What should the Minimum Wage be?

i just hate the whole concept. it seems like something from feudal days. obscenely wealthy white men in suits and limos, setting the lowest, possible, acceptable price for what is generally hard work with few benefits. they'd pay you less, if the law weren't so restrictive. in fact, they'd pay you a fucking penny an hour if they could.

are you working for the legally sanctioned minimum wage, or have you ever? what is the minimum wage, and what should it be?

and in motopia, lawmakers would be payed the exact same minimum wage they deem worthy on those who elected them. afterall, what they do isn't even work, they just shake hands, sign papers, make speeches and accept envelopes, while living like lords.

The minimum wage should be whatever it takes to get one over your state's poverty level.

When I was in high school, I worked for close the the minimum wage, but not quite that low. I think it was $3.35 an hour then, and I made like $3.50 an hour.

... What matters is how cheap labor is in other countries. Raising the wages paid in other countries would have more of an effect than raising ours.

:-(

If the min. wage were raised to $7.50 and hour, within a year the prices we pay would adjust proportionally. Either that or labor would be outsourced, or manufacturers would invest in new technology to cut jobs to offset the cost. The owners of these companies are always going to look at the bottom line before the needs of the employees.

Probably the best way to improve workers prospects would to bring the wages of workers in other countries up. If they are making proportionally what workers in this country make there would be no reason to offshore.

Yes, a lot of high-wage and mid-wage jobs are sent to other countries; if foreign wages became comparable to US wages, then those jobs might come back to the US. But how many minimum wage jobs get outsourced? We're talking farm workers, waiters, janitors, fast-food employees, etc.--you know, the people who are rapidly becoming the core of our economy. Overall, I think there are relatively few jobs that foreign workers get paid $.50/hr for that Americans would only make $5.35/hr. Even assembling Nikes or sewing Levis would pay better than that in the US.

What I'm saying is, those jobs are still here, now, in the US, in plenitude, and millions of people barely survive by working them. That situation would not change if foreign wages went up. There might be *more* such jobs available, but I don't see any other change.

For the same reason, I don't see investments in new technology doing away with a lot of minimum wage jobs. You'd need some very sophisticated robots to pick grapes, clean toilets, and sell burgers (although McDonalds is probably working on that).

Ultimately, people need to be paid according to their needs. Yes it's Marxism, and it will never happen in the US, I'm afraid.

One I failed to address in my later missive.

down wages here, which makes a lot of sense.

OTOH, costs in those competing countries are much lower as well, just not to the same degree. A $15 DVD here may cost a dollar in Thailand, but that dollar is still half a day's wages.

Same thing applies here -- an $8.50 min in NC wouldn't be bad, but in NYC it would practically leave you sleeping on a grate. If I'm not mistaken, the 'real' minimum there is already $8+. Even here, the standard starting wage is thirty - fifty cents higher than minimum wage, because anyone who has any choice at all won't work for $5.35 or whatever it is. Mostly immigrants and high-school kids.

I think it needs to be tied to the poverty line, which needs to be raised dramatically. $8.50 now, and indexed to inflation.

few industries just like the guy down the street.

Even here cultural differences mean what a contract gets you is different - and may be different enough to make outsourcing a poor choice.

But I agree there is indeed a world market and world capital and world labor. I do not agree that the various areas of the world are tied all that closely together.

But as to the point that low wages elsewhere will affect US wages - I agree they will but only to limited amount.

Meanwhile minimum wages have been shown to NOT affect competitiveness - but to have a drastic affect on a countries well being and the citizen's happiness.

If I could, I'd set the min to $10. nationwide - and would advise urban areas to pass $12 / hr minimum wage laws - all indexed to inflation.

The problem with indexing to inflation is that it tends to make inflation structural, even more so than it already is.

Inflation is the true hidden "poor tax". It only benefits the asset holding class. It is the greatest crime against the poor and lower middle class.

It was shown back in the 40's that the lag betwwen building a plant and production of a product - as in putting money in the hands of workers well before gizmo's were produced to absorb that money - meant inflation was built inti the system,

History has shown that the rich do not allow a closing of the rich/poor gap - and that minimum wage laws fall fae behind the inflation experienced over the years.

I am sorry - but indexing the minimum wage for inflation is a progressive good - and not something to be avoided if you want to help - or just stabilized and not screw over more - the poor.

I have to respectfully disagree. I think inflation, which was virtually nonexistent for most of Pre-Federal Reserve US history, with the exceptions of brief crisis periods such as the Civil War, is the most pernicious economic evil we face. It virtually destroys the savings rate, which is the basis of capital formation, especially for the poor and working classes. If you look at the periods of low inflation, by and large you will see the periods of the rise of the fortunes of the working class. These are the periods where real incomes rise rather than stagnate. Where real incomes rise, the need for the minimum wage becomes less pronounced. I would submit that it is no small part because of the inflationary spiral of the 20th Century that we are having this discussion in the first place. I don't believe this is a chicken and egg argument.

There is no greater threat to economic well being, both on a micro or macro level than price inflation.

I don't care what the rich elites will "allow". I am talking about fundamental reality. Indexing is akin to raising a structural white flag, in a battle that should never have begun. In the end, it will bring about much greater calamity then it's perceived benefits. The rich elite's buying power will never be compromised. In fact, the tool of inflation is one of the means that they effectively commandeer even greater portions of the world's capital.

Inflation, throughout the centuries, has always been one of the most effective hammers of the corrupt despotic ruler on the skulls of the working class.

Until it all comes tumbling down...

and indeed approaches 1%. The rest of inflation is evil!

The idea that higher than that inflation hurts the poor the most we agree on.

The idea that the Fed by growing the money supply has caused problems we agree on.

But we will have to agree to disagree on the value of indexing the minimum wage!

peace!

:-)

You have to be very careful about inferring true inflation rates from Gvmt statistics. They have changed the way they calc the inflation numbers, which have been misleading for some time now.

For instance, housing costs are decidedly under calculated when it comes to inflation. By one private firm's estimate, by as much as 2.5%. In other words, they claim core measurements are off by 2.5%. Also, structural or core rates are essentially a joke. Calculating something without critical components such as food and energy is disingenuous at best.

Since the government uses things such as the PCE for many computations it is their best interest to under calculate, especially when it comes to transfer payments subject to indexing. There are many Gvmt costs subject to indexing, not the least of which are debt instruments such as TIPS. Imagine how much more severe total debt service would be if true inflation numbers were reflected in long and intermediate bond yields.

The benefits to Gvmt of underestimating also appear in GDP calculations, skewing growth upward, by some estimates by more than 1/2 a percent. This influences currency valuations and foreign investment.

In a non-rigged game, all would benefit from productivity increases, even if it was some more than others. In this environment, everyone will eventually lose, except hot global capital which will just run to the next playing field and start the game all over. After all, its their game.

In the meantime, we peons are left scrambling after the crumbs, fighting among ourselves over the dwindling last slice of pie.

Peace Right Back at ya. Thanks for the responses.

We're all bozos on this bus.

Without that you have the 1994 minimum trying to do the same job in 2005. It it had been indexed to inflation back then, the min would be about $8.50 now (I guestimate - don't quote me).

And you are right -- the assets holding class gains, while minimum wage earners, and by extension all wage earners, fall behind with inflation. That's why in real terms we are all making less now than ten years ago.

costs or wages. Inflation actually hurts savers and helps debtors. Say I borrow $10,000 when the average wage is $10 an hour and the average price of a car is $5000. So I have borrow two cars or 1000 hours of labor. If the average wage goes up to $20 an hour and/or the average price of a car goes up to $10,000, then I am only paying back 500 hours of labor, or one car. What I pay back is less in real terms than what I borrowed.
There is also the problem of relativity as another poster was talking about it. My current wage of $11.50 an hour puts me at twice the income of a minimum wage worker. This is reflected not only in the nicer and greater quantity of goods that I can buy, but also in the prices I pay. If the minimum wage jumps to $10 an hour, then I am losing alot of ground, not only in social perspective but also due to the fact that my hamburgers, haircuts, books, bread, milk, etc. will go up as retailers, shippers and manufacturers pass their increased labor costs onto consumers. This price inflation will affect minimum wage workers too as the real value of their new higher minimum wage will not be what it first appeared to be.
Over time, higher wage workers will demand wage hikes which result in me making $20 an hour which will leave the minimum wage worker about where they were at the start. But all of that re-aligning takes time and during that time the minimum wage worker will gain a lot and the consumer economy would get a huge boost.

"you are assuming the value of assets goes up faster than other costs or wages.

Well that is exactly what happens. Look at the price of housing over the last 50 years. It has far outstripped the rise in lower and middle incomes, in both real and nominal terms.

A house purchased in my area in 1970 for about 15K sold in 2000 for 450k. The house was purchased in 1970 by a single income, non-professional (merchant marine). The house was purchased in 2000 by a two income professional couple (banking executive and lawyer). BTW: The house was in worse shape in 2000 than in 1970. The direct result of inflation: it takes two incomes (more person hours) to purchase the same asset. This is, in effect, the opposite of what would occur in an economic system that supposedly benefits from productivity increases.

There is no way that a lower or middle income family could purchase this house today in what was a working class neighborhood.

As you can see from my other posts, I understand that the savings rate is killed by inflation. In fact that forms the basis of my argument on the perniciousness of the rot that inflation breeds. The people most in need of increasing savings and investment into income producing rather than consumptive assets are the poor and middle classes. But inflation forces them to consume, usually just to make ends meet, rather than invest.

On the other hand, asset holders with leverage (leveraged capital) get the most bang for the inflation buck. The largest asset holders frequently employ the most leverage. I agree with your assertion, those with the most leverage (debt) are the greatest beneficiaries of inflation. While "the rich" may privately be net creditors, by and large they got "rich" through leverage. In fact, inflation demands that they leverage.

The downstream effect of all this leverage is to accelerate inflation and undermine savings. This is what we mean by the inflationary spiral. We see this today in the commodity markets, where excess money creation must spill over into asset repricing. How many "little people" own oil wells, steel plants, zinc or gold mines? Who are the beneficiaries - asset holders and the banks that loaned to them. They count on inflation to back up the excess credit creation. This is why the US is "addicted" to growth. If they don't have it, the house of cards credit structure, which assumes structural inflation, will collapse. In effect the US financial system is on speed. But speed kills.

Prolonged periods of inflation correspond to greater income gaps. By and large, the consumption patterns of the poor and lower middle class revolve around the purchases of non-income producing goods and services, (your car analogy), while those of the more affluent class are geared more toward productive, income producing assets (in effect through excess capital).

The US Fed was put into existence not to blunt the power of the monied interests, but to enforce it. That is why they are so dead set against price stability. With price stability, you can't get something for nothing. The Fed may say they are for price stability, but any time there is even a whiff of deflation, which would correct and wring out the excesses of the previous inflationary period, you will see them crank up the money supply, through direct reserve additions, to keep prices constantly appreciating. They have clearly stated this on many occasions. They will do everything in their power to keep inflation, albeit at levels they deem "healthy", in effect.

It would be a real stretch to assert that they do this in any way to help the poor or lower middle class.

Connect the dots...

The reason there is such wage pressure is because of transnationals ability to outsource jobs. This is due as much to telecommunications improvements as to the massive capital investment into low wage countries. These countries are no longer working with outdated plants, poor management practices or financial controls but increasingly first world plants, equipment and management.

Total labor costs are on average 60 to 70% of the cost of doing business. It is quite obvious that these costs dwarf structural inefficiencies or transportation costs.

This is why the moans about the jobs problem, as addressed by all sides, is somewhat disingenuous. There is no quick fix. There will be a very painful process while emerging market economies continue to siphon off US jobs until labor rates normalize globally. This most likely means higher average wages abroad with stagnant to falling wages here.

There are exceptions. Japan, which has a far more managed economy, has maintained very high labor rates and still remained globally competitive. They have other advantages however stemming from paltry military spending, extremely high savings/investment rate and a much higher level of protectionism.

In other words, they have resisted ideological "fake free-market religion" in the interest of practicality.

FDR, the WM3 and Carl Brutananadilewski all in one post!

I have often thought that. It would also help keep jobs from leaving the country coupled with the added insult of being told right before you lose your job that you have to go to another country to train your replacements. I know people who have had to do that and they honestly thought they weren't about to lose their job. They were totally duped.

should make the minimum wage. We certainly wouldn't go a decade with no increase then!

I agree.

Meadowlands Sports Complex. Last time I went there for a basketball game it cost $10.00 to park. It seemed to be at the time that an hour of a person's labor should at least be worth what it cost to park in a publically financed parking lot.

It could vary somewhat by geographic area, or by urban and rural areas.

It is possible to set the minimum wage too high, but right now, it's so low that even minimum-wage-type jobs often pay $7 an hour. Working for $5 and change is just not worth it.

Since unions went into decline, the minimum wage is the biggest guarantee against predatory hiring practices.

Just think of all the social programs that could be eliminated with a humane minimum wage and full employment policies-but that makes too much sense for the ruling classes to go for it.

equates to 20,000 a yr - 24000 a yr urbab - with 2 weeks vacation

should be able to earn enough to maintain an acceptable living standard on their pay. Obviously, this will vary according to where the person lives, someone living in Podunk, Pennsylvania will not require the same wage as someone living in Manhattan in order to maintain the same living standard.

A living wage should be adjusted for the city/county. Companies may go for that but once it goes up, so does everything else. Greed and captialism go together like screaming kids and the mall. What is needed is a tax break to companies that don't pay their executives as much. The less the executives get, the more tax breaks companies get. Also, the more the average pay of an employee, they don't have to renew their business licenses.

We need automatic increases on the minimum wage so it's not always a political football.

That seems intuitively correct to me, for now. That would give you $400 for a 40 hour work week (before taxes) and $20,000 for 50 weeks of full time work.

Seems like a person working 40 hours a week doing *whatever* should make at least $20,000, which really is the absolute minimum a person with a dependent or two can live on these days. A two-income family would make 40K, which in a lot of places puts you into the middle class.

And to pay for these higher wages, instead of increasing prices of goods, companies will just have to trim the upper-level salaries. RIght now the difference between what the execs make and what the workers make is bigger than it's ever been -- or is, at least, obscene. AND if there was a national health-care system, companies wouldn't have to worry about paying for insurance for workers (all part of my If I Were Queen plan).

I've made minimum wage or just slightly above from the time I was first employed, in college, until about age 30. Don't think I could do it now -- that kind of money buys *nothing* these days.

I know people with degrees that can't find jobs in my town due to outsourcing and they make min wage with a mortgage.

When a man or woman works 40 hours a week at a job he/she ought to be at least able to not be considered below the economic poverty level. Adjust the wages appropriately.

From my exprience minmum wage jobs are usully more physically trying, more dangerous than the average job. It is morally responsible to ensure anyone who works these jobs full time can rise above poverty because of their work.

One should understand that government exists to do justice for its citizens, One can complain that doing so is an intrusion of government upon business as Bush has:

"Government doesn't create wealth," Mr. Bush said. "The role of government is to create the kind of conditions where risk-takers and entrepreneurs can invest and grow and hire new workers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/09/politics/campaigns/09CND-BUSH.html?hp

Bush and the free market buccaneers believe business/corporate self-interest eventually produces the general interest. This comfortable belief rests on misinterpretation of the theory of market rationality proposed by Adam Smith.

Smith would have found the market primitivism of the current day unrecognizable. He saw the necessity for public intervention to create or sustain the public interest, and took for granted the existence of a government responsible to the community as a whole, providing the structure within which the economy functions.

"Government doesn't create wealth,"

What about "the internets" Mr. Bush.

As usual, this statement from "Mr. Born on Third Base" is truly absurd. The government, like any investor/demander of goods and services "creates" both capital (wealth) and consumption.

And yet people still buy this dogma about government.

Considering that people would make far less without a Minimum Wage, it is not so much Wealthy White Dudes settong a low bar, but forcing it higher for decency's sake.

... there is effectively no minimum wage.

$5.50/hr goes a lot further in rural Alabama than it does in Manhattan. And I worked for the minimum wage for years, and am not so far above it now that I feel comfortable.

I disagree with your premise, as it is a very progressive New Deal idea, from the days when people had to work for scrip at the company store! If everybody was paid at least the minimum, it would hep raise all wages, but chiseling employers go under the table to hire illegals (scabs) for chump change even worse than the minimum.

Another problem is that the minimum wage is static, and has no consideration for the local cost of living. To me, a $6 min would be reasonable in cheap parts of the country. In places like Manhattan or San Francisco, it should be between $9~11, since that's the minimum you need to get a fleabag studio apt. in these cities.

5.50 does not go that much further in Alabama or Arkansas

Gas here is 2.15 to 2.30 a gallon and you have to travel longer distances to get anywhere (work, groceries, etc.) without the aid of public transportation.

A decrepit studio hovel in San Francisco is $1000/mo. In Manhattan, a 5th floor studio walkup is $1300.

Groceries in the supermarket are 15~20% higher.

You can't begin to compare the cost of living.

including ALL compensation- wages, bonuses, stock options, etc...

whatever the top guy at a company is compensated- the lowest wage worker(including contracted employees) at that company can't make less than 10% of that amount (including employer ss and health care contributions)

company. Whichever is higher.

Max Wage - 12 units

For example here in small town New Mexico, someone making $6.50 an hour can make an OK living. They can afford a decent apartment, decent food, and a used car. But in somewhere like NYC, the minimum wage should probably be closer to $15 an hour.

(State avg rent for 1 bdrm apartment + State avg monthly commuting cost + avg monthly utilities + avg monthly cost of food)/173.33

For clarity the 173.33 is the average hours per month full time worked (52/12*40)

Way I see it, anyone working legitimately full time should be able to afford food, shelter, lights, and to drive to work.

then report that the employer knowingly hired the illegal immigrant. The fines are what, $10K to the employer ? Then count up the number of illegal immigrants and the number of employers and voila, do the arithmetic.

I think some have have estimated between 15 to 20 million illegal immigrants. At $10K per offense =

$150 billion to $200 billion dollars in fines. With a US median family income of about $65,000, this means that between 2,300,000 to 3,000,000 US families of four could be 'paid for' so to speak.

Let's start fining US employers who hire the illegals and see how much money that 'frees up'. Even if you give them suddenly amnesty, these illegal immigrants could then demand 'living wages'. That would be, I think, be about $65,000 / 4/ 12/ 20/ 8 =

about $8.50 an hour nationwide (not counting taxes), therefore X 1.25 as a 'fudge factor' for taxes, and you get about

$10.63 per hour !

Alternate proposal- tack on $1/hr per paycheck directly taxed from each billionaire living in that given state.

Supposing that the contempt for the poor vanished overnight and that a person's time was considered to be of value even if they aren't doing something glamorous.

I remember all too well the people who think that hotel staff, cashiers, fast food workers, nursing home orderlies deserve to make less that it takes to make ends meet. Yes these are jobs that don't require a degree, but they are all hard work.

Were you aware that some gas station attendants are charged for the till coming up short? It comes out of your already meager pay. I know this from experience at a full service station where for a mighty 3.5/hr I checked oil, pumped gas, made damn sure no one drove off without paying, wiped windshields, checked tire air levels, all by myself with no one else to cover for me if I had to use the bathroom. And yet if someone did short me, they were shorting me, not the oil companies.

The person who fills the newsstand with papers each day has to pay out of his/her pocket for every paper stolen by people who pay once and take two papers. A roommate of mine worked this as a second job.

That's the reality, here's the dream.

All people are able to work ONE job and make enough to support themselves. They should NOT have to rely on food stamps or section 8 housing or any subsidies.

Think of how much money that a living wage can SAVE our cities, states, and nation if the need for subsidies goes away. Think about the taxes that people making a living wage pays in to the system. More people pay taxes, the per capita tax rate can go down for all.

But this will remain just a dream. Too many people resent like hell the idea that a mere hotel maid can buy a car. Too many people resent like hell the idea that someone with the responsibility of handling money at a cash till should make enough to live on. The nursing home orderly who is responsible for your elderly relatives being comfortable? How dare they be able to eat something other than ramen noodles for breakfast, lunch and supper and how dare they live in a non-rat infested apartment!

Once we tackle the attitude of contempt for the poor, we can make some serious strides.

what the hotel maid buys.
The trouble is that hotel rooms are already too expensive. Only rich people can afford them, or people on expense accounts. If the wages of the maids, cashiers, maintenance all went up what would that do to the cost of a room?
I have some problem with what you said that their "time is of value". That is only true if they produce something with it. Maybe I am getting to be too much like management, but I get very tired of people who spend alot of time moaning about how little they make when what I see is how little they do. Show me some of that superhuman effort that deserves a superhuman wage. Some of these "workers" give the working class a bad name.

Have you ever cleaned a stranger's toilet?

I've done that and I've taught college... hmmm... which paid more, do you think? Which required a "superhuman effort"?

Geez: I thought the previous poster was exaggerating people's contempt for the working class. Now I'm not so sure.

Get a job in a nursing home for a few months. You will discover that nurse's aides do GOD'S WORK and they are paid SHIT.


I don't think anyone is asking for a superhuman wage. What would that be, anyway? Is $25,000 superhuman?

be FORCED to do those jobs themselves. Clean their own offices or wipe their own grandmothers' bottoms. Then ask them how much it would be worth it to them to not have to do that work. You'd see a sea change in what they think those jobs are worth.

ALL jobs contribute to a company's final product--or else the companies wouldn't create them to be done. Pay a dignified living wage to ALL wage-earners and let the pricing of the final product fall where it may. Maybe then these companies would realize there's room to cut back on artificially inflated executive pay, to keep prices down.

And maybe the poster complaining about the already-high cost of hotel rooms isn't really in a true position to be staying in hotel rooms. Or should adjust his expectations downward, and register at a Day's Inn and not a Sheraton.

so $25,000 seems pretty superhuman to me even if it is what I make now and I cannot seem to afford a car.
One of the advantages of that job was that I worked all alone so I was not surrounded by slackers who foisted their work onto me.
When I talk about the slackers I am probably talking about the nurses who spend alot of time gabbing at the nurse's station while the nurses aide does the work.
Teaching college. I did that for $5900 a year (and free classes (oh the joy, I looked at the classes as more unpaid work than anything else)). I was certainly getting paid much less per class than the professors.

Probably I am thinking of a dozen or a couple score of bad apples who make the whole barrel look bad, but my main point was that the money comes from the product, not the time. You need to pick an apple, produce a widget, clean a toilet, not just stand around and gab or play solitaire on the office computer and get paid because your "time has value". Those who are doing alot of that work probably should be paid more, but I am with Juliet Schor (author of "The Overworked American") in that I would rather have more free time than more money.

How so, my friend?

If a manager comes in on the weekend to get caught up on some deadline work and the workers who come in can pretty much run themselves so if said manager starts pitching in doing their job to meet deadline, how much should that manager get paid? I'll bet you'll say manager's wages. But they're not managing!

I also don't buy your idea that a living wage is "superhuman". Why isn't time of value if nothing gets produced with it? That would mean no one manager level and above should get paid more than minimum wage according to your logic. Most holding companies are insanely profitable but they produce nothing. Northwest Airlines is strapped for cash because they lease planes from a holding company that sucks all the profits away and then the airline execs whine about how much the mechanics make.

When you see how little workers do, you're not looking very carefully. I hope you're considering that second or third job when you claim that minimum wage workers are lazy. These are the people who don't get sick time and come in to work when they should be home in bed. These are the people who work too many jobs just to be able to pay the rent.

But of course this is what you don't see.

Superhuman effort should be what it takes to make millions. It shouldn't take superhuman effort just to deserve in your mind a wage that pays the bills and allows for a little saving.

Up until a year ago I worked part time as a janitor. I started at $10.69 an hour plus paid vacations, sick leave and holidays (even insurance if I wanted to pay for it). Since I got that job almost three years ago there have been 8 people who came and went as part timers and two full timers (who get the insurance for free).

It just seems to me that seven of those eight workers have been slackers. Granted, sometimes we are slow, there is not all that much that is pressing. Yet I find things to do while they stand around and complain about our supervisor. Two or three of the eight have been bozos, stirring up trouble, running their mouths, stealing, and in general not worth a tanj as workers.

Even the one of eight who was a really good worker ended up being a two faced back-stabber. He eventually got fired for testing at .12 after four hours of work.

At another factory where I worked as a temp making $8.50 the regular workers made $17 an hour. In the entire plant they took hour breaks and hour lunches when breaks were supposed to be fifteen minutes and lunches half an hour. When lines went down I found other things to do (for one thing I went to other lines and go trained in another area) they sat around and gabbed. One time I was standing there putting product back on the line and four of them were standing there complaining about their jobs and factory management (one of the four was the shift supervisor). After about five minutes I stopped working two. The machine was running out of cardboard but I was not going to re-stock it. I was hoping the line would shut down, but one of them noticed it before that and finally re-stocked it.

I could tell stories like that all day, and never even get around to the DUers who are posting and reading while at work. Tell me that is in their job description and that they are earning their money. The average minimum wage worker is probably at a lunch counter or a check out stand and unable to slack off like that. Higher wage workers, many of whom think their jobs suck, can and do slack off in my experience.

Maybe they read Ted Rall's chapter "Slack off for a better America" from "Revenge of the Latch Key Kids".

I currently make $6.25, and the minimum wage is currently stuck at the 1994 level of $5.15. My employer hires people in at $5.75.

Obviously, places with a higher cost of living, like the coasts, should have an even higher state minumum.

I LOVE the idea that lawmakers should make the minimum wage.

If you work an honest 40 hours a week, you should have access to "America."

And pardon my lack of nuance- but anyone who sez I'm a "socialist" for saying so can suck my dick.

for an average person to live on one full-time job in their area. People who choose to live exorbitantly (or have a passel of kids)would need to take on higher paying jobs or more hours of course, but nobody should be forced to work two full-time jobs for years on end just to get by.

And I love the idea that politicians get the minimum wage. I'm sick of my tax dollars from two full time jobs going to pay their outrageous salaries, plus tons of perks, plus fabulous healthcare (unlike so many of their desperate constituents),plus lifetime gracious retirement benefits (no stingy SS checks for them). Let them live like the people they serve....then they won't be so quick to keep the minimum wage at a pauper's level, deny adequate healthcare and destroy social security!

:evilgrin:

now days? Compare your salary to your CEO on this site: http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/ceou/

There should be a living wage calculated based on the median rent/utilities/heating costs and no one should have to work a full time job and still not be able to afford a healthy diet because the rent/utilities/heating costs keep them from buying meal based groceries. I know people who have worked full time and have had to eat Ramen Noodles and spaghetti with no tomato sauce just to live. They wanted the spaghetti sauce, but had to be sure they could afford to live another day. It's a wretched situation.

Obviously if it is too high, there would be a problem, not because people don't deserve more money but because of problems like inflation and layoffs. It is obviously too low. It hasn't gone up with inflation and from what I can tell from ads in the paper, neither have low wages in general.
Most minimum wage jobs seem to be in the service industry, which won't be outsourced. I think raising the minimum wage to $7.00-$7.50 would be reasonable and not affect many outsourcable jobs. In some localities with low unemployment rates, fast food workers and other traditionally minimum wage workers are already making this rate.
I agree that most minimum wage and near minimum wage workers work harder than many jobs which pay twice as much or so. The year after I graduated from college, I had a temp lab job and a part time fast food job. The lab job paid almost twice as much. Guess which one was harder.