thought this was pretty funny, semi-relevant to the thread
thought this was pretty funny, semi-relevant to the thread
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreyd...wage-is-false/
Having established that the number of minimum wage workers is small and shrinking, that most minimum wage workers are not poor, and that most of them are young and working their way up the ladder rather than supporting a family, I want to bust one more myth about the minimum wage: the relationship over time between the minimum wage and labor productivity. This one is particularly obnoxious because those selling this myth almost surely know that they are advocating for their preferred policy on the basis of a lie.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but a sentence like this rings dishonest to me. I have a hard time believing over half of minimum wage workers are between 20-25. Seems like teens are getting counted twice (as teens and under 25) to make it look like almost 90% of the minimum wage workforce is 25 or younger.Within that small group, 31 percent are teenagers and 55 percent are 25 years old or younger. That leaves only about 1.1 percent of all workers over 25 and 0.8 percent of all Americans over 25 earning the minimum wage.
The author is either an idiot, or intentionally misleading people. Considering that he's clearly a Republican, it could go either way. I'd lead more towards intentionally misleading people, though.
The table straight from his very first link says quite plainly that 25+ makes up nearly 50% of the work force that's making minimum wage. This will probably format very badly.
Characteristic Number of workers
(in thousands) Percent distribution Percent of workers paid hourly rates
Total paid hourly rates At or below minimum wage Total paid hourly rates At or below minimum wage At or below minimum wage
Total At minimum wage Below minimum wage Total At minimum wage Below minimum wage Total At minimum wage Below minimum wage
AGE AND SEX
Total, 16 years and over
75,276 3,550 1,566 1,984 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 4.7 2.1 2.6
16 to 24 years
14,909 1,797 862 935 19.8 50.6 55.0 47.1 12.1 5.8 6.3
16 to 19 years
4,044 854 484 370 5.4 24.1 30.9 18.6 21.1 12.0 9.1
25 years and over
60,367 1,753 704 1,049 80.2 49.4 45.0 52.9 2.9 1.2 1.7
Don't forget that the table is bullshit to begin with. The table is regarding wages at or below the Federal minimum wage. Quite a lot of states have their own minimum wage which is a dollar or two higher than the Federal minimum. Because of this, it skews the data to look like more people are making above "minimum wage" than actually are. Minimum wage in California at 9 bucks an hour is just as shitty a life as minimum wage of 7 something in Arkansas (states picked at random, I have no idea if these numbers are accurate, but hopefully you get the gist).
Also, if min wage is 7.25, and you make 7.40, you aren't making minimum wage but would obviously significantly benefit from a minimum wage increase to 10/hr or whatever.
Updates.
The $10.10 push isn't going well in Congress
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A3T0PT20140430
But does go well in Hawaii
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...-minimum-wage/
(Granted, while not quite NY/SF bad, Hawaii's CoL isn't a fun thing)
But not to be outdone, the city of Seattle just did this
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...-minimum-wage/
At least the states are doing something about it, proving even more that the federal government is turning into a giant waste of space and things that sit around and breathe up all of our oxygen.
It should be left to the states anyway, if you ask me. The cost of living varies across states quite a bit. Applying a blanket wage like that would be ridiculous.
The federal government does not need to have their hands in everything all the time.
State progression, that's what I look forward to!
I said this some time ago. Also when I was 16 working 30 hours a week I did not need to make 30k a year. I mean I still stop in to see old friends at the grocery store, and there has to be 50+ kids under the age of 20. At 10 an hour the average part timer is going to make 20k a year.
God damn funny. Fuck idk what I'd be doing with the extra 10k...have a damn BMW age 17 haha.
I'd say $10.10 is too low even if it was having success. :/
Should neighboring states jump too high relative to one, I wouldn't be surprised to see people moving if they're actually able, only to encounter unemployment due to competition or underemployment if only to cut down on risk of overtime pay from the managerial aspect. And if your state is sluggish on getting with the times, we're basically left going on the faith of businesses paying more to keep people in these states, which I just don't see happening at any kind of mainstream level since desperate people will take the shit pay since it's better than nothing.
Personally, I'm stuck in an area that ranked like 8th or something in regards to population shrink due to economic conditions over recent years and I'd most definitely believe it. Roads here were decimated this winter. Places closing doesn't seem to be outpaced by those opening. Bigger industries like some power plants or iron facilities have also been closed down. So, while the cost of living may not be close to Seattle, getting by here on minimum wage isn't exactly what I'd call "living" comfortably. Can only imagine how much harder it is if you've spawned.
This is not true. In general, the states create a checkerboard of regulation that is horrible for business. The federal government unifying the minimum is much better. That said it is the Republican's that are causing this problem, not the federal government.
Don't engage in false equivalencies.
we just need like actual representation and stuff '-'; None of us have seen it in our lives. Neither state nor federal
if that requires splitting California 6 ways, okay
fuck no our flag and 50 stars
Republican and Democrats, honestly doesn't matter at this point as they are mostly the same in a lot of respects.
Like people have said, a unified minimum wage is great, but it doesn't work for a lot of places. Cost of living where i'm from, you could get by easily with a home at a 40k job, where I am now? Better be making over 6 figures to even hope to land a house. It's not like this place is Burn Notice version of Miami either, we have lots of section 8 housing here, tons of people on EBT, but average income is drastically more then back home.
Was laughing at Rush Limbaugh the other day saying the problem is that our generation has given up hope because we've never seen a Reagan style economy and that the Libs are telling us America is bad and racist!...and totally not because his generation fucked us over completely in terms of employment and education.
Haven't read everything here but a minimum wage increase is a horrible thing is it not? It only increases the cost of goods and screws over everyone making more than minimum wage. For example I make $9.65 atm because of annual .40 raises. If they raise minimum wage i'll get a .45 raise while the cost of all goods sky rockets to compensate to cover the added cost. It would effectively wipe out 6 years of working for raises for me and anyone else in my situation, while not making a difference at all.
Pretty sure it's a myth that the cost of goods will skyrocket if people start making more for minimum wage.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-ri...ked?page=0%2C0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...c63_story.html
While prices will probably go up. If you're making $5 extra an hour at a 40 hour job, before taxes that's $200 a week. I doubt your bills for the week would jump $200 collectively.
Giving the poor people who live(die) on food stamps and fast food a trivial pay increase will not make your ipad7 or almond milk more expensive. But we sure got the collective convinced otherwise.
I just dont understand it lol that's why i'm trying to get get a better understanding of it. I'm simply looking at my situation. I make $9.52 at the moment and if minimum wage goes up to $10.10 i'll have been working at my job for 6 years (with $2.40 worth of raises) and make the same as someone who started 1 month ago... and less than someone who is hired in next week (due to pay scales). Wont businesses have to increase their prices to offset the added payroll cost? I read that article talking about how it will increase profits because people have more money to spend, but the majority of businesses are greedy. They dont look at it like profits are up, they see i'm paying more on payroll, so i need to find a way to offset that cost some how (easiest way is to simply raise prices) but again thats just my outlook and thought process. Then again i view food stamps as a bull shit thing to help the lazy. Around where I live the only people who are on food stamps are those who are to lazy to work for their shit, and blow what money they have on trivial things like drinking, smoking, random shit they dont need (ie ipads). Those who actually need the food stamps and deserve them (like my room mates parents who should be on disability but dont take it and get their asses up and work just to scrape by) are to proud and dont want things given to them.
I see two different important questions, and I'll try to address them both.
First, the potential for your employer to "raise" a valued, experienced employee to the same wage as a newbie simply because of a new law. If your employer does this, they're a dick, and you should call them out on it. Your relative value did not decrease just because a law stated you deserve a higher minimum. If they won't budge after pointing out the fact that you have worked there so long, and proven your worth above others, I'd start looking for a new job.
Secondly, as far as prices of goods increasing because the price of labor increases, you're not distributing the increase in cost across all goods/purchases. If you work in a grocery store, and you see an average of 25 customers buying stuff in an hour, and each of those customers buys an average of 5 things (low balled estimate), then you need to distribute a ~$3 increase for one employee across those 125 purchases. That works out to about 2.5 CENTS per item those people purchased. Even if there are 6 employees who you have to account for, that's still only 15 CENTS per thing bought. If you get more customers in an hour on average, or they buy more things than my very low estimate, then the increase per item will drop proportionately.
It's important to note that businesses for common goods (groceries is the best example) should expect their business to increase as the result of a minimum wage hike. When the common person has more money, they have more money to spend on higher quality produce, food, or even small luxuries like eating out, buying movies/games, etc. The economy as a whole increases dramatically when everyone has money to spend.
Except people DONT have money to spend, thats the point.