In Massachusetts and California, the minimum wage will be going up to $10. A few more states will be going up to $9 and above.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/where...164637422.html





In Massachusetts and California, the minimum wage will be going up to $10. A few more states will be going up to $9 and above.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/where...164637422.html
My states weren't included![]()





The minimum wage is always zero. The real question above zero is, how much value does an employee add? In retail and food services where the margins are slim and they have lots of minimum wage employees, they will look for ways to not add people if the minimum wage rises. At Walmart, each employee only contributes about $6,300 in profit. Hourly employees at Walmart average 31.5 hours per week. A $1.00/hour raise is about $1,638/year. Walmart raises average hourly employee wages by $3.85/hour, they wipe out all their profit. Walmart has raised wages substantially this year for hourly employees. Profits and stock prices for Walmart are down. There is a point where some employers will stop raising wages and start cutting hours.
No one, hopefully, wants to work retail for all their career. At least not retail beneath the management level. So, retail jobs are either first jobs that lead to skills that lead to better jobs. Or, retail jobs are bridges between better paying jobs. It is important as an economy to maintain a supply of entry level/low paying jobs so people learn important job skills. None of us were born natural strippers and none of us made bank on the first night. We had to learn how to do it. Those are important job skills that really can only be learned on the job. That's why low paying first jobs are important. Wipe out a company like Walmart or your friendly local franchise fast food place, and you do more than hurt a few rich stock holders. You deny the next generation of workers the important experience of learning job skills necessary to future success.
Z





Hello Zofia,
The problem is, today there are many people working minimum wage jobs that have to support themselves on what they earn from that job. The average age of minimum wage workers has been going up, and is now at 35.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/up...wage.html?_r=0
Some of the cashiers working 2nd and 3rd shifts at the Walmart near me, work another job during the day, but have to work a second job to make ends meet.
Walmart is being hurt by low wages, because many of their customers don't have money to spend. Same store sales have been flat. In addition, paying employees higher wages leads to higher morale and lower turnover, which results in more productive workers. Costco pays their workers higher wages than Walmart, and their revenue per-employee is much higher.
http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...ers-13-an.aspx
That's why Walmart had to recently increase their employee's wages.
I would agree that raising the minimum wage to an unreasonable level could potentially make it difficult for unskilled workers to find entry-level work, but I think we can go higher than $7.25 an hour without doing that.
Anyway, I put this thread here more for informational purposes, so that members can see which states have higher or lower salaries for entry-level work, rather than to debate the merits of increasing the minimum wage. Thanks for your input.





Agree totally. We have far too many people who are underemployed. A result, in part, from the lack of a lending requirement in the various bailouts of the big banks. Productive economic activity, that which I define as moving molecules, not numbers, has not increased substantially since the "recovery" began.
Excellent point. But, Costco doesn't tend to hire entry level retail employees. They tend to prefer people with more experience. As a company they also place a higher value on employees than Walmart.Costco pays their workers higher wages than Walmart, and their revenue per-employee is much higher.
No question that the minimum wage has lost purchasing power since its last increase. That said, the market does do a good job of increasing wages on its own. If employers have difficulty finding labor at $7.25/hour, they will have to increase wages or improve working conditions. I see that in my business. I've had my foremen do exit interviews when people leave. They tell me that the number one reason people leave is for more money. I'm fine with that so long as the employee is taking a promotion at the same time. I'm not if someone is paying more than me for the same job. That tells me, I need to raise pay. And when it has happened, I have raised pay. But, when an employee leaves for a promotion that is not available at my business, I not only wish them well, but I will give them my highest and best reference if they need it in the future. I will see that their employee file is marked "eligible for rehire." Lastly, I will instruct the former employer's manager to keep in contact with that person and if a position opens up with my company, to try and hire them back.I would agree that raising the minimum wage to an unreasonable level could potentially make it difficult for unskilled workers to find entry-level work, but I think we can go higher than $7.25 an hour without doing that.
Z





I have continually supported MODERATE increases in the minimum wage. Up to a point.
When originally passed under FDR it was conceivably possible to "live" on a minimum wage income. The cost of living was that low. We were in a Depression. Not today.
A reason there is so much downward pressure on wages is that we have too many workers willing to work for minimal wages. Plus we have too many workers who are not qualified for anything other than minimum wage work. Even fast food work which was geared toward teens entering the workforce is now dominated by older workers who need those jobs to survive. We do not have current numbers showing what if any job losses have resulted from recent increases in the minimum wage but past research has created doubt that it has had much impact. We shall see.





Hi Eric,
I would like to see the minimum wage raised to a reasonable level and then have it tied to inflation, so raising it wouldn't become an issue anymore.
What is "reasonable" ? Aye there's the rub. In the Mid- 1930's when first put into law the Minimum Wage was $1 per hour. But rents were $10 to $20 a month; a loaf of bread was 10 cents ; so was a quart of milk. Today , in some cities like Seattle and San Francisco it is $15 an hour. For burger flippers ?
As I've said most of the research supposedly showing that increases in the minimum wage result in job losses has been discredited BUT not several studies that show that it RETARDS employment i.e. employers become more reluctant to hire NEW workers if it goes up too fast.
As originally conceived the Minimum Wage was designed to prevent destitution and minimize exploitation. It never applied to farm workers and there was a partial exemption for waiters and waitresses because they got tips. Now we are seeing some restaurants do away with tipping and just adding a service charge to the check like they do in Miami. That service charge causes me to minimize my tipping and when the service sucks eliminate it altogether.
My point was ( and I did have one lol ) that TODAY what were supposedly entry level jobs best suited for high school kids are now taken by working mothers , retirees and others who seriously expect to be able to support a family on $8.75 an hour. We can all agree that in many areas of this country it simply can't be done. Many minimum wage jobs are geared towards second earners and teens. Not heads of households.
Rather than focus on the minimum wage I'd rather promote economic growth , job training , lowering the drop out rate , discourage teen pregnancy ( Yes, yes I know it has declined ) and other things to increase the number of good paying jobs so that minimum wage work can be done by the small army of unemployed "yoots" and others that we have in this country. I'd rather focus on pushing people up out of minimum wage work into better paying jobs as we did under Reagan and Clinton. It has only been under Bush The Dumb and Obama that increasing the minimum wage so dramatically has even become such a prominent issue.
I've tried to avoid saying anything "political " but this is an area where at least a tinge of "politics" is unavoidable with any intelligent discussion of the issue.





Tying minimum wage to inflation would accelerate inflation. If hamburger flippers are paid $15/hr the price of hamburgers will increase. Works for everything.
Is it that way at EVERY club ? Everywhere ? Every time a club gets sued by the dancers don't they have to eliminate or at least reduce their fees ? I can't think of single club that went to trial and won when it was sued by current and former dancers for basic employment benefits.
Are there no clubs that have eliminated house fees ? Aren't any clubs at least trying new and different models ?
It's been a lonnnnng time since I was personally involved in the skin biz but when I was, the only "fee" for the dancers was to tip the D.J. The dancers actually got paid like $50 a shift. Plus tips. Plus extra money for bachelor parties ( $100 for 2 hours plus tips )
Last edited by Eric Stoner; 01-27-2016 at 08:33 AM.
I work in a club that lost a "dancers are employees" lawsuit and it actually just increased our fees more. In addition to paying the same house fee (now called something different in legalese but effectively still a house fee), the dance cut went up slightly, we have a few more staff to tip out, and we have to pay a yearly fee. So it's actually a step further than what Tourdefranzia brought up -- we have to pay a pre-house-fee fee!





Club owners are essentially pimps. And then there's Uncle Sam, also a pimp. Everybody wants their cut in this cut-throat world.
Anyway, I'm glad minimum wage is going up in a few states. Needs to go up nationwide though. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. This cannot continue any longer. Eventually we are going to witness massive upheaval. The argument that big businesses cannot afford min. wage increases is always a lie. That's just greed talking. It IS possible to raise wages without increasing the prices that you charge customers. But corporate greed always gets in the way. smh.
"Dancing tables, making deals with devils like a drunk beauty queen"





That is quite true. Income disparity grew under Bush The Dumb and increased even more under Obama. There are a LOT of reasons for the growing gap but the two major ones are the Education Gap ( incomes for college grads have far outstripped H.S. grads ) and the decline in entrepreneurship i.e. start-ups. That is how we USED to do it. People started their own businesses and grew wealthy enough to afford their own home , buy a second car and send their kids to college. Especially under Obama the rate of new business formation has DECLINED dramatically . And those new businesses used to employ lots of people at relatively good paying jobs.
WHY ? Again a lot of reasons but the two biggies are taxes and regulations. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world that does not just apply to the S & P 500 but also to Subchapter S and other small corporations. As for regulation all you have to do to see what I am talking about is to do a search and look up the costs and fees required to legally open a lemonade stand in NYC and other major cities in this country. Then just extrapolate those costs and burdens for anything larger.
This will not change without major tax and regulatory REFORM. Right now we promote , support and arguably subsidize big banking and Wall Street while stifling Main Street.
Last edited by Eric Stoner; 01-28-2016 at 07:43 AM.
MY point is that I want to get as many people as possible OUT of minimum wage jobs. I want there to be an incentive for those having those jobs to want and strive for something better rather than burden their employers with excessive wages for UNSKILLED labor. I can't touch a certain issue about WHO has been taking a lot of formerly good paying jobs and thus depressing EVERYONE's wages without setting off all sorts of alarms but those who have read the studies know very well what I am talking about.
Let me put it this way : When you have a minimum wage job and you're not a second earner and you're not a teenager then you are supposed to be "Poor ". GASP ! "Oh Eric ! How you can be so heartless and cruel ? You want poor people to starve or not be able to buy their kids clothes ? " No. Of course not. I want them in better paying jobs that reward them for skills and experience. I want them to finish High School , stay out of jail , not get pregnant unless they can afford to raise a child etc. I want them to go to college or REAL trade / technical schools that actually teach and train them how to get marketable skills and are not just student loan scams. For minimum wage earners we already have SNAP aka Food Stamps ; Medicaid ( or subsidized health care ) ; rent subsidies and other government aid as we should. Actually what we should have is a Negative Income Tax that rewards work and provides enough money to take a typical family of four over the "poverty line ". I want to encourage new business formation and expansion to create demand for workers. I want to kick out abusers of the H1B Visa program and punish those who have been wrongfully importing foreign STEM workers that push out Americans AND depress wages in otherwise skilled and good paying jobs.
I don't think we are going to help ourselves by paying burger flippers and baristas $12 an hour.





I have no problem with moderate increases in the minimum wage, but we need to be clear about the down sides. Businesses where the margins are thin will cut hours, cut benefits, lay off employees, and substitute technology. (Already seeing the latter at the only fast food chain place that I frequent. They have self order kiosks.) Minimum wage jobs are the keys to educating young people on how to work. That is not taught in schools. Thus, I want to preserve enough minimum wage jobs to keep the flow of new workers into the economy.
All that said, we have too many experienced workers toiling at minimum wages. There is one glaring reason and a host of contributors. The glaring reason, no lending requirement on the huge bank/Wall St. bailouts in 2009. But, there are a host of other contributing factors, such as globalization, monetization of almost everything, a near complete abandonment of anti-trust enforcement, allowing big banks to take over risky investment banks, consolidation of just about everything, and the list goes on and on. In fact, the entire profession of economics seems dedicated to growing everything but wages. That is, if you listen to their public pronouncements.
Z
All true. Fortunately more people ( including economists ) are starting to get it. They've been looking at stagnant median family incomes ; stagnant wages etc. There's even substantial agreement on how and why we are dealing with such things. The disagreement comes in deciding what to do about it. At the risk of getting ( God help us ! ) "political " I fail to see how confiscatory taxation will do anything to improve matters. In other words making the rich less rich will not help those with lower incomes.
There are not enough rich people and they don't have enough money. I'd much rather focus on growing the economy and making everyone richer. The best way to help poor people is to let them earn more money. Failing that , give them enough money so they will not be destitute.





It will if the revenue is used to improve schools for the poor, especially pre-school, provide better health care, help more poor people go to college, provide child-care for working single moms, and poor families with working moms, provide better housing and nutrition for poor children, build better roads and infrastructure, provide drinking water for the poor that's not toxic and full of lead. There's a lot that can be done to help poor people get out of poverty.
The 62 wealthiest people in the world have a total net worth of $1.76 trillion. That's as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people have.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/17/news.../oxfam-wealth/




Just for fun, I researched some history of federal minimum wage rates. Then I went to www.inflationdata.com "Inflation Calculator" to see how current federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr. stacks up against that of the last half century.
In 1966, the minimum wage was $1.25/hr. One would have to make $9.14/hr. to have the same purchasing power. Todays minimum wage earner is making 20.7% less than their 1966 counterpart.
In 1991, the minimum wage went up to $4.25/hr. One would need to make $7.40/hr. to equal their counterpart of a quarter of a century ago. Shortfall of 2.1%.
Every time I hear the buzzword "confiscatory tax rates, I just roll my eyes.Current corporate, and high income earner tax rates are at or near post WW2 lows.
If one says making the rich less rich won't help others, I say putting more money in rich peoples pockets will not (and has not) helped others either.
Put another away, putting more money in wealthy 1% pocket will not automatically result in more hiring. Corporations are sitting on huge piles of cash, and what do they do with that $$ ? Why they either buy other companies or do stock buy backs. If company can make money without hiring any extra people, why do it ? (Hire more people)
Now I don't advocate a knee jerk sock it to the rich solution, but having the historically low tax rates of the last 3 decades or so brings us to the wage stagnation and wealth disparity that we have today. Maybe putting more money in a greater number of households pockets will actually cause people to spend more money, which in turn creates demand for more products, and hence more jobs. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.
Last edited by minnow; 01-29-2016 at 09:53 AM. Reason: addendum
I'm right 96% of the time.I don't sweat
the other 5% .......................



I'm not a fan or rent capture or rent-seeking behavior. Right now, we're talking about it from the bottom up (min. wage) but I'm not a fan of it on the top either (like collecting bonuses just because you are close to all of the money, etc.). I'm talking about no new wealth being generated. If you're generating new wealth, sure, have at it, in fact, congratulations!
The redistribution theories work because poor people spend their money differently. Once you have so much money you're just shifting capital around...a small pool of rich guys buying and selling assets to each other. There's not much net creation of jobs when that happens. Now if you cut 1,000,000 low-income people a $200 check, that money changes hands many times until it gets back to the top, effectively multiplying the economy. Poor people are also likely to spend that money rather than save it, and when they get a little more, they spend it on things like...cammodels and strippers![]()
"Daily pay ALL the things!"
[email protected] - Skype: BoleynModels - "If you haven't heard a rumor by 10am, start one."





^^^ I agree. If you give someone making $4 million - $5 million a year a tax cut of a few hundred thousand dollars, it probably won't make a significant change in his spending habits. If instead you were to give a few hundred middle class people a thousand dollar tax cut, they will probably spend that money on goods and services, such as new cars, home improvements, strip clubs, cam models, etc., which will create more jobs for others.





I am not making $4-5 mill a year, but my company does well and I am in the process of buying a new business. So, my top line is big and about to get significantly bigger. Taxes are always a consideration, but the truth is, they are not number one, or number two or even number 3 on my list when making an investment. So the government types and politicians who think tax policy makes a huge difference are just wrong. From an accounting stand point, labor and materials are my two biggest costs. Next up is insurance. Probably the biggest problem is health insurance. It just gets more and more expensive. So if politicians really want to make a difference they should find a way to reign in health insurance costs. Another place where government makes some difference to me is education. How much do I have to spend to train my work force. I pay them well. My goal is to pay at or above industry median for each job classification in my business. But, for that I want qualified people to apply for jobs. Part of that is education and training. If someone can't read and do computations, I can't hire them.
On a personal level it's very different. Taxes are by far the biggest line item in my personal budget. I do a number of things to reduce my tax burden in my private life. I have my company pay me in a certain way to minimize my taxes. I take dividends rather than be self employed. I do keep my house fairly heavily mortgaged and I have a second home that is mortgaged too. Both are deductible and both are low interest loans. Probably the biggest tax strategy BF and I use is we're not married. We save a little by not being married, so we aren't.
If I personally got a big tax cut, would I spend it? No, I'd invest it. And trust me, those investments create jobs. Those dollars turn over far more than a few bucks spent on a new car. Banks aren't investing in business. They are barely lending to any but the very biggest of businesses. Small and medium businesses depend on small (like me), medium, large investors and pension fund managers for capital now. Squeeze off that source of money and you won't see new job creation. We have invested our way, very slowly, out of this awful recession while banks and government sat on the side lines.
Z
Bookmarks