A Just Minimum Wage

[dairygirl4u2c]

someone who has peanuts cannot save for retirement, in the extreme. you're better to argue charity, and tough luck if charity doesn't exist (or government if you tendedthat way)

you have an interesting argument with the uninion bit. but, that's still one segment of society. as i said in the other thread, that's not pure inflation and the increase would be more proporitonally than otherwise.

who cares if not many stay at the minimum. some do, and we need to be mindful of them. if the ones who can advance happen to actually get paid justly, so be it.

whethr the minimum wage is legal or not is a different argument. i'm just talking policy in general.
incidentally i think you could argue it from the constitution too. they set the commerce clause. that clause allows fed regulation of commerce between states. it's often used to prevent states from competing to the poit of hurting each other, which is what would happen with the poor and minimum wages. now, you might argue tht it's to far off to base on the commerce clause the a new legislation should be enacted. but, i'd argue that many parts of the constitution states would rather do without and probably wouldn't have ratified if given the chance again. the point being, they intended something close enough that we're not going to expect them to enact something closer when they woudn't have enacted something existing now. the intent is clear enough.
or, if you think they should always be direct, tell that to women who used the equal protection lcause for blacks to advance. if you say tough luck, then i at least admire your consistency and candor.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1368021' date='Aug 22 2007, 03:06 PM']who cares if not many stay at the minimum. some do, and we need to be mindful of them. if the ones who can advance happen to actually get paid justly, so be it.[/quote]

again- someone still making min after 12 months need to be asking what they are doing wrong.

[dairygirl4u2c]

why not be just to the persons who make the wage to begin with, instead of finding fault with the person who doesn't advance? they all deserve it. and

also one other very important point i didn't make that i made in past threads. sometimes i assume things are said.
even if the persons advance, and everyone did, it's still only advancing from 2 dollars to 3 dollars without the minimum. a mimum wage sets the floor frm which many people can grow. there are significantly more who fall in the 2-650 range who could otherwise fall in the 650-850 range.

it starts to get less reasonable that you expect so many to get ahead so much. it's just not gonna happen.

Edited August 22, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Lounge Daddy]

because it should be decided by the employer and employee what the pay is. if someone feels that they are not payed what their work is worth, they have the freedom to look to another employer. that why we call it a free market.

consider this:
and why stop at just bumping min up a few bucks?
why not 50 or 100?
because when the government forces wages up markets dry up, employees are shut out of the system. this is even true when the wages are forced by government mandate to be raised even one or two dollars.

the people hurt the most by min wage mandates tend to be the unskilled, the young, the handicapped, etc

[dairygirl4u2c]

i've addressed all those issues.

it seems, do you agree, then that you'd rather see many who straggle along than a few who do decent?

[Lounge Daddy]

There are many more who are harmed by government mandating wage increases - and no one are truly helped by them.
You disagree?

[adt6247]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1368013' date='Aug 22 2007, 03:59 PM']If the minimum wage is $7/hr. then that's $280 dollars a week (forty hours). After taxes it's probably about $230 dollars a week. That's $920 a month.

Depending on where you live, the smallest and cheapest apartment will cost about $700-$800 a month, and that's probably a one bedroom.

That leaves approximately $220 dollars for everything else. If you take the bus and train to work, that will cost approximately $60 a month, perhaps more, so that takes you down to $140 a month. If you live on bread and water (figuratively speaking), you may be able to get by with $30 worth of groceries a month. That brings you down to $110 a month. You need a phone in the house, in case your employer has to call you, so that takes you down to about $90 dollars a month. You haven't payed for heat yet, which is necessary, so that would take you down to $60 a month (if you're lucky). Then you have to add in electricity, which takes you down to about $40 dollars a month. You have to factor in small expenses, such as new clothes, so budget $20 dollars a month.

That leaves you with $20 dollars a month to raise a family, which would be impossible.[/quote]
First, you don't need a phone. I did without one for years. You do need heat, but you can crank it down to 60F -- which is a safe temperature -- and you don't pay that every month. In college, I spent about $20 a month on food, and ate better than bread and water.

Read this:

[url="http://www.hobbitmanor.com/thesoapbox/?p=1179"] http://www.hobbitmanor.com/thesoapbox/?p=1179[/url]

My friend who wrote this is an actuary.

His calculations are based on two people averaging between them 100 hours a week, a 10% tithe, and 6% contributions to 401K. And yes, you can raise a family in a small 2-bedroom apartment. I just visited Italy last year, and saw the tiny house that my great-grandparents raised my grandfather and his 6 siblings in -- it's about 1/4 the total square footage of my house (if you include my finished basement). And they did not consider themselves poor! My great-grandfather was a tradesman.

Is this how I WANT to live? No. I frankly live a very decadent lifestyle. I own a 3-bedroom house, have high-speed internet access (necessary for my job; I'd do without otherwise), indoor plumbing, and air conditioning, and own my own car, and I eat out a few times a week (which I need to stop doing). What I don't have: don't own a cell phone, don't own a TV, don't have cable. I can afford all these things, but I don't see the point; I'd rather pay off my mortgage earlier or something. I do consume a good bit of beer, but I brew more than I buy (which costs me less than $0.50 a bottle for better quality than any American brew) and plan on doing the same with wine soon.

[Era Might]

Even if you don't have a phone (and I disagree that you don't need one, but for the sake of argument) that saves you $20 off my budget. If you keep the heat on 60 degrees it will still cost you $20-$30. If you live off $20 in groceries, that saves you $10. A two-bedroom apartment around here will cost you about $1200 if you're lucky.

So that leaves you with approximately $60 (not factoring the extra rent if you're living in anything but a one bedroom or studio apartment) to raise a family instead of my estimated $20. I don't disagree that a single man can live off minimum wage if he lives like a monk, but he cannot raise a family and save for retirement, unless he either has many hours overtime or he has more than one job (and his wife will need to work, which will require the further expense of daycare if they have children).

[adt6247]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1368088' date='Aug 22 2007, 05:31 PM']Even if you don't have a phone (and I disagree that you don't need one, but for the sake of argument) that saves you $20 off my budget. If you keep the heat on 60 degrees it will still cost you $20-$30. If you live off $20 in groceries, that saves you $10. A two-bedroom apartment around here will cost you about $1200 if you're lucky.

So that leaves you with approximately $60 (not factoring the extra rent if you're living in anything but a one bedroom or studio apartment) to raise a family instead of my estimated $20. I don't disagree that a single man can live off minimum wage if he lives like a monk, but he cannot raise a family and save for retirement, unless he either has many hours overtime or he has more than one job (and his wife will need to work, which will require the further expense of daycare if they have children).[/quote]
Then move to a cheaper area! I can get a two-bedroom apartment for about $900/month here if I shop around, and Jersey's expensive! Again, follow the link I gave you. Work somewhere where you can walk to work.

And again -- you're basing raising a family on ONE income, not two, which is the norm nowadays. If your wife works, you double your income. That's enough to raise a family on.

[adt6247]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1368021' date='Aug 22 2007, 04:06 PM']someone who has peanuts cannot save for retirement, in the extreme. you're better to argue charity, and tough luck if charity doesn't exist (or government if you tendedthat way)
...
who cares if not many stay at the minimum. some do, and we need to be mindful of them. if the ones who can advance happen to actually get paid justly, so be it.[/quote]
Nope. If you'd followed the link I gave, and actually read what was written, you'd see how you can raise a family on the minimum wage, and still save for retirement. It's not easy, but it can be done. It could also be done for less than the minimum wage to start, assuming you got regular raises. If you stay at such a low wage for life, you're lazy.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1368021' date='Aug 22 2007, 04:06 PM']you have an interesting argument with the uninion bit. but, that's still one segment of society. as i said in the other thread, that's not pure inflation and the increase would be more proporitonally than otherwise.[/quote]
Actually, no. It does affect inflation. Directly. EVERYTHING manufactured winds up costing more. So everyone who buys anything needs more money. The only two things that would have a bigger role in reducing inflation is going back to the gold standard and outlawing usury.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1368021' date='Aug 22 2007, 04:06 PM']or, if you think they should always be direct, tell that to women who used the equal protection lcause for blacks to advance. if you say tough luck, then i at least admire your consistency and candor.[/quote]
That's a non-sequitur, but I do believe that the government has no business regulating such things. If I, as a business owner, want to hire nobody but blond males under 5'2", I should be able to do so. If I want to hire only Catholics, I should be able to do so. It's my money, and I should be able to do anything I want with it (within reason -- I shouldn't be able to, say, contract a hit on someone, but that's because murder is illegal).

Anti-discrimination laws wind up discriminating, as we're seeing in the church today. In MA, Catholic Charities is talking about shutting down because the state has decided that they have to allow sodomites to use their adoption services.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1367933' date='Aug 22 2007, 11:58 AM']In a free society, a just wage is any wage someone is willing to work for.[/quote]
[quote name='Roamin_Catholic' post='1367942' date='Aug 22 2007, 12:14 PM']from an economic stand point, any restriction on business is a bad thing..The market will dictate what you will be paid.[/quote]
"Letting the market decide" is just the roadmap for the race to the bottom. Case in point: in the immigration debate, it is often posited that illegal immigrants "do the work that Americans won't do." That's true, in a way. Illegal immigrants "do the work that Americans won't do" at $.50/hour or whatever paltry sum they receive. That's "letting the market decide." [i]Capitalisme sauvage[/i], as they say in France. There's always someone who'll do the work for less.

So, really, it depends on what kind of country we want to have. Forty years ago, a guy working in an auto assembly plant or steel mill could realistically expect to support his family on a single income, live in the 'burbs, take a nice vacation once a year, and send his kids to college. Now, that same guy is lucky if he has a job, thanks to "letting the market decide."

Ensure that fruit pickers receive a "minimum wage," some kind of basic health insurance benefits, perhaps 401(k), and you'll find that Americans are more than willing to do the work. Yeah, we'll have to pay more for our strawberries. It's worth it, in my book.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]There are many more who are harmed by government mandating wage increases - and no one are truly helped by them.[/quote]

i disagree with how you use the word "harm". it depends on how many straggle and how many are at the minimum. if many straggle more than are at the minimum, so in the sense that we don't ease the burden of straggling even light by opening hte minimum to a free for all, we are causing mroe to be "harmed". if less straggle than make minimum, then more are not harmed in your sense of harm or my sense. but in your sense, you might say to deprive any of meagerness is harmful whereass in your situation no one is deprived in the free for all.

there's more at the tip of my mind, but i can't get it. i'm seeing that this is still not as simple as i had thought. everytime i start to think that, it gets more complicated and there's another theory to add.....

that's the best i can do to answer your question right now.
do i take it though that you agree that more are straggling with no minimum?

Edited August 22, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

you are a smart man ken. i say that mostly because someone actually is arguing some of my points for once, and not just "it's the right thing to do".

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1368104' date='Aug 22 2007, 04:53 PM']"Letting the market decide" is just the roadmap for the race to the bottom. Case in point: in the immigration debate, it is often posited that illegal immigrants "do the work that Americans won't do." That's true, in a way. Illegal immigrants "do the work that Americans won't do" at $.50/hour or whatever paltry sum they receive. That's "letting the market decide." [i]Capitalisme sauvage[/i], as they say in France. There's always someone who'll do the work for less.

So, really, it depends on what kind of country we want to have. Forty years ago, a guy working in an auto assembly plant or steel mill could realistically expect to support his family on a single income, live in the 'burbs, take a nice vacation once a year, and send his kids to college. Now, that same guy is lucky if he has a job, thanks to "letting the market decide."

Ensure that fruit pickers receive a "minimum wage," some kind of basic health insurance benefits, perhaps 401(k), and you'll find that Americans are more than willing to do the work. Yeah, we'll have to pay more for our strawberries. It's worth it, in my book.[/quote]

consider this:
the government mandating wage hikes results in two things. the second point applies to what you bring up:

#1) unskilled jobs once taken by people with no job skills and young people as a first job etc. are eliminated by the employer who cannot afford the salary. some remedial jobs like sweeping the floors and shoveling walks etc can be done by the employer or designated to others already on the payroll

#2) an underground economy is created. people are payed "under the table." property owners still have things that simply need to be done and some cannot bear the burden of extra payroll. this includes shoveling snow and plowing drives and cleaning floors. this applies to the market that is created trafficking human beings like "undocumented workers"

again - government mandated wages enables harm - not good.

[Anomaly]

I'm busy working and right now and providing jobs for a number of people.

Again, I'd like to point out that if you are making minimum wage on a full time job after a year, you should find a different job to do that pays more money. I do not believe for a second that in a 12 month period, someone cannot find a better paying job in 12 months. Flat out I do not believe it as I have lived it, more times than I want to remember. Even the labor pools pay more than minimum wage. I know because I hire them.

If you have a minimum wage job after a year, you are either mentally handicapped, or are lazy and too prideful, or are an illegal immigrant and cannot apply for better jobs. That's a fact of reality, not hypothetical.

[Megz]

[quote]If you have a minimum wage job after a year, you are either mentally handicapped, or are lazy and too prideful, or are an illegal immigrant and cannot apply for better jobs. That's a fact of reality, not hypothetical.[/quote]


Or, you have a child who you need to be there for and min wage jobs provide the ability to do that. Or, you are a college student.
You can't say that everyone can escape from min. wage jobs. My brother with a bachelor's in psychology, living in our area has tried to get better paying jobs, and he has, but with circumstance he's now back earning just over min. wage until he can straighten things out. He is a case of doing everything right and still landing hard on your butt.

I live in a very unpopulated area. City Data tells me there is 105 persons per square mile. Minimum wage jobs are the ONLY ones available in my town and three towns near. Most people around here commute or work from home.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Megz' post='1368225' date='Aug 22 2007, 08:07 PM']Or, you have a child who you need to be there for and min wage jobs provide the ability to do that. Or, you are a college student.
You can't say that everyone can escape from min. wage jobs. My brother with a bachelor's in psychology, living in our area has tried to get better paying jobs, and he has, but with circumstance he's now back earning just over min. wage until he can straighten things out. He is a case of doing everything right and still landing hard on your butt.

I live in a very unpopulated area. City Data tells me there is 105 persons per square mile. Minimum wage jobs are the ONLY ones available in my town and three towns near. Most people around here commute or work from home.[/quote]I've been there, lived that personally (without the College degree), and have personally witnessed dozens of people's. I stand by my comment that after 12 months, if you haven't found a job paying more than minimum wage, you are mentally handicapped or lazy or just an 'idjit'. Granted, there may be some very unusual circumstances for the 1/10th of 1% of people, but let's apply a bit of reason. When people find themselves in really tough and unusual circumstances, that's when it's time to accept some help.

[Lounge Daddy]

it's the truth
standard practice for an employer to give a raise after 12 months
and most give a raise after the first 90 days

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1367966' date='Aug 22 2007, 12:56 PM']Not having a minimum wage (and other labor laws) is a recipe for mass exploitation. All work requires something: the ability of someone to do the work. Even if it is manual labor, it still requires them to be able to handle that physical labor, a skill which a doctor may not have (not everyone is physically able to be a furniture mover, for example). If someone is starving they will take fifty cents an hour to do back breaking work for long hours. The government has a duty to prevent that.[/quote]
The truth is that hardly almost all serious full-time jobs, even the unskilled low-paying ones, pay above minimum wage. Even most starting fast-food jobs pay a couple bucks above minimum. And most jobs that do pay minimum are jobs where most income comes from tips.

Most minimum-wage jobs are for part-time temporary help, largely held by high-school students and such.
Your standard entry-level full-time factory or warehouse jobs are well over minimum wage.

The reason for this? Market competition. Labor is a market commodity, and if an employer's wages are too low, employees will go work elsewhere where the pay is better. And while labor unions have become corrupt, and are now a drain on the economy, workers still can organize to demand better pay if worse comes to worse. Minimum pay is in essence an agreement between employer and employee. An artificial price set by government is largely unnecessary at best, destructive at worst.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1368013' date='Aug 22 2007, 01:59 PM']If the minimum wage is $7/hr. then that's $280 dollars a week (forty hours). After taxes it's probably about $230 dollars a week.
. . . That's $920 a month.That leaves you with $20 dollars a month to raise a family, which would be impossible.[/quote]
You seem to be implying here that the minimum wage should be a living wage, or enough to raise a family and save for retirement on.
I'm probably largely reiterating what others have said here, but having such a minimum wage required by law would be disasterous. This would come to a minimum wage of probably somewhere between $10.00 and $15.00 dollars an hour (depending on where you live). This brings up another problem of a national minimum wage - with the cost of living varying widely from place-to-place, what would be not enough to live in in one place would be quite comfortable in another. With your Boston-area prices, the minimum would probably come to at least $14.00-$15.00.

This wage would be required across the board, for every part-time burger-flipper or floor-sweeper (most of whom would be high-school kids who are not raising a family).
Many such employers would be could not afford to pay such a wage for these jobs, and would stop hiring, or even be forced out of business.

And such an artificially high minimum wage would also exacerbate the the problem of businesses using illegal immigrant labor and outsourcing jobs.
Unemployment rates would soar among our poor, and the economy would suffer even more, with the hardest hit being those the minimum wage is intended to protect.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Socrates

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1368289' date='Aug 22 2007, 07:49 PM']The truth is that hardly almost all serious full-time jobs, even the unskilled low-paying ones, pay above minimum wage. [snip]...An artificial price set by government is largely unnecessary at best, destructive at worst.[/quote]
It's not unnecessary at all, and the fact that these jobs pay [i]over[/i] the minimum wage supports the point that the establishment of a minimum wage is reasonable. The minimum wage ensures that these companies continue to pay reasonable wages, and not exploit workers.

[quote]You seem to be implying here that the minimum wage should be a living wage, or enough to raise a family and save for retirement on.[/quote]
Not necessarily. I was responding to the point that a man [i]could[/i] raise a family and save for retirement on minimum wage. The minimum wage is enough to get by on the most basic means. It is not the standard we want people to live on, it is the basic foundation for them to get by, so that they aren't exploited in their desperation by working for next to nothing. There are other ways to help them earn a living wage, such as job training and placement assistance, so that they can improve their job situation. The minimum wage is only one element, but an important one, because it is the first step.

I have no opinion on whether the minimum wage should be raised or not. It's not an issue I know much about. However, that there should (and must) be a minimum wage is a separate matter, and I absolutely believe it is necessary, along with other labor laws such as requiring breaks for a certain number of hours worked, and limiting how many hours may be worked by minors.