obama and minimum wage

[Soonerjeepman]

okay,
so obama wants minimum wage to go up for burger flippers by .29% in 2 years....

as a teacher, with a masters, 24 years experience, great record...I got a .008% raise this year....

gotcha.


(I know...I'm grateful to have a job blah blah blah...)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/18/hill-budget-office-wage-hike-would-lift-pay-but-cost-jobs/?intcmp=latestnews

and it cost jobs...the administration argues not but how stupid are they.

McD = 10.10 an hour, use less people or raise prices: either way jobs lost.
overhead goes up = cut costs to make money = cut work force = people lose jobs
raise prices = people don't go as often = need less employees = people lose jobs

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Businesses will all collude to raise prices by 30%....WON'T THEY?




haha

[SoonerorLater]

I always shake my head when lib politicians advance these one-way paths to prosperity ideas. I can only assume they really know this stuff won't work. Just another political ploy.

[badger]

There's a lot of craziness going on in the workforce these days. Young people can't find jobs because the old people won't retire; old people out of work can't get back in because younger workers are cheaper; wages are stagnant or dropping because unemployment is high; people can't find enough work or the right work and settle for less because they have to.

I don't think raising the minimum wage is going to solve any of this

Also, I think businesses are starting to realize they can't just pass their costs onto their customers like they've done a lot lately. There's a reason sales are down at major chains and retailers --- consumers are fed up and shutting their wallets.

[OU68]

There's a lot of craziness going on in the workforce these days. Young people can't find jobs because the old people can't retire; old people out of work can't get back in because younger workers are cheaper; wages are stagnant or dropping because unemployment is high; people can't find enough work or the right work and settle for less because they have to.

I don't think raising the minimum wage is going to solve any of this

Also, I think businesses are starting to realize they can't just pass their costs onto their customers like they've done a lot lately. There's a reason sales are down at major chains and retailers --- consumers are fed up and shutting their wallets.
FIFY

[yermom]

You know all the people forced to work

[OU_Sooners75]

I agree there needs to be a minimum wage. But the government should not force companies to give pay raises, especially when the economy is as bad as it is right now.

The last time we saw a rise in minimum wages, other jobs did not automatically go up if they were still above the minimum wage. So people that were making a decent hourly wage compared to the 4.35/hour minimum were then forced into a lower tax bracket and ended up struggling. Why? Because when minimum wage goes up, it is essentially another tax for businesses. Raise the minimum wage and watch the prices of consumer goods sky rocket even further.

The wealth of this country will not increase at all. it will actually separate the rich further from the poor, by adding more poor families than rich families.

But hey, giving a the minimum wage earners a pay raise is a good way to secure votes...and to the liberal agenda that is all that matters, who gives a sh*t about the end results.

[yermom]

Why have a minimum wage if it isn't tied to inflation'

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I agree there needs to be a minimum wage. But the government should not force companies to give pay raises, especially when the economy is as bad as it is right now.

.Why do you think the government has a right to force employers to pay a minimum wage?(but then say that the government should not force companies to give pay raises) What's the real difference between forcing a minimum wage and forcing raises? I don't see a real difference.

[badger]

Maybe instead of a minimum wage there should be a maximum wage :P

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Maybe instead of a minimum wage there should be a maximum wage :PPrice controls would be in order, too:concern:

[OU_Sooners75]

Why do you think the government has a right to force employers to pay a minimum wage?(but then say that the government should not force companies to give pay raises) What's the real difference between forcing a minimum wage and forcing raises? I don't see a real difference.

Ever hear of slave labor? Do away with a minimum wage, and the jobs that no one wants will get paid even less.

If the median pay in this country is rising, then a rise in minimum wage is not a bad idea. But it isn't. The median pay in this country is falling.

And like I said, the idea behind minimum wage is not a bad idea. Wanting to raise the minimum wage at this point in time is a bad idea.

[OU_Sooners75]

Why have a minimum wage if it isn't tied to inflation'


because minimum wage can also create inflation. It should be tied to economy and the median wage rate. Not inflation alone.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Ever hear of slave labor? Do away with a minimum wage, and the jobs that no one wants will get paid even less.

If the median pay in this country is rising, then a rise in minimum wage is not a bad idea. But it isn't. The median pay in this country is falling.

And like I said, the idea behind minimum wage is not a bad idea. Wanting to raise the minimum wage at this point in time is a bad idea.Competition(the market) establishes reality. Artificially high labor costs are why many companies that can will get products and services done in another country, instead of domestically. Remember, the companies still have to keep their prices down in order to compete and sell their production.

What gives the right to the government for fascistic behavior anyway? It's abhorrent.

Granted, a government established Minimum Wage DOES sound warm and fuzzy and caring though, and is a vote-collectiong magnet, for far too many people.

[OU_Sooners75]

Competition(the market) establishes reality. Artificially high labor costs are why many companies that can will get products and services done in another country, instead of domestically. Remember, the companies still have to keep their prices down in order to compete and sell their production.

What gives the right to the government for fascistic behavior anyway? It's abhorrent.

Granted, a government established Minimum Wage DOES sound warm and fuzzy and caring though, and is a vote-collectiong magnet, for far too many people.


So you are in favor of slave labor? Child labor? And crap like that?

GTFO if you are!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So you are in favor of slave labor? Child labor? And crap like that?

GTFO if you are!I'm thinking we aren't talking about slave anything, which is illegal. We are talking about people voluntary taking jobs, and employers hiring people. You know we agree on many things discussed on this message board. I'm just surprised you're in favor of govt. required minimum wage.

[OU_Sooners75]

I'm thinking we aren't talking about slave anything, which is illegal. We are talking about people voluntary taking jobs, and employers hiring people. You know we agree on many things discussed on this message board. I'm just surprised you're in favor of govt. required minimum wage.

Im in favor of a minumum wage so people can make some semblance of a living. You and I do agree quite often. But that doesn't mean we will agree on everything.

That being said, minimum wage should be an economic issue, not a political ploy to get votes.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm just contending it's not a valid function of government to set prices or wages in the private sector. I gave you my reasons. You obviously disagree. Nuff said. It HAS become, if it wasn't always, a means of buying votes.

[jkjsooner]

okay,
so obama wants minimum wage to go up for burger flippers by .29% in 2 years....

as a teacher, with a masters, 24 years experience, great record...I got a .008% raise this year....


A couple of points. Minimum wage doesn't increase every year so to compare the percentage increase to what you get yearly isn't appropriate.

Second, I'm assuming you mean 29% and .8%. I suppose you don't teach math...

(Note: Just a quick search shows that the proposal as $7.25 to $10.10 which is a 39% increase. Might be a different proposal but mentioned so nobody jumps on me for my math.)

[OU_Sooners75]

The government has their hand in labor. Something will never change. And that is not exactly a bad thing.

The only votes it will buy is the poor lazy vote, the ones the liberals already have because those votes are more than willing to have their hand out wanting government money and help.

That being said, minimum wage should be a fluid thing. If the economy is strong and the median income in this country is up, then the minimum wage should be up. If the economy is weak and the median income is down, then the minimum wage should be down.

It should never be a political discussion. It should have perimeters, guidelines, that trigger the movement. If the economy is so that the wage is to go up, the it goes up. If the economy is so that the wage is to go down, then it goes down. In other words, it should never be bet at a certain point it should be fluid.


What would we have without minimum wage? There is a very big base of employers that already pay their workers minimum wage. Without a set wage or guidelines of a minimum wage, then employers could go extremely low in wages. We are talking around sweat shops in 3rd world country wages. Is that really what you want?

[badger]

I think it's good to have government-appointed minimum requirements when it comes to employment. For example, there's minimum education required for certain jobs --- even hair stylists need a state license. There's minimum age requirements for certain jobs. So why not also have a minimum wage?

I would be cautious about changes to the minimum wage. If the wage got too high, you'd find employers finding ways to circumvent the rules, because there's a breaking point to how much they are able to pay for labor.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I have stated why it's not the job of government for wage and price controls. We obviously are at the nuff said stage here.

[OU_Sooners75]

I have stated why it's not the job of government for wage and price controls. We obviously are at the nuff said stage here.


Government isn't controlling wages, across the board. It is setting a minimum wage an employer can pay someone.

Employers can chose to pay more if they want.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

The biggest problem with raising the minimum wage is that it doesn't do anything. Whether we like it or not, prices of goods tend to be in equilibrium with the minimum wage. What we need to do is tier the benefits of owning a company to the wage that the company pays their employees. The problem currently is that companies have way too much control (and incentive) to pay people the absolute least that they can get away with.

To give an illustration from my MBA days and ye olde Principal Agent Problem...

I'm given $100 to share with my 4 friends, but I control how much each of them get. Given that it isn't above my "cut and run threshold", there is a lot of social pressure to split the money as close to evenly as possible. This pressure can come via fists, ostracizing, guns, whatever. However, if I'm given the ability to behead anyone I choose, I just shifted the pressure the other way -> It is not only in my best interest to take as high of a percentage as I can, it is well within my power to make it happen.

In the US, companies have honed the second ability to a razor fine edge. This is why real wages for US employees haven't made any significant gains in the last 30-40 years. Because companies can tell you to walk if you don't like it, they can stick people with any wage they choose. Employees are viewed as commodities that are easily replaced. The only people who are viewed as irreplaceable are your ruling caste of executives because no one can fire them (and they reward themselves appropriately).

However, if you tier in rights based on wages paid, then you shift the balance of power away from the employer to give them an 'incentive' to pay people more.

Some examples of things you could tier in -> The right to protest unemployment claims, The right to fire at will, The right to write off foreign costs, etc. Not giving away the carrots for free would do wonders for our employment system.

[SoonerorLater]

The minimum wage laws are something that belongs to another era. When the economy is good there really isn't any need for such laws as even the McDonalds of the world have to pay market wages higher than minimum to attract employees. When the economy is bad employers can't afford to increase wages and if the minimum wage was increased it would just result in more people losing their jobs.

And even if you did subscribe to minimum wage laws who is are the wisemen that know precisely where to set it at? Barack H. Obama? Harry Reid? John McCain? Full disclosure, I am a staunch conservative that believes capitalism doesn't hold all the correct answers to every situation but neither does our government. What two people can agree to as a wage seems like the best solution.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The minimum wage laws are something that belongs to another era. When the economy is good there really isn't any need for such laws as even the McDonalds of the world have to pay market wages higher than minimum to attract employees. When the economy is bad employers can't afford to increase wages and if the minimum wage was increased it would just result in more people losing their jobs.

Also, businesses might have to raise prices, in order to keep from losing money, and even having to go out of business. Who wants to pay higher prices, just because the government wants to buy some votes?(or, for any reason)

[OU_Sooners75]

Also, businesses might have to raise prices, in order to keep from losing money, and even having to go out of business. Who wants to pay higher prices, just because the government wants to buy some votes?(or, for any reason)

I agree. It is absurd to use something like minimum wage to get votes.

If we could trust companies to actually pay a fair market value on the lower end stuff, then do away with minimum wage. But companies will try to save money where they can. And labor cost is the easiest way to save the consumer. So some companies, or industries, would take advantage of no minimum wage.

There is a reason it came about. IMO, it seems to be easier to have a minimum wage than have a completely unionized work force.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It is NOT the business of government to establish(require, force)wages of any kind nor prices, upon the private sector. The market takes care of wrongs and injustices by rewarding people who perform intelligently and responsibly, as well as punishes them when they fail, by causing them to lose business, and consequently, their financial as*es.

The government works for the people, instead of us working for the government. At least, that is how it's supposed to be. Remember, only the government has police powers, and that is why the Founders set up the new USA to be sure the government had limited power. Limited to those things they are required and allowed to do.

[OU_Sooners75]

It is NOT the business of government to establish(require, force)wages of any kind nor prices, upon the private sector. The market takes care of wrongs and injustices by rewarding people who perform intelligently and responsibly, as well as punishes them when they fail, by causing them to lose business, and consequently, their financial as*es.

The government works for the people, instead of us working for the government. At least, that is how it's supposed to be. Remember, only the government has police powers, and that is why the Founders set up the new USA to be sure the government had limited power. Limited to those things they are required and allowed to do.


Believe it or not, Minimum wage was started at the state level, in Mass. It was a non-compulsory minimum wage for women and children. That happened in 1912.

And under the constitution, the Government (Congress, not the President) actually does have the right to set wage minimums. Minimum wage. If you don't want to believe me, go read the Commerce Clause of the constitution. Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. And the US Supreme court upheld the law, citing the Commerce Clause.

So you are incorrect when you think the government doesn't have the right, or is not in the business, of setting wage requirements for labor.

[OU_Sooners75]

Rush, from one conservative to another, please just stop. Because we both know if the President was a member of the GOP and the congress was GOP led, and they wanted to raise minimum wage, you would be all for it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Rush, from one conservative to another, please just stop. Because we both know if the President was a member of the GOP and the congress was GOP led, and they wanted to raise minimum wage, you would be all for it.You should please just stop. I'm surprised you think that, just as I am that you think it is a proper function of government. Lots of bad things happened in the 1930s, and that was one of them.

The GOP under W, early in this 21st century, did some nannystate things, too, and although the democrats would have done a lot more of them(a la today's government), W and the GOP led congress' lack of conservatism helped them to lose support in the '06 midterm election, and allowed the democrats to take us to where we are now.

[stoopified]

Continuing to raise minmum wage is a mistake,People need to get out of those type jobs and get a job that pays better.I did not get a college degree but have never settled for a minmum wage job in my working life.

[badger]

Continuing to raise minmum wage is a mistake,People need to get out of those type jobs and get a job that pays better.I did not get a college degree but have never settled for a minmum wage job in my working life.

It is definitely an employer's job market right now, so I agree that raising the minimum would be poorly timed.

How bout this: Total cost of employment. You are not just paid in money, but also in benefits. If an employer provides discounted or free merchandise, free health care or housing, they can pay a lower minimum wage.

If the problem is that minimum wage workers cannot afford certain necessities, can't there be a solution other than giving workers more money?

[Soonerjeepman]

I guess to me the issue is about WHAT a minimum wage worker does...

Years ago, these jobs were held by teenagers, older folks that just wanted some extra cash...MOST (not all) workers did not rely on this job to sustain a family, it was extra income. Flipping burgers, grocery store sackers, clerks, etc. Not much education needed = easy job (mentally).

The manufacturing industry that paid livable wages has tanked to a degree. It's no longer acceptable to have "just a hs diploma". Some sort of training is needed, either college or tech. Unfortunately our schools (yes I teach) are still teaching skills that a factory worker needed..but those jobs are few.

Along with the fact that the labor force is full of over-qualified workers due to the economy and more middle age adults with families working minimum wage jobs you have this "need" to require these low level jobs paying a livable wage.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

It is NOT the business of government to establish(require, force)wages of any kind nor prices, upon the private sector. The market takes care of wrongs and injustices by rewarding people who perform intelligently and responsibly, as well as punishes them when they fail, by causing them to lose business, and consequently, their financial as*es.

[Putting on my IO Economics hat]

This isn't even close to being accurate. Wages includes more than just salary, it includes workplace safety, administration of employee rights (like sexual harassment) etc. These things are ABSOLUTELY the role of the government as a part of the "general welfare" clause. Going even further along this line of reasoning, one of the functions of the Sherman and Clayton Acts are to protect employee wages from monopolistic power (because if each industry had one monopoly or cartel, they'd just conspire to keep wages as low as possible while keeping prices as high as possible).

The problem is that, over the years, most of the control mechanisms for employee wages have been fractured to the point of uselessness by state governments. If a state really tries to put in levers to push wages up, there is another state more that willing to be "business friendly" and entice those jobs away. The federal government on the other hand will only use its useless club to swing at the problem (ie the minimum wage) instead of applying its true thumbscrews -> Ie patent protection, trademark protection, taxes, and visa limitation.

The visa limitation is something that hits me personally. H1Bs are a form of wage control because they introduce a much cheaper source of wages locally into the American economy.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

[Putting on my IO Economics hat]

This isn't even close to being accurate. Wages includes more than just salary, it includes workplace safety, administration of employee rights (like sexual harassment) etc. These things are ABSOLUTELY the role of the government as a part of the "general welfare" clause. Going even further along this line of reasoning, one of the functions of the Sherman and Clayton Acts are to protect employee wages from monopolistic power (because if each industry had one monopoly or cartel, they'd just conspire to keep wages as low as possible while keeping prices as high as possible).

The problem is that, over the years, most of the control mechanisms for employee wages have been fractured to the point of uselessness by state governments. If a state really tries to put in levers to push wages up, there is another state more that willing to be "business friendly" and entice those jobs away. The federal government on the other hand will only use its useless club to swing at the problem (ie the minimum wage) instead of applying its true thumbscrews -> Ie patent protection, trademark protection, taxes, and visa limitation.

The visa limitation is something that hits me personally. H1Bs are a form of wage control because they introduce a much cheaper source of wages locally into the American economy.The federal govt. is authorized to control businesses to the extent that they must maintain a safe workplace, normal access to the legal system, as you mentioned(sexual harassment etc.) True that monopolies are regulated by the fed govt., but wages and prices, including minimum wages, should not be determined and mandated by the government.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

The federal govt. is authorized to control businesses to the extent that they must maintain a safe workplace, normal access to the legal system, as you mentioned(sexual harassment etc.) True that monopolies are regulated by the fed govt., but wages and prices, including minimum wages, should not be determined and mandated by the government.

Dude, they are all the same thing. The role of the government is to BALANCE the rights of parties. The problem is that when there is an imbalance in rights, the party with the most leverage will not budge one inch farther than they have too. So it is 100% the role of the government to balance the wage contract between employers and employees. If you want a pure system where the government has no say on wages, you'd have to give the employee 100% of the possible rights (much like modern France). The workers would then bend them over the barrel and government doesn't have to get involved (well except when all of the companies leave, but anyway).

How you balance this equation is up for debate. As I said above, the minimum wage law doesn't work. It just establishes a baseline that no one can go under. It does absolutely NOTHING for the downward pressure on wages from the top.

Companies basically have 3 tiers -> Owners -> Ruling Caste -> Drones. Every single caste wants to increase their share of the profit pie, but only 2 of them have the control to do it. The only choices that the 3rd caste has is either "Jump Caste" or to "Unionize" or to "Jump Ship". The first one is tightly controlled, the second one is a veritable curse word around here, and the third one is drying up as more and more companies collude to keep wages down.

Something has to create more upward pressure on the upper castes to stop screwing everyone over (in EVERY area of work). That something is government. I just don't think you really understand how badly the ruling castes would take things without government intervention. I've watched them do so much illegal crap in the white collar world to make your head spin all for millionths of a penny on the dollar. So that is why if I were building this system, I'd tier in rights based on wages vs the poverty line.

You want to pay your employees at or below the poverty line (including part time workers)? Great, you lose your "At Will" rights and cannot fire anyone within 100% of the poverty line.
You want to pay your employees at less than 10% above the poverty line? You lose your ability to contest unemployment claims within 300% of the poverty line.

You see each one of those rights has value to a company. What you are doing is saying that they have a value to workers as well and that you aren't giving them away for free. However, we do not want these rights to be pushed onto the upper castes so they have limits.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

you want fascism, you are getting it more and more, as well as socialism. Some companies are taking their businesses, or part of them, out of country, where they aren't as put upon. Economic activity is being ratcheted down. Sounds like you approve.

[OU_Sooners75]

OMG, it isnt fascism.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Wow, you should be in the Olympics with that broad jump.

http://www.slayerment.com/blog/communism-vs-socialism-vs-fascism-vs-capitalism

Notice the "Government Ran By" for fascism -> Upper Class/Corporations which is most definitely NOT what I'm advocating. What I'm proposing is to add checks and balances to keep the people who have the most organized influence on the government (Read corporations) from treading on those with the least organized influence (joe schmoe employee).

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

OMG, it isnt fascism.

It was kind of expected when I tossed out the word "Unionize"

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You propose govt. run by to a large extent, or govt. controlled. Maybe you won't/don't call it fascism. Call it what you want.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

You propose govt. run by to a large extent, or govt. controlled. Maybe you won't/don't call it fascism. Call it what you want.

I know this might be hard to understand but the Government has a monopoly on this thing called "rights". They hand them out and put in the framework to enforce them.

Some of these rights are given away for free and are unrevokable -> Freedom of Speech, etc.
Some of these rights are given away for free -> "You can fire an employee at will"
Some of these rights are handed out on contractual basis -> Right to operate a motor vehicle on a public road.
Some of these rights are handed out to things that don't exist -> "Corporate Veil protection"

What I'm proposing is that the government change some of a corporations free rights to contractual basis. Just like the government has done 100s of times before

1. It wasn't nationally illegal to have a monopoly or a cartel in the US UNTIL they passed the Sherman Act
2. It wasn't nationally illegal to send an 8 year old into a coal mine UNTIL they passed an act outlawing child labor
3. It wasn't nationally illegal for companies to discriminate based on race UNTIL they passed the civil rights act

You see all of these things brought employee rights back into balance by pulling free rights to contractual rights (meaning no limits, to limits).

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The government has been making laws since the founding which do lots of things. Some are constitutional, and some aren't but have been operational anyway.(some of those that have been deemed constitutional should not have been, as I'm sure we all should realize)I have said before on this thread that only the government has police powers, and it was the intent of the founders to limit those powers to those they thought were appropriate. I contend that any minimum wage requirement is a crock of _hit. That's the subject of the thread, and as usual, it's been discussed beyond thoroughly

Your use of the stupid card repeatedly with your posts is demeaning to you.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

The government has been making laws since the founding which do lots of things. Some are constitutional, and some aren't but have been operational anyway.(some of those that have been deemed constitutional should not have been, as I'm sure we all should realize)I have said before on this thread that only the government has police powers, and it was the intent of the founders to limit those powers to those they thought were appropriate. I contend that any minimum wage requirement is a crock of _hit. That's the subject of the thread, and as usual, it's been discussed beyond thoroughly

Your use of the stupid card repeatedly with your posts is demeaning to you.

I'm not trying to play the stupid card, I've simply stating that wages are only one component of "compensation" to an employee in exchange for labor. I then iterated through all of the things that an employer has been forced over time to compensate an employee with. None of these things came about by accident, every single one of those items were brought into being because employers (not one but many) were exploiting people. The minimum wage law exists partially because of this exploitation (although to be fair a good portion of it was to get a baseline multiplier for union wage negotiations).

I personally think the minimum wage law is idiotic, however in no way do I think that not having it is going to magically cause people hiding behind the corporate veil to act decently. if they repealed the minimum wage law today, those wages propped up by it would drop across the board by a quarter. At the extreme end, you'd have an noticeable growth in corporate slavery that wouldn't be limited to foreign illegals as it is now.

You can say I'm alarmist, but the fact is it happens today with all sorts of threats. Heck this is from today -> Link (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/business/chickie-s-pete-s-forced-to-repay-employees-for-bogus/article_31f6e326-9aad-11e3-b4c1-001a4bcf887a.html). Do you think those guys would have stopped their crap if there hadn't have been a minimum wage law for someone to sue under? Without a corporate veil, those manager would have been tossed into jail for extortion and racketeering, but that magical immunity from prosecution that corporations have nurtures trolling.

That immunity presents all sorts of problems in our society. It basically is carte blanche for managers to do all sorts of deuchey things they'd never get away with outside of a company. The problem is that you can't remove it due to its protections in honest circumstances (ie legitimately failed businesses etc). Because you have to have it is why I keep going back to upward pressure based on corporate rights.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If you reread your previous posts, you might notice that there is a talking down component in each, which comes across as your version of the stupid card. This(your) last post is much better. All I'm saying is that the government goes too far in regulation when it gets into any wage and price controls. We all know they have been doing it and trying to do it for a long time. However, it's overstepping in my opinion, and never has desired results, since it's not a market based solution, and, I contend, falsely legal.

We would have lower average wages in this country if govt. wasn't allowed to dictate a minimum, but prices on just about everything would be lower, and there would be less inflation. We would also have a lot more manufacturing in the USA, and many more jobs that wouldn't be sent out of country. Consequently, employment % would be higher than it is now.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

We would have lower average wages in this country if govt. wasn't allowed to dictate a minimum, but prices on just about everything would be lower, and there would be less inflation. We would also have a lot more manufacturing in the USA, and many more jobs that wouldn't be sent out of country. Consequently, employment % would be higher than it is now.

Those opening sentences are nothing more than my attempt to keep this from getting heated. My use of "Dude" is the Krash the turtle "DUUUUUUUUUUDDDDDDDeeeeee" version.

Had they not gotten involved initially, I think costs would have been lower (mainly because of what I said about the unions). However, if they got out of it right now it would take years to get back to the equilibrium point (genie out of the bottle and all of those metaphors), but the wages would go down immediately.

The other point to make here is that costs are already artificially low because of what they do to food prices. I think if they ever removed those controls most of these minimum wage jobs would go poof.

[Jason White's Third Knee]

If you are an adult raising a family on a minimum wage job, you have made some serious mistakes in your life.

Minimum wage jobs are for kids. I see no reason to give the WORST employee in America a raise. The guy that is screwing off, stealing crap, giving away products, talking on his cell phone, keeping the place disorganized and generally being rude to customers, CONGRATULATIONS, you get more money for doing nothing. He gets fired? He can find the same paying gig anywhere. The kids that deserved a raise aren't gonna get one.

And how does the owner of this business come up with the extra $4000 per person per year to pay these clowns?

Slave labor? Please. Because of crap like this a baby sitter wants $40 or more to take care of your kids for a few hours. Dinner and a movie is off the table.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If you are an adult raising a family on a minimum wage job, you have made some serious mistakes in your life.

Minimum wage jobs are for kids. I see no reason to give the WORST employee in America a raise. The guy that is screwing off, stealing crap, giving away products, talking on his cell phone, keeping the place disorganized and generally being rude to customers, CONGRATULATIONS, you get more money for doing nothing. He gets fired? He can find the same paying gig anywhere. The kids that deserved a raise aren't gonna get one.

And how does the owner of this business come up with the extra $4000 per person per year to pay these clowns?

Slave labor? Please. Because of crap like this a baby sitter wants $40 or more to take care of your kids for a few hours. Dinner and a movie is off the table.Those democrats! They sure know how to stimulate an economy...NOT!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Bingo Jason...

Why do we need to cater to the Lowest Common Denominator? We should be holding up the achievers and letting the LCDs fall behind. Dims cater to LCDs and this will end badly for the country... The Great Society made a whole class of LCDers and has institutionalized them and stopped them from ever doing more in their lives. Time for the tit to run dry for these leeches...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

nm:obama icon::lemo: