10 Reasons to Call for a Minimum Wage of More than $10.10

[Sunstone]

10 Reasons to Call for more than 10.10.

To me, the greatest single reason to call for a minimum wage of more than $10.10/hr is given in the article as reason Number Three: "If the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity, it would be $21.72 today."

Productivity is how societies become wealthy. Increases in productivity amount to increases in wealth. If workers wages do not keep up with gains in productivity, then the gains are not being shared with workers.

From the end of World War II to the beginning of the 1970s, the US saw the creation of the largest middle class in world history. This was made possible by roughly half of the gains in productivity over that period going to pay increases to workers. But since the early 1970s, worker's real incomes have been virtually flat and almost all the new wealth generated in the country has gone to the top 1% wealthiest people.

Comments?

PLEASE NOTE: Anyone concerned that raising the minimum wage would reduce employment would do well to read, Why Does the Minimum Wage have No Discernible Effect on Employment. Reading it first before offering your opinion that the minimum wage reduces employment might save you the embarrassment of looking like an ignorant fool.

 

[BSM1]

It's starting to look like the 'minimum wage' is becoming another reason for slackers to depend on the government..just saying. Quick question, would you turn down the opportunity to become one of "1%-ers"?

 

[sandandfoam]

It's starting to look like the 'minimum wage' is becoming another reason for slackers to depend on the government..just saying. Quick question, would you turn down the opportunity to become one of "1%-ers"?

Slackers my hat.
I would turn down the opportunity to be part of the 1%.

 

[dawny0826]

10 Reasons to Call for more than 10.10.

To me, the greatest single reason to call for a minimum wage of more than $10.10/hr is given in the article as reason Number Three: "If the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity, it would be $21.72 today."

Productivity is how societies become wealthy. Increases in productivity amount to increases in wealth. If workers wages do not keep up with gains in productivity, then the gains are not being shared with workers.

From the end of World War II to the beginning of the 1970s, the US saw the creation of the largest middle class in world history. This was made possible by roughly half of the gains in productivity over that period going to pay increases to workers. But since the early 1970s, worker's real incomes have been virtually flat and almost all the new wealth generated in the country has gone to the top 1% wealthiest people.

Comments?

PLEASE NOTE: Anyone concerned that raising the minimum wage would reduce employment would do well to read, Why Does the Minimum Wage have No Discernible Effect on Employment. Reading it first before offering your opinion that the minimum wage reduces employment might save you the embarrassment of looking like an ignorant fool.

I don't have a problem with raising the mininum wage and though I don't agree that every small business would be impacted the same by a mininum wage increase, I am for it!

In past arguments on the subject, my only concern was that even with an increase in mininum wage, it's still not enough of a wage to meet the requirements of a bare basic standard of living here in my community.

$10.10 is not enough to get by. I've not only done the budgeting myself, Dirty Penguin had provided an excellent calculator in another thread that confirmed my own concerns.

Raising the mininum wage isn't a bad thing. But, if people in my city think that the mininum wage will serve as a living wage, they are wrong. A more realistic living wage for single people in my city would be well upwards of $20.00 and my community does not yield such jobs unless you are educated, experienced in a specific trade/skill or credentialed.

 

[Sunstone]

It's starting to look like the 'minimum wage' is becoming another reason for slackers to depend on the government..just saying.

Slackers? I think your ignorance of how hard the working poor work is rivaled only by your gleeful willingness to insult them. Would you consider that Christ-like? Or are your religious beliefs secondary to your political beliefs? Just askin'.

Quick question, would you turn down the opportunity to become one of "1%-ers"?

Only in my fantasies would I want a few billion dollars. In reality, I'd hate the job. Some years ago I gave up and income in the low six digits for a simpler lifestyle. I have regretted that decision only on the rarest and briefest occasions. Last, even if I someday turned around and suddenly decided I wanted a few billion dollars, I don't think I could manage to use that money as immorally as, say, Pete Peterson to subvert Social Security, or as immorally as the Koch brothers to subvert democracy. Just isn't my style to be that conservative.

 

[sandandfoam]

I think that the questions of whether one lives in a society or in an economy and whether one is a citizen or a consumer are central.
Sure there is 'ethical' consumption, but at it's heart, being a consumer in an economy doesn't require that one gives a hoot about ones fellow human beings.
I blame Regan and Thatcher.

 

[Sunstone]

I think that the questions of whether one lives in a society or in an economy and whether one is a citizen or a consumer are central.
Sure there is 'ethical' consumption, but at it's heart, being a consumer in an economy doesn't require that one gives a hoot about ones fellow human beings.
I blame Regan and Thatcher.

I agree. In the US, at least, the campaign to turn us from a nation of citizens into a nation of consumers is about a hundred years old. I think one of the milestones of that campaign was reached -- in an hilarious fashion -- when shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the conservative commentator, Sean Hannity, was talking about our freedoms as Americans and couldn't think of anything offhand except "our freedom to go to Disneyland, and our freedom to have weekend barbeques".

 

[sandandfoam]

I agree. In the US, at least, the campaign to turn us from a nation of citizens into a nation of consumers is about a hundred years old. I think one of the milestones of that campaign was reached -- in an hilarious fashion -- when shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the conservative commentator, Sean Hannity, was talking about our freedoms as Americans and couldn't think of anything offhand except "our freedom to go to Disneyland, and our freedom to have weekend barbeques".

Holy cow - that is frightening and funny at the same time.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that the questions of whether one lives in a society or in an economy and whether one is a citizen or a consumer are central.
Sure there is 'ethical' consumption, but at it's heart, being a consumer in an economy doesn't require that one gives a hoot about ones fellow human beings.
I blame Regan and Thatcher.

It's "Reagan", & he is far from responsible for our economic structure, which was in
place long before he was even a gleam in his great great great grandfather's eye.
But we do have a structure which requires us to "give a hoot" about our fellow man,
since we have numerous protections for consumers. Buy how much farther would you
have government go in enforcing that we care about each other?

 

[collectivedementia]

10 Reasons to Call for more than 10.10.

Productivity is how societies become wealthy. Increases in productivity amount to increases in wealth. If workers wages do not keep up with gains in productivity, then the gains are not being shared with workers.


This is the reason conservatives and repubs do not want an increase in the minimum wage. If no prices are raised in response to the increase, the corporate bigwigs would have to "find" the money somewhere to balance the playing field. They are more than comfortable with the way things are. I think a slight raise in the minimum is most likely to occur, but how much?

 

[sandandfoam]

It's "Reagan", & he is far from responsible for our economic structure, which was in
place long before he was even a gleam in his great great great grandfather's eye.
But we do have a structure which requires us to "give a hoot" about our fellow man,
since we have numerous protections for consumers. Buy how much farther would you
have government go in enforcing that we care about each other?

Perhaps the main difference between us is that I believe that the people are the government.
And I don't give a hoot about misspelling that old ******** name.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps the main difference between us is that I believe that the people are the government.
And I don't give a hoot about misspelling that old ******** name.

No leaders I vote for ever win.
I don't work for government.
I pay taxes, & I get mostly grief in return.
As one of the "people", I see government as a separate entity, filled with aparatchiks who serve their
own agendas, eg, spying on us, spending trillions to kill people overseas in feckless wars, illegally
altering our Constitution by fiat, torturing people, giving away taxpayer money to Wall St cronies.
Government is some people, but not the people.

And you should hear what Reagan said about you.
No wonder there's no love lost between you two!

 

[BSM1]

Slackers? I think your ignorance of how hard the working poor work is rivaled only by your gleeful willingness to insult them. Would you consider that Christ-like? Or are your religious beliefs secondary to your political beliefs? Just askin'./quote]

I started working for minimum wage when I was 16 (the mw went from .90 to 1.00 that summer). I never worked for mw again. I was always able to find a job paying better than mw. The "insult" to a worker is telling him he is only worth minimum wages. And my "religion' never allowed me to be less than I could be.

Only in my fantasies would I want a few billion dollars. In reality, I'd hate the job. Some years ago I gave up and income in the low six digits for a simpler lifestyle. I have regretted that decision only on the rarest and briefest occasions. Last, even if I someday turned around and suddenly decided I wanted a few billion dollars, I don't think I could manage to use that money as immorally as, say, Pete Peterson to subvert Social Security, or as immorally as the Koch brothers to subvert democracy. Just isn't my style to be that conservative.[

Soo...you have considered being filthy rich. Just think of the good you could do if you had the cash; or is morality subjective?

 

[Sunstone]

Soo...you have considered being filthy rich.

Fantasizing is not "considering" in my book.

 

[freethinker44]

I started working for minimum wage when I was 16 (the mw went from .90 to 1.00 that summer). I never worked for mw again. I was always able to find a job paying better than mw. The "insult" to a worker is telling him he is only worth minimum wages. And my "religion' never allowed me to be less than I could be.

Hey look at that, it's old economy Steve.

It's not the 70s anymore.

 

[sandandfoam]

I started working for minimum wage when I was 16 (the mw went from .90 to 1.00 that summer). I never worked for mw again. I was always able to find a job paying better than mw. The "insult" to a worker is telling him he is only worth minimum wages. And my "religion' never allowed me to be less than I could be.

So you were lucky - not everyone is.
People are successful largely by accident. Many people just as wonderful as you scrape by on mw.

 

[freethinker44]

So you were lucky - not everyone is.
People are successful largely by accident. Many people just as wonderful as you scrape by on mw.

Luck had nothing to do with it, that was the standard 30-40 years ago.

 

[Sunstone]

Luck had nothing to do with it, that was the standard 30-40 years ago.

In my opinion, chance always plays a role in every kind of matter, but I think the odds were significantly more in an average person's favor 30-40 years ago.

 

[dawny0826]

So you were lucky - not everyone is.
People are successful largely by accident. Many people just as wonderful as you scrape by on mw.

Sometimes. And then, people are also successful largely because they plan and execute their plans.

In example, $10.10 per hour would be a miserable wage for a single adult living by themselves in Newport News, VA. My city does not yield apartments and amenities for a basic standard of living that would not REQUIRE that someone living off such a wage not supplement their income by either sharing expenses with someone else or through a second income or through government support.

Statistically speaking, there are very few jobs jobs in the US that pay less than the current mininum wage, but, there aren't many around here in my city that start you out in entry-level positions that do not require some sort of skill, specific experience or credential.

Virginia happens to be chock full of colleges, universities and trade schools. In fact, we have one of, if not the largest, shipbuildings in the country, which has its own apprenticeship program that yields college degrees and specific trade skills, that can be applied outside of the shipbuilding. This is addition to the plethora of vocational opportunities, many of which high schoolers are able to begin during high school. Locally, we have cosmetology programs, mechanical programs, nursing aid programs and other skill-focused vocational programs that you can explore before graduating from high school.

Opportunity doesn't lack within my community. I'm not saying that people should or shouldn't do anything.

But, I don't particularly measure success as being rich and having excess. For me, I'm successful because I'm happy and content in my profession and personal station and I'm able to provide for my own family and live within my means.

When I made mininum wage, I lived at home with my parents or had roommates to share the bills. I wouldn't have dreamed of trying raise a family on mininum wage and it's impossible to do so in my city. It cannot be done without supplemental income from somewhere...be it other people or the government.

Success is greatly determined by the individual and their life choices as well.

 

[freethinker44]

In my opinion, chance always plays a role in every kind of matter, but I think the odds were significantly more in an average person's favor 30-40 years ago.

Exactly.