republicans vote down minimum wage again

[LuvDuke]

I don't have to hone anything, your post is there for all to read. You said you knew what other people were thinking. Either you are psychic or you are crazy. I'm thinking not the former.

You didn't say you enjoyed a little come-uppance...you said WILL enjoy it. You are looking FORWARD to it. What on earth does that say about you?

And "Newsflash" for you: Not all of us rely on other people or the American economy for our financial well-being. Duh.

Well pardon me, Princess, I didn't realize you were independently wealthy and didn't need anything from anybody or the American economy.

Which then begs the question that if you were so independently wealthy, why are you so concerned whether some poor SOB makes $5.15 an hour or $6.15 an hour.

And lest there be any mistake, I enjoy watching a horse's *** get hoisted by their own petard and I will enjoy it when it happens again. No ambiguity there.

BTW, just as a gentle reminder, this is what I wrote:

Remember this ........... karma bites everyone in the *** eventually. All you hot shots enjoy when it happens to you because I, and a potful of others, will."

Once again, so sue me.

 

[LuvDuke]

Does a ride on the subway only cost a quarter? I bet that if you paid 30 cents then subway workers could get a raise.

Seriously, some people just can't do better for various reasons. They're not cut out for schooling and they simply can't advance. That doesn't mean that they don't work hard and don't do good jobs. Should they never get a raise?

I should've said it was a "really, really" old saying.

 

[DawnCt1]

The vast majority of the states have their own minimum wage that often exceeds that of the federal government. All politics is local.

 

[DVC Sadie]

Does a ride on the subway only cost a quarter? I bet that if you paid 30 cents then subway workers could get a raise.

Seriously, some people just can't do better for various reasons. They're not cut out for schooling and they simply can't advance. That doesn't mean that they don't work hard and don't do good jobs. Should they never get a raise?

I can't remember where I read it but I was very surprised to see that subway workers earn between 43,000 to 54,000 dollars a year.

 

[MarksMom2006]

If someone is working at the same minimum wage job they started 10 years ago, and for the same pay, they probably don't deserve a raise.

Let me say this. Again, I dont make minimum wage but I am pretty damn close to it and I work for a corporation who is constantly named on these boards. Anyways, we get MAYBE a 3 -4% raise a year. That is only about 27 cents for me. HARDLY enough to live off of. I work extremely hard, am NEVER out, and I mind my business. I am one of the top agents that we have here and this is still what I get. How does anyone who goes to work every day and actually works not deserve a raise?

 

[BuckNaked]

Let me say this. Again, I dont make minimum wage but I am pretty damn close to it and I work for a corporation who is constantly named on these boards. Anyways, we get MAYBE a 3 -4% raise a year. That is only about 27 cents for me. HARDLY enough to live off of. I work extremely hard, am NEVER out, and I mind my business. I am one of the top agents that we have here and this is still what I get. How does anyone who goes to work every day and actually works not deserve a raise?

If a 3% - 4% (say 3.5%) gives you $.27/hour in raise, you're more than $2.50/hour over minimum. While not a lot, I still wouldn't call that "damn close" to minimum.

Regardless of that, you still apparently don't understand what I wrote. I said

If someone is working at the same minimum wage job they started 10 years ago, and for the same pay, they probably don't deserve a raise.

You say that you do get raises, which isn't what I was talking about at all. But if someone has stayed at the same place for 10 years, and has gotten minimum wage that entire time, then IMO, they most likely don't deserve a raise because either a) they aren't working hard enough to earn one or b) if they worth more, they would be able to get it elsewhere.

 

[MzDiz]

Honestly, about the only people who make minimum wage are students and deadbeats.

Ding! Ding! Ding! And the winner for most offensive comment in a post goes to....

 

[Planogirl]

Ding! Ding! Ding! And the winner for most offensive comment in a post goes to....

That was a bad one.

OK then what is the purpose of minimum wage to begin with? Is it to put play money in the pockets of teens or is it an entry level job into the workplace? I suspect that it's a bit of both.

I question whether it's enough in today's economy even for entry level. I don't think that anyone would argue that its buying power has decreased over the past decade.

I also don't believe that paying these people a bit more is going to hurt the corporation all that much. Tiny businesses, just getting by? Maybe but the relatively few number of employees should keep that hit from being all that bad IMO.

 

[goofygirl]

Don't know if this was mentioned, but our poor Congress voted themselves a 2% raise a few weeks ago. It gets mighty expensive to schmooze all the lobbyists, ya know.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

 

[NewJersey]

I don't see this as a federal issue. I think people should take it up with their own states. NJ is going up from 6.15 to 7.15 on October 1.

 

[LuvDuke]

That was a bad one.

OK then what is the purpose of minimum wage to begin with? Is it to put play money in the pockets of teens or is it an entry level job into the workplace? I suspect that it's a bit of both.

I question whether it's enough in today's economy even for entry level. I don't think that anyone would argue that its buying power has decreased over the past decade.

I also don't believe that paying these people a bit more is going to hurt the corporation all that much. Tiny businesses, just getting by? Maybe but the relatively few number of employees should keep that hit from being all that bad IMO.

The purpose of the minimum wage was to prevent exploitation of lower paid workers. I'm still trying to figure out why some seem to think that exploitation is good. Sooner or later, their rhetoric will reach the point to which they'll call for sub-subsistance wages and the complete elimination of wages all together so companies can offer a bag of rice and pork chop as compensation all under the magic umbrella of "the free market".

As to whether or not hikes in the minimum wages results in job losses or all the other terrible things that are nothing more than logical fallacies:

"Does the minimum wage cause job loss?
A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates). Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as to studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment. Finally, a recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.

New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale."

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefaq

 

[Decoy]

As of January 1, 2006, seventeen states and the District of Columbia have enacted higher minimum wages. These states include: Alaska ($7.15), Connecticut ($7.40), California ($6.75), Delaware ($6.15), the District of Columbia ($7.00), Florida (6.40), Hawaii ($6.25), Illinois ($6.50), Maine ($6.50), Massachusetts ($6.75), Minnesota ($6.15), New Jersey (currently $6.15, set to increase to $7.15 on October 1, 2006), New York ($6.75), Oregon ($7.50), Rhode Island ($6.75), Vermont ($7.25), Washington ($7.63), and Wisconsin (currently $5.70, set to increase to $6.50 on June 1, 2006). Florida, Oregon and Washington all annually adjust their minimum wages for inflation. Vermont will begin annually adjusting their minimum wage level on January 1, 2007.

If you don't live in one of these states, take it to your governor and legislature... This should not be a federal issue.

 

[Charade]

The purpose of the minimum wage was to prevent exploitation of lower paid workers. I'm still trying to figure out why some seem to think that exploitation is good. Sooner or later, their rhetoric will reach the point to which they'll call for sub-subsistance wages and the complete elimination of wages all together so companies can offer a bag of rice and pork chop as compensation all under the magic umbrella of "the free market".

As to whether or not hikes in the minimum wages results in job losses or all the other terrible things that are nothing more than logical fallacies:

"Does the minimum wage cause job loss?
A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates). Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as to studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment. Finally, a recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.

New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale."

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefaq

Ok then!! Why not raise it to something more realistic like $10/hour if it didn't affect anything.

 

[Planogirl]

If you don't live in one of these states, take it to your governor and legislature... This should not be a federal issue.

Our governors tend to be against the raises. They also tend to be against most things that I believe in but that's another issue.

 

[maddiemouse]

Obviously not. I'm just pointing out that raising the minimum wage won't magically fix everybody's problems. If that were true, why don't we raise everybody's wage to $20 an hour?

When I started my first job, 40 years ago, I was paid $1.65 per hour, which at that time, was minimum wage. I could have bought approximately 6 gallons of gas with one hour's pay. Today, 6 gallons of gas would cost me around $20.00. I currently make about $25.00 per hour, guess I haven't come that far.

 

[MrsPete]

I am a cm at the World and I make just a little over $7 an hour . . . Now - why is it again that I do not deserve a living wage?

This will come out sounding mean -- I don't intend it that way:

It's a supply-demand thing. MANY people would love to work for WDW, and most of the jobs there do not require specialized skills (that is, they don't require a degree, etc. -- just the willingness to work hard, provide good customer service, buy into the company philosophy). If a WDW CM walks off the job, human resources has a fairly easy time finding someone else to cook meals, wear the Goofy suit, drive the bus, whatever. Because the jobs are so easy to fill, they don't pay much.

If you want more money, you must learn specialized skills. If you were, for example, a degreed paralegal or a certified dental hygenist, your employer would value you more highly -- you'd be hard to replace. As a result, you would command a higher salary.

 

[MrsPete]

Why is it that only the people opposed to raising the minimum wage are suggesting such unrealistic amounts?

They're using exaggerated figures to prove the point. You can fill in any number you like -- the concept is still the same.

 

[MrsPete]

You get paid what you are worth.

Just like when you buy product--you pay only what you think it is worth. If that shirt is not worth $20 to you, you will not buy it. You will wait until it goes on sale. To some a 10% discount is enough to make the purchase worthwhile---to others they wait until it is 75% off before it is worth it. One said the shirt was worth $18 to them and the other said it is worth only $5. This is for the same shirt.

Minimum wage is the bargain basement price that anyone can legally be employed.

Well said. Here's the rub: People are emotional about their paychecks, and they tend to see a person earning minimum wage as a minimum-person, while they see a high-paid person as more important, more valuable as a human being.

The truth is that the paycheck reflects the skills, not the person's worth as a person.

 

[MrsPete]

As far as a large company swallowing the losses- I'm stumped. People work there. People are share holders. If the bottom line sinks, so does the economy. Raising the minimum wage does not happen in a bubble. It effects everything. McDonald's will raise the price of a burger if minimum wage goes up. Housing and transportation costs will increase if minimum wage goes up. The poverty line will also rise with a minimum wage increase. Poor people will still be poor. There will still be a mean, median, and average of salaries. If you are at the bottom now, you will be at the bottom then. Then we can say, "Well, the last $2 increase didn't work. Let's make it a $4 increase this time." And the same thing will happen. This is a free market (or at least, it's supposed to be). Someone will always be at the bottom. Unless, dare I say it, are we going to become a socialist society? Maybe the Feds can dictate the prices of consumer goods...

I don't see why everyone can't "get" what you're saying. The economy is kind of like a balloon -- you push on it in one place, everything else is affected. If minimum wage goes up, McDonald's won't simply accept lower profits; they'll pass the cost on to the consumer (and that means you, me, and the minimum wage guy).

We're just seen this principle at work in America: Gas has increased significantly. As a result, food prices have increased, SUV sales are down, etc. You can't change one part of the economy without changing everything -- or at least many things.

 

[MrsPete]

In 2005 they got $162,100 for 154 days in session. Sounds decent to me.

But that doesn't mean they only work 154 days per year. They also have duties back home in their districts. Plus they must maintain two homes, be prepared to travel frequently, and more.

I don't object to them being paid a good wage. As other folks have pointed out, we all want the average person to be able to go to DC and serve in Congress. If it didn't pay, only those who inherited great wealthy would be able to govern. Do we really want an oligarchy?