wants their workers to work for nothing and everyone else's to have plenty of money to spend on your business. This narrow and short sighted view cannot work for every business, as we have amply demonstrated, but the level of knowledge about running a business in this country is so abysmal and level of critical thinking so low, that few seem able to grasp that.

As amply demonstrated by the idea that when you pour hundreds of billions of dollars into broke banks, they miraculously show a "profit" right after. Wait til the next quarter...

[melm00se]

62. actually....

You would naturally pick Beverly Hills, because people have no money to buy at your new business in Wickett.

I would open my business in the appropriate location to reach my target customer base.

If my target market had the same demographics as BH I might, if OTOH Wickett, TX was more in my target demo then I would open there (except 455 people probably would make it less attractive).

Tell me oh great economic guru, let's say that tomorrow due to the institution of a living wage your business costs shot up more than your profit margins would cover and you are running near 100% capacity. you have 60 days to develop a financial strategy to compensate (which is about how long your suppliers will let you slide before they cut you off).

what do you do?

the clock is ticking.

[mbperrin]

72. If your business or mine depends on paying your workers a wage that

makes them eligible for food stamps, public assistance, or simply having to bunk it with parents or pals because they can't actually live on those wages, your company deserves to go out of business.

Nowhere in economics is there an entitlement to be in business. Entrepreneurs are supposed to efficiently combine land, labor, and capital to make something, and if they can, make a profit. But the purpose of the economy is not to make profits, but products.

Normal profits are supposed to provide the entrepreneur with just enough return that if they got $1 less, they'd fold. If they're making a dollar more, that is inefficient and is interfering with increased production by the overallocation to the business receiving what they used to call monopoly profits.

The current version of predatory capitalism is corrosive to morals, harmful to life, and will eventually result in total collapse. Then we'll see if we can finally get it straight.

I'm no guru, but I do have a degree in economics, and I have taught same for two decades now.

The whole idea of entitlement for business is ridiculous. If you're not good enough to stay in and others are, why should you be allowed to exist? The others are simply better than you are, and they should be allocated more resources.

[The Green Manalishi]

69. Only if the people who would *BUY* lived in Wickett

If it was manufacturing something that was going to be sold all over, and I could get the sufficient quantity and quality of labor, I'd open it in Wickett where I could pay less (or help the local economy, or both) and sell what I made in places with stupid rich people who'll buy any old shit, such as Beverly Hills.

Seriously, I think higher wages are better, but some folks I've worked with were overpaid (in the sense of being worth their wages, completely aside form the intrinsic worth that all humans have and that society should protect) because they were/are lazy, thieving, lying racist, homophobic assholes (pick three) who couldn't or wouldn't do shit. Society should strive towards equality of opportunity, but it ain't never going to achieve equality of results.

[mbperrin]

73. I will never understand why all businesses think transport costs of products is zero.

There's this whole notion of labor as fungible that's related to the whole "a cowboy is just a cowboy" shit that allowed a few to make huge profits while burying most at the end of life with their boots on, because that's all they had.

The people with the defects you've described are about 99% of the so-called managers I've ever had contact with. Haven't really run across any minimum wagers that fit the description there.

Not trying for equal results, trying to get decent results for everyone. If our standard of living depends on beggaring our neighbor, that will last until the neighbor begs, borrows, or steals enough guns or other weapons to do something about it. That's why people put themselves behind bars in gated communities - they know they don't deserve to socialize with the rest of us.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

128. What you just wrote is a textbook example of the Tragedy of the Commons.

It's obvious that in terms of the macro economy, higher wages are better.

At the individual and greedy level, every boss wants their workers to work for nothing and everyone else's to have plenty of money to spend on your business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons

[ProudDad]

121. It is NOT in the nature of Capitalism

to provide a living wage for all persons...

That's not what that corrupt excuse for an economic system is about...

Capitalism's about the accumulation of riches by the few off the labor of the many...

[ohio2007]

39. "...It’s the third such hike in three years, but “this is probably going to have more of an effect .

"It’s the third such hike in three years, but “this is probably going to have more of an effect than last time,”


?
ie


Is the light at the end of this tunnel sounding like a choo choo train ?


dunno
I doubt it will have an impact in pricing of a happy meal at the drive though but.....


Lets see if there is any 'change' in the dollar menu by late august

I do like those dollar mc chicken sandwiches as an appetite suppressant


Raising the min wage is like seeing my fixed wage ( and many many millions of others ) slide toward the poverty line.

But the MSM will spin it ;
"Millions more are now falling below the official poverty level"

Can't wait to see how much the gobmit pays for that research study that msm quotes
:sarcasm:
not

[WestSeattle2]

46. I hope young people reading these threads are now more

motivated to get a college education or learn a skilled trade. Our economy is diverging into a two-tiered economy and has been for 30 years. We'll have low-paying service jobs, often paid at minimum wage, and higher paying professional and trade jobs which require a college degree or knowledge of a skilled trade. That middle section, that allowed high school graduates to earn a somewhat decent living is disappearing.

My advice to anyone on minimum wage who desires more is to obtain an education. In many cases this will require that you move away from family and friends, to a location that will offer you educational opportunities at a cost you can afford. There are thousands of trade programs, including Women in Trades that offer apprenticeship programs for electricians, instrument technicians, plumbers, carpenters, etc.....find one you like and enroll. Again, you may have to move out of your state to find opportunities, but that's a choice you'll have to make.

In five years you could easily be making $40/hour in a skilled trade (on the west or east coasts), or you could be stuck doing the same thing you are now, working in a dead-end job and waiting for the federal minimum wage to go up .50/hour.

First and foremost, you have to believe in yourself. If you don't, no one else will.

[mikekohr]

49. Here Are A Few Sources:

http://ourfuture.org/makingsense/factsheet/minimum-wage states that if minimum wage were linked to inflation starting in 1968 the rate today would be $8.60 per hour.

The poverty level from the Census Bureau states that a two person houshold poverty threshold is $14,840 per year. The new rate of $7.25 @ 2080 hours, works out to $15,080.00 or 102% of the poverty level.

mike kohr

[tocqueville]

52. France minimum wage = 8.82€ = $12.43

which gives 1.337,70 €/month for 35 hours/week = $1884

which means 1140 after taxes ($1600). Those taxes cover practically your pension and health insurance.

damned socialists

[ProudDad]

122. AND ...

free education through University...

Universal Health Care...

LONG Paid vacations...

Etc., etc., etc.

Damned Socialists!

[Odin2005]

53. This is very good for me, since I make Min. Wage!

:woohoo:

[POAS]

54. These Chicken Littles have been yelling

about the economic disaster the minimum wage would cause since the beginning yet the only real economic disasters have been brought about by the so-called "free market" they promote with zeal.

[llmart]

78. Correct!

Repukes have used this tired old meme for years about how raising minimum wage will put all the small businesses out of business. There is absolutely no evidence that that is true, yet the stupid knuckle dragging Repuke followers eat this stuff up.

[Deja Q]

90. +1

[sarcasmo]

56. The new middle class, those with a job.

[Leftist Agitator]

82. I'm the sous chef at a successful restaurant.

A restaurant where our cheapest entree, Pasta Primavera, is $17.

Our steaks are $25 for the Strip, $30 for the Filet.

I make $9 / hr. Oh, and I have an M.A. in History.

I can't even afford to eat at the place where I work. Nor have I been able to find work in my field.

After my bills are paid (and forget about me ever being able to pay back my student loans in this lifetime) I subsist on about $200 a month. And that covers everything, food, toiletries, clothing, unforseen expenses, EVERYTHING. I have my wisdom teeth coming in, and I'm seriously considering learning how to cut them out myself, because there is absolutely no way that I can pay to have them professionally extracted. Even at the local dental school in my city, they want nearly $1000 to perform the necessary procedure.

Thankfully, I don't need to drive and pay for gasoline, a car payment, and an insurance bill, otherwise I would starve, slowly.

God Bless America.

:sarcasm:

[Deja Q]

91. More like 'God Damn America'.

:(

If God was blessing it, this country wouldn't be in this economic shithole its previous leaders helped put it into.
\

[WestSeattle2]

92. You need to move! Salary surveys for Sous Chefs

http://www.indeed.com/salary/Sous-Chef.html

indicate a much higher wage than $9/hour.

Moving to an area that will boost your salary closer to $25/hour seems preferable to slowly starving.

[WriteDown]

107. If you are making only 9$ an hour as a sous chef

then you need to relocate. That is usually a fairly well-paid chef position.

[Akoto]

111. Couple of tips that may help you ...

1. Don't panic yet about your wisdom teeth coming in. Unless they're impacted or something like that, you may not need to have them removed at all. I'm 24 and still have two of mine. My dad's in his 50s and has all four. If they're structurally sound, and if you can brush and floss them, they should pose no threat to you.

2. My mother was in a similar position of badly needing dental work, yet not being able to afford it. Her dentist helped her file for a program called CareCredit. It allows her to pay off her dental bills on a monthly basis, with a certain minimum (hers is $15). The only catches are that you have a yearly limit on how much you can "credit," and each bill has to be paid off by the end of twelve months. You can use the program for doctor and veterinary visits, too. I don't mean for this to sound like a sales pitch, but my mother gave the summary and has found the program very helpful. :)

[Deja Q]

89. Here's a thought: In the 1960s, minimum wage could just about support somebody... Today,

it can't begin to support anybody.

Now, what's spiraled out of control?

Not wages.

The cost of living.

How hard is it to figure out, really?

[undeterred]

97. Thank you Democrats.

Its amazing how long it takes for legislation to be put into effect.

[Yavin4]

98. Before People Slam President Obama, They Should Read Some of the Responses In This Thread

Predatory capitalism has taken full hold of some of the thoughts and opinions of even some DUers.

Reading some of the snobby comments by some DUers towards work makes me want to scream. I guess if you're not a college grad then you don't deserve to be paid at all? You should work for free. Good lord.


The whole point of the minimum wage was to ensure that anyone who worked would not have to live in poverty. The min. wage has been kept so low for so long that the government had to issue subsidies through the form of the Earned Income Tax credit. For the past 30 years, businesses have literally stolen wages from their employees by deeming some work unfit for decent wages, and some DUers here believe that nonsense.

It's this, "Fuck you. I got mine", attitude that Obama has to fight every day of his presidency.

[AlphaCentauri]

102. Free Market Populism

cutting taxes it's populism that just help the republicans keep their rhetoric to manipulate the poor, I thing the so called progressive taxation helps more the republicans than the poor in america.

[LeftishBrit]

100. Good - though that's still pretty low

The national minimum wage in the UK is £5.73 per hour, which converts to $9.33.

[DeadEyeDyck]

103. my little sister is scared she might loose her job at Dairy Queen

It is a family franchise and sh eknows that if they cut back, she will get chopped. She is only 17 and works about 25 hrs/week but she is paying off her car with that pay. She has been there for almost 2 yrs but there is no formal seniority so that doesn't help.

They are trying to keep everyone there and are cutting back on everyone's hours but she was told yesterday that onoe or two will have to go, once the pay scale goes up. There just isn't the business there used to be.

It kind of sucks. The very thing that will give a kid a few more dollars in gas might cause her her job.

[JayMusgrove]

118. Ask her why she has a car loan at 17 with a mimum wage job.

I think she needs to learn that you cannot depend upon a job as a security blanket, and you need to save to get luxuries like a car.

When I grew up, only 1 in 20 kids from the rich families let their kids have a car in their teens. This is just too much consumption... a non-skilled job at a Dairy Queen is NOT the job one should have when one buys a car on credit. She should have saved the money, found rides and public transportation until she could buy the car for cash.

She dug her own hole, let her learn how to get out of it.

Talk about living beyond one's means. There will be other jobs for good teen workers in the next few months, there always is, but why on Earth did family agree she should go into debt at her age?

[ProudDad]

123. If they lay her off

they'll just tell her that now she doesn't need the car...

Please get it straight. A decent wage doesn't cost jobs, people don't "Lose their jobs"...they are TAKEN away by employers...

If DQ couldn't afford minimum wage they f*ckin' shouldn't be in business!!

Lame excuse...

On Edit: I'll bet there she has much more socially beneficial skills and talents than poisoning people with the shit they sell at DQ!

[ieoeja]

140. "There just isn't the business there used to be."

Do her employers anticipate business picking up when all the minimum wage employees in the area suddenly find themselves with a little more cash? I'd imagine those first few checks will especially include "fun" items like the weekly DQ Blizzard they previously cut out of their budget in these bad economic times.

I've never seen a demographic study of DQ customers, but I'd bet they draw more minimum-paid customers than rich bankers.

[ProudDad]

144. It's the junk food poisoning of the poor

They CAN'T get anything but junk in their neighborhoods...

And if the poor go out of their neighborhoods in search of decent food -- profiling...stares...etc.

[ProudDad]

143. However, we must quit looking for decency in a corrupt economic system

The late Dr. M. King Hubbert, a geophysicist, is well known as a world authority on the estimation of energy resources and on the prediction of their patterns of discovery and depletion.

1. He was probably the best known geophysicist in the world to the general public because of his startling prediction, first made publicly in 1949, that the fossil fuel era would be of very short duration.
2. His prediction in 1956 that U.S.oil production would peak in about 1970 and decline thereafter was scoffed at then but his analysis has since proved to be remarkably accurate.

Less well known were Hubbert's studies since 1926 on the rate of industrial growth and of mineral and energy resources and their significance in the evolution of the world's present technological civilization. 3 Clark in "Geophysics" in February 1983 states ""In recent years, he (Hubbert) has assaulted a target -- which he labels the culture of money --that is gigantic even by Hubbert standards. His thesis is that society is seriously handicapped because its two most important intellectual underpinnings, the science of matter-energy and the historic system of finance, are incompatible. A reasonable co-existence is possible when both are growing at approximately the same rate. That, Hubbert says, has been happening since the start of the industrial revolution but it is soon going to end because the amount the matter-energy system can grow is limited while money's growth is not.

"I was in New York in the 30's. I had a box seat at the depression," Hubbert says. "I can assure you it was a very educational experience. We shut the country down because of monetary reasons. We had manpower and abundant raw materials. Yet we shut the country down. We're doing the same kind of thing now but with a different material outlook. We are not in the position we were in 1929-30 with regard to the future. Then the physical system was ready to roll. This time it's not. We are in a crisis in the evolution of human society. It's unique to both human and geologic history. It has never happened before and it can't possibly happen again. You can only use oil once. You can only use metals once. Soon all the oil is going to be burned and all the metals mined and scattered." That is obviously a scenario of catastrophe, a possibility Hubbert concedes. But it is not one he forecast. The man known to many as a pessimist is, in this case, quite hopeful. In fact, he could be the ultimate utopian. We have, he says, the necessary technology. All we have to do is completely overhaul our culture and find an alternative to money.

http://www.steadystate.org/

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/hubecon.htm

http://www.npg.org/forum_series/steadystate.html