If minimum wage were raised ...

[TooTall]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

Let’s just say for example that the new “living” minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under people’s houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.

If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty after the market settles down.

Yes, I'm assuming that wages for skilled labor would also rise.

With millions being paid more, there would be more tax revenue.



I am curious about what the new standards would be for public assistance -- would the poverty line just be arbitrarily bumped up in accordance with the rise in minimum wage? As you say, it seems likely it would.


But more taxes would be going into the coffer, so there would be more money for public projects. That could mean more jobs.

The more taxes the feds collect the more they spend increasing the deficit and adding to the national debt. At some point that has to end.

 

[protectionist]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

Business owners CANNOT just let people go from their staffs to lower their costs. The reason a company has the number of workers they do is because that is the number at which they make the most money. If they lay off workers, their sales get reduced, and they LOSE money.

They also lose money if those workers are paid more than their labor earns for the business. The reason wages are what they are is because that is what the employer is willing to pay to get the labor he/she needs. Artificially increase those wages, and many employers will just shift the work to others or do it themselves or do without.

The best medicine to get wages up is full employment. That makes the workers wages a sellers market and employers will invariably pay more to get the best of the much more limited work force available to hire. But, you have everybody working who wants to work and that puts a lot more money into the economy so some increases in prices are not painful and don't cost the employer customers as they do when money is tight.

A raise in the minimum wage is far more likely to discourage full employment and, most especially in recession, it will discourage a lot of hiring while it is likely to raise the standard of living for only a very few.

Your post doesn't fly for one simple reason. You have completely overlooked the sales$$$ increases that come with MW increases (from the increase in DISPOSABLE INCOME). What to do if the MW goes up ? Be happy at the increase in sales$$$. And if one is paying MW, he probably can't afford to be in business in the first place. Solution for him ? Get a job (like the rest of us, who also can't afford it)

 

[protectionist]

Let’s just say for example that the new “living” minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under people’s houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.

If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty after the market settles down.

Yes, I'm assuming that wages for skilled labor would also rise.

With millions being paid more, there would be more tax revenue.

I am curious about what the new standards would be for public assistance -- would the poverty line just be arbitrarily bumped up in accordance with the rise in minimum wage? As you say, it seems likely it would.

But more taxes would be going into the coffer, so there would be more money for public projects. That could mean more jobs.

The more taxes the feds collect the more they spend increasing the deficit and adding to the national debt. At some point that has to end.

But if the more taxes that Amelia mentioned, created jobs in ICE, CBP, building the Mexican border fence, and other things to stop immigration and deport illegal aliens, this would DECREASE the deficit and debt.

 

[beagle9]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

Business owners CANNOT just let people go from their staffs to lower their costs. The reason a company has the number of workers they do is because that is the number at which they make the most money. If they lay off workers, their sales get reduced, and they LOSE money.

Not necessarily so, because I know of companies who have what is referred to as the clique (a group of friends and sometimes family members), for which they have working (loaded up) in the management staff mainly, and they will be the last that will go just because they are in the clique or have a clique operating within. They are attempted to be protected, and I have seen a company or companies figure that when they have to begin laying off their friends/family and/or their buddies, then they might as well shut the doors after that. There are also many jobs that are made up, even though they are not positions that are needed nor do they actually have much value at all for the company and it's plan, but there they are anyway.

There are many factors that are missed in these things, because nothing is set in stone or run properly as one would think it is or should be, and this is pretty much the case many times, but is not always considered. Now there is nothing wrong with having a clique or people for whom can be trusted, just as long as they don't drown you when it gets right down to it. This happens in families all the time, where the kids take the parents out, because the parents tried to help them no matter what, but the kids used them instead of saw it for what it was, and therefore destroyed the whole family like a virus that couldn't be stopped from within.

 

[Spoonman]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

Business owners CANNOT just let people go from their staffs to lower their costs. The reason a company has the number of workers they do is because that is the number at which they make the most money. If they lay off workers, their sales get reduced, and they LOSE money.

not true. work forces are one of the first things to get reduced when a company looks to tighten its belt. whether it is a head count reduction. eliminating higher salaried employees and replacing with lower cost new hires through restructuring, decreasing benefits. outsourcing or temp labor. companies can and do reduce labor costs to increase profitability. companies absolutely will reduce labor costs to remain profitable. that's what layoffs are an why they always come when a company or the economy is stressed.

 

[OnePercenter]

Waitress, construction worker and store clerk at a gas station.

One can be paid under minimum wage, another does not get a lunch break but one gets both.

No they aren’t. Pay scales, minimum wage laws and work/rest cycles are different in different industries. The government does not treat all jobs or companies the same – it would be silly to.

They are all hourly employees.

And that pointless remark was supposed to????

Your original (incorrect) supposition was that the government treated all jobs the same. I show you that is blatantly false and you state that they are all hourly jobs as if that has anything to do with the point at all.

Further, even that statement is false as construction workers are not always hourly. Many such positions pay piecework.

That doesn't relieve the employer of the employee to pay a minimum HOURLY RATE.

 

[beagle9]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

Business owners CANNOT just let people go from their staffs to lower their costs. The reason a company has the number of workers they do is because that is the number at which they make the most money. If they lay off workers, their sales get reduced, and they LOSE money.

not true. work forces are one of the first things to get reduced when a company looks to tighten its belt. whether it is a head count reduction. eliminating higher salaried employees and replacing with lower cost new hires through restructuring, decreasing benefits. outsourcing or temp labor. companies can and do reduce labor costs to increase profitability. companies absolutely will reduce labor costs to remain profitable. that's what layoffs are an why they always come when a company or the economy is stressed.

Hmmm, but it could be said also that companies for whom are operating immorally and greedy, have to be looked at closely sometimes, and especially if they are a huge risk to large amounts of American workers and their safety. As well the proper treatments of the workers and the customers are at stake. It is usually found within the whole scheme of things that all that are involved together, are connected in many ways, so the domino effect is always present. This is why we have labor laws and minimum wage laws, and on and on it has all went over the years. Don't yall wish we could just stop the bad people from making it bad for all ? I mean because that is the way it seems to go when gone unchecked like it has for a while. Now I guess what the government had found over time, and in the past was that greed if allowed to run rampant, was a huge threat to the economy on whole, and if it wasn't looked at with a keen eye, then huge ramifications would take place in a domino effect on the economy, while the bad guy's just take their golden parachutes and just fly away scott free. Now I also think that the government has a role, but it doesn't need to force anything. All it has to do is begin a program that out's the bad guy's to the public, and they can do this by a grading system just like they have for resteraunts.

Good company, good employer, good community & good city resident, good money manager, good Stewart of the environment, great employer and/or etc. should be recognized with rewards by the government or other, and also they should have a gold star placed by their name for all to see when do right. The others could show up on a scale from one to ten to be graded also, and then the companies who are found with criminals running them or abusers running them, well all of them will go to jail just like they should go to jail, and if a vacuum is created in the company, it should be filled with the ones who were abused, otherwise to then take it over if they would qualify for that take over. It's only right!

 

[longknife]

Nightmare of Increasing Minimum Wage

I'm not enough of an economist to judge the validity of this but felt it was worthwhile giving you the link and chance to discuss it @ Warning letter to WH: 500 economists describe nightmare of Obama?s minimum wage hike - BizPac Review

 

[Foxfyre]

The minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a living wage, and before there was so much government meddling, it was a modest compensation during the period that an employee was trained or learned the ropes or otherwise was not ready to earn a profit for the employer. A very small percentage of the population works for minimum wage, and those who do are generally not productive enough to merit more than minimum wage. Those who are capable of earning more than minimum wage will soon earn more than minimum wage with the same employer or they will move on to better jobs where they can earn compensation commensurate with their skill sets, abilities, and work ethic.

The more the government meddles with wage mandates, the more we see commerce and industry changing their behavior to cope with what are often unworkable demands by government. And while we see little or no change in poverty levels with each minimum wage increase, we do see a growing hard core of unemployable--people, generally the very young, who are seen as not worth the time and trouble and significant expense to hire and train at a wage that is just too expensive to do that.

Unintended consequences of good intentions.

 

[beagle9]

The minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a living wage, and before there was so much government meddling, it was a modest compensation during the period that an employee was trained or learned the ropes or otherwise was not ready to earn a profit for the employer. A very small percentage of the population works for minimum wage, and those who do are generally not productive enough to merit more than minimum wage. Those who are capable of earning more than minimum wage will soon earn more than minimum wage with the same employer or they will move on to better jobs where they can earn compensation commensurate with their skill sets, abilities, and work ethic.The more the government meddles with wage mandates, the more we see commerce and industry changing their behavior to cope with what are often unworkable demands by government. And while we see little or no change in poverty levels with each minimum wage increase, we do see a growing hard core of unemployable--people, generally the very young, who are seen as not worth the time and trouble and significant expense to hire and train at a wage that is just too expensive to do that.

Unintended consequences of good intentions.

There has been a problem with the old standard in which you stated above, and it is that over time trends have been changed and established by big companies and major corporations differently, and a unionism had been established between them all at the top levels and in mid level managements (i.e. hey you don't do that over there now, or you will mess me up over here), so lets get together and set standards that suit us as a collective in these things and/or within the new standards that will be set, then we can take the added profits earned and rule the world someday. In the meantime the work force in America gets more unstable as the days move forward, and they become more broke as the greed was then being stacked against them. Then there was the corporate welfare that was given by the government (who was either fooled or had become corrupted by lobbyist), and this was in the form of welfare and foodstamps given to the employee's of multi-million dollar companies (e.g. ??????????), because the companies figured out another way of making profit in this form and/or way also (fattening their bottom lines). Otherwise they would pay people in a socialistic manor across the board, and this regardless of company individualism in the markets, and they would allow the government to subsidize the rest. This is why things are sooooooo messed up today, and it is why there is so much unemployment and broke and in debt Americans now.

Now we have to all sit here and watch this dog and pony show that is going on... It's soo sad.