This is going to be interesting. I am 90% confident the job numbers after the minimum wage increase comes around will push unemployment up. If not, I will need to re-examine my position on that issue. ;D
Printable View
This is going to be interesting. I am 90% confident the job numbers after the minimum wage increase comes around will push unemployment up. If not, I will need to re-examine my position on that issue. ;D
There have been studies that show that increases in min. wage actually reduce unemployment not vice versa. Poor people spend 100% of their income, whereas rich people have a tendency to save any extra income. Give poor people more money to spend, and the money is pumped immediately into the economy, creating a greater need for goods and services.
UC Berkeley Economics department has done several studies about this very subject. Here is the results of just one of the studies: Minimum Wage and the California Economy
Feel free to do your own tracking of numbers in your region. The results could be enlightening.
ETA: Even with low minimum wages, many large employers have gone under (Circuit City, Comp USA, Mervyn's, Zales/ Piercing Pagoda, Pep Boys, Bombay, Gotschalk's, Linens and Things, KB Toys...I could go on like this for hours!). Appearently wages aren't the sole problem with business failures. Could it possibly be a problem with consumer spending power??
Hmmm...maybe there will be some full time jobs here that pay more than $8.00 an hour from now on. Doubt it though.
And Paris does make sense (again), basic Macroeconomics. Although the more money people make, the more they tend to spend and except for the upper few tax brackets, most Americans save very little. I think the National average is about 1% per year or so.
The flaw in the California minimum wage study is that it does not account for the number of existing minimum wage jobs that were lost, nor the number of additional minimum wage jobs that were not created, as a result of an increase in the minimum wage. Instead it attempts to form a local 'equation' which essentially ignores what might have been.
Perhaps most convenient, the California minimum wage study does not account for the disproportional effect of a federal minimum wage hike on states like CA, NY, NJ etc. that have already established state minimum wage thresholds that are much higher than the federal minimum, versus the effect of a federal minimum wage hike on states that follow the federal minimum amount only.
On the relative impact of the 'old' minimum wage versus the 'new' minimum wage, going from a $6 to $7 to $8 minimum wage really doesn't matter much anymore when China's wage is $2 and Vietnam's wage is $1. Similarly, going from $6 to $7 to $8 really doesn't matter much when the US dollar's 'purchasing power' is proportionately eroded ( causing food, fuel, energy etc. prices to rise thus effectively cancelling out the effect of the minimum wage increase ).
It's nice to see the working poor get a crumb now and then.
Or maybe...they've all opened too many stores in places they didn't need to? It's a culmination of things really, the economy is one huge reason too. But, alot of these folks opened stores in not so successful areas of town, and kept building, even when there wasn't a need for it.
By the way, what does MW go up to on the 24th? does it go to $8 an hour?
the Federal minimum wage increases to $7.25 per hour. Of course this does not affect states that already have higher state minimum wage levels in effect.
http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/Issueb...234-table1.gif
in essence, California, New York, Illinois etc. benefit from the federal minimum wage increase since it reduces the minimum wage pay 'differential' versus adjoining states.
From the table 12 states have higher minimums, with 7 of those at most 0.50 higher and the maximum at $1.02 higher than the Fed min. rate. NY, NJ are not among those states (yet). So you call that much higher?
Yes, we have wage competition from exploitative, third-world countries that we have decided to have do our manufacturing of consumer items. Now what are we...supposed to reduce ou wages to the level of theirs?
When you're working 40 hrs per week, 20 days per month, your wage is 11600/yr often without medical insurance benefits which may wipe out at least $2200/yr (up to half of that salary), then you take out say 15% or $1800 per year in fed taxes alone (and all those other expenses like flop house rent and maruchan noodles) , that is entirely unliveable, except in a third world country. Al that for full-time work which may evn be hard labor. The reality is that even that is an exploitative wage in the USA. Even if youget an AAS degree at the local community college (if you cdan actually travel there on that wage) that is often unlikely to produce a wage higher than $10/hour.
So all you people with higher wages and a smug attitude about poor people and minimum wage, just need to get real about what many people can earn. No, they don't drink it all away; some can hardly afford water!
As I posted, recent increases in the federal minimum wage have indeed been REDUCING the differential of high state minimum wages i.e. NY versus states bound by the federal minimum wage. Two years ago, with NY at $7.15 and the federal at $5.15 yes that is much higher on a percentage basis. But as of this July, NY will be at $7.25 the same as the federal minimum.Quote:
So you call that much higher?
As also posted earlier, the net effect of increasing the federal minimum wage has been to benefit minimum wage employers in NY while 'harming' minimum wage employers in New Hampshire for example ( who will now see their $2 an hour labor cost advantage of 2007 fully erased).
You have to be rich to be poor.
Quote:
Having Little Money Often Means No Car, No Washing Machine, No Checking Account And No Break From Fees and High Prices
Seems to me that everyone working full time (and not either incompetent or in initial traning in some cases) is entitled to a livable wage. To the extent that this does not happen, then we taxpayers have to kick in some subsidy for them. I think that is a fair statement.
There are many people who choose not to work and are not completely disabled. They may be too busy with kids or helping out disabled people or whatever. Or druggies and drunks or mentally not capable of work. Of course ther are the ones that will not work regardless, just being parasites (whose number really is unknown). But even for part-timers, we as a society ought to have jobs for everyone, at least in a good economy. How we do that I do not know, but we as a society ought to come up with some legitimate and certified solutions (and not the scam solutions posted all over the internet and in back pages of magazines and newspapers).
This idea may be off-topic, but the minimum wages topic is related to support of those not able to find, or work in, higher-paying jobs or presumably jobs that are more useful to employers or at least society.
"Fair wage" is a domestic incentive related to the "fair trade" system. One can say that is a type of welfare and not in line with capitalistic principles. But I say it is just righting a wrong imposed by an onerous capitalistic system that believes it can only survive by using exploitation whereever it can get away with it.
I think that is a political statement !!! More importantly, I think that is a statement which is impossible to reconcile with the realities of a global economy. Working full time for $2 an hour is a livable wage ... IN CHINA. American minimum wage workers are basically incapable of producing greater added value from their unskilled labors than their Chinese counterparts. Therefore even a $7.25 minimum wage level is a de-facto subsidy ... funded by higher prices charged for US made goods and services as compared to similar goods from China or similar services from India. These subsidies are currently being paid for with borrowed money by one means or another ... which cannot continue indefinitely.Quote:
Seems to me that everyone working full time (and not either incompetent or in initial traning in some cases) is entitled to a livable wage. To the extent that this does not happen, then we taxpayers have to kick in some subsidy for them. I think that is a fair statement.
wow, my state has the highest minimum wage in the country!
woo!
PS: the average entry level office-worker wage was 12-14/hr until pretty much this year, when it dropped to about 10-12/hr due to somewhat more people looking for work. also, entry level fast food paid 9-10/hr until this year (now they pay min. wage).
but home prices for a 1000 sq ft house on a 2000 sq ft lot are stuff like 600k.
i guess that means all washingtonians 'deserve' 75/hr minimum wage pay? (would make a 600k home cost 4x gross income).
since it's everyone's right to be able to afford a home...
i hate min. wage laws because i like deflationary environments!
^ Problem with your thesis is that there will ALWAYS be a country where wages are less than all other countries. BTW, I call it not a political, but an ethical statement.
For example if, say, Ghana (or Equitorial Africa or the Orkney Islands) existed in a stable political environment, enough of the right infrastructure existed nearby, and investment capital came in for manufacturing, perhaps their $0.50 per week (or whatever) might eventually put other low wage countries out of business.
Extending that to the present situation, you are saying that whatever the lowest wage out there is (China currently, and previously S Korea), US minimum wage workers should work for that wage level in order to avoid what you say is subsidization.
And I say a "fair wage" is part of human rights, which we talk about a lot but rarely can, or bother to, do anything about. Fair wage is a liveable wage wherever, for a legitimate worker. And a legitimate economic system ought to have participants who agree to "fair wages" or we just dont do business with them, meaning that US manufacturers would get NO tax breaks for investing or buying from there. Of course that is an ideal, but a reasonable goal.
either nobody deserves fair wages (which is quite the meaningless weasel term) or everyone does, if one is being truly ethical about the matter.
there is zero reason americans deserve more money per hour than any other country's residents unless you consider racism, jingoism and xenophobia reasons. they are the only justification for fair wage BS, because i never hear anyone rushing to make sure ghanians make 20/hr as a 'fair wage' on the cocoa farm. only westerners, and often only certain kinds of westerners are considered worthy of a 'fair wage'.
^^ I think everyone does, theoretically, in spite of competitive (a dog-eat-dog world) forces; that only means a liveable wage, no conveniences or luxuries. Someday, a long time from now, we will get there unless we flood or bomb ourselves out (or an asteroid hits us or extraterrestrials eat us up).
no, we won't get there because if 'fair wage' was for the entire world, the goal would actually be to create a global structure in which people worked part of the time in 'fruitful' labor and had a lot, but not total leisure time. (people generally descend into drunkenness/drugs/dysfunction if they cannot do any work they feel is productive 20 or so hours a week). also you would ensure food security (that is, that gathering or growing food would actually result consistently in food crops) and allow for nice comfortable home structures.
how you would make labor appear productive to people when it was probably mostly automated is an open exercise, but that's one way to do it-- modified technotopia that presumes a magical and cheap source of energy to provide for automation and by extension comfortable homes.
anyway i am nerding out, so i'll stop now.
^^^ actually, you have a very valid point. In world market terms, a 'fair wage' for unskilled workers results in a standard of living that - as relayer put it - means no conveniences or luxuries. This is FAR below the standard of living enjoyed by American minimum wage / non-working social welfare benefit recipients today. There is a great article titled 'The Luxury of American Poverty' at this link ...
Extremely briefly, the article cites Census bureau statistics which indicate ...
- by their own admission, 96% of American poor have enough food to eat
- 98% live in 'spacious' housing
- 70% own a car or truck
- 67% have air conditioning
- 67% have microwave ovens
- 50% have 2 or more color TV's
- 75% own VCR's
As cited above, the ability of unskilled Americans to generate true 'added value' is no different than their unskilled Global counterparts. However, that level of 'added value' is vastly insufficient to maintain the above described 'poor American' standard of living even at a $7.25 per hour (indirectly subsidized) minimum wage. The difference of course is being made up for by wealth transfers from higher skilled higher earning Americans / American businesses, and by the gov't borrowing huge amounts of money from foreign lenders that will have to be paid back by our children and grandchildren.
In a sustainable global economy, by some means or another, this artificial, heavily subsidized standard of living fo 'poor Americans' is going to have to be reduced to a level that is more in line with their Global counterparts. This will either mean that all poor people around the world must be subsidized to the point of having a car, air conditioning, and color TV's, or will mean that 'poor Americans' must lose the subsidies that make their own cars, air conditioning and color TV's possible.
The "consumer society" (marketing) has been successful in convincinig everyone to possess many things far above what is really the minumum. I guess we call it the 'affluent society'. And now we think we are entitled to that level of benefit.
China's wage and Vietnam's wage are irrelevant. Most minimum wage workers work at restaurants or retail. Neither of these industries can hire workers in China or Vietnam.
There has been relatively little inflation in the US over the past few years. Fuel prices are actually much lower than they were last year.
The US government doesn't make laws for other countries, so it is limited as to how much we can do to raise wages in other countries. The US government does make laws for the US, and in the US, most people think workers deserve decent wages. There are people here that do put pressure on multi-national businesses, such as Nike, to provide decent wages and working conditions for their workers in other countries.
No it doesn't. Poor people are entitled to a decent living. In a sustainable economy, people need money to buy products. Conservatives are unable to understand this.
Your article is from 1999, before conservatives gained complete control of the government. After six years of having conservatives in control, I would bet the poor are worse off now then they were in 1999.