Raising the minimum wage to $10/hr would solve SS "crisis."

for the Repubs to spend.

At $10 per hour I would not keep on some of my current employees.

It's a smple fact. At $10 per hour I would not keep on some of my less skilled employees.

There are other ways to still get the work done.

Minimum wage means if you want it done by someone other than yourself you got to pay at least this for it.

As thre are many people around here who are happy to take jobs for under $10 I'll hire one or two to reduce the work load on the rest of the staff, and to have extra people in case someone is sick, etc. We'd get by fine if I let one or two go. It might mean my more highly trained/higher paid people work slightly more hours, but we'd get everything done.

At higher employement costs it also becomes more attractive to outsource things done in office to other companies--and the people they employ are often making under $10 per hour around here. (Perhaps in other areas such pay might be higher, but not around here).

There is no other choice if you want the work done.

It is possible to get work done with less employees. I'd have less employees if it cost $10 an hour for all.

True the other companies work might be outsourced to woud then have to pay$10, but I bet they'd also find ways to increase efficiencies so that they could continue to provide services without a signficant increase in prices. Even without outsourcing, I could easily eliminate an employee making under $10.

I've always found that people that have never run their own business will never comprehend the fact that rising the minimum wage must either increase inflation or increase unemployment. They just don't get it. In their minds anyone who owns a business is a millionaire that would simple make slightly less money if the minimum wage were raised.

I figured it was worth pointing out a bit of reality.

Conservatives say a lot of BS, but that doesn't mean that every argument from conservatives is total BS. There is some truth to their arguments against raising the minimum wage. If we were to try to increae it as much as $10, their arguments become more valid.

the minimum wage increase debate are lost on us poor unenlightened souls who have never owned a business.

And neither have I ever met a business owner who thinks that just because they owned a business they are the only people who know how the economy works.

We get it. What YOU don't get is that you are trying to build your fortunes on the backs of hardworking people who are just trying to get by. And when you don't pay your employees a living wage, the costs fall on the rest of society to pick up that burden.

Are you admitting that rising the minimum wage must have an effect on either unemployment or inflation?

as examplified by the "Progressive" business owners here who would rather dump someone on their ass, or increase prices rather than take a hit to their profits. If that is the PROGRESSIVE response, the Cons would have a field day. The catch is to have a policy that is attatched to the minimum wage increases that buffer the inevitable response to the MW increase; a package of incentives for businesses to not increase prices and not lay off employees. A policy that shares the burden of these increases so that it isn't shouldered entirely on the businesses.

The idea would be a phase in of the wage increases with tax incentives that offset them. Then, gradually the incentives would decrease, cushioning the effect to the economy and the business owners, especially the small business owners, who can least afford the change.

decreases the cost of capital (equipment) which would likely result in having to give a greater tax cut then the income employees would generate. In the long term it might be just as good to invest in programs that increase training and efficiency and make hiring people at better wages more rewarding.

unemployed workforce. That figure is about 4%, any thing less than that and then overemployment becomes a problem (and that is the case where people are hired to a position above their skill level because a qualified person is unavailable). The entire capitalist system is dependent upon there being a low/no skill buffer at the bottom of the ladder. Should those people be simply discarded? Should they be treated as human garbage and cast aside, a necessary part of society? We can't make everyone a skilled laborer, so the least that we can do is ensure those in the low skilled labor pool have the opportunity to put a roof over their head and food in their mouths.

As I've already mentioned, I'm not making money off the people making under $10. These are people hired to just make the day go more easily. If I stuck to the employees making over $10, I would make just as much as I do now, and my expenses would be lower.

My paying students under $10 does not put any costs on others. Students are not trying to live off a part time job while in school.

I was a student who put myself through college with a part-time, minimum wage job and that's why I pay my employees what they are worth. They are not going to go through what I went through.

It doesn't pay in the long run to keep employees who are underpaid. You have higher turn-over, poorer productivity and more inefficiency.

If you didn't really need the people you are underpaying right now, then why don't you just get rid of them now? Then you can pay your essential staff better and maybe keep them longer and save more money for yourself.

I'm paying well above minimum wage. They are paid well based upon what others in the area are paid, so why are you so sure I am underpaying them?

I'm not talking about people in four year or more college programs, but of people in community college and even six month programs. Without experience, these people are not going to make over $10 around here.

How would it benefit them if I got rid of then?

They would make $10/hour if the minimum wage was raised to $10/hour.

You are being disingenuous. No businessperson is going to employ people they don't really need. Not if you want to stay in business.

I'm telling you how it is in the real world. That's not being disingenuous.

There are employees who benefit my office but who I could do without. If the minimum wage increased to $10 per hour, I'd do without some of them. At their current wages, they are worth keeping on.

all humans have basic needs: food, shelter and love. Anything above that is a want: something we have forgotten about in our society. In order for the first two to be addressed here in America, a person needs a job that will provide money for those two needs, We should have a policy in this country that mandates anyone with a full time job will make more enough to meet those needs in the area where they live. That is accomplished with a minimum wage that is a living wage.

Your rsponse isn't relevant to my comment, bot in the definition of needs and in terms of a living wage. Students taking a part time job, or people without training taking an entry level job in a medical office so they can ultimately get the experience for a "real" job, are not taking such jobs to suatain themselves.

between an employee and a person? An employee is a person, and therefore has the needs of a person. When you start thinking of them as employees with empolyee needs, rather then people and human needs, it is pretty easy to think of them in start numerical terms. I think the process is called dehumanization, and it is relevant to your comment. If a person is working for a purpose other than fulfilling a human need, then it is a want.

people without training taking an entry level job in a medical office so they can ultimately get the experience for a "real" job, are not taking such jobs to suatain themselves.

That is a pretty broad generalization. And too bad statistics don't back it up.

You are still missing the point. Not everyone taking a job is taking a job to meet their immediate needs.

My statement about people taking entry level jobs is true. I'm basing this on real world experience--not your imaginary statistics.

There are plenty of people who have no education or training who have are unlikely to make more than $6 around here. If I find one who looks trainable, and start them at $7.50 they are already ahead of where they were. After getting experience they can often qualify for a real medical office or hospital job and make signifcantly more.

This is largely a learning experience. There are many ways in this society that people can move up. Some go to school where they aren't paid and others take unpaid internships. Others take entry level jobs and make a bit of money while others are going to school making nothing.

People with no college education and no skills do have limited pathways. Who the hell do you think you are that you would deny people such opportunities? These people are not going to make over $10, at least around here, until they learn some skills. No body in their right mind is out there saying that the minimum wage for such people should be moved to $10. Even the Democrats pushing for an increase are only looking for an increase to about $7.50 over two years, knowning that an increase as high as $10 would he harmful to many.

I was a high school student working at Sears, then in college McDonalds, and later Roy Rogers, and never made much more than minimum wage there. Did I need the money that I made at these jobs? Not really, my parents made a decent salary, so I worked mostly for the work experience, and pocket cash, so I understand the argument you are making. But I worked side by side with single parents working to make a living, who this was often their second or third job. You say that we should base the minimum wage on your students who don't really need the money rather than the people struggling in the workforce, and I say that is exploiting those people most in need of help. I am sorry, no matter how much rationalization and spin you try to put on it, it is simply a matter of greed!

<There are plenty of people who have no education or training who have are unlikely to make more than $6 around here. If I find one who looks trainable, and start them at $7.50 they are already ahead of where they were. After getting experience they can often qualify for a real medical office or hospital job and make signifcantly more.>

This is EXACTLY my point! Can they live on $6/hr near you? Probably not. If the minimum wage moved up to $10/hr, is the need for the work that these people do going to go away? No. McDonalds is still going to need people to flip the burgers, you are still going to need people to clean your office, and Sears is still going to need people to stock their shelves and ring up customers. You may pay a little more for your big mac, or McD's could incorporate the cost of the increase into the 2 cents it costs them for a 32 oz soda, that they sell for $2.

<People with no college education and no skills do have limited pathways. Who the hell do you think you are that you would deny people such opportunities? These people are not going to make over $10, at least around here, until they learn some skills. No body in their right mind is out there saying that the minimum wage for such people should be moved to $10. Even the Democrats pushing for an increase are only looking for an increase to about $7.50 over two years, knowning that an increase as high as $10 would he harmful to many.>

I am not DENYING them anything. I am insisting that they should be treated with DIGNITY and their contributions to the workforce be rewarded appropriately. Your the one who would rather put them on the street rather than take a cut in your profit margin; you are the bad guy here and NOT me. And it is exactly because they have limited pathways that we should insist that the ones available pay a living wage to ensure they can put food on their tables and a roof over their heads. $280/ week, that is what $10/ hour equates to after taxes in a 40 work week. Do you honestly think that $280/ week is too much to expect the bottom rung on the ladder to make?

I don't have to hire anybody without experience. At $10 I, and any other employer, would have a few hundred applicants with experience for every spot. These people, with no experience or education (and who aren't the caliber of people who are ultimately college bound) are not going to get jobs.

You keep changing the facts--such as asking if they can live on $6.00 per hour. That's not relevant. I'm starting at $7.50 for the first 90 days, which will go up if they are worthwhile. These are typically people living with parents, husband, or boy friends, so they do not have to sustain themselves at $7.50 per hour. Those with any training or experience start at a higher point.

Some of these people turn out to be unable to function adequately in an office situation, and go on from one dead end job to another. I've also had people start out at the bottom as receptionist, and if they could handle it give them training in insurance billing. Some have gone on to get jobs as insurance billers--which is a fairly high peying job for someone without formal education. Others have used the experience for more clinical positions. They wouldn't have had such opportunities if the minimum wage was $10 since there are plenty of unempoyed people with some education or experience who can be easily hired at that much. Going by your arbitrary definitions of what their work is done is not treating them with any more dignity and is harming them, not helping them.

as being what people are making around you. I was merely asking if someone in your area can live off of $6/hr.

<These are typically people living with parents, husband, or boy friends, so they do not have to sustain themselves at $7.50 per hour.>

Again, you make my point for me. The point of a MW pegged to the Living Wage is so they COULD if they had to.

<Going by your arbitrary definitions of what their work is done is not treating them with any more dignity and is harming them, not helping them.>

How is insisting that they be paid a living wage harming them? How is ensuring that they are paid a wage that if they were working full time they could afford food and housing, harming people? Besides, it isn't arbitrary. The living wage is a national average cost of living. Pegging it to the minimum wage allows it to be a starting point for people at the bottom of the ladder: a minimum standard to survive.

<They wouldn't have had such opportunities if the minimum wage was $10 since there are plenty of unempoyed people with some education or experience who can be easily hired at that much.>

If the minimum wage were raised, it would be an upward pressure on wages in general=> skilled and educated jobseekers would be seeking wages higher than the MINIMUM WAGE.

<Some of these people turn out to be unable to function adequately in an office situation, and go on from one dead end job to another.>

So based on this, you think that they should be discarded? Banished to a life of working 80 hours/week at $5.15/hour jobs in order to make enough money to put food on the table and pay rent?

I'm talking about paying $7.50 minimum for people with no training or experience--which is in line with what the Democrats in Congress are pushing for over a two year phase in. You then try to blame me for those making $6, and later $5.15 at the end.

I'm not saying the minimum wage should be $5.15 or even $6. The topic here is a proposal to move it to $10, which is absurd, especially without exceptions.

There are plenty of people applying for jobs who are functionally illiterate, and who cannot handle showing up regularly to a job. It is unfortunate that they wind up either on welfare or making minimum wage. Hopefully a solution can be found, but requiring employers to pay $10 is not the solution as it will result in making it harder for many to get jobs whether you like it or not. If mandating an absurd wage results in denying people lacking education and training the opportunity to get starter jobs which give them a chance, you are hurting them.

Since you have NO concept of social justice and can't seem to follow the basic tract of an argument, why don't you run right over to Free Republic and continue to shoot the country in the foot with your selfish, and greed ridden policies.
ignore

Come to think of it, I made under $10 an hour the first few years after getting through medical school, during internship and residency.

There's always going to be those who believe the purpose of business is to give employees a means by which to earn income, or in other words the owner should take less so that the employees should have more. That type of thinking, if you want to call it that, is just not how business is conducted. The purpose of a business is to make money. Those who were willing to lay out the capital expenditure and take the risk should expect to be compensated for their labors. I have yet to find any employees who want to take on the burden of the risk as well as the benefits, or in other words, I have yet to have any tell me if we lose money, they'll pitch in to pay off the creditors. Any employees that benefit as a result of the business being successful are a by-product of the blood and sweat it took in order to create the business. Me and my parter own and operate our own business and I can assure you we didn't start this business so our employees could make a living and we just barely get by. I get up every morning in order to make money.

Of course, as you have pointed out, it is to your advantage to pay your employees enough so that they feel as though they are being compensated in a manner that is fair and is directly related to their work. That pay is a matter between you and them. And that you're giving young people an opportunity to work and learn I find to be admirable.

If someone wants to operate their business in such a way that they don't feel comfortable unless they can pay people a certain amount with certain benefits, then let them see how their business plan plays out in the market. But, there's never any reason to apologize or feel like you have to defend how you run your business or what decisions you've made. I find more often than not that ignoring those who criticize and just doing what you know to be right is the best business plan.

I also received another message (personal messgage) from someone else saying something similar a few minutes ago.

Of course I pay absolutely no attention to any criticism of how I run my business, and see no need to justify it. The point here is more one of politics.

Democrats cannot survive as a party catering to nutty far left economic ideas. No Democrats in office would call for anything as off the wall as increasing the minimum wage to $10 for everyone at this time. (Coincidentally, the minimum pushed in Congress is for around $7.50, which is the bare minimum I'd consider paying someone now with absolutely no experience or education.) Such sttitudes which totally ignore the rules of economics, and totally ignore the interests of both business owners and even of many employed people, are going to alienate a lot of potential voters. We've found that such appeals to class warfare do not bring in votes. On the other hand, there are real reasons for small business owners to support Democrats--but that will never happen if they made such absurd proposals.

<There's always going to be those who believe the purpose of business is to give employees a means by which to earn income, or in other words the owner should take less so that the employees should have more.>

It is a matter of recognizing that part of the formula for success is your workforce, and they are, therefore, entitled to a fair share of the business' profits. It is a matter of social justice and not taking advantage of people less fortunate than you. It is a matter of the social responsibility businesses owe to the societies that make them successful. Capitalism doesn't occur in a vaccuum. Race to the bottom wage practices driven by poor corporate citizens like McDonalds and Wal-Mart, are self destructive and short sighted. Business works best when employees and business owners treat each other like partners with the single goal of...

<The purpose of a business is to make money>

But not at the expense of, nor the detriment to, the community it services.

<I have yet to find any employees who want to take on the burden of the risk as well as the benefits, or in other words, I have yet to have any tell me if we lose money, they'll pitch in to pay off the creditors.>

Then you haven't been paying attention to what has been going on in the airline industry over the last 4 years. Unions have been making concessions left and right, renegotiating contracts with their parent companies to accept wage cuts and promoting cost cutting methods to help keep the Airlines afloat. And employees do take a share of the risks as well, through profit sharing programs. Employees who take some of their compensation through company stock are risking that compensation and betting it on the performance of the company.

<I find more often than not that ignoring those who criticize and just doing what you know to be right is the best business plan.>

Is that taught at the prestigious Ostrich School of Business? :eyes:

You run your business the way you want, and me and my business partner will run our business the way we want. Seeing as you don't get a vote in the matter, it's not only your best option, it's your only option.

In terms of public policy, his beliefs are non-starters, which fortunately the Democrats in Congress would have no part of.

In terms of a DU discussion, he's clearly lost any ability at reasonable discourse over this, mistaking counterproductive policies which harm those he intends to help as "social justice" so there really isn't more to say.

- and a big jump in minimum wage will really impact the small businessman the most. Yes, it will cost jobs.

Based on my personal experience, with a significant increase in the minimum wage, the small business gets rid of the part-time teenage file-clerk and the office receptionist right off the bat. They are minimal skill positions, are easily expendible and are the first to go. Other part-time employees may go, too. Many of the part-timers are back-to-work mom's and older workers. The extra work load is absorbed by the permanent key employees.

The key employees then must put in more hours and many times are given comp time in lieu of actual $$$ (not so bad, I like a few extra days off a year).

The same thing occurs when a small business has a significant increase in any business related expense or suffers a loss of income (loses a big account or contract, etc.). Something - and it's usually SOMEONE - must go.

There is no absolute number of employees which are needed. When business is good, it is easier to hire the extra part time file clerk and make things a bit easier for everyone. If this gets too expensive, or if business is slower, it becomes more appealing to just spead out the work and go without the part timer.

at the wrong end of the problem. Lately, thanks to slime like Wal-Mart, it's become some kind of "virtue" to buy more crap at lower and lower prices.

What if you charged more for your goods and services -- enough to cover the extra $500 or so a month to bump each worker to a $10 minimum hourly rate (in California)...

How about the idea of people buying less crap and paying enough more for each crappy thing to pay a living wage? I'd pay 20% more for all of my necessities if I knew that every worker could make a decent living.

Of course, entire segments of the "economy" aren't even paying the current minimum wage...

...you wouldn't still be keeping them on at $5.35/hr either, would you? I mean, money is money, and money you don't have to spend is money wasted, right?

or get some of the unskilled workers to carry on a bigger load.

I'm afraid Ron's right.

I guess you're just not a very good business person, then, if you think screwing your employees is the "right" thing to do for you. :nopity:

I wonder how much tax money goes to support the basic needs of underpaid employees, whose employers just don't think they're worth a living wage.

For an untrained person out of high school I can pay people under $10 and still be paying them better than they can make at a lot of other jobs around here.

And if cost $10 per hour there are a couple of employees I could get by without.

It's a win-win situation. They relieve the work load on the rest of the office and receive as much or more pay than they can get elsewhere. They also get experience for when they complete more education so that they ultimately have a better chance at higher paying jobs.

If not, then it's exploitation.

The lower paid employees tend to be students or people taking time between high school and their ultimate education plans. Many are also working part time while having a spouse who brings in substantially more.

I know a lot of people working two of those low paying jobs to get by.

What do you consider a living wage?
Should everyone making less than that quit, or be fired?

that you think exploitation is better than unemployment?

I suppose you could get the other impression if you just read the subject line.

$10 per hour is not a living wage.

out of charity?

You get what you pay for - hiring cheap labor actually hurts your business in the long-run.

California has raised the minimum wage several times in the last decade and everytime, the business community complains that they will have to let people go. And everytime, it doesn't work out that way.

It is a win-win deal for all of us.

I'm not taling about "cheap labor." Around here I can pay someone $8 or $9 for many jobs and be paying them as well or better than they can get elsewhere.

The California experience isn't relevant to this. I'm not taling about reasonable increases in the minimum wage, but of the idea here of increasing it to $10. If it was increased to $10, people would really be let go. I also bet that a lot more people around here make under $10 than in California.

by working 40 hours a week, then there is something very wrong.

40 hours x $7 = $280/week.

How the heck is someone supposed to pay rent, bills, car, gas, health insurance, and save something to try and get ahead, out of $280 a week? Let's not even go into supporting a family on this amount.

I am so sick and tired of hearing this weeping, moaning, and gnashing of teeth by so-called "business" people who spread the BS that every increase in the minimum wage is going to put them out of business.

We need a new labor movement in America. Sensible people who are patriotic and love our country, need to stand up for the working person and the right to have an adequate income to fund Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Sure, a head of household making $7/hr is a problem.

It's a different situation for a college student, or someone taking time between high school and college, to make $8 an hour and get some experience which will help them get future jobs.

Okay, when I was in HS and college I worked some min wage jobs. Min wage in NYC at the time was $1.85, which translates to $8.09 in today's dollars. Now the min wage in NYC is $5.15, which translates to $5.15 in today's dollars.

Still feeling noble?

I don't pay anyone anywhere as low as $5.15--even the students make more than that. I also live in an area where pay substantially less than New York..

Your argument is valid for an argument that the current minimum wage should be increased from where it is now, but not that it shoud be increased to over $10 per hour

The lowest I've paid someone lately has been $7.50 for students starting out, and that has increased if they did a decent job and I kept them on.

are single parents and heads of households. The concept that the majority of minimum wage earners are kids in their first jobs is taken directly out of Rush Limbaugh's ass. Check the statistics for yourself at the Department of Labor. It IS exploitation.

I'm purely speaking of my situation. My employees who make under $10 are not heads of household, but are kids with little experience. I'm also not speaking about not raising the minimum wage, but of not increasing it to $10.

that isn't including health care benefits. You can try to rationalize that it is okay to pay below that because they are just kids starting out, but the fact remains that if you aren't willing or prepared to pay people at least what they need to survive, regardless of their situation, then it is exploitation. Period.

Unless the minimum wage is pegged at the living wage, there will be employers who will pay their employees only the minimum wage regardless of their situation. They will rationalize it by saying that there are people out there willing to work for that much, and therefore I will pay them only that much. They will say that if people don't want to work for that much then let them find a job that will pay them more, but what if that is the only job they are qualified for?

It may sound harsh, but tough. If you aren't willing to pay your employees the barest minimum that is needed to eke out a living, then you are exploiting them.

For some it isn't worth it to me to pay $10. The alternative is for them not to have a job with me at all.

Plus you are assuming that they are surviving off of what I pay. A student picking up extra spending money is not the same situaiton.

You are also assuming a constant cost of living. If $10 is a living wage nation wide, then the living wage here is likely well below that.

If the student made a living wage, then s/he wouldn't need to work for you to "pick up extra spending money."

Secondly, if you need someone in order to do a job, then you need someone to do a job. You will find a way to compensate for the increases in cost that you (oh, and btw your competition) will incur.

Third, the living wage is a nationwide average that is doesn't factor in COL, but no one said that any minimum wage increase based on a living wage couldn't be adjust to reflect regional COL differences. My partner and I make a decent salary here in CT, but if we were living in NYC I can't imagine how we would make it. I am sure that $10/hr in NYC would be completely insufficient, yet by the same token, $10/hr might be extravagant in Appalachia. But I have said it before and I will say it again, if you don't pay your employees a living wage, you are exploiting them.

Would you mind explaining to them how they are better off being fired, even if they can't find a higher paying job and wind up without a job?

Besides, students don't expect to make a living wage while in school, but do seem to like having that extra spending money.

a living wage.

Given a choice between paying over $10 and having an extra student around, I wouldn't keep them on.

But don't kid yourself that you are doing anyone any favors. You are exploiting cheap labor in order to line your pockets.

It's a simple business transaction. Students get extra spending money, plus experience which will help them when they finish school. My regular employees are freed of doing some of the more menial aspects of their jobs. Everyone benefits. The alternative would be for the students to go without jobs--nobody else around here is going to pay them over $10 per hour. Whether or not I employee the students does not really affect how much I make--actually I make a bit less in order to make the work day more pleasant for everyone in the office.

More realistically, without offering such office jobs, the alternative for the students would likely be flipping hambergers. I guess any job is of some value on a resume, but I bet the students in my office both learn more marketable skills and are doing something they'd rather do than filpping hambergers.

Undergraduate students are beating themselves up trying to get unpaid internships for experience. The fact is that students in these internships are hired in a higher percentage than those who aren't in internship programs, and they are hired at a higher salary because of the experience.

The fact that you would rather fire someone rather than pay them a living wage is an example of your greed not your benevolence. You find it easy to blame me for you firing someone (because I support a living wage) rather than accept that it is your greed that is costing them your job. Rather than eat into your precious profit margin, you would rather fire someone. I find it difficult to believe that you are running such a razor thin margin that you can't afford to pay someone another $2.50/hour and if you are, then you should rethink your business model.

You seem to be making a case for unpaid internships as they are hired at a higher percentage and higher salary.

If unpaid is beneficial, I would think that pay is even better.

The figure for a living wage is irrelevant here--these are not people who are living off the job. They are still making more than an unpaid internship.

You can say I should pay more, but the fact of life is that these marginal employees are not going to keep their jobs if the minimum wage were raised as high as $10.That's not just from me, but from many others who hire in such situations.

It's not a matter of greed. I didn't have to hire extra help. Everything the students do could be done by the higher paid employees, but having a student around makes it easier for everyone. If I was really greedy, I'd save all the money and not hire such people at all.

that anyone working can live off of. Setting it any lower allows employers to abuse it, saying that "they are the ones who will work for that much, it isn't my fault that they can't live off of that much." Just like you are here saying that you are a nice guy because you are hiring these teenagers that you really don't need. You are rationalizing paying them below a living wage because they aren't supporting a family and they are still in school. That doesn't make the their time, effort, or work any less valuable.

Internships are part of the educational experience. They are supervised and structured to allow for the maximum educational benefit. As such, they are considered an investment in ones future.

As for greed, it isn't a polar emotion. You aren't either completely selfless or utterly miserly, like anything there are degrees of greed. Apparently, your threshold of greed is $10/hr for your part timers, and if that is the case, then so be it, but be honest with yourself, and understand and embrace it. Don't try and rationalize it to me by saying you're a good guy for hiring them, and then say that it is merely a business transaction. The two are mutually exclusive. You don't hire someone to be a nice guy, you hire them to fill a need that you are willing to pay to have accomodated. If that need could be accomodated without additional personnel, then good business says that you should maximize the productivity of your current personnel first.

Working for experience and knowlege is also of value. There's a big difference between what is taught in classes and what really goes on in offices in the medical profession (and likely elswhere as well). Learning procedures whle working in office such as mine do provide people with skills which can help them land better paying jobs in the future.

The time and effort of pepole without training is less valuable than that of employees with more education and experience, and paying them less is justified. What you consider a living wage is not relevant to what is paid to such students, who are not living off this wage.

It is not so black and whte as to whether there are needs requiring paying someone else. It is possible to either get jobs done with maximizing productivity of current personnel or by hiring students to fill in. Maybe by your business theories it would be better if I maximized productivity and didn't hire the student. Doing it my way is way in which everyone wins. For a modest extra cost of hiring students I make the day go a little easier for everyone else and provide a student with a job they otherwise would not be able to receive. Maybe this doesn't fit into your model for good business, but everyone benefits when I do it this way.

you are getting away with paying them less than they should be paid because people should be able to live, however meagerly, off of their wages if paid full time. To pay someone less than that is exploitation.

for one's own advantage.

The only workers that are exploited are ones who can not apply for a job on the open labor market. Workers on the open market are not exploited because if the wage is too low there is nothing that is preventing them from looking for another job. An individual would not take a job if it were not worthwhile for them to do so. By giving someone a job you are benefiting them and for that reason they are not being exploited. (If a large number of employers raise the rates they pay employees the wage rates for the rest would go down and if those firms are in a competitive industry they would go out of business because of having to high costs)

<Workers on the open market are not exploited because if the wage is too low there is nothing that is preventing them from looking for another job.>

see post 174

Except when those are the only jobs available to them.

<An individual would not take a job if it were not worthwhile for them to do so.>

That doesn't mean that the job isn't exploiting the worker! When Dick Clark took tax advantages to hire welfare to work moms in Michigan, he was exploiting them as a source of cheap labor. Women with children at home would have to spend 90 minutes each way to be bussed into a mall to work double shifts and still not have enough to pay the rent and provide food for their children. (See Bowling For Columbine for an example of this)

that the welfare and educations are designed poorly to leave people in a rut. There is like also an issue with the amount of available information to either the moms of the potential employers of the program.

Do you own your own business? If not, I suggest you start one and learn a little before telling other how to run theirs.

to have an opinion on a public policy issue that has to do with a social justice issue. And I don't have to own a business to understand how a business operates, or to recognize greed when I see it.

I guess asking a person to have first hand experience with something before they criticize it is asking too much... :eyes:

but expecting that someone needs to have first hand experience with something in order to have insight into an issue is asking too much. Besides, your assumption is incorrect. I do own a small business.

"Neither the fact that inflation and unemployment issues are involved in
the minimum wage increase debate are lost on us poor unenlightened souls who have never owned a business. "

But you do own a business, and were just saying that to make a point?

What kind of business do you own?
What DO you consider a living wage, and do you in fact pay everyone at least that?

(edit to correct stupid HTML)

We are just getting off the ground and have no need for employees yet, nor would I hire any unless I could provide a living wage. In my part of the country I wouldn't pay less than $12/hour, and would be racked with guilt if I couldn't afford to provide them with health insurance.

What happens if you are ready to hire someone, and it turns out that the going rate for people being hired into such jobs is $8 per hour? Are you going to pay them $12? What if money is tight and you can afford $8 but not $12?

I wouldn't pay less than 12 dollars an hour. Period. If I couldn't afford to pay $12/hour then I would use a combination of price increases, cost cutting, and profit cutting to ensure that the work got done.

than animals if we sacrifice our principles for short term profit? If democratic principles are to succeed over republican greed and corruption, we need to stand by our principles ESPECIALLY when it is difficult.

Consider that carefully.

Suppose you have some work, worth about $8/hr, and there is an unemployed person who is eager for the work. Is it better to:
(a) Tell them "Sorry, no job for you!"
(b) Pay them $12 + health insurance, raising rates to afford it.
Loose clients to lower cost services who pay $8.
Lay them off because business is bad.

You might say you will pay them $12 + insurance and eat the difference yourself. But this will only work for one or two employees, and so is not really practical for most companies. (Not to mention if an owner makes less than an employee, why the heck would anybody be an owner? It's lots more work and risk.)

We like to pay employees as much as we can, also. (I've actually had employees ask to refuse a raise on the grounds that they thought they would be a liability to the company at the new pay rate, and that they would rather make sure we stayed in business than make more in the short run.)
Our test: We don't mind paying more than the going rate. But we don't pay more than the employee is making us.

that no work is worth less than a living wage, which here in my part of the country is about $12/hour.

I disagree. There are things that I would be willing to pay for, but which are not worth a living wage.
Example: Suppose I manage a store. Someone offers to keep an eye on my store at night. He wants ten bucks a night for this. He stipulates he will be nearby all night, and check the doors at least every 45 minutes. I think this is worth it, and agree.
My store is not in a high crime area, so while ten bucks is worth it, I would not pay more.

Am I morally compelled to refuse the man’s offer because the job is not worth more? Or must I pay him a living wage for something that is not worth it to me?

Perhaps he watches stores up and down the street and makes a good living. Perhaps he lives across the street and is up all night for other reasons, and this is an easy 70 bucks a week. I don’t know what else he does to earn more money, if he does, and it’s none of my business.

because the job is not worth more?

Yes, you are morally obligated to refuse the offer. Just because the man is willing to accept an amount that is less than you would be expected to pay otherwise doesn't mean that you are absolved of any moral wrongdoing. We have a minimum wage for a reason, and when you manipulate the system for your own benefit, then it is morally wrong. The status of the current minimum wage is a perfect example. The minimum wage was established to prevent the exploitation of workers. It is currently set so low that employers hire low skilled employees at such a low wage that they have to work 2 and 3 jobs to eke out a living. Then employers claim innocence by saying that people are willing to work for that amount, so what is the problem? The employer is doing anything legally wrong, but is what they are doing moral? I say no.


Or must I pay him a living wage for something that is not worth it to me?

The work he is doing must be of some value to you, otherwise you wouldn't be willing to pay him anything. It is up to you to determine how much value that work has for you. If you don't value that man's work enough to pay him a living wage for the services that he is providing you, then guard your own store or take your chances.

I think we differ on what is best for the man who wants the job, even though the work available is insufficiently valuable to justify a "living wage".

I think he should be allowed to work.
You think that he should be unemployed.
Clearly, the man who wants the job agrees with me (else, he would not want the job).

I don't think we will come to agreement on this because what we differ on is which is better for the man, not whether or not we should take advantage of the man.

Please note that I do know someone who does exactly what I postulated: he watches stores in a strip mall that back up to his house. He charges an average of 10$ per night (maybe more for more doors), and checks each door around every 45 minutes or so (but irregularly). he generally watches who comes and goes. There are 25 stores. He usually works for about 15 of them (though no store knows nor cares whether anyone else employs him, and the number may vary as management of the stores changes frequently.) He grosses about 50k per year. Not bad for a retired guy working nights who works from his back yard.
Are they taking advantage of him because none of them pay him a living wage, and he has to hold down several similar jobs?

Most businesses lose money in the course of a year. Most small business owners are not millionaires with hundreds of thousands of dollars to spare you know.

Then unless you are a teacher, you stay out of the affairs of your local public education system.

I have every right to have an opinion on the subject and to express that opinion in this forum, just as you do. But don't presume to lecture me on what "position" I am in.

Small business owners have as much a social responsibility as individuals, and when a business, any business, hires employees at wage levels below what is necessary to meet the basic necessities, they are exploiting that worker.

minimum wage.

The better you pay people, the higher quality people you can attract and those people can afford decent transportation and personal care so that they are able to fully function at their jobs when they are on the clock.

When I worked at my minimum wage job, I starved myself so I could afford to pay the rent. I would routinely faint on the job. Do you really think that's such a great idea?

with inflation and you want to impose higher unit labor costs?

you don't. Perhaps you should pay a little more attention to the issues that are brought up by business owners as they provide insight that is important in understanding this issue.

poor urban neighborhoods. Perhaps you should spend a little more time doing research into progressive methods of doing business. Where do you think you are, the Free Republic?

there is little opportunity available to them increase the wages a substantial amount. There are some options available that are mutually beneficial such as efficiency wages and piece rate systems.

for their retirement out of the $280.

wage would do at my store it would cut probably about half the staff and still make my store go out of business because there is no way I could ever make enough to keep all of my employees. I am completely for raising the minimum wage incrementally to $7.25 but $10 is too much at the current time.

I manage a staff of about 15 and 1/3 of those positions are low-skill, zero training, seasonal manual labor positions. I always pay more than minimum wage but I couldn't afford to pay more than $10 for these positions. Furthermore, if the minimum wage was raised to $10, as a manufacturer, I'd purchase newer equipment and employ fewer people.

In my case I've mentioned that there are several ways I could cut back on employees if the minimum wage were higher. Purchasing new equipment doesn't apply in my case, but I figured that this would be the case of others It stands to reason that the higher wage costs are, the more reason there is to spend money on ways to increase automation.

It's one thing to say in principle people should be paid more. The bottom line is that, regardless of the arguments others here are making, employers such as ourselves are going to reduce the number of employees if the minimum wage is increased that much. People could scream it isn't fair, but that will still be the end result.

Already starting to see this with Toyota leading the way. If I had a fully upgraded shop, I could reduce my staff by half. Easily. But we have employees that have been with us 10+ years. I could never lay them off. Instead, we've slowly added to our capacity.

This thread highlights the undercurrent of class warfare between employees and employers. Employees assume by default that owners have deep pockets and are not bound by any fiscal limit. There is also a common assumption that business ownership is fun or great or ... Facts are, if sales are down, I don't sleep well. If I have to borrow money off our line of credit, I don't sleep well. If I have a problem with an employee, I don't sleep well. If any of the servers are having problems, I don't sleep well. If a machine is having problems, I don't sleep well.

Owning and operating a business is not always profitable or enjoyable. More importantly, we're bound by fiscal realities that employees rarely see or understand.

Many of the same things you say about employees not understanding could apply to many Democrats. If Democrats are going to make a come back, one of the groups they need to attract are small business owners. Taking a employer vs. employee viewpoint, seeing the employer as exploiter, is a losing proposition.

It's somewhat of a natural position to take for the Democrats. Why should we be against the small business owner? Leave the Republicans with the large companies that everyone hates.

I see the Republcans currently supporting big business, while Democratic policies are preferable for both small business people and for employees of either type of business.

The reason is that they fear the regulations that Democrats are going to impose on them.

I've never been paid much more than minimum wage. This is not because my bosses are evil bloated plutocrats who are trying to screw me over, but really because they were in fairly precarious financial positions themselves.

Despite what some may believe, starting a business is an expensive venture, fraught with risk, especially when you are competing with others that are situated around you.

As an employee, I tend to assume the least degree of risk. When my last workplace went out of business, I had only to seek another similar job. My former supervisor, never a wealthy man to begin with, was not nearly as free to do so. He was in debt to the tune of $50,000 when I last spoke with him. Indeed, in all my experience of working in small businesses, I've never had a single employer with whom I would have traded places.

One can derive the increase in unemployment from the minimum wage increase analytically.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have higher minimum wages. I'm merely insisting that higher unemployment is a cost of implementing them.

Besides, teenagers in highschool don't have skills that would merit $10 an hour. A $6.50 minimum wage on the other hand would not hurt the economy much and would provide a little bit of a lift.

Although there is a debate between economists over whether small increases in the minimum wage increase unemployment--there absolutely is no debate that large increases (like raising the minimum wage to $10) would have a detrimental effect. Perhaps posing a question would help you understand. If raising the minimum wage to $10 would have no detrimental effects, why not raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour?

from you.

that you'd have to chase them down and hire them back!

Putting money into the pockets of people at the bottom translates into more demand for goods and services at all levels. No matter what your business is, eventually that will affect it in a good way.

Small business owners always fight increases in wages because they see their businesses staying at the same level while they have to pay more in wages. That is short sighted and WRONG. Business will increase as more people who spend everything they get to live on have more to spend.

That's demand side economics and ignoring that part of the equation is why our economy SUCKS.

"Business will increase as more people who spend everything they get to live on have more to spend.
That's demand side economics and ignoring that part of the equation is why our economy SUCKS."

Are you advocating for *'s tax cuts? Because that is the same thing * said about cutting taxes.

You could raise your prices....for whatever service you offer.

And, if everyone is in the same boat - prices across the spectrum would have to increase.

no one would need Social Security.

and un-American gulf, too.

Maybe those CEO's have a few spare bucks to put in the Social Security kitty. For decades now the government has been tapping that kitty to supplement the general fund. It only seems fair that those who have been getting lower taxes as a result of that borrowing now start to give back.

that's not the point

The unemployment percentage has dropped as ex-workers benefits are exhausted.

These idled workers have stopped paying into the system. Their ex-employers have also stopped paying into SS.

People that sell their stuff on Ebay don't pay into the fund either.

Return America to work...End the Republican ban on domestic hiring.

Now that is a slogan I would love to see in a democratic candidate's TV spot

separated by age, education, or experience.

$7.5 for unskilled

$12.50 for skilled

though I have no idea how to calculate such a cap.

There's not an exact line dividing skill and unskilled. I also bet that the bulk of the problems of very low wages come from the unskilled.

Geography might also need to be considered. Pay around where I live is going to be substantially lower than around a major city in most areas.

Who determines what is skilled labor? What "skilled labor" jobs pay minimum wage?

Why should education come into play at all? A person's wage should be determined by the job requirements, and their ability to perform them. If 2 people are able to do a job, why should the government require that you have to pay the person that went to college more? Isn't this discrimination against those who couldn't afford to go to college?

Why should the government require that you have to pay an older person more? Isn't this discrimination based on age? Don't we have a law against that?

but if you can see that there should be a minimum wage at all, and if you can agree that there are different work regulations for different ages (i'm referring to youth, not the elderly) then why shouldn't there be a separate wage for younger workers?

In fact, I believe there already is.

Since we're playing , lets set the age at 18. Lots of theings happen to you legally when you become 18.

Workers younger than 18 have a lower minimum than workers older than 18.

Is that unfair? Is that discriminatory?

I don't think so.

Of course, you could have educational exclusions. If a person has received a degree from an acredited college/university before the age of 18, then the higher wage would apply.

Or, if a person has been working in a field for X amount of time, or at a given job for X period, then the higher wage would apply, regardless of age or education.

Sure, its a little bit arbitrary, but so is life.

On the plus side, it gives employers the ability to hire some lower wage workers, and it gives incentives to get an education early, or to stick with a company when you're young.

Both of these perks would benefit employees AND employers.

My thinking was that someone over 40 (for example) would get a higher minimum wage than some who was 20. I see where you are going with the 18yo. thing.

S/He is an emancipated minor? What if s/he is working to help raise her/his siblings, or her/his own children? What about any of a thousand legitimate reasons someone under 18 would be out in the workforce that would require equal pay? Then, what about the arguement of equal pay for equal work? Should a 17 yo working the register at Wal-Mart be paid less than the 35 yo mother he works alongside just because he is younger, even if he does a better job than she does?

not maximum wages.

Minimum starting salaries, which then go on to be affected by performance, etc...

Just like..hmm..OH!

Just like the program we have now

But better. :)

it will be abused. Employers will say "Sorry kid, you are under 18, I don't have to pay you the same as my older employees, so I won't."

before you respond.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1638217&mesg_id=1638299&page=

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/q-a.htm

Minimum wage laws are full of loop holes and exceptions that allow employees to be exploited, so when we implement new policies they should be fair.

But giving young children 7.5 an hour, and adults 12.5 an hour is NOT unfair.

That was my original post. Did you read that?

two people doing the same job at the same performance level deserve the same pay regardless of age. Otherwise you are saying that the value of the work performed by the adult is more than the value of the teenager (since we don't employ young children here)

I just think that we as a society are dismissive of the rights of young people in general. The political process ignores them because they don't vote or have a PAC to make donations. Why do you think it's fair to pay two people doing the same job different wages? Wages are based on ability not need, so the minimum wage should be the same for everyone regardless of age.

then we are accepting the fact that wages are based on ability AND need, as well as on what the market can handle. Otherwise, let the market determine all wages.

BTW, two people doing the same job will not do the same job equally as well.

It's fair to say that a person who is young, who probably lives at home, and who probably does not have much in the way of financial responsibilities, can afford to take a lower pay rate.

Now, if they have X amount of education, or X amount of experience, then they should be excluded from the lower minimum, AS I SAID.

7.50 for children
12.50 for adults
free higher education
tax breaks for small businesses
tax hikes for companies that export jobs

SS issue is solved

Everyone makes more than before.

More products are bought, more products are sold

More people get a higher education, and then more people vote democratic

I'll tell you what.

Take your ANYONE that currently makes minimum wage. Tell him/her that they will get a raise to 7.50 an hour immediately, and within two years they'll get another raise to 12.50 an hour.

Ask THEM if they feel discriminated against. Because thats the deal I'm offering. Minimum age of hire in most places is 16. Two years later they get that 65% raise.

Thats not discrimination.

Thats economic freedom.

a few dollars less than a woman who is 30.

and blacks less than whites. The starting point needs to be equal for everyone. From there, increases should be dependent on performance.

If we pay group X less than group Y, we'll end up paying group A less than group B.

It's not a valid argument.

Just because we pay children less than we pay adults doesn't mean we should or will pay women less than men, people of one race less than people of another, etc.

it is a question of validity of the argument. There is no more validity in the argument that we should pay young people less than we should pay adults than there is to the argument that we should pay women less than men, or blacks less than whites.

You haven't answered my basic question: why should two people who do the same job and do it just as well be paid unequally solwly based on their age? Isn't that discrimination?

Two people doing the same job does not equate to two people doing the same quality of work.

Also, in this discussion, we have to assume that ABILITY is NOT the only measurement.

NEED comes into play, otherwise the entire concept of minimum wage is moot.

>Who determines what is skilled labor? What "skilled labor"
>jobs pay minimum wage?

Raise the minimum wage to $10 and quite a few skill labor jobs will be payingthe minimum wage.

>Why should education come into play at all?

Because those who get educated are more valuable as employees.

>A person's wage should be determined by the job requirements, and
>their ability to perform them.

And how does an education NOT affect this?

>If 2 people are able to do a job, why should the government require that you have to pay the person that went to college more?

That's not what I said.

>Isn't this discrimination against those who couldn't
>afford to go to college?

You could always make higher education free. That would solve THAT problem.

>Why should the government require that you have to pay an
>older person more?

They already do so. Read :http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/q-a.htm

>Isn't this discrimination based on age?

No.

>Don't we have a law against that?

We have a law against age discrimination, but that does not apply here. Again, go to the DOL page and read up.

Q: Why should education come into play at all?
A: Because those who get educated are more valuable as employees.
New Question: Do you believe that this is necessarily the case? As a younger person just out of High School I worked at a fast food place. I worked with several people who were in college and one with a philosophy degree from a local college (I'm not making this up). Was this person with a degree in an unrelated field a more valuable employee? He didn't have any skills that I didn't have. I think in many cases, we find that people with a minimum wage job and a college degree are either A) Not working in the field their degree is in (in which case their education may make them no more valuable than anyone else OR B) Not expecting to be making minimum wage for very long in this field (not more than a year). In this case, the educational benefit will help them only for a relatively short period at best.

Q: Isn't this discrimination against those who couldn't afford to go to college?
A: You could always make higher education free. That would solve THAT problem.
New Question: Even if higher education were free, then wouldn't it be discrimination against those who choose not to go to college? Just because someone is financially able to go to college doesn't mean they will choose to go. Just because they do not choose to go to college doesn't mean they will necessarily be an inferior worker to someone who only met the basic requirements to get a degree. A man with a physics degree will not necessarily be any better at driving a delivery truck than a man with no degree at all.

IMHO, the minimum wage should treat all workers equal, regardless of their background.

If you think it is discriminatory to pay someone more if they have a degree, then I suggest you get a lawyer and go out on a lawsuit rampage, because it happens right now.

There is nothing discriminatory about paying someone MORE if they are more valuable.

Now, what about college degrees in unrelated fields?

Good question, but not entirely applicable, because even a degree in healthcare will improve your performance as a customer service rep, for example.

Why?

Because of those basic requiremnt classes you take to get that degree.

You learn math, writing, history, and responsibility. If you can make it through college, then you are assumed to have a base set of skills that the uneducated does not have. Your major is just an area of presumed expertise.

they have a degree, but I do believe that it is discriminatory for the government TO REQUIRE a company to pay more for someone who has a degree.

Your example of a someone with a health care degree being a better customer service rep is not necessarily a good example either, since one of the key components of customer service is social/interpersonal skills not math, history, or writing. In this example college is no guarantee that the person has the skill set necessary for this job, since I know many people with college degrees (I am, and work with, software engineers) that would make awful customer service representatives.

Here's basically what I think it comes down to, and I agree with you on some points...
A person's education, experience and dependability are all factors that should be considered when deciding what one's wage should be, but those factors should be left to the employer to decide their value, not the government. The government's role here should be to set the minimum standard for all workers and not try to determine which factors (education, experience...) are more valuable and set a monetary value on their worth. "Oh, you have a degree? You will get paid $3 more an hour to do the same job as someone without one." In my opinion, if his education is truly worth $3 more, the employer should pay him that. If an employer is willing to hire only "uneducated" workers, then he will get what he pays for, but it isn't the govt's place to intervene here.

This is not to say that I don't believe in a minimum wage, it's just that I don't think this should be based on a person's background

My idea is not to pay somone more if they have a degree, but to set two wages

7.50 for teens (or whatever $)
12.50 for adults (or whatever $)

Give the teens an exclusion. If they have x amount of experience, or if they are little Doogie Howsers with a degree at 16, then they earn the full minimum wage.

Thats a bit different from what you think Im suggesting.

Okay, this makes more sense when split into a teens vs. adults structure. I definately misunderstood your plan, and now I see the how the "experience/education" thing comes into play with an underage overachiever.

In fact, there is one minimum for people over 20, another minimum for people under 20 (for the first 90 days), another minimum for people who work in certain jobs, student exceptions to the under 20 rule, there are even certain special minimum wage rates for the disabled.

Read it here:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/q-a.htm

:)

That may be fine for the fly-over states. I don't know, but I suspect it is still too low. I live in San Francisco. The mandated minimum wage here should be at least $20/hour. Maybe more.

We lived in a little Russian neighborhood off of Taraval.

I made about 12 an hour, and supported a small family (me, wife, two kids).

We did fine.

Of course, that was 10 years ago. Things may have changed.

There is enough wealth stolen by the corporations to spread around. Anything less is an insult.

They would earn $93,600 a year at minimum wage.

It would raise wages for everyone else, and then more people would have more purchasing power and Social Security would be way solvent.

It would first cause massive unemployment and then hyperinflation on a scale not seen since the 1970s. That's who I am to say.

spoken like a true capitalist. Your views on the Dem's and what they should do are interesting... -" In order to reverse this trend, the Democrats must stay away from their more liberal moral positions such as abortion and gay marriage.." http://bdq.blogspot.com/2004/11/electoral-map-analysis-part-2.html

Now I understand where you're coming from.

They'll tell you that $45 an hour is simply not possible.

This unified view was challenged by empirical research done by David Card and Alan Krueger. In their 1997 book Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (ISBN 0-691-04823-1), they argued the negative employment effects of minimum-wage laws to be minimal if not non-existent (at least for the United States). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage
For example, they look at the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In each case, Card and Kreuger present evidence ostensibly showing that increases in the minimum wage led to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs. That is, it appears that the demand for low-wage workers is inelastic. Also, these authors reexamine the existing literature on the minimum wage and argue that it, too, lacks support for the claim that a higher minimum wage cuts the availability of jobs.

two and a half times the GDP per capita. Around half of the American population is in the work force. There is no way, even if there were no deadweight losses, that this would be feasible with out inflation or unemployment.

proportion to GDP and would not cause any inflation or unemployment. Let me guess, ...to accomplish that feat we would have to lower the min wage, right?

it really depends on the elasticity of demand for labor and how much the people who are affected by the wage increase share the burden. It is possible that from an equality standpoint none of the lower wage earners could be hurt. The elasticity of labor depends on the degree of substitutability of capital and foreign workers. Unfortunately with the ability to outsource the elasticity of labor is more elastic then it has been in the past making minimum wage increases more costly. (The elasticity of labor also makes it so unions are much less powerful)

Thanks for your participation.

a higher value or lower value. Is there any chance that you know, without doing a search, the significance of a elasticity of one?

I mean, why not, since it doesn't have any negative effects... :eyes:

Reductio ad absurdum

Maybe this proposal should be structured differently: Pay people a living wage - make that the minimum, based on where people live.

However, there really should be an exemption for high school students because they don't need to earn enough to live on. The only other problem is administration of such a proposal.

One thing we should do now is index the minimum wage to inflation so that it increases every year. First we would have to have it catch up and then we could index it.

unless they vote exceptions, like they presently do with waiters and waitresses. If you do not abide by the law, you are subject to fine and jail time. The laws are not made just for some employers.

But, this is an interesting discussion because it brings up a "moral component" of capitalism. So, if the wage is increased, the employer will just shift the work load to the other employees, work them harder and longer. Is that moral? Or is that OK because a capitalist can do anything he wants? He is under no restrictions, moral or otherwise. So long as he can maintain his present lifestyle? After all, he is providing jobs for people that need them?

You're making a generalization that many people in this thread have responded to already. Small business owners like Dr. Ron simply wuold not be able to survive if they had to pay all of their employees $12 an hour. It's not so much greed or immorality, it's just that they would not be able to keep the company going without firing any workers.

The minimum wage is already below the minimum wage for most jobs, except for unskilled labor. We'd be better served trying to get worker training programs to increase people's skills.

All a minimum wage does is set a price floor on the supply of unskilled labor. Because unskilled labor is pretty much a perfectly competitive good, setting a price floor creates excess supply of labor because companies demand less labor (b/c it costs more). Firms who are willing to pay less to people who are willing to work for less cannot do so. It is highly political and not economically very effective (or possibly harmful to workers).

We tried that already. Then they shipped the good jobs overseas.

if other countries have an advantage in labor or skills or resources, then we loose jobs, when we specialize in what only we can do best - high tech jobs that require pretty much a college education - then we help people. We need free public education now - through higher education. We need to over-fund Pell Grants, not cut them.

They don't have to pay FICA or healthcare, so they are mostly inclined to go less quality at a better price, in my opinion.

Even when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress minimum wage increases were incremental.

It's fine for people to sit here and say the minimum wage should be $10 per hour.

Anyone who has to deal with the real world, including Democrats controlling Congress, would know that isn't feasible right now. While the minimum wage is too low now, an immediate increase to $10 would not work out well.

I live in and deal with a world every bit as real as yours, and I disagree with you. I say it is feasible, with certain exceptions made for age and experience, and tax cuts given to smaller businesses to help them accomodate the new structures.

Adding exceptions for age and experience and giving tax cuts to smaller businesses totally changes this. I am replying to an outright recommendation for a minimum wage of $10 per hour.

If I were to pay my bartenders $10 an hour I wouldn't have a bar anymore. Don't forget you have to pay their taxes too in both social security and medicare. I only pay my bartenders $4 an hour but with tips they frequently make more than I do in a week. After rent, utilities, inventory, licenses, insurance, taxes, payroll, etc. I'm able to squeeze out $750 a week for myself. My bartenders frequently make over $100 in tips in an 8 hour shift. I may be exempt from this discussion though since my employees rely on tips much more than their salary.

we already have exceptions in place for employees who earn tips, as I'm sure you know.

If you make more than $30 in tips, your minimum wage is only $2 or so.

after I was almost done with the post. I think for someone who makes tips the minimum wage is $3.50 or there abouts. I'm sure someone here knows.

- is what a large increase in minimum wage does to the rest of the staff.

Should you increase your entry level, unskilled employees to $10. an hour then you must also increase the pay per hour for the rest of your staff accordingly. The pay scale does not just impact the minimum wage - it impacts every salary paid.

That puts an even additional burden upon the business, over and above the minimum wage increase.

I didn't bring that up, but I did think of that.

If you have a minimum of $10, that affects everything.

I'd have to be willing to pay over $10 if I'm going to consider hiring someone else. People expect to be receive periodic raises, often as soon as the 90 day probatoinary period ends. Therefore it is necessary to start out lower than you'd be able to pay someone. If the minimum is $10, must will expect to get above $10.

Employees compare their pay to others. If the part timer is making $10.50 after the probationary period, the employees now making a bit over $10, who are more experienced, are going to expect to be paid significantly more.

I just got email notification that this week's Kiplinger Letter is available on line. Here's their take on what is likely to actually happen with regards to changes in the minimum wage. (Note that the desired hike by Democrats still keeps things will below the $10 suggested here):

No increase in the minimum wage this year. It will stay put
at the 1997 rate of $5.15 an hour. Democrats want a hike of $2.10
phased in over 26 months. Republicans favor a buck less and also insist
on tying it to controversial changes in family medical leave or flextime.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are likely to budge this year.
But chances of a compromise improve in 2006. Minimum wage boosts
usually come in election years, when both sides are wooing voters.

Give universal health care. That will lower the living wage.

Promote housing programs that assist those who are working. That will lower the livinge wage.

Create welfare-like programs that give money to people who already have a job. Any Christian conservative who opposes this would be flattened by reminding them of 'help those who help themselves.' That will lower the living wage.

Higher wages lead to inflation whereas lowering costs is good for everyone.

And I speak as an employer.

but a lot of employment problems would be solved if we had a GLOBAL minimum wage. Especially for tech jobs. I don't begrudge anyone making a living, but it's not fair that with my more-than-fair rates, I lose a lot of sales to outsourcing.

example, on edit: for an ecommerce site with shopping cart, hosted for a year with domain name, I ask a base price of $500 - this is outrageously low IMO, because I do very good work, standards-compliant FLAWLESS code. Someone in India will do the same thing for $100 or even less. If there were a global minimum wage, then it would even the playing field a little.

The owners of companies would simply raise the prices of their products, the poor would end up right back where they started (if they were not unemployed), and the SS issue would not be resolved.

An across the board minimum wage increase like that would just cause inflation, weaken the dollar further, and maybe cause a run on it that would equal a huge economic downturn and no wages at all.SS is easy just repeal the tax cuts. As for a living wage negative taxation (EITC is an example) is really what has to be looked at (as well as programs for health care, day care, etc), but if you just force it to come out of employers pockets it will be a disaster.

Those taxes don't go into the SS lock-box.

Those tax cuts were given because we were running a "surplus", since thats not the case there's no reason to keep tax cuts that are clearly not stimulating growth.

An across the board minimum wage increase like that would just cause inflation, weaken the dollar further, and maybe cause a run on it that would equal a huge economic downturn and no wages at all.SS is easy just repeal the tax cuts. As for a living wage negative taxation (EITC is an example) is really what has to be looked at (as well as programs for health care, day care, etc), but if you just force it to come out of employers pockets it will be a disaster.

The problem with our social contract is that the things we should be able to do cheaper collectively are not being done. Universal Health care would relieve an enormous on business and the added tax levied on the top 2% that would gobble up 90% of the excess productivity would more than balance things out. Minimum wage is better left to the states and calculated on a cost of living basis.

Smaller independent businesses could be obliterated, and we'd all be left with the mostly ugly, bland franchises that already are staining American cities.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Did you go to the Grover Norquist school of economic theory?

Please define for us what you, einheit 13, mean by "a trickle down market."

How does it work?

How is it governed?

How will "a trickle down market" rescue "mom&pop" from the mega-corporations and their army of lawyers, and a bought and paid for congress?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.