Well, what are your thoughts on minimum wage?

Increase it? Decrease it? Or get rid of it all together?

Increase it to a level that affords the rental of a two bedroom apartment and all normal living expenses, including fully paid health insurance for the locality of the working person. Working for anything less is abusive.

No one is forcing you to work at a job that has sub-standard pay compared to other jobs. Jobs with minimum wage are supposed to be entry level jobs. They are for teenagers and such. My first job I still have right now, I got almost 3 dollars an hour over the minimum wage when I started. If you look you can find jobs with good pay. It is pointless to raise it.

Tom, it's not that easy to find decent paying jobs in some locales, especially job markets in economically depressed areas. The best I could do in one place (with a bachelor's degree, a major in accounting, 22 years' experience) was $7.50 per hour, and that was only for jobs on the night shift, if you were bilingual. Sometimes it appears that employers only want 30-somethings with blonde hair, blue eyes, sense of humor, a master's in the field, etc. Two of my kids are lucky enough to have those requirements (although both are pushing 40-something), but my other kids find that it's far more difficult to earn $11 per hour at a good job with fringe benefits.

However, the libertarians and the anarchists will say that the govt. shouldn't guarantee a wage at all, and that's a good argument right there.

FITs, though I am actually for an increase in the Minimum wage. The truth is, its being an effective, money in the pocket issue, for that 2.2% of the work force that it will effect, is nothing meaningful. Its merely a political ploy by the democrats to seem to be doing something in 30 second sound bites of appearing significance but in reality offering little to nothing even that few who will get something from it.

First, off as you well know, it will push some people off some forms of public assistances, as in the catch 22’s in how one qualifies for public assistance is income tested mostly.

Second, given that 13% of of that 2.2% of the work force that raise im the Minimum might impact are early retirees who elected to get SS early at age 62 and or are even regular retires that work at services jobs or part-time.

These two groups, beside those public assistance people have other issues that could actually end up costing them money of the wage is increased for those working in those classes.

For example, there is a ceiling on Early SS retirees of $12,960 a year as to outside income. Whereby, for ever $2 they earn above that amount, their SS benefits get reduced by $1 on an annual basis.

Likewise, A retired couple, for example, whose over-all gross income from all sources that is greater than $32,000, has 50% of their SS income added back as taxable income. Of course, they have no tax withheld for this 50% thus a big impact is possible if they work even part-time.

Likewise, many public assistance and SS retirees work at places like Wal-mart, Home Depot and various service industries part-time. Business loves them, they are dependable, require no benefit and retirement costs and work for lower wages and are entering the work force more rapidly each year, along the 12 million illegal workers, who are also competing once apparently your opportunities and now for those of your children's current incomes and benefits as well as future ones.

So, let us see, when the small print comes out, if the Democrats change these types nulling impacts on the poor I have discussed. If they do not raise assistance requirements and SS levels as mentioned, then we will know, its clearly a ploy and not a true intent to help those they but give sound bite hopelessness to.

Source: Page 4, AARP Bulletin, January 2007.

Likewise, the Average Net compensation for a worker in 2005 was $35,448 or based on 2080 hrs a year, $17.04/Hr. The median net or mid point in the entire range of net compensations from highest to lowest, was $23,962 or $11.52/Hr. In fact this mid point ratio to average net has been dropping since 1991. Meaning the highs are climbing along with the lows.

For example in Great Clinton “boom” years, the average net was $20,923, while the median mid point of all was $15,075 or 72.05% of the average. In 2005, that average to median ratio had dropped to 67.59%. Likewise, since 1991, the average net has increased 75.73% while the Median net has increased 65.27%. Thus the highs are going up and the lows are following.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html







TUM DII DAI DII, TUM CHUA DAI CHUA!



THA T
IS
ALL!

When the wage rises, but the productivity of the worker does not, nothing changes in the eyes of the employer. He is now simply losing money on the worker, since he expends more money on the labor than the labor brings in, in terms of productivity.

So he fires the worker.

This hurts the worst off, because firms can now hire only the most productive applicants for any given minimum wage position. The less productive applicants are screwed.

For the record as to future reviews on Economics, on this day, where the Democrats New way Forward for America began, let us note the following.





TUM DII DAI DII, TUM CHUA DAI CHUA!



THA T
IS
ALL!

Bullsh!t. C'mon Fit. Either you are lying through your teeth or you have gotten a reputation as a malcontent and burned every employmeny bridge you have crossed.. ......... I don't buy that sh!t for a second.

You understand that in some areas this would mean raising the minimum wage to about $45/hour.

I disagree trader. It's more of what "the spillover effects" are going to do than the individual actually receiving that amount. I can't remember when any one I know of actually receiving an exact minimum wage.

Brooklyn: tell me where those places are and I'll go work there.

I agree, with a slightly different spin on your unexplained "spillover effects". There will be a spillover for some 2.7 million workers,amiong them 350,000 earily retirees, and it will surely spill over. But I add into basicly 4 lava streams.

One, and the largest, will be an increase in the amount of money illegal immigrant workers expatate to their countries of origin and loyality. As Mexico, where illegals expated cash flows have now nearly equally Mexicos Number 1 source of revenue, Oil production. A spill over that actually will do little to nothing for the United States at all.

Two, pressing a substantial portion of the next largest group, single mom's with children who are in this category off public assistance that is means tested, like food stamps , public housing assistance and many other programs. Thus costing them far more to work than not to work. back to future in reverse, re-inscentivizing, the welfare culture of babies and public dole.

Three, the third group, the 62+ retirees who work part time for most part, yet some full time for some additonal buying power. It is they who will be press up to a two lane road that forks off into only two directions. One, towards paying more taxes as the increases pushes them over threshold of Non-taxed SS benefits for which that 1/2 which is now taxable, has paid no taxes on. Two, look at negative consquences of gain in wages verse the increase in taxes and have to make a choice to either work less or stop as the cost benefit of the alternative tax has in effective not be good for them over all.

Lastly, proablly the near or equal to the smallest of all four groups, perhaps 400 to 500,000 people in a country with a work force of 180 million + that small group who will actually get perhaps on average of $2,080 a year in extra spending power.

Like I said for this to be really meaningful as an intent by those in Washington. More people,perhaps most, may, in the end, be negatively effected by this spillover than positively, unless the Washingtonian spin doctors increase the SS and public assistance means testing monitary threshholds that will included Illegal aliens who get public assistance as well.

A pie is not a pie, if it is made of only the crust you know.

Our Washingtonian Whores always try to spin in their usual smoke and mirrors, illusions of what they have done is good, leaving out the small prints reality that it is not, more often than not, what it appears. Then we, in our attention span defict disorders, suck it all up from, often as not, varying contridictory print and other media versions and the talking head spin doctors who punditry depth or lack thereof colors what it really means in the usual 30 second sound bites of what they want us to think it all means.

An opine...

ustrader: your point is a valid one. However I'm not going to be the one to punish those that are United States citizens; the ones that deserve "the spillover". The topic of immigration is one that needs to be solved in Washington DC. by both parties.

When those ding-dongs in Washington DC.(and yes, both parties) come to the realization that one can not just waltz over the border, make gain and go home; when, one realizes that yes, we must punish dishonest employers that goes out of their way to break laws; then, and only then, can one be on the right track to solving the problems that you mentioned.

Meanwhile, I believe that it would be a tad bit cold blooded to stop those legitimate lava flows.

I can not disagree with your logic here. We have lots of citizens and legal residence who are poor here who are actually having to compete and thus are getting stolen from them, vast amounts of medical, family and pubic assistance they need in this don't ask don't tell PC society.

Citizens and residents who in direct competetion with non-citizens and residences recieves less of the pie and thus, compete for what would be, without the incentivizing of illegal immigration, a well abundant supply of resources for a far better range of help in all areas of the nations social consciousness as to its commmittment to take care of our weak, poor and less fortunate...

Punish the EMPLOYERS??? Of course. It is always the filthy rich employers that are to blame. Typical liberal delusion......
Suppose I own ABC Roofing and pay citizens $10/hr to set shingles. My competitor, DEF Roofing, pays wetbacks $5/hr. What do I do. Smile and go out of business or hire wetbacks at 5/hr. to survive. Fact is the Feds have NEVER made a concerted and consistant effort to punish those employing illegals. Don't blame the empolyers here. This wetback invaision is the result of fed inaction and the Reagan amnesty in the 80's.

Nomad: using your above example, what happens when ABC Roofing does business the legit way--collecting social security numbers on W-4s; handing out actual pay checks at the end of the week with the appropriate amount of taxes withheld; employees filing their taxes and handing them in by April 15th. All of that is just good citizenship, huh. I have to do it; you have to do it; why not them?

Now I will agree with you on what you said earlier--the feds never touching this problem. The whole thing goes back further than Reagan--if you mess around with the Hispanic community, they make darn good and sure they get out and vote, you know? Both parties suck up to pleasing the Southwest areas--especially the lawmakers that have to do what it takes to retain their seats there.

You don't have a clue do you? You have never been in business for youself and have never provided an income to others. You are a 40 hour a week drone and probobly complain if asked to work more.

Lets try this again. ABC roofing is LEGIT and does all that you mention to make it the recipient of the "GOOD CITIZENSHIP BUSINESS OF THE YEAR AWARD". OK? Now pay attention here.

I pay my roofers $10/hr. The wage burden on me is actually around $12.50/hr. Not sure exactly because I am not in the roofing biz but I know their workers comp premiums are horrendous.

Now DEF roofing pays their weback roofers $5/hr cash. That is their total wage burden.

Now suppose you woke up one morning and decided to be a capiltalist, quite a stretch I know. And you went out and bought a 140 unit apartment complex. But you didn't do your DD (no stretch here) and the roofs needed to be replaced. So you call ABC & DEF roofers for a quote. Well the material would cost the same for both firms and the man hours would be 1500 for both firms to reroof your property.

Now do to the wage disparity ABC bid would be over $11000 higher than DEF.

But no doubt you would give the work to ABC roofing because you are a "good citizen".

Wouldn't you???

It may be news to some of you, but the actual minimum wage is $0.00/hr. That's what the teenagers make when employing them becomes too expensive.

The argument that our federal government is showing compassion to Miss '3 Kids Without Fathers' by raising their wage to $7.15/hr is specious, she can't put a roof on her head and food on the table at minimum wage. But that's the example given by the proponents of the increase. AND if that were actually what the lady and her children were living on, we wouldn't be talking about them because she and her kids would have died from either starvation or exposure before 'No Father the 2nd' and 'No Father the 3rd' were born. No one is starving to death in this country, NOBODY. Because the charity of the American people and our government supports them. That is enough, and hopefully it little enough as to encourage them to do better for themselves.

If someone wants to argue that I, as a tax payer, MUST support a comfortable lifestyle for someone else's family (or be put in prison for not paying my taxes), then I will argue that I can limit their family. In other words after I give them the first dime, I can put them in prison for bringing any more family members into this world that I am expected to support. I for one would enjoy the company of 7 of my offspring, but I can't afford them so I only have one. Why must I be punished for sacrificing the pleasure of my 6 unrealised children, in order to guarantee the minimum comfort of people that refuse to be responsible for themselves or their children? I do not want these people to be comfortable, I want them in enough pain as to cause them to make different decisions about their lives, and I hope they are successful and prosperous as a result of their decisions.

No. I'm not a small business owner.

Winning the "Good Citizenship Award of the Year" has nothing to do with this; doing what you (or at least hopefully you ) and I and everyone else has to do in order to be legit does though.

If the wage burden is high than perhaps it's time for you to move on--you know don't you; become one of those people that complains about working more hours? If you can't play with the big boys--doing things legitimately like most businesses has to do--than get off the porch. I guess you're waiting for an entitlement or a grant? Face it; rising prices affect everyone, huh.

Now here is something that really cracks me up. You only wish to emphasize wage burden when it is actually a burden! I would say that this company has a 100% gain--seeing that they do not pay workers comp for people that do not exist-- under these circumstances, wouldn't you?

First, I love the way you used an apartment complex instead of a house--but that's OK.

Is that the only thing that you could see is the $$$ in this example? Wouldn't you ask about the other work that both companies has done in the past? Compare--you know; ask for references? What happens if DEF has past complaints against it? I might very well find that I might have to spend more than $1100.00 to re-fix the work. Besides that, I believe that a person that makes more than $5.00 an hour has much more to prove than you think.

And you never will be, at least for long judging by the rest of your idiotic ignorant pap in the above post. You are a drone, destined for a life of mediocrity. And what amazes me is that you will be satisfied with that....
Well i guess not all are capable of controlling their own destiny. But it won't be a bad life, the world will always need people like you to carry the water...............

After reading all the things I last said, this is the only come back you have?!

IMO: you made that debate waaaay too easy! Have fun thinking breaking the law is a cool thing to do while others have to obey it.

Now, seeing that you enjoy trolling and not debating, you too, are on my ignore list. Ta! Ta!

I'm sorry Gizzard, my mistake. I wrongly assumed that you had enough intellect to understand rudimentary economics relating to wage/labor force principles. In the future I will refrain from debating childern, drunks, and those of inferior intellect. Iwish you well in the fantasyland land you live in.

DEEMocrats CAVE IN AND SURRENDER TO FRENCH NATIONAL ANTHEM



Hill negotiators reach deal on tax incentives.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic efforts to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour got a big boost Friday evening as House-Senate negotiators reached a deal on a package of business tax incentives accompanying the wage increase.

Differences over how to ease the impact of raising the wage on small business has delayed final action for weeks. Democrats attracted criticism from GOP rivals and the media for not enacting a single signature goal in their first 100 days in the congressional majority.

The wage would increase from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour over the next two years under companion House and Senate bills, but the two chambers struggled over how much tax help to award businesses employing minimum wage workers. The House originally passed a minimum wage bill without tax breaks for businesses, but the Senate insisted on tax breaks totaling more than $8 billion over eight years to ease passage through that chamber.

That prompted the House to counter with $1.8 billion in tax relief.

Congress last increased the minimum wage in 1996, and the wage had fallen to the lowest level in five decades after accounting for inflation.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ncentives_N.htm

Yeah trader; it is embarrassing when business does not wish to share the wealth and government has to step in, huh.





Can't imagine what it must have been like without their precious tax cuts to keep them afloat, huh.

But hey; big business likes it this way, huh.



So Hey! Let's explore the mind of a GOP lawmaker, OK?

Once again, no great expedition into google land before posting. Just some thoughts of the top.

As pointed out in earlier posts:

Very few people earn minimum wage. Less than 5% I would venture to guess.
Most of those who do earn only minimum wage won't for long (first job, entry level, etc)
If minimum wage is raised, in fairness, all other wages should go up proportionately. Herein lies the beast… The Labor Lobby. There will be strikes, small company bankruptcies and large company reorganization. Many people will be hurt, although some will have it better for a little while. That is the point where the ensuing inflation catches up to their increased spending. At that point we will find ourselves at square one.

Well Boh, I'll tell you what--let's take away all of these tax cuts these businesses are getting and make them pay what they should, OK? Because it is apparent to me that Reagan's trickle down economics are not working. Minimum wage or no minimum wage, the American worker sure isn't seeing any of this wealth, and businesses should not be getting any hand outs. The CEOS get richer while the blue collar stays where he/she is! But those prices on goods and services keep on rising! Too bad the worker's paycheck doesn't come close to those prices!

I wish that my government would give me that big of a tax cut--business or no business!

I'm a beneficiary of the tax cuts, don't own a big business, work a job and would prefer the government leave me and mine alone. You're not complaining about CEO income, you're wanting the government to steal it for your benefit, Robin Hood style socialism. There are several national economies that operate largely on your model, go see if you can get on their teat. Your brand of socialism is common place, just not American. Free Housing, free healthcare, nationally mandated months off for workers etc, etc. Pick a place with the stuff you want and go get it, let me know how that comes out, I suspect they can't afford you either.

Where is it that trickle up prosperity is working? Where is it that taking money from "CEO's" in the form of taxes and doling it out to political supporters has produced national prosperity? I, by the way, am not happy with the current practices of American businesses. There's not a thing nice about it which is unfortunate and may very well damage American prosperity, but American politicians are the last people I trust to fix it. In fact the American politicians undermine policies that would enhance American wages, and support the policies that depress American wages. Less than 5% unemployment and yet wages are stagnant at best, when the capitalist law of supply and demand would suggest that wages should be rising. The answer is that the CEO's are not playing by the rules, a 12 million+ human buffer of illegal aliens protect them from competing in a competitive labor market. ALL of the CEO's, bosses, etc undermining the American work force by knowingly employing illegal aliens should be put in prison for a minimum of 1 year and as a rule for as long as they stole the employment from American workers. In addition all of their earnings should be confiscated the same as a drug dealer's ill gotten gains.

Has minimum wage legislation been approved? When will it take effect, and what are the scheduled wage increases?

I believe it has.

It doesn't matter how much. It soon will be met with inflation, see above. But it's been raised to about the same as what Mexican workers, at the large multi national company where I work, who can pass homeland security pilot program make already (about the same as me, maybe more by the hour).

So unless their wages are increased as well, which I am certain that they will, they would soon find themselves in the lowest buying power group in the country.

It just doesn't matter!!!

Get rid of it of course... Imposition of minimum wage does not have any positive impact...

Minimum wage legislation was about the ONLY thing that the Queen Bee managed to get through congress. Any, and every, economist, with the possible exception of that "ferret faced fellow" from NYTimes, will tell you that. That is why the unemployment numbers went up last quarter, because school graduates and students still in school, CAN"T FIND A JOB!

Anyone, who votes "Jackass" deserves what they get. Unfortunately, the rest of us "sane", and "logical", people don't.

Minimum wage legislation was about the ONLY thing that the Queen Bee managed to get through congress. Any, and every, economist, with the possible exception of that "ferret faced fellow" from NYTimes, will tell you that. That is why the unemployment numbers went up last quarter, because school graduates and students still in school, CAN"T FIND A JOB!

Anyone, who votes "Jackass" deserves what they get. Unfortunately, the rest of us "sane", and "logical", people don't.

Just to throw some context into the often distorted discussions about the minimum wage increase’s impact on real lives. Last Modified Date: May 7, 2008

See table 3: 2007

Total Hourly wage earners over 16: 75,873,000

Number at or below minimum wage: 1,729,000 (2.28%)

Number at minimum wage: 267,000 (15.44% of 2.28% of all hourly workers)

Number below minimum wage: 1,462,000 (84.56% of 2.28% of all hourly workers)

Table 10:

Hourly workers at or below minimum wage at the time.

1979
6,912,000- % of hourly wage 13.4%

1980
7,773,000- % of hourly wage 15.1%

1981
7,824,000- % of hourly wage 15.1%

1982
6,496,000- % of hourly wage 12.8%

1983
6,338,000- % of hourly wage 12.2%

1984
5,963,000- % of hourly wage 11.0%

1985
5,538,000- % of hourly wage 9.9%

1986
5,560,000- % of hourly wage 8.8%

1987
4,598,000- % of hourly wage 7.9%

1988
3,927,000- % of hourly wage 6.5%

1989
3,162,000- % of hourly wage 5.5%

1990
3,228,000- % of hourly wage 5.1%

1991
5,283,000- % of hourly wage 8.4%

1992
4,921,000- % of hourly wage 7.7%

1993
4,332,000- % of hourly wage 6.7%

1994
4,128,000- % of hourly wage 6.2%

1995
3,656,000- % of hourly wage 5.3%

1996
3,724,000- % of hourly wage 5.4%

1997
4,754,000- % of hourly wage 6.7%

1998
4,427,000- % of hourly wage 6.2%

1999
3,340,000- % of hourly wage 4.6%

2000
2,650,000- % of hourly wage 3.6%

2001
2,146,000- % of hourly wage 3.0%

2002
2,146,000- % of hourly wage 3.0%

2003
2,100,000- % of hourly wage 2.9%

2004 2,003,000- % of hourly wage 2.7%

2005
1,882,000- % of hourly wage 2.5%

2006
1,692,000- % of hourly wage 2.2%

2007
1,729,000- % of hourly wage 2.3%

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2007tbls.htm#1

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2007.htm

The Democrat's logic Minimum wage great achievement verses other feats of policy they say does or world do little to impact lives & American needs.
Minimum wage= Yes No = Drilling for American Oil

THAT IS ALL!!

Thanks for those stats Trader. Minimum wage was always a starting point for the young without skills or higher education. Those with desire and drive will quickly move beyond this starting wage.
What is striking in these figures is that there are more and more workers that quickly move on from the starting wage. I would call this progress. But the Dems will say and do anything to get that 2.3%.

Yes every one in this world get the their own daily wage..
So every can have to think about the work what they are doing to get their wages in life..
==============================================

Lenin
http://www.marijuanaaddictiontreatment.com

You're getting reported for spamming, buster. This is the third time someone with a link to an addiction center (sure!) came on here with trash. Spam!

They were valid links, but enough is enough. Thanks for the heads up Solo. I changed the destination URL on that link and will do so with any others brought to my attention. I'm not sure what this guys angle is but I don't have the time to investigate. Keep up the good fight.

What the fk are you smoking? Where did I ever mention AIG???? And WTF does AIG have to do with minimum wage? It's Ok son , I understand. Just keep sucking at the teat of the KOS and you will be just fine...............

I'll bet you it's better than what you're drinking.

You didn't. I did. Try to stay focused, now, OK?

Sheesh! I should have figured this comparison would be above your head.

People that do not wish to get off of minimum wage, needing the NANNY STATE -- BAD! Companies like AIG that need the NANNY STATE , through handouts -- BAD!

Did you get it yet? I hope that I do not need to draw you a picture.

Please provide a quote and link to the quote wherein I stated I was in favor of the AIG bailout. Idiot.

That's the point. You conservatives always complain about minimum wage, yet, when our economy starts falling apart and George Bush increases the size of government, people do not hear you bitching one single bit -- it's so quiet that one can hear the crickets inside the html in here. You screwball.

No Shemp. You did not answer my question. You put words in my mouth. Since you cannot back up your assertion you are either delusional or a liar. Which is it???

OK, Nomad. Here you are. Your post.

That's good enough for me. And lets not forget your newest one, either. Your other post


Not bitching about the government bailing these people out, eh. Yeah right!

Please provide a quote and link to the quote wherein I stated I was in favor of the AIG bailout. Idiot.

No Shemp. You did not answer my question. You put words in my mouth. Since you cannot back up your assertion you are either delusional or a liar. Which is it??

I just did. I gave you two, short-on-brains. Do you expect me to go and read them for you?

Please provide a quote and link to the quote wherein I stated I was in favor of the AIG bailout. Idiot.

No Shemp. You did not answer my question. You put words in my mouth. Since you cannot back up your assertion you are either delusional or a liar. Which is it??

Sorry. You're the one that placed those words in your own mouth, Zero.

Please provide a quote and link to the quote wherein I stated I was in favor of the AIG bailout. Idiot.

No Shemp. You did not answer my question. You put words in my mouth. Since you cannot back up your assertion you are either delusional or a liar. Which is it??