Minimum Wage

desandrewsdesandrews Posts: 143
edited November 2006 in A Moving Train
The last time the minimum wage was raised, I was 16 years old working as a sacker in a grocery store. I was, needless to say, very happy about the only raise I received at that job over the 4 years I worked there.

Since then, I've understood arguments on either side to raise minimum wage or just abolish it all together. The thing I don't understand is why the proposed increases out there right now are so weak? Raising it $8 or $12 phased in over time. Screw that. I think we should raise the minimum wage to $24/hr. If you work a full 40 hour week for 52 weeks that puts you at about $50,000/yr. You can't tell me the true "poverty line" is lower than this. It's almost impossible to even own a car on this salary much less a house if you're trying to raise a family. Plus, having both parents work should not be a necessity so the entire family should be able to survive on one salary, that minimum salary in my mind is $50K.

So why not raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $24.00 an hour and really get this poverty thing over with. You don't think people will want to work at McDonald's for $24 an hour?

On a side note, it should be indexed for cost of living as well, so $24 in rural areas, something more like $35 in a city like Chicago, $45 in LA and $50 in NYC. I'm sick of seeing poor inner-cities, that needs to be corrected.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    desandrews wrote:
    to survive on one salary, that minimum salary in my mind is $50K.

    . You don't think people will want to work at McDonald's for $24 an hour?
    .

    That would be great for the one employee they have on staff. Problem is A quarter pounder with cheese would cost about 35 bucks and take about an 3 hours to get as the same person taking orders would be filling them, as well as cleaning tables and mopping floors.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • Uncle LeoUncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    Good way to start a serious discussion on the minimum wage.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    desandrews wrote:
    The last time the minimum wage was raised, I was 16 years old working as a sacker in a grocery store. I was, needless to say, very happy about the only raise I received at that job over the 4 years I worked there.

    Since then, I've understood arguments on either side to raise minimum wage or just abolish it all together. The thing I don't understand is why the proposed increases out there right now are so weak? Raising it $8 or $12 phased in over time. Screw that. I think we should raise the minimum wage to $24/hr. If you work a full 40 hour week for 52 weeks that puts you at about $50,000/yr. You can't tell me the true "poverty line" is lower than this. It's almost impossible to even own a car on this salary much less a house if you're trying to raise a family. Plus, having both parents work should not be a necessity so the entire family should be able to survive on one salary, that minimum salary in my mind is $50K.

    So why not raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $24.00 an hour and really get this poverty thing over with. You don't think people will want to work at McDonald's for $24 an hour?

    On a side note, it should be indexed for cost of living as well, so $24 in rural areas, something more like $35 in a city like Chicago, $45 in LA and $50 in NYC. I'm sick of seeing poor inner-cities, that needs to be corrected.
    um.. less than 50k is hardly poverty. If that were the case, 90% of this country would be in poverty.. Right now I'm barely making 30k and I'm doing just fine. I may not be able to afford a big SUV or my own personal mansion, but I have plenty of extra money.

    We're so spolied in American. Did you know 95.9% of the world makes less than 30k a year? http://www.rprogress.org/java/Footpdist/Footpdist.html
  • Uncle LeoUncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    HINT: He/she is being fascisious

    (and now my bad spelling is going to be evident)
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • qtegirlqtegirl Posts: 321
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    HINT: He/she is being fascisious

    (and now my bad spelling is going to be evident)

    Facetious :)
  • Uncle LeoUncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    qtegirl wrote:
    Facetious :)

    WOW. I thoght I was wrong, but man! Swing and a miss. Ouch.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    HINT: He/she is being fascisious

    (and now my bad spelling is going to be evident)
    I was hoping so. :)
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    As long as we don't care about market forces, why don't we just set miminum wage to $50/hour and make everyone comfortable?
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Uncle Leo wrote:
    HINT: He/she is being fascisious

    (and now my bad spelling is going to be evident)

    Well, yes and no. I am not 100% serious but why is the idea so absurd? Personally, if you are an advocate of a living wage or increasing the minimum wage, I see no reason why you stop at the numerical levels that you do.

    Arguments for the minimum wage increase are about elevating the lower class, providing dignity to people that do un-glorious work etc. Why stop at $8/hr? What do you really think you're going to accomplish with $8/hr? Anything? I don't think so.

    LikeAnOcean, you said you're doing just fine on your salary, is that for a family or just yourself? If you were to add a few kids to the mix would that change how you're doing? Are you in a major metropolitan area?

    Rhetorical questions I suppose, but the point I'm getting at, why doesn't anyone ever discuss increasing the minimum wage to a REAL living wage?

    So I threw out $24, and it was laughed at, so the consensus is that's too high. Cornnifer correctly pointed out that there'd be one person at McDonalds left to serve you if they had to pay that.

    So is anyone in favor of raising the minimum wage willing to honestly tell us what they think the number should be and why that number is appropriate as compared to $5.15 or $24.00.
  • Uncle LeoUncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    desandrews wrote:
    Well, yes and no. I am not 100% serious but why is the idea so absurd? Personally, if you are an advocate of a living wage or increasing the minimum wage, I see no reason why you stop at the numerical levels that you do.

    Similarly, why stop at numerical tax levels. Should't they just be zero? If I can spend my money better than the government, why should I, or anyone else, pay one cent?
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • well 50k a year for minimal wage is way too much, but make it around 25k-30k a year and i agree, it MUST be raise...
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • Uncle Leo wrote:
    Similarly, why stop at numerical tax levels. Should't they just be zero? If I can spend my money better than the government, why should I, or anyone else, pay one cent?

    Because there are services the government provides to each and everyone one of us, like defense, roads, police, firemen etc. We have to pay for those things. It's pretty simple really, figure out how much it will cost and allocate it in a fair manner to the populace. Whatever numerical tax level that is, let it be, the numbers do the work for you.

    The real discussion begins when you start talking about what the government should provide and how it's fair to allocate it.
  • Uncle LeoUncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    desandrews wrote:
    Because there are services the government provides to each and everyone one of us, like defense, roads, police, firemen etc. We have to pay for those things. It's pretty simple really, figure out how much it will cost and allocate it in a fair manner to the populace. Whatever numerical tax level that is, let it be, the numbers do the work for you.

    The real discussion begins when you start talking about what the government should provide and how it's fair to allocate it.

    And obviously I know that. But your semi-facetious* post reminded me for some reason of this. When people watn their taxes lowered, what is the floor.

    Yes, government intervenes where the market fails (like your above examples). When does it fail? As you said THAT is the real discussion. I don't think it fails when a high school can't make $24 per hour. But I think it does when a person can't pay rent while working full time.


    *Thanks qtegirl
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • Uncle Leo wrote:
    And obviously I know that. But your semi-facetious* post reminded me for some reason of this. When people watn their taxes lowered, what is the floor.

    Yes, government intervenes where the market fails (like your above examples). When does it fail? As you said THAT is the real discussion. I don't think it fails when a high school can't make $24 per hour. But I think it does when a person can't pay rent while working full time.


    *Thanks qtegirl

    Fair enough. I questioned the "Similarly" comment, but now I see your point.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    cornnifer wrote:
    That would be great for the one employee they have on staff. Problem is A quarter pounder with cheese would cost about 35 bucks and take about an 3 hours to get as the same person taking orders would be filling them, as well as cleaning tables and mopping floors.

    If there were safeguards in place to ensure that the raise hike wouldn't be absorbed by the consumers it would be a very good idea. Seeing as how minimum wage, with inflation considered, hasn't gone up in almost 40 years, it sure as hell is time.
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Commy wrote:
    If there were safeguards in place to ensure that the raise hike wouldn't be absorbed by the consumers it would be a very good idea. Seeing as how minimum wage, with inflation considered, hasn't gone up in almost 40 years, it sure as hell is time.

    So as long as you're only stealing from the businessman, and not the consumer, you're cool with it?
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jeffbr wrote:
    So as long as you're only stealing from the businessman, and not the consumer, you're cool with it?


    its not really stealing. As i said, minimum wage hasn't gone up in almost 40 years, in relation to inflation, and as a flat rate its been 9 years, which is a crime. As the cost of living goes up wages stay the same, meaning the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer. Same school different class.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    desandrews wrote:
    The last time the minimum wage was raised, I was 16 years old working as a sacker in a grocery store. I was, needless to say, very happy about the only raise I received at that job over the 4 years I worked there.

    Since then, I've understood arguments on either side to raise minimum wage or just abolish it all together. The thing I don't understand is why the proposed increases out there right now are so weak? Raising it $8 or $12 phased in over time. Screw that. I think we should raise the minimum wage to $24/hr. If you work a full 40 hour week for 52 weeks that puts you at about $50,000/yr. You can't tell me the true "poverty line" is lower than this. It's almost impossible to even own a car on this salary much less a house if you're trying to raise a family. Plus, having both parents work should not be a necessity so the entire family should be able to survive on one salary, that minimum salary in my mind is $50K.

    So why not raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $24.00 an hour and really get this poverty thing over with. You don't think people will want to work at McDonald's for $24 an hour?

    On a side note, it should be indexed for cost of living as well, so $24 in rural areas, something more like $35 in a city like Chicago, $45 in LA and $50 in NYC. I'm sick of seeing poor inner-cities, that needs to be corrected.

    as an employer; let me tell you how i deal with minimum wage.
    when minimum wage was low; i hired school kids to sweep floors after school. when minimum wage rose; i had the full time workers stop 10 minutes before quitting time and sweep the floors themselves.
    this is just a simple example but it extends to all phases of business. 1 hour lunches were cut to 1/2 hour. 15 minute breaks cut to 10 minutes. profit sharing stopped completely. healthcare now paid by employees. the extra profits bought computerized machinery and instead of 1 machinist running 1 machine; 1 minimum wage employee is running 3 machines.
    next is the 30 hour work week. the employer doesn't have to offer any benefits; yet can run a 60 hour work shift.
    before celebrating the rise in minimum wage; wait to see the rise in both unemployment and corporate profits.
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    In Orange County, a single person making less than 41K/yr is considered "low income" and is eligible for housing assistance by the government. I was making $39K just a few months ago and I was having to sell my personal items so I could maintain my $800/mo rent for a room. Btw, $800/mo rent for a room is considered cheap in the OC. I was working for the government at the time as an accountant. Every single accountant in my dept. was either a) living with their parents b) living in a dual income situation with spouse c) living on a property owned by parents.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    as an employer; let me tell you how i deal with minimum wage.
    when minimum wage was low; i hired school kids to sweep floors after school. when minimum wage rose; i had the full time workers stop 10 minutes before quitting time and sweep the floors themselves.
    this is just a simple example but it extends to all phases of business. 1 hour lunches were cut to 1/2 hour. 15 minute breaks cut to 10 minutes. profit sharing stopped completely. healthcare now paid by employees. the extra profits bought computerized machinery and instead of 1 machinist running 1 machine; 1 minimum wage employee is running 3 machines.
    next is the 30 hour work week. the employer doesn't have to offer any benefits; yet can run a 60 hour work shift.
    before celebrating the rise in minimum wage; wait to see the rise in both unemployment and corporate profits.


    which is why safeguards need to be implemented by the government to ensure the employer takes the cost, not the consumer or the employees. In the case of small businesses they can offer tax breaks and incentives to make sure they don't feel the hike.
  • JOEJOEJOEJOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,583
    Commy wrote:
    which is why safeguards need to be implemented by the government to ensure the employer takes the cost, not the consumer or the employees. In the case of small businesses they can offer tax breaks and incentives to make sure they don't feel the hike.

    if the employer absorbs the cost, the number of employers will drop, since the return on their investments will lessen.

    Fewer employers will lessen competition in the market, and thus, prices will rise, and those who benefit from the new minimum wage will now have less buying-power then they did before the increase.

    Three years ago, some grocery checkers went on strike in Los Angeles. Many of them earn more then $20/hr. In order to afford to pay them the high wage, stores must charge more for food, so low-wage people suffer.

    Some may benefit from an increase in minimum wages & union pay rates, but in the long run, the ow wage earners as a whole always suffer the most.

    Economics do not allow for employers to absorb the minimum wage increase without a detrimental effect on the minimum wage worker.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Commy wrote:
    which is why safeguards need to be implemented by the government to ensure the employer takes the cost, not the consumer or the employees. In the case of small businesses they can offer tax breaks and incentives to make sure they don't feel the hike.

    i can then set up shop off shore. employers are business owners because they're a little smarter. you'll never hurt the business owner. we close the doors and open somewhere else. i don't mean to be arrogant but every swing at the corporate world slaps the blue collar world in the face. fine me and i cut jobs; then spread the work to the remaining workers. if they don't want to do it; there's a hungry person behind them willing to do it.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    JOEJOEJOE wrote:
    if the employer absorbs the cost, the number of employers will drop, since the return on their investments will lessen.

    Fewer employers will lessen competition in the market, and thus, prices will rise, and those who benefit from the new minimum wage will now have less buying-power then they did before the increase.

    Three years ago, some grocery checkers went on strike in Los Angeles. Many of them earn more then $20/hr. In order to afford to pay them the high wage, stores must charge more for food, so low-wage people suffer.

    Some may benefit from an increase in minimum wages & union pay rates, but in the long run, the ow wage earners as a whole always suffer the most.

    Economics do not allow for employers to absorb the minimum wage increase without a detrimental effect on the minimum wage worker.

    the cashiers now bag groceries. the baggers jobs are obsolete because of minimum wage. cut the jobs; spread the work.
  • JOEJOEJOEJOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,583
    Commy wrote:
    which is why safeguards need to be implemented by the government to ensure the employer takes the cost, not the consumer or the employees. In the case of small businesses they can offer tax breaks and incentives to make sure they don't feel the hike.

    and how will the govt absorb the lost tax revenue caused by the tax breaks?.....they will have to cut other services, or increase taxes. hence, the min. wage earner will pay a higher tax rate.
  • JOEJOEJOEJOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,583
    the cashiers now bag groceries. the baggers jobs are obsolete because of minimum wage. cut the jobs; spread the work.

    so the bagger should lose his job so that the unskilled union member can earn an inflated wage?

    why not fire the cashier and train the non-union bagger who will work for less?
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    JOEJOEJOE wrote:
    and how will the govt absorb the lost tax revenue caused by the tax breaks?.....they will have to cut other services, or increase taxes. hence, the min. wage earner will pay a higher tax rate.

    you're right. tax the business and the business will either outsource or spread the workload throughout the other employees.
  • JOEJOEJOEJOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,583
    you're right. tax the business and the business will either outsource or spread the workload throughout the other employees.

    people always love to hate "the employer", but they need to realize that the employer is the one who took the risk to set up shop, and that the employee gets his wages, even of the company is losing money. I won't list all of the risks to which an employer is subject, but the risk of a lawsuit due to the acts of an employee can cost millions!
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    JOEJOEJOE wrote:
    people always love to hate "the employer", but they need to realize that the employer is the one who took the risk to set up shop, and that the employee gets his wages, even of the company is losing money. I won't list all of the risks to which an employer is subject, but the risk of a lawsuit due to the acts of an employee can cost millions!

    true. and remember the cashier took the baggers wages so the cashier must also take the baggers responsabilities; ie: bagging the groceries.
    also notice how the union albertsons are being replaced by the non-union kohls. both owned by kroger. funny how that works.
  • JOEJOEJOEJOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,583
    true. and remember the cashier took the baggers wages so the cashier must also take the baggers responsabilities; ie: bagging the groceries.
    also notice how the union albertsons are being replaced by the non-union kohls. both owned by kroger. funny how that works.

    I am a very liberal person, and i think unions were necessary to protect workers rights and ensure safe work places for coalminers a long time ago, but it bugs me when a union tries to strong-arm in order to get highly above-market wages.

    Though they are not as extreme, a union can be compared to a street gang that uses threats and their large number of members in order to have things go their way.
  • true. and remember the cashier took the baggers wages so the cashier must also take the baggers responsabilities; ie: bagging the groceries.
    also notice how the union albertsons are being replaced by the non-union kohls. both owned by kroger. funny how that works.
    My grocery store employs baggers, and all of its employees are unionized. Because they're well-paid, they're happy, friendly; they go out of their way to help. Their supervisors and managers treat them with respect and decency. There's a career path, and over the past 7 years, I have seen people move from being baggers to cashiers to working the office. And I know they send people on to the central office.

    I pay a bit more than the local Wal-Mart or other non-union shops, but it's worth it to me.

    And my local grocery store is expanding -- opening a brand new location a mile or so away from the Wal-Mart.

    So are they stupid? Doomed? Or just decent human beings living by the golden rule?
    "Things will just get better and better even though it
    doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
    idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
    Hope! Hope is the underdog!"

    -- EV, Live at the Showbox
Sign In or Register to comment.