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

[esmith]

You seem like you do.




Congress has the authority to do so. They've had this authority for decades now and that authority to do so is upheld by the Supreme Court.

So, Congress has the right according to the SCOUS. I just happen to disagree, What may be applicable to one state is not always applicable to another state.

 

[freethinker44]

just think they can now get medicaid or subsidies. Have a good day.

They already do. That's the consequence of not paying slave wages. They will get enough to survive, but it comes from the taxpayers instead of their employers. So if you don't want to raise the minimum wage, does that mean you like paying the wages of Walmart and McDonalds employees? Because you are.

 

[freethinker44]

So, Congress has the right according to the SCOUS. I just happen to disagree, What may be applicable to one state is not always applicable to another state.

In which state is minimum wage adequate?

 

[esmith]

In which state is minimum wage adequate?

Very Simple.,,,,,,Whichever state the votes say it is.

 

[freethinker44]

Very Simple.,,,,,,Whichever state the votes say it is.

Umm... no. You can't vote whether or not you can live on $7.25. I mean, you can, but you would be wrong.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So, Congress has the right according to the SCOUS. I just happen to disagree, What may be applicable to one state is not always applicable to another state.

I don't care if you disagree. Not one bit. When SCOTUS makes a ruling in your favor you're fine with it. We don't hear a peep out of those on the right when SCOTUS rules in their favor. All of a sudden you just so happen not to agree with them even though said ruling has been in effect probably before you were born. Shucks, as a youngster you might have even benefited from said law.

 

[esmith]

I don't care if you disagree. Not one bit. When SCOTUS makes a ruling in your favor you're fine with it. We don't hear a peep out of those on the right when SCOTUS rules in their favor. All of a sudden you just so happen not to agree with them even though said ruling has been in effect probably before you were born. Shucks, as a youngster you might have even benefited from said law.

Well to start with:

Anyone has the right to agree or disagree with the SCOUS ruling. However, they do not have the legal right to go against that ruling. As far as your comment "don't hear a peep out of those on the right when SCOTUS rules in their favor" could well have the word "right" changed to "left" and it would be accurate. However, Obama does not have the Constitutional right to raise the minimum wage as he found out.
Supreme Court: Obama's minimum wage executive order unconstitutional - National Policy & Issues | Examiner.com

 

[Apex]

What may be applicable to one state is not always applicable to another state.

Which is why states can raise their minimum wage above the federal minimum if they see fit. However, not all states will actually do this even if it is needed. Some are more proactive than others. And it just happens that currently the federal minimum is laughably low and needs to be rectified. It is not a livable wage anywhere unless you are a teen living with your parents. Which, despite what some critics say, is not what the minimum wage is meant to support.

So, raise the current federal minimum wage to something that at least approaches reality ($10.10 is a start) and then let states decide if they want to go higher while continually adjusting the federal minimum for inflation as time goes on.

 

[esmith]

Which is why states can raise their minimum wage above the federal minimum if they see fit. However, not all states will actually do this even if it is needed. Some are more proactive than others. And it just happens that currently the federal minimum is laughably low and needs to be rectified. It is not a livable wage anywhere unless you are a teen living with your parents. Which, despite what some critics say, is not what the minimum wage is meant to support.

So, raise the current federal minimum wage to something that at least approaches reality ($10.10 is a start) and then let states decide if they want to go higher while continually adjusting the federal minimum for inflation as time goes on.

I always believed that the minimum wage was for those just starting out in the work force with little or no experience. However, it appears that there are many that think that a minimum wage job is as far as some individuals want to go....hence the term living wage. It is a interesting fact that the majority of those working at minimum wage are young. Interesting facts:
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012

 

[Apex]

I always believed that the minimum wage was for those just starting out in the work force with little or no experience.

First: Even those who are just starting in the workforce still deserve a living wage. Just because someone is new doesn't mean you have an excuse to pay them a **** wage that is impossible to survive on.

Second: I am hoping you also mean with no higher education as well? And in an ideal world you would not be far off. In reality, you may as well be on a different planet.

However, it appears that there are many that think that a minimum wage job is as far as some individuals want to go....hence the term living wage.

And there really should not be anything wrong if someone is content with minimum wage. It is their decision. If they are showing up to work every day, getting their job done, and getting paid a living wage (if barley) for it, why should you complain?

Also, there are some careers where minimum wage, or near to it, is the max you can expect to be paid, regardless of how much experience or education you have. And if you think that these careers are only lowly menial labor, or lacking in education requirements, you are wrong. My wife is stuck in this exact situation. She barley earns above minimum wage and her prospects for a higher wage do not get much better. So some people are left with a choice, pursue the career that they truly want to do in life, and be stuck near minimum wage with no true hope of advancement, or go somewhere else, forgoing the career they really wanted, in hopes of more money.

It is a interesting fact that the majority of those working at minimum wage are young. Interesting facts:
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012

Why is it interesting? Because we are inheriting a broken system, **** poor economy, and awful employment opportunities from the generations ahead of us?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well to start with:

Anyone has the right to agree or disagree with the SCOUS ruling. However, they do not have the legal right to go against that ruling. As far as your comment "don't hear a peep out of those on the right when SCOTUS rules in their favor" could well have the word "right" changed to "left" and it would be accurate. However, Obama does not have the Constitutional right to raise the minimum wage as he found out.
Supreme Court: Obama's minimum wage executive order unconstitutional - National Policy & Issues | Examiner.com

We'll see. I'm not too sure King and others have a case.....

Constitutional Law Prof Blog

Some Republicans have cried foul, arguing that the action exceeds the President's Article II authority and thus violates the Constitution. But the action is hardly unprecedented, and probably supported by the President's statutory authority, let alone his constitutional authority over the executive branch. In other words, the action is probably a valid exercise of power that Congress granted the President, not a usurpation of power in violation of Article II limits.


Republicans who have criticized the action point to the federal statutory minimum wage. They say that the federal statutory minimum wage, $7.25 per hour, set in the Fair Labor Standards Act, limits Presidential authority to order a higher minimum wage for government contractors. Indeed, the FLSA says that "[e]very employer shall pay . . . wages . . . not less than . . . $7.25 an hour . . . ." FLSA Section 206.
But the FLSA sets a floor. Nothing in the FLSA prevents an employer from paying more than the minimum. And nothing prevents the President from ordering executive agencies to require contract bids to include wages higher than the minimum.

Didn't you once agree that it should be pegged to inflation?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And there really should not be anything wrong if someone is content with minimum wage. It is their decision. If they are showing up to work every day, getting their job done, and getting paid a living wage (if barley) for it, why should you complain?

Exactly. It's his or her choice and none of our business.

Also, there are some careers where minimum wage, or near to it, is the max you can expect to be paid, regardless of how much experience or education you have. And if you think that these careers are only lowly menial labor, or lacking in education requirements, you are wrong. My wife is stuck in this exact situation. She barley earns above minimum wage and her prospects for a higher wage do not get much better. So some people are left with a choice, pursue the career that they truly want to do in life, and be stuck near minimum wage with no true hope of advancement, or go somewhere else, forgoing the career they really wanted, in hopes of more money.

Exactly. I spoke with a guy today who is a computer repair technician. He's one of the guys contracted through Dell, working for a company that has that big repair contract, and he expressed to me that he's making $13 an hour, was just offered full time hours but before that company hired him full time...he was working for a temp agency getting crap assignments making even less than the $13 an hour. He's 40 years old, no more savings because he moved here to VA to take care of his parents.....and get this...the most disheartening thing about his story was when he revealed to me that he's ex military (Marines I think). Before he left my office I got his contact information because we may have a position coming up that would pay him no less than twice what he's currently getting per hour.

 

[Yadon]

I always believed that the minimum wage was for those just starting out in the work force with little or no experience. However, it appears that there are many that think that a minimum wage job is as far as some individuals want to go....hence the term living wage. It is a interesting fact that the majority of those working at minimum wage are young. Interesting facts:
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012

Most people take minimum wage jobs because they can't afford to go to college to get better jobs, or because of the market. Sometimes it is because they don't have the skills or intelligence to go further. My brother for example worked at barely above minimum wage for years because he couldn't afford to get a degree for a non-starting job. After 5 years he was still in the same position barely making ends meet.

In fact, because of this perpetual hole of poverty, a very close friend of mine thought the only way out was to join the military or be stuck at minimum wage jobs. His family's household was working 3 jobs between 2 people all of them on minimum wage and still struggling to make ends meet. They didn't spend money on any luxuries either.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The CBO released a new report that says that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 a hour could help lift 900,000 out of poverty but could cost 500,000 jobs.

CBO report: Minimum wage hike could cost 500,000 jobs

for whatever reason the page comes up all glitchy on my work computer. Did they provide a source to the study? I'd actually like to look at the data and how they came to their conclusions specifically.

 

[esmith]

for whatever reason the page comes up all glitchy on my work computer. Did they provide a source to the study? I'd actually like to look at the data and how they came to their conclusions specifically.

No problem on my system, try these if you want.
Congressional Budget Office: Wage hike would lift pay but cost jobs | Fox News
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf
Minimum-wage hike would help alleviate poverty, but could kill jobs, CBO reports - The Washington Post
Minimum Wage Hike Could Cost 500K Jobs, CBO Reports - ABC News

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No problem on my system, try these if you want.

thanks

Congressional Budget Office: Wage hike would lift pay but cost jobs | Fox News

....not ....even remotely a study or reputable source. This is a news article without sources listed...

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

This is the report but not the study. I want to know HOW they came to these numbers. Though its interesting that they would list this bit about how 16.5 million workers would see an increase in weekly pay. And it is a "range" of workers that may or may not loose their jobs. They say that a "slight" which is code for "not enough to put into a percentage" to "one million" may loose their job. So basically 0-1,000,000 is their range. To play it safe they put in 500k average job loss. Though again I don't know what they are basing this one. Or if they are factoring in the increased spending power as an economic buffer.

Although if you look at the chart on page 2 (it shows as page 6 of the PDF but page 2 of the document) shows the following results

If the Minimum wage is raised to 10.10
- Estimated Job loss is 500k (possibly)
- Range is between a miniscule amount and 1 million total job losses

This is really where the negative end. The positives would be
-16.5 million workers will see a raise in their weekly income
-A total of 5 billion dollars a year will be added to the average income of families living below the poverty line
-A total of 12 billion dollars a year will be added to the average income of families living between 1 and 3 times the poverty line.
-A total increase of 2 billion for those between 3 and 6 times the poverty line.
-A total decrease of 17 billion for all those above 6 times the poverty line
-A total estimated 900k people will be raised out of poverty.

So basically all households of every income level except for those making 6 times the poverty line (which for a family of 4 is about 150k a year) will see an increase.

For every estimated job loss nearly 2 people will be brought out of poverty. An added 17 billion will be added to lower income spending which helps the economy. Thankfully they did factor this in and gave a better estimate. However it sounds like a hell of a number when you say "500,000" but the percentage that is mentioned is 1.5%. That means there will be a temporary increase in unemployment by 1.5% which would not be counted towards other economic factors. *EDIT* To add here I re-read that section. Thats only 1.5% of the 33 million workers that work on minimum wage. That would mean even less than 1.5% increase in unemployment across the board. To put this in perspective I have listed at the bottom of this post a snipit from the January 2014 BLS Job report. *end edit*

For example if we decreased unemployment by 2% over the course of the next 3 years then we would see an overall decrease of unemployment by .5% and we would have nearly a million people out of poverty.

So far these numbers seem fantastic. And the 500k jobs that would be lost are called "net loss" which incorporates potential gain reductions. These again are estimates. So its not quite the same as saying 500 thousand people will loose their jobs tomorrow.

Minimum-wage hike would help alleviate poverty, but could kill jobs, CBO reports - The Washington Post
Minimum Wage Hike Could Cost 500K Jobs, CBO Reports - ABC News

Both are news articles. Better than the first but not as good as the CBO report.

"Total employment, as measured by the household survey, increased by 616,000 over the month"

So in January alone we had more jobs added to the economy than the total net loss of a 3 year stretch after increased minimum wage.

 

[esmith]

This is the report but not the study. I want to know HOW they came to these numbers.

Do not mean to be sarcastic here, but if you want to know how they arrived at their conclusion you will probably have to become employed by the CBO. Either accept their conclusion or not, it is up to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLS News Release:January 2014
"Total employment, as measured by the household survey, increased by 616,000 over the month"

So in January alone we had more jobs added to the economy than the total net loss of a 3 year stretch after increased minimum wage.

Not sure where you got the information that employment had increased by 616,000 jobs in Jan of 2014, but wherever you got it from is mistaken, either that or you misread it. In actuality only 113,000 jobs were added in Jan of 2014. Also, again where are you getting your data from? The federal minimum wage hasn't been increased since Jul 24, 2009. On another point, even though the economy continues to add jobs the long-term unemployment numbers are nearly doubled since Obama took office. Now I will give you the links where I obtained this information, you can either accept it or provide data that disputes it.

Minimum wage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
January 2014 Jobs Report: Another disappointing jobs report - POLITICO.com
Obama’s Numbers (January 2014 Update)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

thanks
....not ....even remotely a study or reputable source. This is a news article without sources listed...

This is the report but not the study. I want to know HOW they came to these numbers. Though its interesting that they would list this bit about how 16.5 million workers would see an increase in weekly pay. And it is a "range" of workers that may or may not loose their jobs. They say that a "slight" which is code for "not enough to put into a percentage" to "one million" may loose their job. So basically 0-1,000,000 is their range. To play it safe they put in 500k average job loss. Though again I don't know what they are basing this one. Or if they are factoring in the increased spending power as an economic buffer.

Although if you look at the chart on page 2 (it shows as page 6 of the PDF but page 2 of the document) shows the following results

If the Minimum wage is raised to 10.10
- Estimated Job loss is 500k (possibly)
- Range is between a miniscule amount and 1 million total job losses

This is really where the negative end. The positives would be
-16.5 million workers will see a raise in their weekly income
-A total of 5 billion dollars a year will be added to the average income of families living below the poverty line
-A total of 12 billion dollars a year will be added to the average income of families living between 1 and 3 times the poverty line.
-A total increase of 2 billion for those between 3 and 6 times the poverty line.
-A total decrease of 17 billion for all those above 6 times the poverty line
-A total estimated 900k people will be raised out of poverty.

So basically all households of every income level except for those making 6 times the poverty line (which for a family of 4 is about 150k a year) will see an increase.

For every estimated job loss nearly 2 people will be brought out of poverty. An added 17 billion will be added to lower income spending which helps the economy. Thankfully they did factor this in and gave a better estimate. However it sounds like a hell of a number when you say "500,000" but the percentage that is mentioned is 1.5%. That means there will be a temporary increase in unemployment by 1.5% which would not be counted towards other economic factors. *EDIT* To add here I re-read that section. Thats only 1.5% of the 33 million workers that work on minimum wage. That would mean even less than 1.5% increase in unemployment across the board. To put this in perspective I have listed at the bottom of this post a snipit from the January 2014 BLS Job report. *end edit*

For example if we decreased unemployment by 2% over the course of the next 3 years then we would see an overall decrease of unemployment by .5% and we would have nearly a million people out of poverty.

So far these numbers seem fantastic. And the 500k jobs that would be lost are called "net loss" which incorporates potential gain reductions. These again are estimates. So its not quite the same as saying 500 thousand people will loose their jobs tomorrow.


Both are news articles. Better than the first but not as good as the CBO report.



So in January alone we had more jobs added to the economy than the total net loss of a 3 year stretch after increased minimum wage.

Thanks for putting this into perspective. Like I said a few pages ago.....the rise in the minim wage with the results you cited above will lead to more spending by employees into the local and national economy. This spending increases demand which fosters a production supply which in turn leads to job creation......most of us who've read the report didn't see the doom and gloom that others on the right are making this out to be....:clap

 

[esmith]

Thanks for putting this into perspective. Like I said a few pages ago.....the rise in the minim wage with the results you cited above will lead to more spending by employees into the local and national economy. This spending increases demand which fosters a production supply which in turn leads to job creation......most of us who've read the report didn't see the doom and gloom that others on the right are making this out to be....:clap

The only problem is the data is incorrect as written.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not sure where you got the information that employment had increased by 616,000 jobs in Jan of 2014, but wherever you got it from is mistaken, either that or you misread it. In actuality only 113,000 jobs were added in Jan of 2014. Also, again where are you getting your data from? The federal minimum wage hasn't been increased since Jul 24, 2009. On another point, even though the economy continues to add jobs the long-term unemployment numbers are nearly doubled since Obama took office. Now I will give you the links where I obtained this information, you can either accept it or provide data that disputes it.

Minimum wage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
January 2014 Jobs Report: Another disappointing jobs report - POLITICO.com
Obama’s Numbers (January 2014 Update)

Actually I got it from the report with links included. It was quoted from the paper itself published in Feb 7th. Though I do admit to using a somewhat misleading number. Net gain of jobs was 113k as I posted in another thread.

However the total number of new jobs (not net gain) was correct. The information was not incorrect.

Though to put it in less misleading terms (still astoundingly good) shall we look at the net job growth of Jan and round it up to 120k a month as the average increase (which is actually lower than the average as Jan was a slow growth month) and that means that we would see roughly 5.4 million new jobs in the course of 3 years if we had a steady increase of 120k a month for 3 years. That means we would only see 4.9 million new jobs (net gain) over the course of 3 years in stead while at the same time bringing .9 million out of poverty.