Left vs. Right

[Pure]

Facts:

To the arguers of "Minimum wages are of no help to the poor." Or, the implicit position "Unregulated wages are the best help to the poor."

I don't see any facts being produced. The debate is purely ideological. We do know that some southern states with lowest minimum wages have the greatest poverty, but one needs to know the connection.
What are the facts about the effects of raising minumum wage--actual cases?

Also, in relation to facts, I'd point out that you have to distinguish two kinds of environments: places where the businesses are good faith parties to a social contract with labor to establish wages and conditions, as part of an 'industrial peace' plan; and other places, like Texas, where businesses will, with government 'wink,' employ any and all means to circumvent a minimum wage, i.e., hire, if not import, illegal labor, at a quarter the cost. (OK, I suppose the circumventing is going to be blamed on the minimum wage, not the owner's greed or criminal behavior.)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

To the arguers of "Minimum wages are of no help to the poor." Or, the implicit position "Unregulated wages are the best help to the poor."

I don't see any facts being produced. The debate is purely ideological. We do know that some southern states with lowest minimum wages have the greatest poverty, but one needs to know the connection.
What are the facts about the effects of raising minumum wage--actual cases?

Also, in relation to facts, I'd point out that you have to distinguish two kinds of environments: places where the businesses are good faith parties to a social contract with labor to establish wages and conditions, as part of an 'industrial peace' plan; and other places, like Texas, where businesses will, with government 'wink,' employ any and all means to circumvent a minimum wage, i.e., hire, if not import, illegal labor, at a quarter the cost. (OK, I suppose the circumventing is going to be blamed on the minimum wage, not the owner's greed or criminal behavior.)

Unfortuneatly, you can't pick and choose which enviorments you apply a minimum wage to. It's pretty much across the boards.

I can see where people in favor of a minimum wage are trying to create better pay for low end jobs. On the other hand, the market will respond with higher prices on all goods and services as the higher cost of labor is factored in. This will have the efect of making the wage increase negligeable as far as an actual increase in buying and saving power are concerned.

I don't see a way around the market response. I'm trying not to view it in an ideaological setting, but value neutral. An increase in total wages will oly represent an increase in real wages if there isn't an attendant jump in the price of living.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Moderates will save the world.

I don't believe that.

Moderates are... moderate. It's the radicals who shake things up, move them along, speak loudly and make a difference.

Saving the world is a pretty radical and exteme thing to do. If the moderates could do it... they wouldn't be moderate.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Unfortuneatly, you can't pick and choose which enviorments you apply a minimum wage to. It's pretty much across the boards.

I can see where people in favor of a minimum wage are trying to create better pay for low end jobs. On the other hand, the market will respond with higher prices on all goods and services as the higher cost of labor is factored in. This will have the efect of making the wage increase negligeable as far as an actual increase in buying and saving power are concerned.

I don't see a way around the market response. I'm trying not to view it in an ideaological setting, but value neutral. An increase in total wages will oly represent an increase in real wages if there isn't an attendant jump in the price of living.

so then, the worste that could happen is that nothing would change after all.

sounds like it's worth a try.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't believe that.

Moderates are... moderate. It's the radicals who shake things up, move them along, speak loudly and make a difference.

Saving the world is a pretty radical and exteme thing to do. If the moderates could do it... they wouldn't be moderate.

Radicals Brought us the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. Radicals Brought us the English Civil war. Radicals Brought us reconstruction and with it hatreds that have lasted longer than anyone who was alive during the war.

Radicals will be opposed by reactionaries.

Moderates are the ones who get things done. Granted no individual moderate makes the impression a Pat robertson or Ann coulter or Gloria Steinman or Ted Rall does, but, in most systems you have to reach a concensus and radicals are incapable of compromise. Moderates hammer out the details that allow at least semi-bi-partisan support.

Moderates can do a lot, because moderates generally have the numbers edge. They maintain that edge because they get results. Right now, moderates are silent because they don't have the numbers to enforce some sanity on the far right. When the numbers swing back and left and right are both unable to enforce their will with a majority, the moderates will again be the swing votes needed on measures and by virtue of that power, they will tone down the demands of both sides to something they can all live with, if not agree upon.

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,

Colly, it is an empirical question whether a wage rise [no matter how caused] will prove to no avail in a cascade of rising costs. Yes, many economists agree that, in the US, 'real wages' [where inflation is factored in] have been stagnant for maybe 25 years, which supports your position. The US worker, who, in 1990, got an increase from 11 to 12 dollars an hour, likely saw that apparent gain disappear. OTOH, real wages, according to the chart below, DID increase, 1930-80 (during which time various wage regulations, including minimum wage, came into effect).

The accompanying paper makes some good points about the difficulties of historical comparison, or determining if the hypothetical 'average worker' is better off now than , say, 100 years ago.

See the chart at

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/charts/cm20030124ar01c1.pdf

the accompanying discusion is at

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/print/cm20030124ar01p1.htm



The Evolution of Compensation in a Changing Economy

by Thomas G. Moehrle

Bureau of Labor Statistics




An excerpt:


Simply doing the arithmetic results in real earnings of $2.03 constant 1982 dollars in 1909 and $8.26 constant 1982 dollars in 1999. A more complex question is whether or not we can meaningfully compare?over a span of nearly a century?the standard of living purchased by even the most precisely measured nominal dollar deflated by even the most carefully constructed price index.

The main issue is the vastly different character of actual consumption between widely separated points in time. For example, purchasing an Internet connection, at any price, would have been impossible, in 1909; and something like a buggy whip has gone from a common tradesman?s tool to an item of esoteric taste.

To combine the changing definition of the average consumption bundle, with changing notions of an adequate budget, with a changing level and composition of compensation means that there has been a increase in the measured real cost of a moderate standard of living. One avenue to explore toward an explanation is the possibility of using labor hours as the metric, rather than real dollars.

Doing that arithmetic shows that a fair level of living for a typical cotton mill worker could be earned in 1909, with about 3,750 hours of labor; and that a median family budget for 1998 could be obtained in exchange for about 2,625 hours of work.

Thus, if one can assume that the "fair" level of living in 1909 is no better than the median family budget of 1998, then one could conclude that workers in 1998 were better off. While this may show some improvement across the 90-year span, most of the old questions about comparability remain; and, in fact, new ones are raised. For one thing, the nature of work has changed, and increasing incomes have led to an increased taste for leisure time.

In the end, it is generally true that price indexes and measures of purchasing power are accurate only over short time horizons within which tastes, technologies, and economic structures are relatively homogeneous.

 

[siderophile]

Progress?

I think that GBS said that only unreasonable people are discontent with the status quo because that si what is working and that therefore all progress can be attributed to unreasonable people.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Moderates can do a lot, because moderates generally have the numbers edge. They maintain that edge because they get results.

Oh I agree, they get things done. and that is good. But that is not the same as saving or changing the world.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, it is an empirical question whether a wage rise [no matter how caused] will prove to no avail in a cascade of rising costs. Yes, many economists agree that, in the US, 'real wages' [where inflation is factored in] have been stagnant for maybe 25 years, which supports your position. The US worker, who, in 1990, got an increase from 11 to 12 dollars an hour, likely saw that apparent gain disappear. OTOH, real wages, according to the chart below, DID increase, 1930-80 (during which time various wage regulations, including minimum wage, came into effect).

The accompanying paper makes some good points about the difficulties of historical comparison, or determining if the hypothetical 'average worker' is better off now than , say, 100 years ago.

See the chart at

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/charts/cm20030124ar01c1.pdf

the accompanying discusion is at

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/print/cm20030124ar01p1.htm



The Evolution of Compensation in a Changing Economy

by Thomas G. Moehrle

Bureau of Labor Statistics




An excerpt:


Simply doing the arithmetic results in real earnings of $2.03 constant 1982 dollars in 1909 and $8.26 constant 1982 dollars in 1999. A more complex question is whether or not we can meaningfully compare?over a span of nearly a century?the standard of living purchased by even the most precisely measured nominal dollar deflated by even the most carefully constructed price index.

The main issue is the vastly different character of actual consumption between widely separated points in time. For example, purchasing an Internet connection, at any price, would have been impossible, in 1909; and something like a buggy whip has gone from a common tradesman?s tool to an item of esoteric taste.

To combine the changing definition of the average consumption bundle, with changing notions of an adequate budget, with a changing level and composition of compensation means that there has been a increase in the measured real cost of a moderate standard of living. One avenue to explore toward an explanation is the possibility of using labor hours as the metric, rather than real dollars.

Doing that arithmetic shows that a fair level of living for a typical cotton mill worker could be earned in 1909, with about 3,750 hours of labor; and that a median family budget for 1998 could be obtained in exchange for about 2,625 hours of work.

Thus, if one can assume that the "fair" level of living in 1909 is no better than the median family budget of 1998, then one could conclude that workers in 1998 were better off. While this may show some improvement across the 90-year span, most of the old questions about comparability remain; and, in fact, new ones are raised. For one thing, the nature of work has changed, and increasing incomes have led to an increased taste for leisure time.

In the end, it is generally true that price indexes and measures of purchasing power are accurate only over short time horizons within which tastes, technologies, and economic structures are relatively homogeneous.

The question for me isn't about comparrisons to decades past. We have a minimum wage and with few exceptions the populace is happy that there is one. I doubt any politician would get very far campaigning on a platform to abolish it and return us to the days when industry alone set the pay scale.

For me, the question is about constant efforts to kick it up. I question if the amount of time and effort to pass or defeat these measure wouldn't be better spent elsewhere. Even if you could set the minimumat something exorbitant like say 30$ an hour, it seems to me, the price of goods and services would sky rocket as well. The Market's reaction to wage increases by fiat is gong to be predicatble, that cost will get passed on. No company that intends to be around will absorb a minimum wage hike from their profit margin.

I don't have a grid or even an extrapolation that would show it, but I feel very strongly that the increase in the cost of goods & services would wipe out the benefits of a wage increase.

It just seems to me atempts to increase the minimum wage are short sighted attempts to better the situation of the working poor. Short sighted because they only look at one side of it, ignoring the attendant reaction of the market to artificailly inflated labor costs.

It's good politics if you expect a major portion of your consituency is poor or working class, but I question if it is really addressing the problem in a meaningful way.

 

[siderophile]

Even the Randians, end up blaming the 'rioters' and 'looters' and in effect shielding Republicans and some Democrats from responsibility.

When a white person takes a ham from a thawing refrigeraton unit and a few loaves of bread from the top of a rack, it is called scavengening lost materials for survival.

When a black person does the same it is called looting.

I may have missed some things (WTF was the firing on NG choppers all about?), but desperate situations call for despirate measures.

What would it have taken to get the 27 NG C130's off the runway in Martinsburg, WV? Another Iraq attack?

 

[siderophile]

The question for me isn't about comparrisons to decades past. We have a minimum wage and with few exceptions the populace is happy that there is one. I doubt any politician would get very far campaigning on a platform to abolish it and return us to the days when industry alone set the pay scale.

For me, the question is about constant efforts to kick it up. I question if the amount of time and effort to pass or defeat these measure wouldn't be better spent elsewhere. Even if you could set the minimumat something exorbitant like say 30$ an hour, it seems to me, the price of goods and services would sky rocket as well. The Market's reaction to wage increases by fiat is gong to be predicatble, that cost will get passed on. No company that intends to be around will absorb a minimum wage hike from their profit margin.

I don't have a grid or even an extrapolation that would show it, but I feel very strongly that the increase in the cost of goods & services would wipe out the benefits of a wage increase.

It just seems to me atempts to increase the minimum wage are short sighted attempts to better the situation of the working poor. Short sighted because they only look at one side of it, ignoring the attendant reaction of the market to artificailly inflated labor costs.

It's good politics if you expect a major portion of your consituency is poor or working class, but I question if it is really addressing the problem in a meaningful way.

Oh goody
Now substitute "minimun wage" and "price of oil"

 

[rgraham666]

Colleen? Isn't the cost of living going to rise regardless of whether there is a minimum wage or not?

And if the former rises while the latter remains the same, what happens to the people dependent on minimum wage? Unlike upper management of large companies, they have no control over their pay.

And if wages stay stagnant while prices rise, what happens to business? A great deal of our commerce is dependent on luxury items. DVDs, videos, meals out, booze. If people can't keep up, these will be the first to go.

And then the rest of the business world will feel the pinch because a big part of their business slumps.

I'm not saying we need a big increase in minimum wage. But if people have to run like mad just to stay in the same place, it can't be good for our economy, or society.

 

[Huckleman2000]

... Even if you could set the minimumat something exorbitant like say 30$ an hour, it seems to me, the price of goods and services would sky rocket as well. The Market's reaction to wage increases by fiat is gong to be predicatble, that cost will get passed on. No company that intends to be around will absorb a minimum wage hike from their profit margin.

I don't have a grid or even an extrapolation that would show it, but I feel very strongly that the increase in the cost of goods & services would wipe out the benefits of a wage increase.

It just seems to me atempts to increase the minimum wage are short sighted attempts to better the situation of the working poor. Short sighted because they only look at one side of it, ignoring the attendant reaction of the market to artificailly inflated labor costs.

It's good politics if you expect a major portion of your consituency is poor or working class, but I question if it is really addressing the problem in a meaningful way.

Colly, I think the flaw in your reasoning is that you assume far too much economic impact from minimum-wage workers.

The last increase in the minimum wage occurred in three phases from September 1996 to September 1997. Yet, this coincided with an eleven-year low in inflation, as shown in this BLS.gov report. Minimum-wage workers represent less than 6% of the workforce (see this page at the Economic Policy Institute. The typical economic argument against the minimum wage has been that it would increase unemployment, but that does not hold true in studies either. (see this contrarian article
from Steven Landsburg) Interestingly, the Landsburg article argues against the minimum wage because it discriminates against a relatively select group of businesses that rely on minimum wage workers, eg, Amicus' pizza parlour.

Maybe it's counter-intuitive, but the numbers are what they are, and they don't justify your price-increase related concerns.

 

[amicus]

Huckleman...not just the impact of the workers, it is the small businesses they work for. If the cost of business goes up with no increasing rate of productivity, then prices go up on all commoditites.

You say 6% is insignificant, well, with a population of nearly 300 million, a work force of what, 200 million, that represents about 12 million workers, I find that hardly insignificant.

America is a vast and diverse economy and can withstand some tinkering with the market place as evidenced during the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton eras.

The power and influence of Union Labor has caused outsourcing of jobs to find lower labor costs.

Environmentalists meddling has forced manufacturing and industrial companies to relocate for a less restrictive area.

High end taxation of business and the wealthy investors tend to send that money to other places also.

The general trend towards a controlled economy that was set in place in the 30's with the Roosevelt administration has continued more or less in the entrenched agencies of government, slowed only slightly in the Reagan years, but not reversed.

This nation badly needs another 20 years of rational leadership to regain our place in the forefront of world economies. I hope we get it.

amicus... (let the Liberals eat cake and remain a minority party)

 

[Huckleman2000]

Huckleman...not just the impact of the workers, it is the small businesses they work for. If the cost of business goes up with no increasing rate of productivity, then prices go up on all commoditites.

You say 6% is insignificant, well, with a population of nearly 300 million, a work force of what, 200 million, that represents about 12 million workers, I find that hardly insignificant.

Actually, 7.3 million according to the link I posted.

America is a vast and diverse economy and can withstand some tinkering with the market place as evidenced during the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton eras.

The power and influence of Union Labor has caused outsourcing of jobs to find lower labor costs.

Environmentalists meddling has forced manufacturing and industrial companies to relocate for a less restrictive area.

High end taxation of business and the wealthy investors tend to send that money to other places also.

The general trend towards a controlled economy that was set in place in the 30's with the Roosevelt administration has continued more or less in the entrenched agencies of government, slowed only slightly in the Reagan years, but not reversed.

This nation badly needs another 20 years of rational leadership to regain our place in the forefront of world economies. I hope we get it.

amicus... (let the Liberals eat cake and remain a minority party)

Amicus, read the Landsburg article I linked above. He actually agrees with the point you're making, that the burden of an increased minimum wage falls disproportionately on businesses that rely on minimum-wage workers. Of course, it somewhat ignores the impact of companies like Wal-Mart, that take advantage of minimum-wage law to negatively impact small businesses as well, but there you go.

And surely you can't be arguing that the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I & II administrations haven't "tinkered" with the marketplace?

 

[Pure]

Nice, Huckleman.

(and note to Colly)
Facts are much appreciated. Too much of the issue is decided on ideology. You probably have noted the Amicus, the 'realist,' does not have any particular fondness for facts, citations, etc.

Impact of X amount of increase in minimum wage is an empirical matter, and the amount of impact (on prices) has to be judged empirically, according to context, historical period,etc.

The chart I posted earlier in this thread shows US real wages did increase in the 1930 to 1980 period. It's reasonable to assume part of this was due to minimum wage and other regulatory legislation, and part is due to union efforts; some may have 'voluntarily' been 'given' by employers (to attract labor). In any case the purchasing power increased in this context.

It's interesting that no conservative here has questioned the right and desirability of the upper business echelons deciding on whatever remuneration they please, Ebbers style. Oddly the 'productivity' of the upper executive is treated as irrelevant; IOW, it's just the little guy who has to prove more 'productivity' to justify a wage increase.
----

Colly, your remark, below, has less than your usual reflection in it. Your ignore facts, such as real increases in purchasing power of working persons in some periods. This can be measured is, for instance, the number of hours this average person is going to have to work to buy a car, a house, etc.

I have agreed that the present period in the US is stagnant in real wage, ie., that the price increases, reflected in the consumer price index, have swallowed wage increases. Indeed the increase in homes where both parents HAVE to work is evidence of wages losing the battle.

That said, you really have no basis, outside ideology for judging the effect of the so called 'artificially inflated labor cost.' You trade on the word 'artificial,' setting its sham existence against the 'natural' cost determined by the alleged 'free market.' 'Pegging' the minimum wage is no more 'artificial' than say, Greenspan pegging the interest rate, and *deciding* to increase/decrease the money supply.

You might as well talk of a child's 'artificially lowered' temperature, during flu, from taking Tylenol. "Nature" is no god, and there is no 'credit' to letting the 'natural' thing happen--e.g. convulsions from high temperature.

As to how to help the poor. Yes it bedevils conservatives. Turns out UI doesn't work. 'Handouts' don't work. "Housing credits" don't work. Nor rent controls, etc. However money or benefit comes to them, they fuck it up. So say the ideologically pure 'right wing.' (As Amicus would say, give this bottom dweller money for education, and he'll spend it on cocaine.) Hence we're well on our way to Amicus' social darwinism: let them struggle, no intervention, and the best will elevate themselves and the worst will sink, "naturally," by the market.

Odd, for these ideologues, how to help the rich is never a problem. Give tax shelters; tax credits; in short put more *money* in their hands. Give tax holidays for setting up in impoverished areas. Give matching grants for developing training. Give government contracts. How easy it seems.

Only the rich, and not the poor, are able to benefit from money, it seems--are able NOT to be corrupted by it.

A bit of venting; sorry...



Colly: I don't have a grid or even an extrapolation that would show it, but I feel very strongly that the increase in the cost of goods & services would wipe out the benefits of a wage increase.

It just seems to me attempts to increase the minimum wage are short sighted attempts to better the situation of the working poor. Short sighted because they only look at one side of it, ignoring the attendant reaction of the market to artificially inflated labor costs.

It's good politics if you expect a major portion of your consituency is poor or working class, but I question if it is really addressing the problem in a meaningful way.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

(and note to Colly)
Facts are much appreciated. Too much of the issue is decided on ideology. You probably have noted the Amicus, the 'realist,' does not have any particular fondness for facts, citations, etc.

Impact of X amount of increase in minimum wage is an empirical matter, and the amount of impact (on prices) has to be judged empirically, according to context, historical period,etc.

The chart I posted earlier in this thread shows US real wages did increase in the 1930 to 1980 period. It's reasonable to assume part of this was due to minimum wage and other regulatory legislation, and part is due to union efforts; some may have 'voluntarily' been 'given' by employers (to attract labor). In any case the purchasing power increased in this context.

It's interesting that no conservative here has questioned the right and desirability of the upper business echelons deciding on whatever remuneration they please, Ebbers style. Oddly the 'productivity' of the upper executive is treated as irrelevant; IOW, it's just the little guy who has to prove more 'productivity' to justify a wage increase.
----

Colly, your remark, below, has less than your usual reflection in it. Your ignore facts, such as real increases in purchasing power of working persons in some periods. This can be measured is, for instance, the number of hours this average person is going to have to work to buy a car, a house, etc.

I have agreed that the present period in the US is stagnant in real wage, ie., that the price increases, reflected in the consumer price index, have swallowed wage increases. Indeed the increase in homes where both parents HAVE to work is evidence of wages losing the battle.

That said, you really have no basis, outside ideology for judging the effect of the so called 'artificially inflated labor cost.' You trade on the word 'artificial,' setting its sham existence against the 'natural' cost determined by the alleged 'free market.' 'Pegging' the minimum wage is no more 'artificial' than say, Greenspan pegging the interest rate, and *deciding* to increase/decrease the money supply.

You might as well talk of a child's 'artificially lowered' temperature, during flu, from taking Tylenol. "Nature" is no god, and there is no 'credit' to letting the 'natural' thing happen--e.g. convulsions from high temperature.

As to how to help the poor. Yes it bedevils conservatives. Turns out UI doesn't work. 'Handouts' don't work. "Housing credits" don't work. Nor rent controls, etc. However money or benefit comes to them, they fuck it up. So say the ideologically pure 'right wing.' (As Amicus would say, give this bottom dweller money for education, and he'll spend it on cocaine.) Hence we're well on our way to Amicus' social darwinism: let them struggle, no intervention, and the best will elevate themselves and the worst will sink, "naturally," by the market.

Odd, for these ideologues, how to help the rich is never a problem. Give tax shelters; tax credits; in short put more *money* in their hands. Give tax holidays for setting up in impoverished areas. Give matching grants for developing training. Give government contracts. How easy it seems.

Only the rich, and not the poor, are able to benefit from money, it seems--are able NOT to be corrupted by it.

A bit of venting; sorry...



Colly: I don't have a grid or even an extrapolation that would show it, but I feel very strongly that the increase in the cost of goods & services would wipe out the benefits of a wage increase.

It just seems to me attempts to increase the minimum wage are short sighted attempts to better the situation of the working poor. Short sighted because they only look at one side of it, ignoring the attendant reaction of the market to artificially inflated labor costs.

It's good politics if you expect a major portion of your consituency is poor or working class, but I question if it is really addressing the problem in a meaningful way.

J,

I believe I began by saying Amicus had a point about constant attempts to raise the minimum wage. Others have broadened the discussion to include pet peeves like CEO salary, the avarcie of bussiness, etc.

My position, while I don't have a handy dandy grapic to post is firmly rooted in rationality.

I said, and maintain:

1. If you force bussineses to pay more for labor, they will not take the hit from their prifit margin, they will increse the cost of products and pass it along to the customer.

2. If every product you depend on goes up, the gains you make will be wiped out.

3. If you are already making just above the new minimum, you get royally screwed, as you must pay the new, higher prices and have nothing extra arrving in your check to maintain the advantage you had earned.

How many things does the average wage earner have to buy on a weekly basis? At a minimum for most would be gas, rent, utilities and food. For a 40 hour work week, what would you say the minimum number of food items purchased would be? Gas? Across a month how many other neccessary purchaes are made to keep a simple bachelor appartment? How many extra purchaces must be made if the worker has a wife? Kids?

If you jack up minimum wage by one dollar an hour, a hypthetical workman will earn 40 extra dollars in an average work week. If you place him in the lowest tax bracket, he is still never going to see about a third of that. Moving everything to the most advantageous side, lets say he will take an extra 30 bucks home.

My contention is, that that extra thirty dollars will not survive the attendant rise in prices on everything he has to purchase to live.

I can't prove that. You can't prove it is wrong. Even those who put out comparative COL indexes admit there are too many variables to make comparrisons that have strong factors of probability of relation.

I think raising minimum wage, is the wrong way to approach the problem. Unless someone here, can give a strong indication that prices on everything made with labor won't rise I still do.

You can not make changes to one side of a closed system and not get a reciprocal effect on the other side.

My argument,J, is logical. I cannot support the conclusion with facts, but as an argument, it is solid. No one here has taken any steps to disprove my contention prices will rise. No one has presented a probable outcome and mechanism whereby they wouldn't rise. And several have expanded the argument with things about bussiness that bother them.

If you, or anyone here can present me with a probable scenario that does not include a price hike on practically everything as a reaction to raised labor costs, I'll gladly reconsider my opinion. If there is an index out there that gives a median number of goods and services the average wage earner employs in a week, and that number times a one or two cent per item increse is less than the hypotetical 30 extra bucks, I'll change my opinion, but I know of no such index.

I'll add as a caveat, I'm not going to consider improbable solutions like cutting CEO salary or the world being full or philanthropic bussiness men who will just take the hit on their bottom lines.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen? Isn't the cost of living going to rise regardless of whether there is a minimum wage or not?

And if the former rises while the latter remains the same, what happens to the people dependent on minimum wage? Unlike upper management of large companies, they have no control over their pay.

And if wages stay stagnant while prices rise, what happens to business? A great deal of our commerce is dependent on luxury items. DVDs, videos, meals out, booze. If people can't keep up, these will be the first to go.

And then the rest of the business world will feel the pinch because a big part of their business slumps.

I'm not saying we need a big increase in minimum wage. But if people have to run like mad just to stay in the same place, it can't be good for our economy, or society.

Rob,

I think I said in one post that periodic raises in the minimum might be neccessary. Obviously, the cost of living does rise.

That dosen't change my contention that if you artificially inflate the cost of labor, the cost of living will rise in a reciprocal reaction to the new cost of labor.

I cannot see how that rise in prices on practically everything would not wipe out the gains the average workman would make.

I live on a fixed income. With very few exceptions, I am sensitive to the rise in price of items and how it effects me. When cokes went up from 1.26 to 1.29 for a 20 oz. at the local convienince store, I stopped buying cokes. Dosen't seem like much, but when you budget to within a few pennies of what you know you are going to make, it is a significant amount.

Three cents a day, across a month, is close to a dollar. That's on one item. An indulgence I admit, I can surivive without coke. Still, I can look at my own budget and see plainly a three cents per item jack on everything I buy would be catastrophic.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Within the context of this thread as left vs. right, we are at loggerheads over an issue. An issue of raising minimum wage to try and help low income wage earners.

My argument has not been they shouldn't be helped. It has been that raising minimum wage isn't the way to do it.

I feel the best way to do so would be a tax refund, applied immdiatly to their checks, based on what they make.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to figure out the minimum times a forty hour work week, across a year. Taking that as base, anyone earning that up to a certain amount over that, would get X percent of the dollars returned to their checks from the amount taken out as taxes. As a person's income went up, the percentage of that instant refund would fall until it reached zero.

It has several advantages over raising minimum wage. The most significant, from my point of view, is that it would raise the spendable income of bottomline wage earners without raising the cost of labor. With no attendant rise in the cost of labor, there should be no jump in the price of goods and services. Thus real income would be increased.

It also has the effect of encourageing people to stay in the workforce as the credit would only be avialable to full time employees, ie. those working a 40 hour week.

Such a worker would still be eligible for his full tax return, as he would be getting credit for paying in the full tax up to his tax bracket. Implementing it wouldn't screw people who have already been at a job and earned raises, as they would be getting the refund as well, but at a lesser percentage. The government would be looseing some tax income, but that should be offset by more people staying in the workforce, since it would make a minimum wage job more likely to be a sustainable living wage.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Within the context of this thread as left vs. right, we are at loggerheads over an issue. An issue of raising minimum wage to try and help low income wage earners.

My argument has not been they shouldn't be helped. It has been that raising minimum wage isn't the way to do it.

I feel the best way to do so would be a tax refund, applied immdiatly to their checks, based on what they make.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to figure out the minimum times a forty hour work week, across a year. Taking that as base, anyone earning that up to a certain amount over that, would get X percent of the dollars returned to their checks from the amount taken out as taxes. As a person's income went up, the percentage of that instant refund would fall until it reached zero.

It has several advantages over raising minimum wage. The most significant, from my point of view, is that it would raise the spendable income of bottomline wage earners without raising the cost of labor. With no attendant rise in the cost of labor, there should be no jump in the price of goods and services. Thus real income would be increased.

It also has the effect of encourageing people to stay in the workforce as the credit would only be avialable to full time employees, ie. those working a 40 hour week.

Such a worker would still be eligible for his full tax return, as he would be getting credit for paying in the full tax up to his tax bracket. Implementing it wouldn't screw people who have already been at a job and earned raises, as they would be getting the refund as well, but at a lesser percentage. The government would be looseing some tax income, but that should be offset by more people staying in the workforce, since it would make a minimum wage job more likely to be a sustainable living wage.

So, at $5.15 per hour, and 40 hours a week, that's about $10,700 per year. Is that below the poverty line? Would that individual even owe any taxes that could be refunded?

I'm actually appalled that we haven't raised the federal minimum wage since 1997. The cost of living certainly hasn't stayed the same. 13 states have raised it higher than the federal minimum, but the rest are at $5.15.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

So, at $5.15 per hour, and 40 hours a week, that's about $10,700 per year. Is that below the poverty line? Would that individual even owe any taxes that could be refunded?

I'm actually appalled that we haven't raised the federal minimum wage since 1997. The cost of living certainly hasn't stayed the same. 13 states have raised it higher than the federal minimum, but the rest are at $5.15.

That's the point, they will get a refund of everything they pay in taxes at year end, but that money is gone frm their cheks as federal witholding reguardless.

But if you took the money, giving them full credit for paying in, then instnatly gave them a refund of some percentage of that money, then they would have the money avialable to spend on a pay check to pay check basis. Since they are getting full credit for paying their withoulding, they would still be able to get their full refund at end of year as well.

 

[Alex756]

That's the point, they will get a refund of everything they pay in taxes at year end, but that money is gone frm their cheks as federal witholding reguardless.

But if you took the money, giving them full credit for paying in, then instnatly gave them a refund of some percentage of that money, then they would have the money avialable to spend on a pay check to pay check basis. Since they are getting full credit for paying their withoulding, they would still be able to get their full refund at end of year as well.

So is the problem here that say worker A works minimum wage and at the end of the year ends up owing no taxes and gets it all back. THe fact that A didn't have that money in each paycheck is the problem?

If thats it all A has to do is adjust his withholdings. If he was exempt from taxes the previous year he can just write exempt on his I9 and be good to go. If not just jack up the withholdings to 12 or something... its either 12 or 9 that is allowed, I can't rember. I used to work at a burger king where people did that ALL the time.

The problem with raising the minimum wage is it doesn't help everyone. Namely waiters and waitresses and other tip based workers. Secondly, in areas with higher cost of living, wages go up due to demand. Not instantly but it happens. I would rather see a regulation of providing the option of rmedical insurance than an increase in wages.

If minimum wage gets too high to be profitable, more will be demanded of less employees or what can be outsourced will be outsoured.

-Alex

 

[Colleen Thomas]

So is the problem here that say worker A works minimum wage and at the end of the year ends up owing no taxes and gets it all back. THe fact that A didn't have that money in each paycheck is the problem?

If thats it all A has to do is adjust his withholdings. If he was exempt from taxes the previous year he can just write exempt on his I9 and be good to go. If not just jack up the withholdings to 12 or something... its either 12 or 9 that is allowed, I can't rember. I used to work at a burger king where people did that ALL the time.

The problem with raising the minimum wage is it doesn't help everyone. Namely waiters and waitresses and other tip based workers. Secondly, in areas with higher cost of living, wages go up due to demand. Not instantly but it happens. I would rather see a regulation of providing the option of rmedical insurance than an increase in wages.

If minimum wage gets too high to be profitable, more will be demanded of less employees or what can be outsourced will be outsoured.

-Alex

No,

If you adjust your witholding, you still aren't seeing more money. You just have it to spend on a day to day basis rather than a lump sum return at end of year.

What I am saying is give people credit for paying in their full witholding. But, return a percentage of that witholding immediatly based on thier pay scale.

The effect then is to have more money on a day to day basis to live on, and still having a return of the amount you were credited with paying in at year end.

 

[elsol]

What I am saying is give people credit for paying in their full witholding. But, return a percentage of that witholding immediatly based on thier pay scale.

The effect then is to have more money on a day to day basis to live on, and still having a return of the amount you were credited with paying in at year end.

Huh!?!

This doesn't make sense.

a) Company figured WorkerA paycheck -- $200
b) Goverment takes 20% -- Debit $40
c) Government says 'You poor... you get a credit of 50%' Credit $20
d) Worker receives check for $180.
f) 52 weeks in the year..
Worker made -- 10400
Tax bracket says he was taxed -- $2080
Immedite 'poor' break cut the withholding to -- $1040
g) At tax return time, the government cuts him a check for $2080 -- even though in actuality he only paid $1040?

-- That's how your plan reads to me... which would mean 'Welfare'.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Alex756]

-- That's how your plan reads to me... which would mean 'Welfare'.

Sincerely,
ElSol

Maybe what -is- needed is an increase in the welfare system for people who -do- work.

My thoughts would be instead of kicking back cash which would complicatebookkeeping , to increase some currant programs, WIC, school lunches, and food stamps. If you get a 400 dollar paycheck and 40 bucks in food stamps, its LIKE getting 440 bucks. the 400 from the employer and the 40 from the state and federal government.

Its an incentive to work. More workers, more production, better economy.

-Alex

PS sorry Colleen, I didn't understand the first time thanks for the clarification