If minimum wage were raised ...

[Mathbud1]

Some people are just blinded by their hate for big business.

News flash: big business can absorb some increases in operating costs a heck of a lot better than a small business can.

So let's do something that big business will barely feel, but that will crush smaller businesses.

Does that really sound like a great idea to the people who (profess to) hate big business?

 

[BillyZane]

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.

.

except of course that there is no chance of a $15 federal minimum wage. It won't happen. So shoulda, coulda, and woulda will never happen. Instead, we will see a $2 or so increase and we know from past increases that that will not cause the problems you guys are so afraid of

 

[Mathbud1]

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.

.

except of course that there is no chance of a $15 federal minimum wage. It won't happen. So shoulda, coulda, and woulda will never happen. Instead, we will see a $2 or so increase and we know from past increases that that will not cause the problems you guys are so afraid of

And do you know that past increases happened in the same economic circumstances as today?

If a person who is standing solidly is bumped, they may barely move. If the same person is already off balance a bump is all it will take to knock them off their feet.

You can't simply say that past increases had no dire consequences so an increase now will have no dire consequences.

That logic only holds water if the circumstances are the same.

 

[Iceweasel]

except of course that there is no chance of a $15 federal minimum wage. It won't happen. So shoulda, coulda, and woulda will never happen. Instead, we will see a $2 or so increase and we know from past increases that that will not cause the problems you guys are so afraid of

If Americans keep voting stupidly then, you bet $15 hr could happen. This state has the highest minimum wage in the country and unemployment is sky high. You know for a fact that it's a coincidence and another $2 won't matter?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

.

except of course that there is no chance of a $15 federal minimum wage. It won't happen. So shoulda, coulda, and woulda will never happen. Instead, we will see a $2 or so increase and we know from past increases that that will not cause the problems you guys are so afraid of

Irrelevant. The size of the increase only related to the actual size of the impact and the amount of market volatility that is experienced afterward. IOW, a 2 dollar raise just causes smaller problems than a 5 dollar raise but they are the same problems.

The big elephant in the room is that it is NOT going to help those that it is supposed to. The poor are not going to be better off because you arbitrarily raise the number of pieces of paper they get to flip a burger or mop a floor. The VALUE of that work has not changed even if the paper has.

 

[candycorn]

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?

If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.

 

[Mathbud1]

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?

If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.

I believe you have misunderstood.

You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.

You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.

When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.

At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.

No problem?

 

[candycorn]

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

If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.

I believe you have misunderstood.

You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.

You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.

When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.

At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.

No problem?

I would have no problem raising Sally's pay. Admittedly I don't know if the margin will be $2 per hour however.

The reason I have no problem is that my competition across the street has a Bob and Sally too and are faced with the same problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.

I believe you have misunderstood.

You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.

You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.

When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.

At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.

No problem?

That is the conundrum and the reality faced by employers. Those people who have worked their way up to a living wage by doing good work and proving their worth to their employers will of course wonder why the inexperienced and far less productive newbie merits the same wages the longer termers are making.

And what the visionaries who imagine this perfect world in which everybody is entitled to a living wage whether they merit it or not--okay they just assume everybody merits it--but either way they don't consider that changing the formulas require change of other behaviors. It is NEVER as simple as significantly raising the minimum wage. It affects every single aspect of commerce and industry from utilities to infrastructure to raw materials to the finished product and it affects every single thing any of us buy in the marketplace and every aspect of our cost of living.

 

[williepete]

Labor is a commodity driven by the local market.

While considering a nationwide mandated minimum wage, consider these two local markets:

The Dakota oil fields right now are paying top dollar for menial labor. The Golden Arches Dinner Club is offering a $300 signing bonus and 15 bucks an hour.
--11 Shocking Facts about the North Dakota Oil Boom | The Fiscal Times

In Detroit, the economy is in the tank, unemployment is high while 47% of metro Detroiters are illiterate.
--Detroit Literacy Coalition | Mission Statement

A new hire in any job is basically a trainee. It costs money and time to take them on. Only after they learn--if they learn, do they become an asset and not a liability on the balance sheet.

The Feds dictate a minimum wage of 15 bucks. OK. In the Dakota oil fields, they're already there. No problem.

But you're telling a businessman trying to start a business in the weak economy of Detroit to pay an illiterate trainee 15 bucks an hour to do a job that requires reading and basic math skills? Really? How do you think that will play out?

The D.C. Beltway critters can afford to live in fantasy world and dictate what they will. Their will always slams against the hard wall of reality.

Go ahead and make it 100 bucks an hour with 30 days paid vacation a year, matching 401K, a company car and top shelf medical. That may sound silly but the outcome will be similar.

 

[Indeependent]

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

If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.

I believe you have misunderstood.

You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.

You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.

When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.

At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.

No problem?

You don't have to bump Sally because if she's making only 2-3 dollars over minimum wage, she isn't going to leave just to be knocked down to entry level.
And if she CAN leave for more she would have left already.

 

[candycorn]

If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.

I believe you have misunderstood.

You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.

You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.

When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.

At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.

No problem?

You don't have to bump Sally because if she's making only 2-3 dollars over minimum wage, she isn't going to leave just to be knocked down to entry level.
And if she CAN leave for more she would have left already.

Good point.

 

[candycorn]

If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.

I believe you have misunderstood.

You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.

You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.

When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.

At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.

No problem?

That is the conundrum and the reality faced by employers. Those people who have worked their way up to a living wage by doing good work and proving their worth to their employers will of course wonder why the inexperienced and far less productive newbie merits the same wages the longer termers are making.

And what the visionaries who imagine this perfect world in which everybody is entitled to a living wage whether they merit it or not--okay they just assume everybody merits it--but either way they don't consider that changing the formulas require change of other behaviors. It is NEVER as simple as significantly raising the minimum wage. It affects every single aspect of commerce and industry from utilities to infrastructure to raw materials to the finished product and it affects every single thing any of us buy in the marketplace and every aspect of our cost of living.

One would think that when there are massive layoffs that all of the lives of the people affected by that employer would benefit exponentially if giving the guys on the shop floor a few more nickels or dimes an hour.

I mean, think about it, if you lay off 10 of your 70 employees making $30,000 a year, you saved the company $300,000 in salary and about the same amount in benefits, insurance, etc.... So That is $600,000 you can now spread out to the other 60 employees. So everyone gets an instant $10,000 raise right? Somehow that never happens.

For once, I'm not saying Foxy's analysis is total BS but the situation is rarely as inelastic as she and other heartless opponents of a small increase in the minimum wage make it out to be.

 

[jasonnfree]

If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.

I believe you have misunderstood.

You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.

You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.

When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.

At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.

No problem?

You don't have to bump Sally because if she's making only 2-3 dollars over minimum wage, she isn't going to leave just to be knocked down to entry level.
And if she CAN leave for more she would have left already.

But now the boss is stuck with Sally's resentment for being more productive yet not making more money. Employees can make you or break you.

 

[bkeating]

Raising minimum wage is not the best idea; at least raising it a lot, which would be dumb. Minimum wage jobs are really for people to get experience in, and to be able to put it on your resume, not to make a living. If it were to be raised at all, I would say raise it to 8 dollars an hour and that's it. Anything else would be too high.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

"I'd agrue, knows a hell of a lot more about how the real world works that, say, the polysci professor."

You can argue it all you want and still be wrong. There is nothing in particular about being a "polysci professor" or an "electrician" that has any bearing on knowing "a hell of a lot more about how the real world works." Either may or may not know "a hell of a lot more about how the real world works", depending on what they do in addition to their particular professions. A political science professor would know a hell of a lot more about political science while an electrician would know more about being an electrician.

Nor does the comparison have any relevance to the question of minimum wage as neither an electrician nor a polisci professor make minimum wage. The median annual wage for an electrician is $49,840 and that of a political science professor is about twice that, depending on other factors.

"pay increase will jack up prices across the board,"

is not a correct statement. There is no economic rule that requires a minimum wage pay increase to jack up prices across the board. How prices shift in response to increased labor costs depends on numerous factors including the elasticities of demand and supply as well as profit margins. It also depends on the employment levels.

The most direct and significant factors in aggregate standard of living is the level of employment along with efficiency of production. This is an important point. There is simply no reason that a single individual should not be able to support their self at minimum wage. The efficiency of production in the US and the world, has steadily increased decade after decade. A single individual has always been able to provide for themselves, at the very least. This seems fairly obvious. If it were not true, the human race would have died out a long time ago.

"it certainly was never designed to..."

according to whom and what? And, where has there been anyone arguing that minimum wage should be enough to raise a family? One article states, "Tens of millions of low-wage workers in the United States are trapped in lives of poverty." At the very least, the minimum wage should be a livable wage for an individual. What more it should be is open to discussion, but framing it in terms of "never designed to raise a family" is simply hyperbole. It is whatever we decide it is and, given the continued increase in efficiency, it can be more and more with each passing decade.

"I don't care that you can't raise a family,"

aside from just an extension of the previous hyperbole, exemplifies why there is no reason for anyone to care about you or your opinion, expecially people working for minimum wage.

 

[Spoonman]

If they are my employees, they're not making what I'm making.

I believe you have misunderstood.

You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.

You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.

When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.

At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.

No problem?

That is the conundrum and the reality faced by employers. Those people who have worked their way up to a living wage by doing good work and proving their worth to their employers will of course wonder why the inexperienced and far less productive newbie merits the same wages the longer termers are making.

And what the visionaries who imagine this perfect world in which everybody is entitled to a living wage whether they merit it or not--okay they just assume everybody merits it--but either way they don't consider that changing the formulas require change of other behaviors. It is NEVER as simple as significantly raising the minimum wage. It affects every single aspect of commerce and industry from utilities to infrastructure to raw materials to the finished product and it affects every single thing any of us buy in the marketplace and every aspect of our cost of living.

we are already destroying competitiveness through political correctness and the assumption that a kid can't be allowed to fail. or a kid needs to be made to feel he is an equal at everything. games with no scores. no winners or losers. people need to learn that they need to earn advancement and improvement. people need to have drive. the ones who do succeed. but to many are learning, hey I can get by with out it.

 

[itfitzme]

Another question is whether it makes any sense to subsidise companies indirectly by providing SNAP and other general assistance to workers making less than a living wage.

It should be pretty obvious that if general assistance is available to workers making less than a certain wage level and minimum wage is below that level, then businesses will naturally pay less than that and workers will supliment their income with general assistance. (like SNAP.)

Roughly speaking, it seems that general assistance would kick in above a minimum wage of about $718.

Federal poverty level is $11490 a year for 2013. SNAP 130% of poverty level is $1,245 a month. 100% is $958. So, using the 130% for the sake of arguement, then that is $14940 per year.

Working 40 hours a week is 2080 hours a year, making that an hourly rate of $7.18.

Roughly, it means that above that $7.18, then SNAP assistance is unavailable. And, roughly speaking then, above $7.18 is a minimum livable wage.

That seems to be a baseline approach to measuring minimum wage. Minimum wage sits at what? $7.25 federal minimum?

Whether is should or should not be higher remains a question. It seems, though, that $7.25 just squeeks in at the 130% poverty mark. It may be that, in fact, the 130% poverty level is a function of the minimum wage standard.

Seems important to put things into some context.

 

[candycorn]

I believe you have misunderstood.

You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.

You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.

When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.

At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.

No problem?

You don't have to bump Sally because if she's making only 2-3 dollars over minimum wage, she isn't going to leave just to be knocked down to entry level.
And if she CAN leave for more she would have left already.

But now the boss is stuck with Sally's resentment for being more productive yet not making more money. Employees can make you or break you.

I'd be happy to give Sally a raise but I don't know if it would be correlated to the rise in the minimum wage. However, in truth, I would never have employees making the minimum wage to start with. If my competitors didn't follow suit, I'd probably end up with their Sally's resumes on my desk.

 

[Spoonman]

I believe you have misunderstood.

You have an employee, let's call him Bob, who is currently making minimum wage because he is new and unskilled.

You have another employee, let's call her Sally, who is making $2 more than minimum wage because she is a supervisor who has proven her worth.

When the federally mandated minimum wage is raised by $2 you now have to start paying Bob that new wage.

At this point Bob is now making the same wage as Sally despite the fact that Sally has proven herself a better employee. If you don't want Sally to walk out the door (and I assume you don't because, as previously stated, Sally is a good employee) you now have to bump Sally's wage as well.

No problem?

That is the conundrum and the reality faced by employers. Those people who have worked their way up to a living wage by doing good work and proving their worth to their employers will of course wonder why the inexperienced and far less productive newbie merits the same wages the longer termers are making.

And what the visionaries who imagine this perfect world in which everybody is entitled to a living wage whether they merit it or not--okay they just assume everybody merits it--but either way they don't consider that changing the formulas require change of other behaviors. It is NEVER as simple as significantly raising the minimum wage. It affects every single aspect of commerce and industry from utilities to infrastructure to raw materials to the finished product and it affects every single thing any of us buy in the marketplace and every aspect of our cost of living.

One would think that when there are massive layoffs that all of the lives of the people affected by that employer would benefit exponentially if giving the guys on the shop floor a few more nickels or dimes an hour.

I mean, think about it, if you lay off 10 of your 70 employees making $30,000 a year, you saved the company $300,000 in salary and about the same amount in benefits, insurance, etc.... So That is $600,000 you can now spread out to the other 60 employees. So everyone gets an instant $10,000 raise right? Somehow that never happens.

For once, I'm not saying Foxy's analysis is total BS but the situation is rarely as inelastic as she and other heartless opponents of a small increase in the minimum wage make it out to be.

if you are laying people off it is generally because you can't afford to keep those people. you are making the cuts to keep the company profitable, not free up some extra cash you can hand out to the remaining employees.