If minimum wage were raised ...

[TooTall]

If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.

Since the cost of everything would increase rather sharply, the only ones that would really be affected are those elderly trying to get by on Social Security or are on a fixed income. Most pensions don't have a COL adjustment as well. And it would be forever, not just a year.

Social Security is suppose to have a COLA.

The COLA in 2010 and 2011 was 0.0% Anyone who thinks there was zero inflation for two years is delusional. The Democrats keep changing the way the COLA is computed to make it less.

Most who have private sector pensions do not have a COLA.

 

[pinqy]

The COLA in 2010 and 2011 was 0.0% Anyone who thinks there was zero inflation for two years is delusional. The Democrats keep changing the way the COLA is computed to make it less.

The formula has been the same since 1975: COLA is the percent change in 3rd quarter average of the CPI-W.
3Q average 2008 was 215.495
2009, it was 211.001, a change of -2.085% so no COLA for 2010
In 2010, 3Qavg was 214.136 Now that's an increase of 1.486%, but not higher than the 2008 number, so again no COLA.
2011, it was 223.233 an increase of 3.6% and that was the COLA in 2012.
CPI-W is series CWUR0000SA0 found at BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

[Indeependent]

What I'd like to know from those who have started a business is...
When you designed your plan to present to the lender, did you rely on paying minimum wage?
OR, did you state a wage higher than minimum wage and pocket/invest/party on the rest?

 

[oldfart]

The Democrats keep changing the way the COLA is computed to make it less.

And your source for this is? I know it's not the BLS methodological notes.

 

[oldfart]

What I'd like to know from those who have started a business is...
When you designed your plan to present to the lender, did you rely on paying minimum wage?
OR, did you state a wage higher than minimum wage and pocket/invest/party on the rest?

I'm not sure what your question is implying. All the businesses I have started or had an ownership interest in paid above prevailing industry compensation. I don't like the quality of work you get with cheap labor. I also train my people to do the job the way I want it done.

We do a lot of business plans for people going to the bank. If our firm name is on it, there is no blue sky or fudge factor in it. Accountants have track records with lending officers and in any community, we all know each other. You really don't do anyone a favor helping them get into a business they are going to fail at.

 

[Indeependent]

What I'd like to know from those who have started a business is...
When you designed your plan to present to the lender, did you rely on paying minimum wage?
OR, did you state a wage higher than minimum wage and pocket/invest/party on the rest?

I'm not sure what your question is implying. All the businesses I have started or had an ownership interest in paid above prevailing industry compensation. I don't like the quality of work you get with cheap labor. I also train my people to do the job the way I want it done.

We do a lot of business plans for people going to the bank. If our firm name is on it, there is no blue sky or fudge factor in it. Accountants have track records with lending officers and in any community, we all know each other. You really don't do anyone a favor helping them get into a business they are going to fail at.

I'm referring to those who develop a business plan which includes stated wages.
Living in the suburbs I know plenty of people who get business loans and start building mansions well before the business becomes established.
Do lenders perform any quality assurance on the amount loaned and actually applied to the business?

 

[Againsheila]

The COLA in 2010 and 2011 was 0.0% Anyone who thinks there was zero inflation for two years is delusional. The Democrats keep changing the way the COLA is computed to make it less.

The formula has been the same since 1975: COLA is the percent change in 3rd quarter average of the CPI-W.
3Q average 2008 was 215.495
2009, it was 211.001, a change of -2.085% so no COLA for 2010
In 2010, 3Qavg was 214.136 Now that's an increase of 1.486%, but not higher than the 2008 number, so again no COLA.
2011, it was 223.233 an increase of 3.6% and that was the COLA in 2012.
CPI-W is series CWUR0000SA0 found at BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Democrats aren't the only one changing it.

 

[pinqy]

The COLA in 2010 and 2011 was 0.0% Anyone who thinks there was zero inflation for two years is delusional. The Democrats keep changing the way the COLA is computed to make it less.

The formula has been the same since 1975: COLA is the percent change in 3rd quarter average of the CPI-W.
3Q average 2008 was 215.495
2009, it was 211.001, a change of -2.085% so no COLA for 2010
In 2010, 3Qavg was 214.136 Now that's an increase of 1.486%, but not higher than the 2008 number, so again no COLA.
2011, it was 223.233 an increase of 3.6% and that was the COLA in 2012.
CPI-W is series CWUR0000SA0 found at BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Democrats aren't the only one changing it.

No one has changed it since 1975 except for the time periods.

I already gave the index used to calculate changes. And you can find the history of social security at
Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Information

 

[ShawnChris13]

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?

I think a clear (theoretically, time will tell for sure) example of companies that will attempt to lose workers because of wage increases is McDonald's. Recently they purchased thousands of automated machines that would process orders. If I were a company looking to cut costs, that is certainly how I would do it. It could be that they were eventually going to reach the stage of an automated process given time, but market changes are surely a catalyst to speed along a process such as that.

 

[Iceweasel]

I think a clear (theoretically, time will tell for sure) example of companies that will attempt to lose workers because of wage increases is McDonald's. Recently they purchased thousands of automated machines that would process orders. If I were a company looking to cut costs, that is certainly how I would do it. It could be that they were eventually going to reach the stage of an automated process given time, but market changes are surely a catalyst to speed along a process such as that.

It's been proven many many times. Very few companies have people do work that machines can do better. So yes, the harder the low skilled worker pushes pay the more incentive there will be to replace them. No one is going to pay $10 for a fast food burger.

 

[BillyZane]

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?

I think a clear (theoretically, time will tell for sure) example of companies that will attempt to lose workers because of wage increases is McDonald's. Recently they purchased thousands of automated machines that would process orders. If I were a company looking to cut costs, that is certainly how I would do it. It could be that they were eventually going to reach the stage of an automated process given time, but market changes are surely a catalyst to speed along a process such as that.

Any successful business is going to automate when automating makes sense. That has NOTHING to do with the min wage law. I mean nothing at all.

This is one of the things that drives me crazy about Congress. They don't vote on laws based on the laws themselves, instead they get mired in a thousand petty side arguments.

The minimum wage law was designed for and should continue to function as nothing more than a bare minimum that hourly employees can be paid. Factors such as automation and such should never come into play. And specifically about automation here is why it should be irrelevant. If McD , for example, were to automate completely does anyone here think that their next move would NOT be to cut the next tier of wages? Of course they would. Their new argument would be that the people managing the machines are minimum wage employees because that's the lowest job they have and so then assistant manager who are currently making about two dollars an hour more than minimum wage would suddenly find themselves being offered minimum wage.

We all know that is EXACTLY what will happen once these stores get automated. So, then you will have trained employees who are going to have to be at least some what skilled making $7.25 an hour?

The current minimum wage is a travesty of the law. Why bother even having a minimum wage if that wage isn't appropriately set?

 

[oldfart]

What I'd like to know from those who have started a business is...
When you designed your plan to present to the lender, did you rely on paying minimum wage?
OR, did you state a wage higher than minimum wage and pocket/invest/party on the rest?

I'm not sure what your question is implying. All the businesses I have started or had an ownership interest in paid above prevailing industry compensation. I don't like the quality of work you get with cheap labor. I also train my people to do the job the way I want it done.

We do a lot of business plans for people going to the bank. If our firm name is on it, there is no blue sky or fudge factor in it. Accountants have track records with lending officers and in any community, we all know each other. You really don't do anyone a favor helping them get into a business they are going to fail at.

I'm referring to those who develop a business plan which includes stated wages.
Living in the suburbs I know plenty of people who get business loans and start building mansions well before the business becomes established.
Do lenders perform any quality assurance on the amount loaned and actually applied to the business?

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you; I took a couple of days for some cardiac repair work. Mine was scheduled maintenance, beats the hell out of most of the floor who were too busy to ever see a cardiologist.

I've developed business plans for my main business since 1984. Since it was a franchising firm, the plans had to comply with FTC Rule 436 and I had to have a UFOC. If you want to start a franchise system, budget $50,000 to $250,000 for the legal work, UFOC, audits, and professional consulting. I mention this because this is where I started in business plans: make it legal. I never dropped the habit.

As you mentioned, there is a lot of bank fraud that goes along with many business start-ups. Some never gets caught. A few do serious jail time. Most often its just a messy bankruptcy. Some lenders do good due diligence while others do not. Separating the two is the job of bank regulators, which is not a reassuring idea.

It really all boils down to what you want and what you are willing to do to get it. If you want make lots of money and don't mind a slight chance of jail time and a pretty good chance of financial ruin, just ask yourself what Gordon Gekko in "Wall Street" would do. If you want to make a modest but comfortable living, have more control over your business, and enjoy things in life outside commerce; then by all means go into business. Just understand that no bank or venture capitalist is likely to fund a business plan for someone with little industry experience, a weak business plan, or less than full personal responsibility.

Since my firm evolved into an accounting firm, I've seen a lot of people who wanted to start a business, and most of them were dissuaded when they found out what was really involve. In a deal, it's the money man who calls the shots, and in six months that person will probably own everything. There is always a story about people who got away with stuff on their taxes, or who got rich on a "deal", but I haven't seen many cases where that actually happened.

 

[Mac1958]

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 as you started off with, if not more, after the market settles down. There is indeed a reason why service stations no longer hire teenagers to service the cars of travelers.

You're making it way too complicated. Those who throw out the $15 figure will neither understand this nor care. They'll "feel" good about themselves and they don't want to know what the macro ramifications would look like. If you point out the macro ramifications, such as the painfully obvious chain reaction this would cause, at some point they'll just blame the "greedy business owners".

They want to keep it shallow and simple.

.

 

[candycorn]

About 3% of all workers make minimum wage. Raising it a few bucks over four years will do nothing to injure anyone. Come off of it.

 

[Iceweasel]

About 3% of all workers make minimum wage. Raising it a few bucks over four years will do nothing to injure anyone. Come off of it.

First off, yes, too many people go to college. Some may be better off going to a trade school learning practicle application instead of theory. So it depends on what you want to get into, big ed has convinced us that we need them. And they charge accordingly.

Do you run a business? If so, take the few dollars per employee, per day, week and year out of your profits then get back to us.

 

[candycorn]

About 3% of all workers make minimum wage. Raising it a few bucks over four years will do nothing to injure anyone. Come off of it.

First off, yes, too many people go to college. Some may be better off going to a trade school learning practicle application instead of theory. So it depends on what you want to get into, big ed has convinced us that we need them. And they charge accordingly.

Do you run a business? If so, take the few dollars per employee, per day, week and year out of your profits then get back to us.

I agree that we desperately need to get the trades back into school but I think it should be at the high-school level. We could never have too many people in college of any type...

If paying my minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week will coincide with my competitors paying their minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week, it's no problem. Think about it an get back to us.

 

[Iceweasel]

I agree that we desperately need to get the trades back into school but I think it should be at the high-school level. We could never have too many people in college of any type...

If paying my minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week will coincide with my competitors paying their minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week, it's no problem. Think about it an get back to us.

If you think a trade can be learned at the high school level then you are very unfamiliar with trades in general. Which explains your thinking. Any professional trade requires quite a bit of knowledge. That electrian that comes over to troubleshoot your hottub spend countless hours getting his license and I'd agrue, knows a hell of a lot more about how the real world works that, say, the polysci professor.

Yes, the pay increase will jack up prices across the board but people are only willing to pay so much for the kind of work minimum wage employees do. I'm against any minimum wage but it certainly was never designed to raise a family on. You roll tacos for a year or two and more on. If it's a career for you, then I don't care that you can't raise a family, I say good ridance, the problem solved itself.

 

[candycorn]

I agree that we desperately need to get the trades back into school but I think it should be at the high-school level. We could never have too many people in college of any type...

If paying my minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week will coincide with my competitors paying their minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week, it's no problem. Think about it an get back to us.

If you think a trade can be learned at the high school level then you are very unfamiliar with trades in general. Which explains your thinking. Any professional trade requires quite a bit of knowledge. That electrian that comes over to troubleshoot your hottub spend countless hours getting his license and I'd agrue, knows a hell of a lot more about how the real world works that, say, the polysci professor.

Yes, the pay increase will jack up prices across the board but people are only willing to pay so much for the kind of work minimum wage employees do. I'm against any minimum wage but it certainly was never designed to raise a family on. You roll tacos for a year or two and more on. If it's a career for you, then I don't care that you can't raise a family, I say good ridance, the problem solved itself.

Well, I meant vocational education. We got rid of it during my years in HS. I think its a valuable thing that should be reinstated. You dont lesrn a trade toe to tip but you do learn a skill.

 

[Mathbud1]

One thing I know, what is a living wage is entirely subjective. I know people who couldn't live on $1000/week. And I know others who can live on a flat rock.

While this is true, there is a reasonable standard which is generally applied: the cost of basic housing, food, clothing, utilities, and other necessities.

To argue that people's ability, or lack thereof, to live frugally makes it impossible to know what a living wage would be, is just looking for excuses to do nothing.

It's often said here that if you don't earn enough money to feed your family, you should take a second job. People brag about working two or three jobs to make ends meet, but what kind of parent can you be to a child when you're always working and never at home?

The family values folk always say that women should stay home with their children and not work because raising the next generation is the most important job you'll ever do. Yet poor women are told to take a second and a third job to provide for their families. Who's raising their children?

When my daughter was small, we took her to art galleries, museums, the Science Centre, the ballet, plays - anything that would make for fun outing. There are all sorts if ways of doing this stuff on the cheap. Teachers called this "enrichment" and said she benefitted from it enormously. I called it spending quality time with my child. If I were working 15 hours a day, I wouldn't have had the time or the energy to enrich my child's life.

Just guessing you weren't working a minimum wage job either huh? Did you do something to qualify you to make more than $15 or did some kindly business person just donate the wage you were making?

 

[Mathbud1]

About 3% of all workers make minimum wage. Raising it a few bucks over four years will do nothing to injure anyone. Come off of it.

First off, yes, too many people go to college. Some may be better off going to a trade school learning practicle application instead of theory. So it depends on what you want to get into, big ed has convinced us that we need them. And they charge accordingly.

Do you run a business? If so, take the few dollars per employee, per day, week and year out of your profits then get back to us.

I agree that we desperately need to get the trades back into school but I think it should be at the high-school level. We could never have too many people in college of any type...

If paying my minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week will coincide with my competitors paying their minimum wage employees a few bucks more a week, it's no problem. Think about it an get back to us.

And what about your employees who were already making what you are now going to increase the minimum wage to?