Minimum wage should be raised [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Minimum wage should be raised



Smokey
05-21-2014, 01:56 PM
I don't undrestand why republicans in congress are so dead against raising minimum wage as they torpedo any legislations by democrats that wants to raise minimum wage.

I don't necessary agree that minimum wage should be raised from $7.25 to $10 an hour ($9 probably be more like it as $10 might a shock to system), but saying no to any kind of wage increase just show how republicans are out of touch.

Their only excuse opposing wage increase is that Americans will lose millions of jobs. But they forget that with minimum wage earners getting extra cash each pay check ($80 a week or $320 a month), they have more money to spend and buy. And help economy grow.

But they are afraid that if they raise minimum wage, employers and bosses that own business that pay minimum wages (like Walmart) have to take one less trip to the golf clubs or their wives have to take one less shopping spree. With everything prices sky rocketing, nobody can live on $7.25 an hour.

If nothing else, republicans should think of raising wages as humanitarian gesture for millions of americans who are on the verge of poverty. So do the right thing :)

JohnMichael
05-21-2014, 04:12 PM
Wow Smokey thanks for a political thread that should blow up quickly. May not last long. Of course I think minimum wage should be $15. I have closed other political threads since we are an audio site. I see Forever Autumn has already been here and I will be watching it closely.

Feanor
05-21-2014, 05:04 PM
I don't undrestand why republicans in congress are so dead against raising minimum wage as they torpedo any legislations by democrats that wants to raise minimum wage.

I don't necessary agree that minimum wage should be raised from $7.25 to $10 an hour ($9 probably be more like it as $10 might a shock to system), but saying no to any kind of wage increase just show how republicans are out of touch.

Their only excuse opposing wage increase is that Americans will lose millions of jobs. But they forget that with minimum wage earners getting extra cash each pay check ($80 a week or $320 a month), they have more money to spend and buy. And help economy grow.

But they are afraid that if they raise minimum wage, employers and bosses that own business that pay minimum wages (like Walmart) have to take one less trip to the golf clubs or their wives have to take one less shopping spree. With everything prices sky rocketing, nobody can live on $7.25 an hour.

If nothing else, republicans should think of raising wages as humanitarian gesture for millions of americans who are on the verge of poverty. So do the right thing :)
There's no mystery as to why Republicans want to keep the min wage low: they represent a business constituency mainly. It's the credo of business large and small that the economy is best helped by keeping input costs low, taxes low, and regulations few. This is classic economics dating back to Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

Ricardo espoused the "Iron Law of Wages", i.e. that wages naturally tend to a subsistence level, and further that as real wages increase, real profits decrease because the revenue from the sale of manufactured goods is split between profits and wages. As profits decrease, entrepreneurs have less capital and less incentive to invest and thus, it's argued, the economy stagnates.

This classic perspective completely ignores the macroeconomic argument that higher worker wages increases demand and stimulates the economy, encouraging investment to satisfy the demand. IMO, the US situation beginning 30 years ago and accelerating since then, as been for revenues to flow to investors at the expense of workers. Automation and cheap off-shore labor have weakened the workers' bargaining position; at the same time deregulation and lower taxes on business & the well-to-do favoured the wealthy. The profits to the latter have NOT been reinvested in the domestic economy to the extent necessary to either to keep the US economy competitive or sustain good middle incomes. This situation needs to be redressed urgently; a higher minimum wage would be only a small part of what's needed. I'm not sure the Democrats are up to this and the Republicans certainly aren't.

BTW, Ontario recently raised the minimum wage here from C$10.25 to C$11.00 per hour; see HERE (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-raises-minimum-wage-to-11-an-hour-1.2516659). That's equal to around US$10.00/hr.

Smokey
05-21-2014, 06:22 PM
Of course I think minimum wage should be $15.

We can't even get $10 wage thru and you want $15 :D

I think if we increase the minimum wage baby steps at a time (like 50 cent here or 75 cents gradually), will probably have more support than big increases.

Smokey
05-21-2014, 06:45 PM
This classic perspective completely ignores the macroeconomic argument that higher worker wages increases demand and stimulates the economy, encouraging investment to satisfy the demand.

Of course every economy policy will have its down side, but with above scenario the benifits will outweight the negatives of less investments. Imagine 25 million workers who earn less than $10 an hour having $2 or $300 extra a month in their pocket to spend.

That is almost $7 billion dollars injected back into economy :)

bfalls
05-21-2014, 08:05 PM
Sorry, I have a real issue paying $10, let alone $15, for a workforce who can't even center a hamburger on a bun. If they want the higher wage let them earn it. Will the wage increase go across the board? What will the gap be between the burger flipper and the manager trainees who are actually working toward a better wage? Why would someone try to achieve better and take more responsibility when they can get a good wage with no initiative. I think it sends the wrong message. How many others received a $3-$8 increase without working for it?

JohnMichael
05-22-2014, 02:06 AM
How many full time workers need government assistance to survive. If people are paid a decent wage the dependency on the government would ease. They need to be paid a truly livable wage.

Hyfi
05-22-2014, 03:02 AM
Capitalism = Legal, yet Immoral

Feanor
05-22-2014, 04:39 AM
Sorry, I have a real issue paying $10, let alone $15, for a workforce who can't even center a hamburger on a bun. If they want the higher wage let them earn it. Will the wage increase go across the board? What will the gap be between the burger flipper and the manager trainees who are actually working toward a better wage? Why would someone try to achieve better and take more responsibility when they can get a good wage with no initiative. I think it sends the wrong message. How many others received a $3-$8 increase without working for it?
This is just the weary old argument, "the poor don't deserve any better", buttressed by the other weary old argument, "the free market is always right". I don't buy it. Even Adam Smith admitted that workers were at a disadvantage relative to employers.

The '50s was the heyday of the North American economy. Remember, (yes, I'm old enough to remember), that business was doing just fine despite unions and high wages; the rich were doing pretty well too despite US personal income tax rates up to 90%.

The strength of labor began to weaken with first with automation then with foreign competition -- these two things were largely inevitable. However then along came Barry Goldwater and beginning of the ethos of corporate & wealthy class greed. A while later it was Ronald Reagan and the doctrine of "supply-side" economics.

"Supply-side", a.k.a. "trickle down" was really nothing more than 19th century classic economics as espoused by David Ricardo and Jean-Baptise Say. This held, basically, that if only the rich were even richer they would reinvest their profits back into the economy and wealth would "trickle down". 35 years of application of this theory, (under both Republicans and Democrats), has resulted in the American economic malaise of today. During most of the interval, and accelerating in since 2001, earnings of the all workers including almost all of the so-called middle class have stagnated or actually fallen in terms of real purchasing power. Also, in many categories US companies have ceased to be competitive with foreign enterprise.

Why has "trickle down" failed? Basically because "Say's Law" is invalid. Jean-Baptise Say asserted early in the 19th century that the rich would necessarily reinvested any increased wealth in the productive capacity of the economy. Unfortunately this is bogus. The super rich don't have to reinvest in the productive capacity of the American nation, and haven't done so. Instead they have (a) invested abroad, mostly in low-wage, few-regulation economies, (b) indulged in speculation, including corporate acquisitions that drive up stock prices but don't add to productive capacity, and/or (c) simply hoarded cash in corporate bank accounts.

The result of this has be the relative impoverishment not only of the poorest but also most middle class American, excluding only the top <10%. The typical American isn't "undeserving", he/she a victim of the greed of the rich and their fundamentally misguided economic doctrine.

Hyfi
05-22-2014, 05:34 AM
So lets take it one step further, Waiters and Waitresses.

They work for a place that charges me 3x the cost of a bottle of wine, 3x the cost of the food they serve.

Then they barely pay their servers and expect me to pay for the food AND also pay THEIR Employees.

Maybe these places should actually pay their own employees as opposed to expecting their customers to pay twice for the same plate of food.....just sayin

As bfalls says, if they don't like the pay, get a better job but don't get mad at customers who may be in the same financial state as the servers are for not tipping 20%

ForeverAutumn
05-22-2014, 05:59 AM
I think you also have to consider the effect on small businesses. It's fine to look at companies like Wal-mart and McDonalds and complain that their profits are in the billions while their employees can't afford to feed their families. But there are more small, privately owned businesses than big conglomerates.

It's already tough for a small business to survive in today's economy. Force them to pay their employees an additional $2 or $3 an hour and that could be enough to send them into the red.

I'm not saying that people don't deserve to earn a living wage, but how much should a guy get paid to stand at the door and say Hello to me as I enter a store?

Feanor
05-22-2014, 06:10 AM
So lets take it one step further, Waiters and Waitresses.

They work for a place that charges me 3x the cost of a bottle of wine, 3x the cost of the food they serve.

Then they barely pay their servers and expect me to pay for the food AND also pay THEIR Employees.

Maybe these places should actually pay their own employees as opposed to expecting their customers to pay twice for the same plate of food.....just sayin

As bfalls says, if they don't like the pay, get a better job but don't get mad at customers who may be in the same financial state as the servers are for not tipping 20%
OK, so in the first place most these servers would get a better job if they could find them -- take note that increasingly college grads are having to accept jobs well below their educational level.

Secondly, who but the customer must ultimately pay for not only the food but also the service? Given that, how much difference does it make if you whether pay the owner more and the server less, or vice versa?

Thirdly, if the servers are paid more by the owner, then the owner must "eat" the increase him/herself, or confiscate the servers' tips (which might be illegal), hire illegal immigrants and pay them whatever he/she likes, or pass the increase on to the customer, (see above). Which it will be depends on market forces at the place & time.

Fourthly, instead of going to the restaurant you can stay home and prepare your own damned food, and thereby spite both owner and servers.

Feanor
05-22-2014, 06:20 AM
I think you also have to consider the effect on small businesses. It's fine to look at companies like Wal-mart and McDonalds and complain that their profits are in the billions while their employees can't afford to feed their families. But there are more small, privately owned businesses than big conglomerates.

It's already tough for a small business to survive in today's economy. Force them to pay their employees an additional $2 or $3 an hour and that could be enough to send them into the red.

I'm not saying that people don't deserve to earn a living wage, but how much should a guy get paid to stand at the door and say Hello to me as I enter a store?
Again, the standard argument from microeconomics which isn't so much wrong as incomplete.

I'll reiterate: the big problem for business in North America today -- small business as well as big business -- isn't that wages are too high, or taxes are too high, or that there are too many regulations. The BIG PROBLEM is that potential customers have too little money to buy their goods & services.

A certain balance in the distribution of the fruits of productivity between business and labour must be maintained -- raising the min. wage to $50/hr. wouldn't work. However presently the balance too much favours investors. Upping the minimum wage by itself won't solve this problem, but it is likely part of the solution.

Hyfi
05-22-2014, 06:34 AM
OK, so in the first place most these servers would get a better job if they could find them -- take note that increasingly college grads are having to accept jobs well below their educational level.

Secondly, who but the customer must ultimately pay for not only the food but also the service? Given that, how much difference does it make if you whether pay the owner more and the server less, or vice versa?

Thirdly, if the servers are paid more by the owner, then the owner must "eat" the increase him/herself, or confiscate the servers' tips (which might be illegal), hire illegal immigrants and pay them whatever he/she likes, or pass the increase on to the customer, (see above). Which it will be depends on market forces at the place & time.

Fourthly, instead of going to the restaurant you can stay home and prepare your own damned food, and thereby spite both owner and servers.

The cost for the service is already included in the cost of the meal, but capitalists just want more profit for themselves as opposed to sharing it with their own employees.

Just why does an $8 bottle of wine cost $33 at a restaurant? Why do they need to make 300% profit to keep it in the fridge? Why doesn't some of that outrageous profit pay the employees?

Because Capitalism = Legal yet Immoral

I don't go out to eat much anymore mainly because I can no longer eat a full meal, nor do I need all the empty calories. I did go to our local Vegetarian place last night and had an awesome $20 plate of $5 worth of veggies and rice.

Feanor
05-22-2014, 08:26 AM
The cost for the service is already included in the cost of the meal, but capitalists just want more profit for themselves as opposed to sharing it with their own employees.

Just why does an $8 bottle of wine cost $33 at a restaurant? Why do they need to make 300% profit to keep it in the fridge? Why doesn't some of that outrageous profit pay the employees?

Because Capitalism = Legal yet Immoral

I don't go out to eat much anymore mainly because I can no longer eat a full meal, nor do I need all the empty calories. I did go to our local Vegetarian place last night and had an awesome $20 plate of $5 worth of veggies and rice.
Yes, absolutely: the business owner wants as much revenue as possible for him(her)self without sharing it with employees. For that matter he(she implied) would like to charge you $100 for what now cost you $20. What determines how much he can charge you and how little he can pay them depends on "The Market" -- not morality.

Maybe I'm less down on capitalism than you; at least I acknowledge that The Market is an effective mechanism for determining prices and thus allocating goods & services. However I agree that The Market isn't entirely fair or effective at providing "the greatest good for the greatest number", (the Utilitarian Principle).

The Market determines price for labor based on supply & demand. However the bargaining position of North American employees in recent decades has declined on account of key factors:


Labor's inherent disadvantage relative to employers -- as even Adam Smith (of "Invisible Hand" fame) agreed. Nothing has changed in this regard in recent decades
Automation in all areas, not only manufacturing
Foreign competition,foreign makers, off-shore manufacturing by domestics makers, and off-shore services such as call centers
Decline of unions due to the decline of manufacturing jobs in particular; this has weakened not only unionized workers but also non-unionized.

The increasing relative weakness the labor sector mighted been mitigated (to significant extent if not entirely) by various measures, viz.


Higher minimum wage
Workplace regulations such as minimum staffing for safety reasons
Regulations or incentives to provide better employee training
Banning "Right to Work" legislation that is aimed at weakening unions
Effectively restricting illegal immigrations, by e.g. making it a crime to employ "undocumented" workers.

However these measure have not been taken in the USA largely because of the business lobby and the remarkably successful effort of right-wing interests to distract a gullible public with social conservative issues and "free enterprise" propaganda.

Hyfi
05-22-2014, 08:32 AM
I don't mind capitalism...to a point.

So what you are saying about Market Demand is that if I am a business owner, I should just keep raising my prices and gouging my customers just up to the point where clientele starts to decline. Then I will raise the prices more to compensate for that. In the mean time, I still pay my employees next to nothing and expect my customers to pay them also as well as my rape-gouging prices.

Sorry, I just don't agree with that business model.

Feanor
05-22-2014, 08:47 AM
I don't mind capitalism...to a point.

So what you are saying about Market Demand is that if I am a business owner, I should just keep raising my prices and gouging my customers just up to the point where clientele starts to decline. Then I will raise the prices more to compensate for that. In the mean time, I still pay my employees next to nothing and expect my customers to pay them also as well as my rape-gouging prices.

Sorry, I just don't agree with that business model.
I applaud your ethics, but perhaps your business is so successful & lucky that you don't have to make the hard choices to stay in business.

Indeed according to macroeconomic principles, you have the right -- even the public duty -- to charge what the market will bear. The classic economic notion is that competition will step in, or substitute products found, that will prevent you from charging exorbitant prices. Of course, these constraints are relative: you might have an actual or near monopoly, or there might be no effective substitutes -- or through advertising you might persuade potential customers there the are no competing products or substitutes, regardless of the actualities.

Hyfi
05-22-2014, 08:58 AM
I applaud your ethics, but perhaps your business is so successful & lucky that you don't have to make the hard choices to stay in business.

Indeed according to macroeconomic principles, you have the right -- even the public duty -- to charge what the market will bear. The classic economic notion is that competition will step in, or substitute products found, that will prevent you from charging exorbitant prices. Of course, these constraints are relative: you might have an actual or near monopoly, or there might be no effective substitutes -- or through advertising you might persuade potential customers there the are no competing products or substitutes, regardless of the actualities.

Fine, charge what the market will bear and pay your own employees a decent wage.

ForeverAutumn
05-22-2014, 10:35 AM
Capitalism = Legal yet Immoral
I don't mind capitalism...to a point.

So you don't mind immorality...to a point? :devil:

Hyfi
05-22-2014, 10:43 AM
So you don't mind immorality...to a point? :devil:

Just up to the point where Immorality kicks in

ForeverAutumn
05-22-2014, 10:50 AM
So what you are saying about Market Demand is that if I am a business owner, I should just keep raising my prices and gouging my customers just up to the point where clientele starts to decline. Then I will raise the prices more to compensate for that. In the mean time, I still pay my employees next to nothing and expect my customers to pay them also as well as my rape-gouging prices.

Sorry, I just don't agree with that business model.

You're right not to agree with that business model. Employee wages aside, the principle of supply and demand would put you out of business pretty quick.

If your prices were such that your clientele started to decline, raising prices more to compensate for that will only drive more of your customers away until you have no more customers and, therefore, no more business. Employee wages won't be an issue.

I do agree with what you say about tipping. I don't think that tipping should be expected or should relieve an employer of paying a fair wage. However, I think that when people eat in restaurants, or purchase certain services, they have to recognize that in North America tipping is a socially accepted norm and you have to factor that into your total cost. Otherwise, if you don't think that service was worth it, don't tip. It's as simple as that. Tipping is not a price, nor is it contractual. It is completely subjective and optional.

ForeverAutumn
05-22-2014, 06:12 PM
Since we're talking about tips here, I'm going to go off-topic for a minute for a public service announcement.

I treated a friend to lunch today for her birthday. I put the lunch on my credit card so the waiter brought me a wireless machine to insert my card and my PIN code (all credit cards in Canada have chips in them so we enter codes, not sign for our credit purchases). The waiter entered the full amount of the bill, which included tax. The machine then asked if I wanted to leave a tip and gave me the option of a percentage or a flat amount. I chose the percentage and entered the percentage amount so the machine could calculate the tip and add it onto my total.

Usually I tip on the pre-tax amount of the bill. It was only after I left the restaurant that I realized the machine calculated the tip based on the final total, as the machine doesn't distinguish between bill amount and tax amount, it just looks at the total amount going on your credit card. So I over-tipped.

I'm sure that most people will never realize that the machines calculate this way. And it's not in the Server's best interest to tell anyone. In the future I will either reduce the percentage or pay a fixed amount to compensate for this.

Smokey
05-23-2014, 08:01 PM
Sorry, I have a real issue paying $10, let alone $15, for a workforce who can't even center a hamburger on a bun. If they want the higher wage let them earn it. What will the gap be between the burger flipper and the manager trainees who are actually working toward a better wage? Why would someone try to achieve better and take more responsibility when they can get a good wage with no initiative. I think it sends the wrong message.

That might have been true 20 or 30 years ago, but in today's "service" economy, it is becoming just a cliche. Most low paying jobs are labor intensive that nobody wants, so those who take it have no other options available to them.

Teenager will be a teenager whether flipping burgers or working at any other jobs. They don't have incentive to be more responsible (not as long as daddy paying for eveything). But for others that work at low paying jobs, minimum wage mean being one step away from being homeless, hungry and butt naked :)

Feanor
05-24-2014, 05:49 AM
That might have been true 20 or 30 years ago, but in today's "service" economy, it is becoming just a cliche. Most low paying jobs are labor intensive that nobody wants, so those who take it have no other options available to them.

Teenager will be a teenager whether flipping burgers or working at any other jobs. They don't have incentive to be more responsible (not as long as daddy paying for eveything). But for others that work at low paying jobs, minimum wage mean being one step away from being homeless, hungry and butt naked :)
Low wage employers and those who use part-time workers as the main work force, say WalMart, MacDonalds, used to justify their labor practice by saying that they were helping out students, housewives and retirees who just want a little extra spending money.

Maybe once this was so but no longer. Nowadays a high portion of their workers are prime working-age people who can find better work. Many of these people have to work two or three part-time jobs to make ends meet for their families. Among meeting the demands of multiple employers they end up getting no vacations and no days off; despite working 60+ hours as week, they get no benefits. Some have good educations that just don't happen to be in demand at the moment -- and because they aren't get experience in their fields, it becomes ever more likely that they never will get those jobs.

One things is very certain: it's slanderous to label all low wage workers as lazy or improvident.

Smokey
05-25-2014, 03:03 PM
One things is very certain: it's slanderous to label all low wage workers as lazy or improvident.And even more so since majority of low wage workers have hispanic or african-american origin.

JohnMichael
05-25-2014, 03:33 PM
And even more so since majority of low wage workers have hispanic or african-american origin.


Or white in home health care providers.

Smokey
05-28-2014, 06:31 PM
Here is good article as to why Walmart should support minimum wage increase as nearly half of Walmart's 1.4 million U.S. workers currently earn an average of $8.45 per hour.

It estimate that although a higher hourly wage could increase Walmart's labor costs by $2 billion, the payoffs would be much greater. Walmart could gain an additional $13 billion if the minimum wage jumps to $10 an hour as at least one quarter of Walmart shoppers work in minimum-wage jobs.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-walmart-needs-to-support-a-high-minimum-wage-144036352.html

Feanor
05-29-2014, 02:59 AM
Here is good article as to why Walmart should support minimum wage increase as nearly half of Walmart's 1.4 million U.S. workers currently earn an average of $8.45 per hour.

It estimate that although a higher hourly wage could increase Walmart's labor costs by $2 billion, the payoffs would be much greater. Walmart could gain an additional $13 billion if the minimum wage jumps to $10 an hour as at least one quarter of Walmart shoppers work in minimum-wage jobs.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-walmart-needs-to-support-a-high-minimum-wage-144036352.html
Unfortunately I think most employers adhere to the old adage, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". In this case the dollar immediately saved on labor cost is worth more that a possible but uncertain increase in revenue.

By instinct employers, whether Walmart of the local mom & pop, are microeconomists, not microeconomists. Governments must take the measures on our behalf to overcome this inherent short-sightedness.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-30-2014, 04:41 PM
Here is good article as to why Walmart should support minimum wage increase as nearly half of Walmart's 1.4 million U.S. workers currently earn an average of $8.45 per hour.

It estimate that although a higher hourly wage could increase Walmart's labor costs by $2 billion, the payoffs would be much greater. Walmart could gain an additional $13 billion if the minimum wage jumps to $10 an hour as at least one quarter of Walmart shoppers work in minimum-wage jobs.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-walmart-needs-to-support-a-high-minimum-wage-144036352.html

This is the blind spot of CEO thinking. The higher labor costs will definately be offset by the increase in business. If I make $15 bucks an hour, I will have a little more disposable income that somebody who makes $8.45 an hour.

The very reason why Wal-Mart(and other big box bargain stores) are hurting, is because the demographic they serve does not have much if any disposable income.

Hyfi
06-09-2014, 10:29 AM
BOSTON, June 9 (Reuters) - Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin on Monday signed a law that will raise the state's minimum wage to $10.50 an hour by 2018, higher than any other U.S. state

Vermont To Raise Minimum Wage To $10.50 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/09/vermont-minimum-wage_n_5474143.html?1402334875)