WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?

[Dan J 277]

Correlation does not prove causation. Unemployment at this time is primary effected by the real estate bubble bursting, and the credit crunch. If you want to prove that minimum wage is responsible for the current unemployment increases. You need to show the what the job loss has been in sectors where workers are actually paid minimum wage.

Maybe not, but the problem is that it makes too much sense to dismiss it as simply coincidence. You'll have to tell me why an employer wouldn't start cutting his staff if he had to raise wages unless he simply could not run his business otherwise, at which point I'm afraid we start losing more businesses which will result of course in more unemployment.

Majority of minimum wage workers work in a service industry. Job losses have been starting to affect some of the service industries, but not because of the minimum wage changes. But because of the housing bubble, consumers have less disposable income. Layoffs have occurred in restaurants and hotels not because they have to pay their employees more, but because business has dropped off.

Minimum wage workers work mostly in service industries. A large number of them are young, and working part time jobs. While an increase in the minimum wage might affect unemployment, its effect will likely be relatively small provided the increases are not excessive.

I agree with you there, but I've heard terms like "The living wage" thrown around which propose doubling the minimum wage. I simply cannot believe that wouldn't create mayhem.

Personally I'm not a fan of the minimum wage, it creates an artificial floor, and will increase inflation. If the living wage is made the new minimum wage, inflation would adjust prices to compensate and we would be back to square one.

We will always have poor, middle class, and wealthy people. There is no way around this. Its just how capitalism works. Minimum wage will only relatively change how much money = being considered poor, but it will not necessarily improve that persons quality of life. What will, is sliding benefits to make housing, food, transportation and other needs more affordable. This way we can provide a better quality of life for all people in the US, without significantly upsetting the economic balance.

[dalegg 143]

Correlation does not prove causation. Unemployment at this time is primary effected by the real estate bubble bursting, and the credit crunch. If you want to prove that minimum wage is responsible for the current unemployment increases. You need to show the what the job loss has been in sectors where workers are actually paid minimum wage.

Maybe not, but the problem is that it makes too much sense to dismiss it as simply coincidence. You'll have to tell me why an employer wouldn't start cutting his staff if he had to raise wages unless he simply could not run his business otherwise, at which point I'm afraid we start losing more businesses which will result of course in more unemployment.

Majority of minimum wage workers work in a service industry. Job losses have been starting to affect some of the service industries, but not because of the minimum wage changes. But because of the housing bubble, consumers have less disposable income. Layoffs have occurred in restaurants and hotels not because they have to pay their employees more, but because business has dropped off.

Minimum wage workers work mostly in service industries. A large number of them are young, and working part time jobs. While an increase in the minimum wage might affect unemployment, its effect will likely be relatively small provided the increases are not excessive.

I agree with you there, but I've heard terms like "The living wage" thrown around which propose doubling the minimum wage. I simply cannot believe that wouldn't create mayhem.

Personally I'm not a fan of the minimum wage, it creates an artificial floor, and will increase inflation. If the living wage is made the new minimum wage, inflation would adjust prices to compensate and we would be back to square one.

We will always have poor, middle class, and wealthy people. There is no way around this. Its just how capitalism works. Minimum wage will only relatively change how much money = being considered poor, but it will not necessarily improve that persons quality of life. What will, is sliding benefits to make housing, food, transportation and other needs more affordable. This way we can provide a better quality of life for all people in the US, without significantly upsetting the economic balance.

That is exactly the way I feel.

[Ban Hammer 12,840]

Personally I'm not a fan of the minimum wage, it creates an artificial floor, and will increase inflation. If the living wage is made the new minimum wage, inflation would adjust prices to compensate and we would be back to square one.

We will always have poor, middle class, and wealthy people. There is no way around this. Its just how capitalism works. Minimum wage will only relatively change how much money = being considered poor, but it will not necessarily improve that persons quality of life. What will, is sliding benefits to make housing, food, transportation and other needs more affordable. This way we can provide a better quality of life for all people in the US, without significantly upsetting the economic balance.

That is exactly the way I feel.

add me to the list of agreement too.

[akdiver 3]

Make minimum wage $100/hr.

People making minimum wage will still be poorer and a lot worse off than those who do not.

Minimum wage needs to be abolished.

[IAMX 3,055]

Make minimum wage $100/hr.

People making minimum wage will still be poorer and a lot worse off than those who do not.

Minimum wage needs to be abolished.

While it wouldn't hurt me in the slightest, since I will have my business degree soon anyways, I do wonder how people would then be able to afford skyrocketing health care if they're getting paid $2/hour? As it is, it's prominent here in California for ag business to smuggle in Mexicans and pay them way below minimum wage, with no benefits, and really, no protections.

I'm sure we'll end up agreeing to disagree, but at very least I imagine with redistributing wealth by way of minimum (i.e. living) wage, that at least puts people into a mindset of working even a lowly job will get them somewhere, because if working doesn't put the food on the table and the roof over the head, that's playing with fire, because then crime becomes an option as an alternative way of making money to support the family. The grave concern over a greater divide between distribution of wealth is what would ultimately create more criminals, much like making pot illegal made more criminals.

[akdiver 3]

Here's a news flash - as a business owner, if minimum wage is, say, $10/hr, and you, as an employee, are unable to add at least $10/hr worth of value to my business, then I am not going to hire you.

Government attempting to force employers to pay employees more than the value they add leads to hiring people off the books, illegal immigrants and otherwise. If I have a choice between paying you $10/hr above board and FICA on top of that, or paying you $8/hr under the table with no FICA either, and you're only adding $8/hr of value to my business anyway - guess which one I'm going to do?

[William33 110]

Let's start this debate at the Federal minimum wage of $6.55. Who in their right mind would work for this wage (high school and college students excluded)? I don't personally know anyone who could survive at this level.

If I were a business owner, I would exceed that minimum on principle alone. That alone, would gain some loyalty among those on the low end of the scale.

My employer hires contractors at $9.00 minimum for housekeeping and low level food service jobs. At the end of the day, many employers suck.

[IAMX 3,055]

Here's a news flash - as a business owner, if minimum wage is, say, $10/hr, and you, as an employee, are unable to add at least $10/hr worth of value to my business, then I am not going to hire you.

Government attempting to force employers to pay employees more than the value they add leads to hiring people off the books, illegal immigrants and otherwise. If I have a choice between paying you $10/hr above board and FICA on top of that, or paying you $8/hr under the table with no FICA either, and you're only adding $8/hr of value to my business anyway - guess which one I'm going to do?

San Francisco has the highest minimum wage in the country, to my knowledge, and doing just fine. The argument of high wages screwing business and unemployment skyrocketing has long been FUD.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../BU741082IP.DTL

State unemployment rate averaged at 6.2%. San Francisco, having a higher minimum wage, had 4% unemployment. Indeed. FUD.

Minimum wage laws are consistent with inflation and costs of living. If a business cannot afford a cost of living wage, they shouldn't be in business, or should be doing the work themselves so they don't have anyone to pay. End of story.

[akdiver 3]

If a business cannot afford a cost of living wage, they shouldn't be in business, or should be doing the work themselves so they don't have anyone to pay. End of story.

If a person does not have a skill set that enables him/her to negotiate a satisfactory wage with an employer, without interference from government, they should acquire such a skill set, or accept their lot in life. End of story.

[IAMX 3,055]

If a business cannot afford a cost of living wage, they shouldn't be in business, or should be doing the work themselves so they don't have anyone to pay. End of story.

If a person does not have a skill set that enables him/her to negotiate a satisfactory wage with an employer, without interference from government, they should acquire such a skill set, or accept their lot in life. End of story.

Or the business owner could just do the work himself or force their own kids to do it if it's that easy to justify a ridiculously low wage. And, it's perfectly legal, too!

Otherwise competitive salaries are prevalent across the board and the only thing being there is a minimum wage to enforce working conditions and wages that one can actually live off of. This economy hasn't been in any trouble due to minimum wages, and we've been just fine, as well as those who want to work $8 - $10 doing menial labor or taking your order at McDonalds.

Removing minimum wages is pretty nonsensical and not very consistent with our understanding of working conditions today. Also, the arguments for it, especially regarding unemployment rates (which is more an indicator of the economy and necessity of service than anything to do with minimum wage) are entirely false.

[akdiver 3]

Or the business owner could just do the work himself or force their own kids to do it if it's that easy to justify a ridiculously low wage. And, it's perfectly legal, too!

Nice try. But you're missing something basic here. If I am willing to pay you X, and you are willing to work for X - then that should be the end of it. It's simply none of government's business what X is, except to the extent that it will be taxed (which it shouldn't be, but that's a different story).

What's next? minimum sick leave? Oh wait, SF has that one now.

How about minimum vacation time? Oh wait, some places have this too.

How about minimum health benefits? Just a matter of time.

How about minimum retirement benefits? Probably in the works.

How about minimum - what, what do you want? Child care benefits? Car rental benefits? NFL discount tickets?

Where does it end?

Invasive government is tyrannical government. Even if you think government SHOULD be invasive, then it should be the state government, not the federal government.

Edited September 14, 2008 by akdiver

[IAMX 3,055]

Or the business owner could just do the work himself or force their own kids to do it if it's that easy to justify a ridiculously low wage. And, it's perfectly legal, too!

Nice try. But you're missing something basic here. If I am willing to pay you X, and you are willing to work for X - then that should be the end of it. It's simply none of government's business what X is, except to the extent that it will be taxed (which it shouldn't be, but that's a different story).

If one cannot even live off of the wage, there's no justifiable reason to be able to pay someone that much.

There's oh so many great slippery slopes of this logic, but hell, the fact that Germany is the only first world country that doesn't have any minimum wage whatsoever is in complete defiance to your free-for-all analogy of business, sans government intervention. And even Germany is having a tough time staving it off, not from the government, but from the people.

What's next? minimum sick leave? Oh wait, SF has that one now.

How about minimum vacation time? Oh wait, some places have this too.

How about minimum health benefits? Just a matter of time.

How about minimum retirement benefits? Probably in the works.

How about minimum - what, what do you want? Child care benefits? Car rental benefits? NFL discount tickets?

Where does it end?

Well lets see, people get sick, people aren't robots who need to work every single day and need time off, as they have this thing called "family" and a "life", and yes, people at a very old age have a tough time working, so rather than let them die instead to let them reap the rewards of their contributions to society.

Your economic views here are not even capitalistic, they're entirely anarchistic. Way off in right field. Not views for a first world country.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a "living wage," let alone what you depend on to support a family. It is for entry-level, non-skilled positions. If you are getting minimum wage and you aren't just starting out in your working life, something is wrong.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Statutory minimum sick leave is something we have in the UK. It does get abused - but having say 10-15 days of sick time per year just seems perverse.

There doesn't seem to be any sort of safety net over here that doesn't rely on you not having some clear idea that you're going to be sick in advance. If I want I can pay 25% of my paycheck to ensure I get full pay if I have to off work long-term sick. But I can only do this during open enrolment (i.e. once per year), so unless I know that I'm going to be sick... can I really afford to live without that extra 25%?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I only have 5 sick days.

Although I will say the number of times UK co-workers used to get signed off for 2 weeks because of "stress" or didn't come in the day after a night out used to really wind me up.