republicans vote down minimum wage again

[Golf4food]

Hardly mandatory by the employer though. Not trying to be cynical, but a worker's feeling of worth is most likely not on the top of the typical employer's worry list, unless you have a unusually nice boss.

But it is a priority of Unions. When you jack up minimum wage too far, all Union jobs will immediately be in jeopardy from either immediate layoffs by the employers to compensate for their higher payroll expenses or potential hold-outs / strikes due to increased salary demands for the Union employees who are now making marginally less than they were prior to the wage increase.

It is very easy to say "Let's give everyone more money!" It is much more difficult to make it happen without causing harm to the greater economy of the country or the world.

Everything has a cause and effect. Yes, raising the minimum wage will possibly help people in the lower income levels have more cash, but they will also likely end up paying more money for many items and, in the end, might have LESS money in their pockets after their bills are paid and the groceries are bought and their cars are filled with gas. And THAT, my firends, is the crux of the problem. You can't just arbitrarily change one factor in the economy and assume everything else will stay the same.

Take gas prices as an example. When gas prices went up, did everything else stay the same? No. Airlines raise their rates. Cruise lines raise their rates. Shipping companies raise their rates. All of that means that suppliers who rely on shipping and air transportation raise their prices to compensate for their higher transportation costs. The wholesalers then pass on that extra cost to the retailers, who then have to pass the cost along to the consumers. In the end, gas goes up by $5 a barrell and you have to pay a dollar more per pound for your bananas at Publix than you did 6 months ago.

The same scenario will take place with a large hike in min. wage - only from the opposite direction. The restaurants and retailers will raise prices to compensate for their higher salary costs, then we all pay more money for things, then the businesses higher in the food chain have to raise prices to compensate, etc. and in the end the prices might go up even higher.


Miminum wage does not equal living wage. But a higher minimum wage will almost certainly equal a higher cost of living for everyone, including those we are trying to help. Sometimes in life (and economics) the seeming most simple solution is actually the one that will cause the most long term harm.

I'm not saying that the minimum wage doesn't deserve to be raised, but there has to be limits. It is not meant to be a living wage.

 

[eclectics]

But it is a priority of Unions. When you jack up minimum wage too far, all Union jobs will immediately be in jeopardy from either immediate layoffs by the employers to compensate for their higher payroll expenses or potential hold-outs / strikes due to increased salary demands for the Union employees who are now making marginally less than they were prior to the wage increase.

It is very easy to say "Let's give everyone more money!" It is much more difficult to make it happen without causing harm to the greater economy of the country or the world.

Everything has a cause and effect. Yes, raising the minimum wage will possibly help people in the lower income levels have more cash, but they will also likely end up paying more money for many items and, in the end, might have LESS money in their pockets after their bills are paid and the groceries are bought and their cars are filled with gas. And THAT, my firends, is the crux of the problem. You can't just arbitrarily change one factor in the economy and assume everything else will stay the same.

Take gas prices as an example. When gas prices went up, did everything else stay the same? No. Airlines raise their rates. Cruise lines raise their rates. Shipping companies raise their rates. All of that means that suppliers who rely on shipping and air transportation raise their prices to compensate for their higher transportation costs. The wholesalers then pass on that extra cost to the retailers, who then have to pass the cost along to the consumers. In the end, gas goes up by $5 a barrell and you have to pay a dollar more per pound for your bananas at Publix than you did 6 months ago.

The same scenario will take place with a large hike in min. wage - only from the opposite direction. The restaurants and retailers will raise prices to compensate for their higher salary costs, then we all pay more money for things, then the businesses higher in the food chain have to raise prices to compensate, etc. and in the end the prices might go up even higher.


Miminum wage does not equal living wage. But a higher minimum wage will almost certainly equal a higher cost of living for everyone, including those we are trying to help. Sometimes in life (and economics) the seeming most simple solution is actually the one that will cause the most long term harm.

I'm not saying that the minimum wage doesn't deserve to be raised, but there has to be limits. It is not meant to be a living wage.

While I do see the point you are making, this isn't the first time the minimum wage has been raised. It's nothing new. It's happened many times and the earth is still spinning and it didn't cause a great economic depression across the country. In other words, people can adapt calmly and productively without free enterprise collapsing. I'm sorry, but I am not convinced by the arguments here that all will be doom and gloom by raising the wage.

 

[BuckNaked]

Hardly mandatory by the employer though. Not trying to be cynical, but a worker's feeling of worth is most likely not on the top of the typical employer's worry list, unless you have a unusually nice boss.

Most likely mandatory if the employer wants to keep a valued and skilled employee. Raising the pay at the bottom end for unskilled workers while not raising the pay of the more skilled workers is basically telling your skilled workers that they are less valuable to you than they used to be.

 

[BuckNaked]

While I do see the point you are making, this isn't the first time the minimum wage has been raised. It's nothing new. It's happened many times and the earth is still spinning and it didn't cause a great economic depression across the country. In other words, people can adapt calmly and productively without free enterprise collapsing. I'm sorry, but I am not convinced by the arguments here that all will be doom and gloom by raising the wage.

I certainly don't think it is all doom and gloom, but I'm opposed to paying people more than the market says they're worth.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

These silly Democrats want to give a meritless hand out to those slaving away at 3 jobs to make ends meet. They're really not working. They're just lazy. The CEO's and boardmembers deserve it more. Take those that bankrupted Fleming and K'mart. Now that's merit. Because driving your company to bankruptcy through incompetancy is far more valuable and deserving of a pay raise and a tax break than actually doing work for which your company makes money. Shouildn't we be giving even more of our tax dollars to Exxon? Just look at how all those tax breaks and hand outs have lowered our gas prices? These record profits just aren't enough. Give them more and even more of it will trickle down.

 

[eclectics]

Most likely mandatory if the employer wants to keep a valued and skilled employee. Raising the pay at the bottom end for unskilled workers while not raising the pay of the more skilled workers is basically telling your skilled workers that they are less valuable to you than they used to be.

Maybe, but I'm betting that the regional manager of, let's say, Blockbuster Inc. for example, isn't really going to give a darn that his store managers are upset that the new clerk hires are getting more money proportionately and they are not. I own a small business and I've been around the retail scene for a long time and I can tell you the managers are not staying up all night worrying wether their workers feel good or not. If they don't like the working conditions, out they go and a new body is hired to replace them. At least that's how it is in retail, but not many minimum wagers in the office or corporate world, I would imagine. Manufacturing is a different apple and I confess to having no knowledge there.

 

[Golf4food]

These silly Democrats want to give a meritless hand out to those slaving away at 3 jobs to make ends meet. They're really not working. They're just lazy. The CEO's and boardmembers deserve it more. Take those that bankrupted Fleming and K'mart. Now that's merit. Because driving your company to bankruptcy through incompetancy is far more valuable and deserving of a pay raise and a tax break than actually doing work for which your company makes money. Shouildn't we be giving even more of our tax dollars to Exxon? Just look at how all those tax breaks and hand outs have lowered our gas prices? These record profits just aren't enough. Give them more and even more of it will trickle down.

Nope. Those people all make way more money than they are worth. (I get the sarcasm, I really do... I'm just responding to the idea now...)

I love it when companies who are in bankruptcy vote their CEOs a multi-million dollar raise. It makes perfect sense. Or when their lower level employees are working without a contract or haven't had a raise in years and yet they "deserve" a new Leer jet and fishing yacht.

You'll get no argument from me there. Those high end CEOs and such all make far too much money. But they aren't going to all suddenly cut their own pay and spread it back out amongst their lower level employees to compensate for higher wages elsewhere. That is an entirely different argument from an accounting perspective - the money the CEO gets paid often doesn't "come from" the same place that the money the employees are paid with "comes from."

If someone is truly "slaving away at 3 jobs to make ends meet" then they are not lazy. They should be given opportunities to grow into a better career through education and assistance. But don't fool yourself and think that everyone who is poor is a diamond in the rough and only wants a chance to prove their worth and show the world what they can do... that isn’t the real world. I've seen too many people, grew up around too many people, who just plain didn't care and had no desire to do more than work for minimum wage and scrape by. That type of person has done nothing to earn my respect or sympathy - or money.

But all the good liberals of the world will happily give them free everything as long as they'll vote Democrat in the next election. And don't for one moment accuse me of being morally "wrong" for not having sympathy for the downtrodden or underprivileged. The key word there is privilege. Having fancy cars and houses and cable and cell phones and internet is not a need - it is a privilege. Something you earn. Food, water, and shelter - those are needs. We should do everything in our power to meet the needs of those who have true need. But we should never be in the business of handing out "desires" over needs just because it makes you feel better and somehow makes up for the other immoral liberal policies like murdering unborn children, etc.

(And for the record - I'm proudly registered No Party and am a staunch independent who can't stand either side of the political floor. The two-party system is the worst thing to ever happen to American politics.)

 

[BuckNaked]

Maybe, but I'm betting that the regional manager of, let's say, Blockbuster Inc. for example, isn't really going to give a darn that his store managers are upset that the new clerk hires are getting more money proportionately and they are not. I own a small business and I've been around the retail scene for a long time and I can tell you the managers are not staying up all night worrying wether their workers feel good or not. If they don't like the working conditions, out they go and a new body is hired to replace them. At least that's how it is in retail, but not many minimum wagers in the office or corporate world, I would imagine. Manufacturing is a different apple and I confess to having no knowledge there.

I guess you aren't reading what I wrote - it isn't about making the skilled employees feel good, it is about losing them because they can do better somewhere else.

 

[BuckNaked]

These silly Democrats want to give a meritless hand out to those slaving away at 3 jobs to make ends meet. They're really not working. They're just lazy. .

*YAWN*

It has nothing to do with them being lazy or not lazy, but rather how much the work they are doing contributes to the profitability of the company. Do you honestly believe that everyone is of the same value to a business? If not, then why should they all receive the same pay?

 

[Planogirl]

Uh, yeah. And your point is? We should pay people more because they don't want to work hard? I worked hard in high school. I worked hard in college. So did my husband. My DH works hard at his job now. I'm not saying everyone has to go to college. But if you want to make a decent wage, you have to work for it. You only need a high school diploma to work in a bank. That's a pretty cushy job without needed a degree.

No my point is that a lot of people do work hard and don't get paid what they're worth. But of course, others may think that they do get paid what they're worth.

I just don't believe that raising the minimum wage a little which will probably only cost us all a few cents is going to break the bank and it could actually do some good.

 

[NewJersey]

Shouildn't we be giving even more of our tax dollars to Exxon? Just look at how all those tax breaks and hand outs have lowered our gas prices? These record profits just aren't enough. Give them more and even more of it will trickle down.

I did a paper last semester on the issue with gas prices. That has extremely little effect on it because oil is traded on the futures commodity market, so basically the price is affected by a) supply and demand b) geopolitical instability such as the very recent strike in Norway, the turmoil in Iran, and the burning of oil fields in Nigeria c) marketing and distribution costs d) varying state gasoline requirements, which make gas boutiques e) natural disasters, namely hurricanes in the Gulf that wreck the oil platforms and disrupt supply f) state and local taxes.

If you watch the markets, on a day, such as I believe 3 days ago, when Iran began considering the incentive package or what have you, the price of oil dropped $1. Why? Because the situation that day, seemed less ominous so investors were less worried that supply would be cut off, sending prices through the roof. So in essence, the price of oil is based on speculation since it's on the futures market.

Now about the varying state gas requirements for the environment. For example, CA has some of the toughest laws requiring what exactly can be in their gasoline. So if a shortage happens in CA, the gasoline can't simply be taken from AZ for example since it has different environmental standards. It creates gas boutiques or so called gas-islands. Also, the government required that the additive MBTE be taken out of gasoline, and replaced with Ethanol that burned cleaner in the gasoline. However, the time to convert was not adequate for the oil companies, so it created problems here in the Northeast a few months ago when supply was drastically cut short and stations ran out. It sent oil above $75 dollars, but it came down a few dollars once the additive was taken out, and supply restored.

The other factors are pretty self explanatory. Also, I don't agree with the outrageous profits, but the oil companies see about a few cents for that price you pay at the pump.

 

[Planogirl]

*YAWN*

It has nothing to do with them being lazy or not lazy, but rather how much the work they are doing contributes to the profitability of the company. Do you honestly believe that everyone is of the same value to a business? If not, then why should they all receive the same pay?

I don't think that people should be paid the same but I do think that even our lowest paid workers could stand to get a raise now and then. It won't cost businesses much and it could increase buying power a bit.

 

[eclectics]

I guess you aren't reading what I wrote - it isn't about making the skilled employees feel good, it is about losing them because they can do better somewhere else.

And I'm saying the employer doesn't care!

 

[Matt]

Honestly, raising the minimum wage doesn nothing to help out families. Honestly, about the only people who make minimum wage are students and deadbeats. I'm a fiscal conservative/social liberal. This is just one of those dumb things that the left likes to bring up because it seems like such a "great" idea. All it does is increase prices..that you all will start whining about next week.

 

[Charade]

I did a paper last semester on the issue with gas prices. That has extremely little effect on it because oil is traded on the futures commodity market, so basically the price is affected by a) supply and demand b) geopolitical instability such as the very recent strike in Norway, the turmoil in Iran, and the burning of oil fields in Nigeria c) marketing and distribution costs d) varying state gasoline requirements, which make gas boutiques e) natural disasters, namely hurricanes in the Gulf that wreck the oil platforms and disrupt supply f) state and local taxes..

g) Not George Bush

 

[NewJersey]

g) Not George Bush

Agree with you there.

 

[BuckNaked]

And I'm saying the employer doesn't care!

An employer doesn't care if they lose good employees? That's a new one!

 

[Mskanga]

I would like to see a politician live on $206 a week , see what they could do with it.
And as far as education goes , I see many kids who do very well in school and cannot get grants or scholarships because the parents make too much money ( when they really don't ) , some of them cannot afford to go to college unless they get themselves into thousands of dollars in debt "hoping" to get a good job after college.
It's a catch 22 situation.
But again , I would love to see one of those politicians live on $206 a week for a year , their tune would change real quick.
Minimum wage has not been raised since 1996 , yet the cost of living has been going up daily since then .....how do they justify that?
My employer takes advantage of people working there because we want to have the same schedules that our kids do , they know it and pay slightly above minimum wage because they know we will accept it. But if someone had to live off that , there was no way to do it.

 

[Bob Slydell]

I would like to see a politician live on $206 a week , see what they could do with it.

Once again, the minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.

 

[Mskanga]

what was it intended to be then? a snack?