I'm sure this has been done before and I apologize if this is a dead horse deal, but I haven't seen this discussed.
Someone I know who is very Republican and owns his own business posted that he hopes Romney does away with minimum wage ONCE, not if, he's elected. He got a lot of likes and "I agree".
I'm afraid to ask because I rarely agree with the people in my family on issues like this. Why is minimum wage bad? I heard an argument years ago that without minimum wage it would be more of a free market and people would get paid more money for doing a good job.
I don't understand. It's minimum wage, not maximum wage. If an employer wants to pay you more, he can. I take minimum wage as, like Chris Rock said, "If I could pay you less, I would."
I haven't worked for minimum wage in over 15 years but I would worry for people who are supporting themselves and families on $8 an hour who could potentially be working for $5 or $6 an hour.
Because we should be taking business tips from the Chinese, paying people pennies a day. That's the only way to return manufacturing to the States, dontcha know.
Because we should be taking business tips from the Chinese, paying people pennies a day. That's the only way to return manufacturing to the States, dontcha know.
Fo. Realz.
People can't live on minimum wage. Just for shits and giggles, I entered in the minimum wage as if I worked for McDonald's. I'm Calvin the new fry cook. I'm working a 40 hour week. And McD's according to this link: money.cnn.com/2010/10/05/news/companies/mini_meds_insurance_mcdonalds.fortune/index.htm has a health insurance plan that starts at $14 a week. Cool.
I enter this data in over at Paycheck City (this is for TN, so no income taxes) and my first week's pay is ... $232.78. Multiply it by 4 (assuming 4 weeks in the month) and I get $931.12.
Someone please tell me how I am to spend this money? Let's say my mom ain't worth a hill of beans and my family is anything but reliable (actually this sounds like my DH's life while he was in college), so I need to live somewhere. So, I find a decent studio apartment in an area town where I won't get shot the fuck up for $400. I still need to pay for utilities because they aren't included. That's going to run me about $100 a month. Because my city's transportation is jacked up, I need a car. Lucky for me, I managed to buy a used car, but state law says I need insurance. So that's another $125 a month for a low-rate plan.
I had the good sense to work close to my apartment, so gas isn't costing me that much. Maybe $80-90 a month. Oh, wait, I need to eat ...
This is why doing away with the minimum wage is a bad thing. The costs of goods and services keeps going up, yet, we don't want to pay a wage where people can actually afford to live.
I would worry for people who are supporting themselves and families on $8 an hour who could potentially be working for $5 or $6 an hour.
People who oppose minimum wage don't. They believe that the free market should control wages. If someone is willing to do a given job for $4 an hour, they should be allowed to and an employer should be allowed to pay it. They argue that minimum wage laws limit the number of workers a business can hire and limits the employee's right to bargain for a lower wage if they so choose. blah, blah, blah. Of course, similar arguments could be made about child labor laws, indentured servitude and other practices now outlawed.
Is this actually something Romney has discussed or is this just someone's wish list? Because this thread is making me want to stab someone and there may not be a need for this anger.
Basically a race to the bottom. If someone is willing to work for $4/hour, great! If no one is willing to do it, the employer will raise the wage accordingly.
But someone is, unfortunately, usually willing to work for $4 an hour, which is better than $0 an hour.
I guess our current minimum wage is a little too high on the hog for some people. Those minimum wage earners should know better - they should totally look into how profitable welfare can be! 8-D
But someone is, unfortunately, usually willing to work for $4 an hour, which is better than $0 an hour.
yes and this also plays into another theory that I have. If you hire someone who cares about the work they are doing, feels it is important, and that they make a difference in the world - you can pay them less b/c they are 'playing for the love of the game'
Is this actually something Romney has discussed or is this just someone's wish list? Because this thread is making me want to stab someone and there may not be a need for this anger.
This guy brought it up because he feels that democrats oppress the business owners. You should have heard him after "You didn't build that." OMG. But according to him, Romney will do away with it because of pressure from business owners. I don't know this for sure, but I think even Romney is smart enough not to mention this now. Most of the Republicans I know work in po-dunk USA for minimum wage maybe a little higher. When my cousin started making $10 an hour at the dog food plant in Florida, you would have thought he became partner at a law firm the way he and my family bragged. Seriously.
Anyway, he insists that it's better for the economy if there is no minimum wage and I just can't follow the logic. And I'm really trying here....so they are saying they could hire more people? So now instead of one person working for $8 they can have two people working for $4? Well yeah, that's two people hired, but two people who are living at poverty level, who will most likely need government assistance of some type just to live.
Again who but illegal immigrants can work for those wages?I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy who said he paid over 50k in taxes last year, but he wants to have people working for him who make less than $8 an hour? He owns a construction business by the way and loves to chest thump that he never hires illegals. So he's bitter he can't pay $4 an hour like other companies do. I guess he wants to be able to hire legal Amuuricans to pay $4 an hour.
I honestly always try to understand the other side of things. I'm registered independent and want the best man to win. But I cannot even follow this logic of no minimum wage let alone agree with it.
One of the arguments I've heard is that the minimum wage is partially responsible for the increase in COL. Raising the minimum wage just lifts the income floor, so everybody gets paid a tiny bit more and everything ends up costing a tiny bit more.
So...there's that. I'm not sure how that accounts for the people working PT or the unemployed.
One of the arguments I've heard is that the minimum wage is partially responsible for the increase in COL. Raising the minimum wage just lifts the income floor, so everybody gets paid a tiny bit more and everything ends up costing a tiny bit more.
So...there's that. I'm not sure how that accounts for the people working PT or the unemployed.
I don't know how this comes into play in Portland. We aren't LCOL, but not HCOL either. And we have the 2nd highest min wage behind Washington. And small businesses thrive here. I'm curious how it seems to work for us, but so many people seem to oppose it.
Is there a federal minimum wage or is it state-based? I think the minimum wage in Ontario is 10.50 an hour. Our economy is fine - I'm not sure if it's had any impact since it was raised from the 7.25 it was about 10 years ago.
Is there a federal minimum wage or is it state-based? I think the minimum wage in Ontario is 10.50 an hour. Our economy is fine - I'm not sure if it's had any impact since it was raised from the 7.25 it was about 10 years ago.
There is a fed min wage but some states and localities have their own above that.
Is there a federal minimum wage or is it state-based? I think the minimum wage in Ontario is 10.50 an hour. Our economy is fine - I'm not sure if it's had any impact since it was raised from the 7.25 it was about 10 years ago.
There is a fed min wage but some states and localities have their own above that.
So the minimum wages aren't all as low as I expected, which is great. But the tipped employees?! Yikes. Thank goodness I tip well.
This is kind of misleading, as employers are still legally required to make up the difference if tips plus min wage does't add up to $7.25. So while technically they're making $2 something, they're actually legally required to be making at least $7.25.
That's not to say that shitty employers don't screw tipped employees out of this all the time, though...
That's not to say that shitty employers don't screw tipped employees out of this all the time, though...
Shitty employers do all kinds of shitty stuff.
I once worked at a chain of convenience stores where, if your cash drawer was short at the end of your shift, it came out of your pay, down to minimum wage, but if it was over... Well, that wasn't discussed. ...via mobile.
So the minimum wages aren't all as low as I expected, which is great. But the tipped employees?! Yikes. Thank goodness I tip well.
Only in some states, though. Here on the West coast they still make min. wage along with tips. You can do really well here if you're a server or a bartender. Ex-bf before DH was a bartender working 3 nights a week and made $60k+ a year.
One of the arguments I've heard is that the minimum wage is partially responsible for the increase in COL. Raising the minimum wage just lifts the income floor, so everybody gets paid a tiny bit more and everything ends up costing a tiny bit more.
So...there's that. I'm not sure how that accounts for the people working PT or the unemployed.
I can see how that would happen but then there's the chicken/egg argument. Are wages making the COL go up or is the rising COL creating a need for wages to rise? If they are worried about COL going up, then at least try freezing minimum wage for a while. Then see if over time COL still rises. If it does, then we all would know that it's not wages causing the COL to rise. But to abandon minimum wage, I think would cause a crisis like the housing crisis. Too much too fast. I can see an employee's wages going from $7 to $4. And if everyone does it it's not like the employee can walk across the street and get another job.
One of the arguments I've heard is that the minimum wage is partially responsible for the increase in COL. Raising the minimum wage just lifts the income floor, so everybody gets paid a tiny bit more and everything ends up costing a tiny bit more.
So...there's that. I'm not sure how that accounts for the people working PT or the unemployed.
I can see how that would happen but then there's the chicken/egg argument. Are wages making the COL go up or is the rising COL creating a need for wages to rise? If they are worried about COL going up, then at least try freezing minimum wage for a while. Then see if over time COL still rises. If it does, then we all would know that it's not wages causing the COL to rise. But to abandon minimum wage, I think would cause a crisis like the housing crisis. Too much too fast. I can see an employee's wages going from $7 to $4. And if everyone does it it's not like the employee can walk across the street and get another job.
The fed minimum wage was frozen from 1997 to 2007. I'm going to say that yes, COL went up during that time.
I can see how that would happen but then there's the chicken/egg argument. Are wages making the COL go up or is the rising COL creating a need for wages to rise? If they are worried about COL going up, then at least try freezing minimum wage for a while. Then see if over time COL still rises. If it does, then we all would know that it's not wages causing the COL to rise. But to abandon minimum wage, I think would cause a crisis like the housing crisis. Too much too fast. I can see an employee's wages going from $7 to $4. And if everyone does it it's not like the employee can walk across the street and get another job.
The fed minimum wage was frozen from 1997 to 2007. I'm going to say that yes, COL went up during that time.
okay so there you go. COL is not related to minimum wage. Honestly I couldn't see how they did anyway.
Now I did see how wages contributed to high taxes the 3 years spent in Connecticut. But this wasn't minimum wages we are talking about. It was more like bloated government on a state and town level getting yearly raises and bonuses while average people's wages stayed the same or even went down. This would cause property and state taxes to increase. Then the next year it was the same thing. High wages led to higher taxes which led to overall COL rising. If we are going to target anyone's wages it should be the people at the top, not some poor bastard making minimum.
I can see how that would happen but then there's the chicken/egg argument. Are wages making the COL go up or is the rising COL creating a need for wages to rise? If they are worried about COL going up, then at least try freezing minimum wage for a while. Then see if over time COL still rises. If it does, then we all would know that it's not wages causing the COL to rise. But to abandon minimum wage, I think would cause a crisis like the housing crisis. Too much too fast. I can see an employee's wages going from $7 to $4. And if everyone does it it's not like the employee can walk across the street and get another job.
Inflation is influenced by so many other factors though, that it would be hard to test by something as simple as a wage freeze. Droughts increase food prices, gas prices going up increases everything, healthcare and education is rising at crazy levels not really related to any one thing. Then the price of imports changes based on the US economy relative to the rest of the world economy via the strength of the US dollar, as well as just whether other economies are improving (ie, as China's standard of living increases, things made there cost more, so prices go up for us).
So I'm pretty sure that COL will rise over time regardless of what happens to wages. Maybe that will slow it a bit, though.
this is what I was thinking. That even if minimum wages HAD rose in the past 10 years, it's really hard to say that minimum wage is causing the COL to rise or unemployment to go up. It seems like it's unnecessary and even cruel to go after people whose 40 hour a week job still keeps them at poverty level and say, "Hey it's you bastards causing the economy to be shitty" which is what this FB "friend" was saying.
Half-off a meal at work any day you are on the schedule! (at the McD's I worked at)
DH worked a BK in the same town and his meal 'perk' was only half off a meal 30 min either side of your shift.
Solved!!
That's BS. I worked at the BK in HS and food was still full price. The only 'perk' was if you worked closing. Then you could take whatever already made unsold food home.
If we are going to target anyone's wages it should be the people at the top, not some poor bastard making minimum.
But JOB CREATORS!
Oh that's right! We don't want to scare them away.
So we've hit the job creator wall.
Damn I don't know. I'm not all "hate the millionaires" but I'm sure as hell not all " Protect them! They're bootstrappers who work harder than you!" Regardless of the job creators, I just think it's pointless to go after minimum wage earners. I don't know what others will do but I know this guy in particular who wants to brag he only hires legal Americans (it's a HUGE selling point for him that he tells homeowners), wants minimum wage to drop so now he can legally pay $5 or $6 to some dude who never finished highschool. More money for business owner. I just can't get on board with this thinking.
Post by basilosaurus on Aug 8, 2012 14:58:06 GMT -5
Read Nickel and Dimed. It's probably 10 years old now, so it refers to the 5.25 min wage, but it brings up some really interesting situations about having wages that low. Things like how you need first and last month rent, plus probably a deposit for utilities (since your credit is likely poor or nonexistant), and how it just blows up from there.
I remember back in about 2007, probably when the fed min was raised, listening to some conservative radio ranting about how min wage is bad. Basically, they said what people have said above. If you pay less, you can hire more. If you pay less, illegal workers aren't incentivized. If you pay less, free market will reward the best. Basically, the theory that exploitation is a myth, so we don't have to have laws preventing it.
This reminds me of the Papa John's pizza guy. What kind of selfish person do you have to be to be willing to shortchange employees like that? I guess I would be a lousy business owner because I wouldn't feel right unless my employees made a decent wage and had insurance.
How much money is enough for these people? How can people have so much and still want to short others? Am I crazy?
I did read Nickel and Dimed like 10 years ago. I forgot how much of this was covered. I need to read it again. I remember being angry as I read it and I think I'd be even more pissed now.
So it looks like we are all on the same page here. Thanks for explaining though because I really didn't want to get into it with this guy. He's a friend's dad and it just wouldn't be worth it.
Thank you Sibil. So in a nutshell
If you pay less, you can hire more.
True. So now instead of a company having 1 fulltime employee making 16k a year, you can have two employees making 8k a year. Win win y'all.
If you pay less, illegal workers aren't incentivized.
I don't see how they can think this (them not you Sibil) because now if you can pay Billy Bob $5 an hour, the illegal worker can work for $2. The illegal workers can always undercut the average worker. Race to the bottom is right. Damn.
If you pay less, free market will reward the best.
And how much is that going to happen? What is the "reward" going to be? Probably what is now minimum wage. "Hey Joe, you've been working your fingers to the bone for the past 3 years for me. I'm going to give you $7 an hour instead of $4."
Basically, the theory that exploitation is a myth, so we don't have to have laws preventing it.
Exploitation is very real. How anyone could think that an employer would not take advantage of being able to pay people the bare minimum.
And aren't Republicans against government handouts? Wouldn't this low wages just cause people to go on some type of assistance? So Job Creator Dude makes more money while taxpayers subsidize his employee's ability to make a living?
So many times I read a post that points something out about a topic that changes my mind or at least opens me to the other side. I just don't see any good that could come of this. Now I really hate FB guy. WTF dude.
Read Nickel and Dimed. It's probably 10 years old now, so it refers to the 5.25 min wage, but it brings up some really interesting situations about having wages that low. Things like how you need first and last month rent, plus probably a deposit for utilities (since your credit is likely poor or nonexistant), and how it just blows up from there.
Oh God yes. One the things that crushed me after my divorce was that I couldn't get renter's insurance. Why, because my credit was shot to hell thanks to my ex-h. It sucked ass having to go with some rip-off ass auto insurance company because my credit was tore the hell up.
Lucky for me, I moved out before any real credit was established, so utilities were never an issue for me. Nor was 1st and last month's rent. I managed to charm the socks off my little old lady landlord, and she always had anything in her house fixed quickly for me. Later, I rented my BFFs house after she married and moved to a new city. It was a win-win. She didn't need to sell and had a reliable tenant, and I didn't have to do 1st and last rent or go thru credit checks.
But, you know, it's all TOTES not a problem and I needed bigger bootstraps.
And aren't Republicans against government handouts? Wouldn't this low wages just cause people to go on some type of assistance? So Job Creator Dude makes more money while taxpayers subsidize his employee's ability to make a living?
No, because the Republicans want to do away with public assistance entirely. So the employees making $3 an hour would be SOL and not the taxpayers' problem. Private charities will surely step in and make sure Employee's family has enough to eat and a roof over their heads.