Posted on 06/21/2006 10:17:11 AM PDT by Fractal Trader
The U.S. Senate on Wednesday defeated a proposal pushed by Democrats to raise the federal minimum wage in increments from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour by January 1, 2009.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, unsuccessfully tried to attach the proposal raising the wage for the first time since 1997 to a defense authorization bill that is expected to be passed by the Senate soon.
(Excerpt) Read more at today.reuters.com ...
I can tell economics isn't your strong point! I raised 3 daughters alone. I never took a penny from Uncle Sam -- and I don't expect a medal for it. You are so uneducated as to what the minimum wage is all about. Try running your own business and it might teach you something about the real world.
The scale is simple, and the reason I pointed the whole thing out is because of the consequences of letting such things go with out expanding on them.
If you start to argue with someone who advocates government interference in private agreements about whether or not those effects are beneficial or detrimental, you have already allowed that person to change the subject and have in effect conceded that the government has the legitimate power to do so. The main argument is already lost in that case.
For this reason, it should never be left unchallenged. That was my reason for drawing the line I did.
We agree on the effects but I will never allow them to start the argument from a false premise.
In a free society, the government, (or anyone else, group or individual) would never be allowed to interfere at gunpoint.
In an "unfree" society, such practices are common and the result has been the ruination of those societies.
Um...OK (backing away slowly).
I guess that means my point is valid. I guess,, backing away,,,hard to tell what that means.
Market forces in this case is the law of supply (number of laborers) and demand (number of jobs).
Less illegals = less supply in the workforce which leads to higher wages for those on the bottom tier. No need to raise minimum wage.
I beg to differ. It won't be a fun or luxurious existence, but I think it can be done for a lot of people.
Let's assume our hypothetical 18 y.o. is working about 40 hours a week, maybe a little less. We'll give him a monthly take-home pay of $700.
He's going to need shelter, food, transportation, utilities, communication, and a bit for entertainment and spare expenses.
Where I live (Dallas) he can get a 1 bedroom apartment or an efficiency for about $300 a month, not factoring in any move-in specials. These are not the finest of living arrangements, and maybe not in the safest neighborhoods, but they are out there. Or, he can find nicer places in the $500-700 range that can be shared with roomates.
A monthly bus pass runs $40, and a cell phone another $40, while a simple local landline is even cheaper. If he is efficient with energy and water use, he can get away with about a $125 utility bill (that means opening windows and wearing a bathing suit in the summer, but remember most people in the world don't have an A/C running 24/7).
For $20, the local thrift store can provide him all the clothes he needs for the month, even some stylish ones if he knows where to look. A diet of rice, ramen noodles, beans, low-grade cuts, and veggies provide a healthy diet around, say, $100 a month. $20 should be enough for entertainment, from used bookstores or newspapers or a cheap clock radio. And, being the smart young man he is, he puts away $25 a month in savings.
So let's look at his budget so far.
$700 in pay
$300 for rent
$125 for utilities
$100 for food
$40 for a bus pass
$40 for a phone
$25 for the savings account
$20 for clothes
$20 for entertainment
Which leaves him with $30 for miscellaneous expenses. Again, not a life of luxury, but better than a lot of recruits in boot camp have it. And that is only until he starts working more hours, gets a raise, or finds a better job.
Of course, this is all based on Dallas prices, but it also gives him some things to cut back on (phone, utilities, entertainment). It also assumes he'll have a little help before he moves out. If he is truly "alone"- meaning he has NO support from mom and dad, no friends, and had no opportunity to save any money before moving out, just the clothes on his back, he may be out of luck.
But that really isn't the situation for most 18 year olds. I think a parent can and should do at least a few things to help their kids get started. At least act as a co-signer for a lease, lend a few old pots and pans or chairs, give a couple hundred dollars for graduation, or maybe just a bus ticket and a phone call to a relative who lives somewhere with a lower cost of living who can help our young working man get his start. Beyond that, he CAN make it work on minimum wage.
That may be.
But you miss my point.
The point that the federal Government not raising the minimum wage hasn't stopped states from doing so. Meaning this is the liberals equivalent of the recent votes for flag burning or gay marriage. It won't pass, they can claim Republicans are mean, cruel and heartless to their constituents but the Feds involvement has already been circumvented by many states.
There is absolutely no reason for this legislation to come up under the circumstances, other then liberals wanting to pander to their base.
No offense, it's just that the conversation was too difficult. You're a hard guy to agree with but thanks for the chat.
Our economy would survive just fine with an increase.
Sure will. I employ 10 people at $5.15 p/hour.
Gov raises that to $7.15 p/hour, costing me $20 more p/hour.
When I factor in the added higher costs involved I figure I need to lay off about 4 people and demand a productivity increase from the remaining 6 or hire illegals or under the table staff who will be paid cash. Government is then out of the picture as is social security, unemployment insurance, payroll taxes, worker's comp. etc.
Taxpayers lose, workers lose. Nothing gained and those working for $7.15 p/hour are working harder in a more competitive workforce
Bottom line: I'll survive just fine but 4 people are now jobless and taxpayers pay through the nose for those 4 people dependent on social welfare and related costs.
But I guess the left could boast how they raised minimum wage for poor workers. Sounds great but seldom works out the way they boast.
Besides, nothing prevents states from raising the minimum wage.
San Francisco had a movement called "living wage". I think they planned on something close to $15.00 or more per hour.
I don't know whatever happened as I moved away but I know that small businesses were preparing for mass exodus if it passed. These communist ideas I thought were debunked years ago yet we see that the movement is still there in towns who just don't get it.
$7.25? Hell why not make it $99 per hour?
Exactly!!!!!
There is no difference in the logic they're using that people deserve a living wage with no thought of the consequences or reaction from employers and especially small business.
$100 p/hour minimum would be great for those few who could find jobs. The other 99% of people without jobs would live off of government I guess.
So businesses should be forced to pay more than it's worth for the other 98% of entry-level jobs, too? Get a grip. Every time the minimum wage is increased, the U.S. dollar and every working American's wages are devalued. It is just stupid "feel good" socialism.
3/3/05, Washington – As Congress weighs a hike in the federal minimum wage to $7.25, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and supporters of an increase suggest that the typical minimum wage employee is struggling to raise a family on a single income. The Employment Policies Institute (EPI) notes that U.S. Census Bureau data strongly dispute this portrait as simply untrue. Furthermore, the vast majority of the benefits of such an increase will not reach its intended target—working families.
An analysis of data compiled by the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey shows that the average family income of employees who would benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 is nearly $42,000 a year. Why? Because fully 85% of employees whose wages would be increased by this proposal either live with working parents or another relative, live alone, or have a working spouse. Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich once summed up these findings by stating pointedly, “After all, most minimum wage workers aren’t poor.”
Additionally, the majority of potential beneficiaries do not work full-time, and nearly 25 percent don’t even work 20 hours a week. Fully half of all beneficiaries are 25 years old or younger.
Just 15% of beneficiaries will be sole earners in families with children, and each of these sole earners has access to supplemental income through the federal and state earned income tax credit (EITC). Research from Michigan State University and the Federal Reserve found that the EITC is far more efficient at actually helping those in poverty than an increase in the minimum wage.
Of U.S. employees affected by the proposed $7.25 minimum wage:
· 41% of minimum wage earners live with a parent or relative · 21% of minimum wage earners are a dual earner in a married couple · 23% of minimum wage earners are a single earner with no kids · Just 15% of minimum wage earners are single parents with kids or a single earner in a couple with kids, and each of these sole earners has access to supplemental income through the EITC.
“If the goal of Congress is to help low-income working families, then raising the minimum wage is a poorly targeted and ineffective way of doing so,” said EPI’s director of research, Craig Garthwaite. “The vast majority of benefits will not go to poor families and the majority of poor families will not receive a benefit.”
For a graphic representation of this data or to see figures for individual states, visit minimumwage.com
Here is an even better one.
You missed my point. I said it doesn't matter what group of thugs does it. Fed. , state, private.
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.