Posted on 01/13/2007 6:02:39 PM PST by george76
In the first hundred hours of the just-started session of Congress, the new leadership promises to raise the minimum wage. The Democrats won't be opposed by many Republicans.
Raising the minimum wage is definitely popular. Voters in six states approved higher minimums last Election Day. State politicians in both parties are practically drooling with eagerness to "help" lower-income workers.
We all want the poor to make more money. So if government can raise wages by decree, why are the popular proposals so stingy?
Let's really do something for the poor. Let's raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour. Even better, $50!
Or maybe we should take a deep breath and think like economists for a change.
The law of supply and demand, which operates whether we like it or not, says that when the price of something goes up, people buy less of it. That's why environmentalists like higher gasoline taxes, and anti-smoking activists back higher cigarette taxes.
The law of supply and demand works in the labor market, too. If government mandates a higher minimum wage, some workers will get a raise. Some. But something else will happen. Employers will hire fewer low-skilled workers. Others will let some current workers go. Some will choose not to expand their businesses. A few will close altogether.
Only 2.5 percent of all hourly workers make $5.15 an hour ...says the Department of Labor. "Minimum wage workers tend to be young."
Few of them stay at the minimum wage for long. As they acquire skills, their productivity rises and they command higher wages.
Legal wage minimums kill all kinds of entry-level jobs, particularly those that would teach young people basic work habits and the benefits of effort. That's why there are no kids cleaning your windows at gas stations or ...
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Excellent then. All the 3rd world countries need to do to get out of poverty is raise their minimum wages. (Are you really this ignorant of economics or are you pulling my leg? )
Del Monte Foods Co. (NYSE: DLM) subsidiary Starkist Tuna employs three-fourths of the work force in American Samoa. Del Monte is based in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district.
The minimum wage is $3.62 per hour in American Samoa, and would remain so under the bill, Shadegg said. The House bill, which would raise the U.S. minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour, did include the Northern Marana Islands.
Billionaire owner of Snapple, Arby's, and TJ cinnimon, Nelson Peltz is currently locked into a proxy battle with H.J. Heinz Corporations board of directors. When Heinz sold StarKist to Del Monte, the terms resulted in Heinz stockholders becoming 74.5% owners of the new Del Monte. Peltz, H.J. Heinz' principle non-family shareholder, is attempting to increase his influence within the company by obtaining another proxy seat. To better his cause, Peltz has enlisted the help of business/real estate investor Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband. Paul Pelosi's portfiolio includes 3 huge Napa Valley properties in addition to a 17 million dollar position in the H.J. Heinz corporation.
You need to wake up to reality.
The fact is there are people working for these kinds of wages in the world, and if you think it can't happen here then you better think again.
There were sweat shops in this country before they were outlawed.
I don't think I have read a dumber comment about economics on FR.
It's your argument. And yes you do sound pretty dumb. Not to mention confused.
This is your own stupid argument, not mine.
You won't find it anywhere in my posts.
Which countries would those be?
Very few Americans fork in labor unions anymore. Suppose that a union "journeyman" receives $51.50/hour (ten times the minimum wage and close to $100k/yr) to do work worth $30/hour on the free (non-union) market. Union demands $72.50/hour given new minimum wage. Unless the union does significantly better work than the non-union worker, employer already has labor cost troubles. If union prevails in this dispute, employer goes bankrupt. Union then loses members and associated dues, further weakening union. Non-union workers see unions destroying jobs and avoid them whenever possible. The union issues with minimum wage could wreak particular havoc in certain heavily unionized, mostly blue states. The wage itself will hit many low-cost mostly red states hard.
Given that we already have a minimum wage, we should increase it regularly with inflation to avoid these ridiculous shocks, but that's a story for another day.
Then you'd increase the need for highly trained engineers/techs to maintain/repair/program the robots, boosting the middle class. Good idea!
Mostly, I think the minimum wage flap is a red-herring. The vast majority of jobs are higher than MW, and for those employers already breaking the law by using "undocumented" workers... well, their employees are hardly in a position to complain about sub-MW pay.
But MW increase is politically easy. Going after law-breaking employers and other big interests protecting illegal immigration would be difficult. Add that to all the PC flack, what politician wants to go up against that?
Are you sure of that?
Yes, anyone can do a search on the topic and see it's true.
Union membership is way down and rapidly dropping in recent years.
We may get mad at the $20 tuna sandwich!
Which countries would those be?
Countries like Korea. I personally know Koreans who were paid 25 cents an hour to work in the fields and live in company camps.
Why would anyone work for such low wages?
My "mole" in SF city gov is also from Baltimore. He's Cincinattus Society and his family has been in Maryland and active in its politics since the 17th century.
Small world, isn't it?
The Society of C is very interesting.
Their library is an excellent place to do some research or just escape from the city. Well located, too.
Thanks for the response.
It is a very small world.
HAVING THE POWER to do something is not the same as having the right to do it. Next week the State Employees Association begins confiscating fees from state employees who are not union members. The union says it has the power to do so under conditions set forth in its collective bargaining agreement. That may be so. But it still doesn't have the right.
The collective bargaining agreement states that if the union organizes 60 percent of the state workforce, it can charge what are erroneously termed "fair share" fees to the other 40 percent of state employees. The union says it has reached that 60 percent threshold.
The fee will be 75 percent of union dues... Union officials deny that the fees are forced dues.
The trouble with the theory is that non-union members might not think they benefit from the collective bargaining agreement, hence their status as non-union members.
Many people believe that collective bargaining actually harms them financially, prohibiting them from negotiating compensation based on their own merits while holding them to a lower standard.
Unfortunately, the state Supreme Court has upheld the legality of "fair share" fees, which are inherently unfair because they force people to pay fees for services they do not want and might oppose on moral, political and philosophical grounds.
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=59694
They were desperate.
And obviously here in America, no one would work for that amount of money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.