The Minimum Wage: Good or Bad? [POLL]

[Ultimatum]

So you are saying that you are upper crust, that cares about no one but himself. Yes I live in poverty by your standards and its because of right wing a holes that think like you, that I am not treated better as I am disabled.

Actually, I have a son that I love--do I not care about him?

Also, I advocate a FAIRER and more productive society than the idealistic left-wing!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Minimum wage helps all the people either working for minimum wage, or close enough that their wages are raised to be higher than minimum, everyone else pretty much suffers from the inflation caused by business raising their prices to pay the higher wages, for a self employed person like me, if I don't raise my prices, I end up paying more at restaurants that have to raise their prices to cover higher wages, the thing about businesses is they don't raise there prices just enough to cover the higher wages, they raise their prices even more, and use the minimum wage hike as an excuse to gouge the public, so all in all minimum wage helps the poorest working for minimum wage, and everyone else benefits very little or suffers. All in all I still think its a good thing though, because its only fair and just that you should be able to support yourself and /or family off a minimum wage job, its only fair.

It definitely causes inflation, I've seen it here in California, every time the minimum wage goes up a dollar, the price of a restaurant meal goes up a dollar, or even more. For instance at the Denny's diner when the minimum wage was $6 a hamburger and fries cost $6, now that the minumum wage is $10, the same hamburger and fries cost $10.

It might help those lowest earners- hourly paid by a specific employer, if it didn't create unemployment. If the minimum wage goes to $15, you are destroying $10 jobs, removing the lowest rung of the ladder, making it harder for people to get ahead.

Not to mention the punishment dealt to all the low earners who are not in a position to leverage politics to cheat the system , who are doing an honest days work for what people are actually willing to pay them, self employed, working on contracts- etc. Which would apply to the founders of a great many successful companies and employers today.

Also as you note, the cost of a meal may go up proportionately with the increase, but the take home money to pay for that meal does not, - $15 an hour in reality translates to higher tax burdens

And that's what it comes down to; one more way to transfer wealth, not from rich to poor, but from private hands to the government

 

[Akivah]

To raise the minimum wage for fast-food employees to an average of $15 an hour would be covered by raising prices less than 5 cents per item. If kept at the low m.w. as found in most states, many employees have to go on some forms of government assistance, which ultimately costs you and I more through taxes. I personally know of a couple of people who have had to do as such, btw, so it's not just a hypothetical problem.

Your 5 cents per unit increase could easily eat up an unskilled workers pay increase. Assuming a person purchases 100 items each time they go to the store, they are looking at a 5$ increase in their grocery trips. And it could be even more if multiple items are bundled within one purchase. Insurance, utilities, entertainment, and other services would also increase in costs. So it is not a simple comparison of $0.05 versus $15. It is the cumulative effect of repetitive nickel increases against the raise in earnings.

In my view, the answer to poverty is not government mandated increases to unskilled laborers pay, it is having those unskilled workers (those that get the minimum wage) educating themselves to make themselves more valuable workers.

 

[metis]

Your 5 cents per unit increase could easily eat up an unskilled workers pay increase. Assuming a person purchases 100 items each time they go to the store, they are looking at a 5$ increase in their grocery trips. And it could be even more if multiple items are bundled within one purchase. Insurance, utilities, entertainment, and other services would also increase in costs. So it is not a simple comparison of $0.05 versus $15.

In my view, the answer to poverty is not government mandated increases to unskilled laborers pay, it is those unskilled workers (those that get the minimum wage) educating themselves to make themselves more valuable workers.

But that is not how most people buy cheeseburgers and fries. Do you honestly believe that someone who craves McDonalds is not to going to go because it'll cost them maybe up to a dime more? BTW, I rounded the estimate up to a nickel as one of the economists said that it actually would work our to fall between 2-3 cents per item statistically to arrive at $15 per hour from $8.

And, btw, how exactly is that unskilled worker going to pay for his/her education making $8 per hour? And how about those who fall below the poverty line whereas they have to go on government assistance, and who ends up paying for that?

In states and communities whereas the minimum wage was raised, here's the general pattern economists have seen: some lay-offs at first, followed by rehiring as more people with more money in their pockets buy more cheeseburgers. Employment wise, it ends up pretty much being a wash, but from the perspective of both individuals, their families, and the community as a whole, it's definitely a plus in the long run according to a consensus of studies done.

Again, to quote "Deepthroat" of Watergate fame, "follow the buck".

 

[suncowiam]

So you are saying that you are upper crust, that cares about no one but himself. Yes I live in poverty by your standards and its because of right wing a holes that think like you, that I am not treated better as I am disabled.

Actually, I have a son that I love--do I not care about him?

Also, I advocate a FAIRER and more productive society than the idealistic left-wing!

You guys all believe that the extreme left or extreme right is the best for society? The extreme position can't be good for everything... Why not a balance in between?

I tend to lean to the left concerning social ideals and lean to the right concerning economic ideals.

But a better way to put it, is that the dems and repubs align to my ideals. Screw them all.

Can't stand our bipartisan politics. It pigeon holes us into a brainwashed way of thinking. I'm always voting for the lesser of two evils every poll.

 

[Lyndon]

I'm pretty damn tired of rich people trying to tell me how I should live my life, one thing rich people don't know a damn about is being poor.

 

[suncowiam]

I'm pretty damn tired of rich people trying to tell me how I should live my life, one thing rich people don't know a damn about is being poor.

Hi Lyndon!

I haven't talked to you in a while as I took a break from this site.

Let's be fair...

You be surprised how many rich people used to be poor. Not everyone is born with a silver spoon.

Why are you angry at rich people? Are they the true cause of your own problems?

It's like being jealous of the jock just because he's getting all the attention, but what did he really do but just be himself?

 

[Lyndon]

Money is the root of all evil, just ask a rich person, he'll tell you how evil he is.

 

[Akivah]

BTW, I rounded the estimate up to a nickel as one of the economists said that it actually would work our to fall between 2-3 cents per item statistically to arrive at $15 per hour from $8.

And what did the other economist say?

And, btw, how exactly is that unskilled worker going to pay for his/her education making $8 per hour? And how about those who fall below the poverty line whereas they have to go on government assistance, and who ends up paying for that?

The same as the worker that earns $15/hour. Your question reinforces my point which is that making the minimum wage won't make anyone wealthy. The people that pay for the government assistance are the same as pay for increased costs of goods. The unskilled worker needs to make themselves more valuable to get out of poverty. Not everyone can do it, nor should we expect everyone to. It's not the government's job to make everyone wealthy.

Employment wise, it ends up pretty much being a wash, but from the perspective of both individuals, their families, and the community as a whole, it's definitely a plus in the long run according to a consensus of studies done.

No, only according to the studies that you agree with. I've read studies that the m.w. is negative in the long run.

Then I found this that takes a middle of the road, yin-yang conclusion

David Neumark of the University of California at Irvine and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Board, find that the overall evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff of higher wages for some against job losses for others, and that policymakers need to bear this tradeoff in mind when making decisions about increasing the minimum wage. In the short run, minimum wage increases both help some families get out of poverty and make it more likely that previously non-poor families may fall into poverty.

 

[metis]

And what did the other economist say?



The same as the worker that earns $15/hour. Your question reinforces my point which is that making the minimum wage won't make anyone wealthy. The people that pay for the government assistance are the same as pay for increased costs of goods. The unskilled worker needs to make themselves more valuable to get out of poverty. Not everyone can do it, nor should we expect everyone to. It's not the government's job to make everyone wealthy.



No, only according to the studies that you agree with. I've read studies that the m.w. is negative in the long run.

Then I found this that takes a middle of the road, yin-yang conclusion

I'm not talking about making anyone "wealthy", so that has nothing to do what I was referencing.

As far as the economists are concerned, if you don't believe them, that's your choice of course, but maybe just "follow the money" for yourself because the economic logic is there as the money just doesn't disappear into thin air. If you can find a flaw in the pattern that we've seen happen over and over again in communities whereas the m.w. was raised, then maybe post it here.

 

[SSDSSDSSD3]

Raising the minimum wage will cause inflation of everything to happen, so one person gets a tiny bit richer, but the rest of society has to pay more for the cheap stuff. (In the 1930s pre-FDR, stuff was incredibly cheap).

 

[Lyndon]

So by your standards it OK to pay low low wages if it keeps things cheap, why not eliminate wages entirely and institute slavery, that would keep prices lower, seeing as by your judgement low prices are more important than treating workers fairly.

 

[SSDSSDSSD3]

So by your standards it OK to pay low low wages if it keeps things cheap, why not eliminate wages entirely and institute slavery, that would keep prices lower, seeing as by your judgement low prices are more important than treating workers fairly.

I don't know if this response was for me or not, but I'll answer anyway, (much easier to quote). I actually agree with eliminating all "mandated wages", people should make an agreement on just how much they should get paid, without government interference. I never said we should abuse employees, but at the end of the day the free market should decide the value of the service of the individual, (people should have a right to unionize to get their demands easier, but without any government infringement). Regulating businesses too much only lets some guy from a 3rd world country steal an American job.

 

[metis]

Raising the minimum wage will cause inflation of everything to happen, so one person gets a tiny bit richer, but the rest of society has to pay more for the cheap stuff. (In the 1930s pre-FDR, stuff was incredibly cheap).

The m.w. has been raised in various areas and it has not resulted in any significant increase in inflation. Inflation mostly occurs when demand is higher than supply, and the m.w. has little effect on that. Instead, raising the m.w. actually tends to stimulate especially local economies since the poor tend to spend more proportionally, and they also tend to spend it more locally.

And the reality which so many don't seem to understand is that if the m.w. is low, more have to go on public assistance, and guess where that money has to come from?

 

[SSDSSDSSD3]

The m.w. has been raised in various areas and it has not resulted in any significant increase in inflation. Inflation mostly occurs when demand is higher than supply, and the m.w. has little effect on that. Instead, raising the m.w. actually tends to stimulate especially local economies since the poor tend to spend more proportionally, and they also tend to spend it more locally.

And the reality which so many don't seem to understand is that if the m.w. is low, more have to go on public assistance, and guess where that money has to come from?

Minimum wage jobs were never meant to fund a family.

 

[metis]

Minimum wage jobs were never meant to fund a family.

Yes they were, but hopefully as only a temporary measure. The m.w. was not passed just to throw money around as if the fed was Santa Claus.

Tell me, would you rather have people homeless and hungry? How about if you taxes go up to pay for more government assistance? Do you think it's moral not to help people in need while at the same time spending almost two trillion dollars financing two crazy wars? What's your priority here?

 

[SSDSSDSSD3]

Yes they were, but hopefully as only a temporary measure. The m.w. was not passed just to throw money around as if the fed was Santa Claus. Tell me, would you rather have people homeless and hungry? How about if you taxes go up to pay for more government assistance? Do you think it's moral not to help people in need while at the same time spending almost two trillion dollars financing two crazy wars? What's your priority here?

To your first question, charities can easily assist people to feed each other, I would hate for any human being to be going hungry, (if you don't know anything about the Sikh religion, I'd recommend you looking-up the idea of Langar). Lowering taxes assist everyone, we should completely eliminate the income tax and have a really small corporate tax, (no other taxes than a small corporate tax). I'm also against the having the military industry complex to fund our economy to answer your 3rd question; wars, except to protect the nation from invasions are unnecessary. I'd also recommend you research this thing called social businesses.

 

[4consideration]

At this point I think raising the minimum wage to $15 is governmental slight of hand.

I don't think it would result in people actually being better off, just having more money in an economy where everything costs more, so more tax dollars are raised to pay off (or not) excessive spending.

Many jobs, not just burger flippers, would be affected -- as would the costs associate with all those other things. So, if we were to talk about how much we'd be willing to spend on a burger meal, that seems to assume only that one area of life would be effected. It would affect everything we purchase. Some people would likely find they can't afford all the things they used to be able to afford. Whether or not that is a good, bad, or neutral issue, will vary from person to person.

One area of negative effect I think for the workers would be in the states that did expand Medicaid coverage under ACA. It seems apparent many would lose the health coverage they recently received. Many businesses have already gone from full-time to part-time hours for minimum wage level jobs, so those employers do not have to provide a health insurance option to those employees.

At $15/hour, with only a 21 hour work week, 52 weeks a year, a part time worker makes $16,380 per year -- in excess of Medicaid Expansion qualification level for a single person under ACA, which is currently at about $16,284 -- 138% over poverty line. I suppose for some the additional income would mean they could pay now pay for health "coverage" they couldn't pay for before, but it is highly doubtful for me they could afford the same amount of actual health care -- since Medicaid has either little or no co pay, and most healthcare policies have high deductibles.

On this one issue alone, the people in the states that did not expand Medicaid would likely benefit more than those in the other states -- from having more money available to possibly pay for health insurance.

 

[metis]

To your first question, charities can easily assist people to feed each other, I would hate for any human being to be going hungry, (if you don't know anything about the Sikh religion, I'd recommend you looking-up the idea of Langar). Lowering taxes assist everyone, we should completely eliminate the income tax and have a really small corporate tax, (no other taxes than a small corporate tax). I'm also against the having the military industry complex to fund our economy to answer your 3rd question; wars, except to protect the nation from invasions are unnecessary. I'd also recommend you research this thing called social businesses.

Charities have never been able to handle the load because if they could they would have already in at least one country. And it's especially when the economy downturns, whereas not only is the load on charities the greatest but also the donations to these charities tend to be less because people are more afraid of losing their jobs. It just doesn't work and has never worked in a free-market economy.

As far as the military-industrial complex is concerned, I agree in general, although I do believe a country has the right to defend itself. Therefore, I don't see this as an either/or situation.

Am I familiar with the Sikhs? Ya! I have been at numerous Sikh functions over the last twenty years, and my favorite restaurant is a Punjabi restaurant owned by Sikhs. Nice people.

BTW, my wife, who is a practicing Catholic, took a religious compatibility test and Sikhism turned up #1, so I told her she should convert because I love the food!

I'm outta here shortly, so have a great weekend.

 

[SSDSSDSSD3]

Charities have never been able to handle the load because if they could they would have already in at least one country. And it's especially when the economy downturns, whereas not only is the load on charities the greatest but also the donations to these charities tend to be less because people are more afraid of losing their jobs. It just doesn't work and has never worked in a free-market economy.

As far as the military-industrial complex is concerned, I agree in general, although I do believe a country has the right to defend itself. Therefore, I don't see this as an either/or situation.

Am I familiar with the Sikhs? Ya! I have been at numerous Sikh functions over the last twenty years, and my favorite restaurant is a Punjabi restaurant owned by Sikhs. Nice people.

BTW, my wife, who is a practicing Catholic, took a religious compatibility test and Sikhism turned up #1, so I told her she should convert because I love the food!

I'm outta here shortly, so have a great weekend.

Agree to disagree.