Poll: Solid majority (71%) of Americans support Obama’s increase of the minimum wage

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Alternate headline: 71% of the public failed high school economics.

And another cheap-shot by another elitist Romney supporter.

All the millionaire Hollywood celebrities, billionaires like Warren Buffett, and high brow university professors who supported Obama aren't elitist?

Just when I think you can't possibly say anything dumber you prove me wrong. Seriously, you are one dumb son-of-a-*****. Did you even go to college or better yet, are you even old enough yet?

 

[Redfish]

Once again, for the economics-retarded: there is no "cost of labor rising" in keeping the minimum wage up with COL and inflation. By letting it stagnate, the value of labour has already declined. Apparently the majority of Americans do understand that; what your limitation is eludes me.

Your post has doesn't address mine.

Let's assume I own a McDonald's. Today I pay all of my employees $7.25 an hour. Tomorrow, the minimum wage rises and I have to pay my employees $9.00 an hour, or 24% more. I can either (A) eat the costs associated with having to pay my employees a higher wage, (B) raise the cost of some product I sell or (B) reduce my workforce. Which do you think is likely to happen?

I'll give you a hint; it ain't the first. Over the past thirty years there are numerous studies which show the second two issues occur far more often than the first.

I'm continually stupefied that there walk among us those who vote, and post, against their own interests...

Just what I was thinking.

If you have a business and are paying employees $7.25 per hour, when you don't absolutely need them to work for you, then you're too stupid to own a business.

and if you keep them on when the govt mandated minimum is raised and the additional labor costs put you out of business then you are definitely too stupid to own a business.

 

[Pogo]

Your post has doesn't address mine.

Let's assume I own a McDonald's. Today I pay all of my employees $7.25 an hour. Tomorrow, the minimum wage rises and I have to pay my employees $9.00 an hour, or 24% more. I can either (A) eat the costs associated with having to pay my employees a higher wage, (B) raise the cost of some product I sell or (B) reduce my workforce. Which do you think is likely to happen?

I'll give you a hint; it ain't the first. Over the past thirty years there are numerous studies which show the second two issues occur far more often than the first.



Just what I was thinking.

If you have a business and are paying employees $7.25 per hour, when you don't absolutely need them to work for you, then you're too stupid to own a business.

and if you keep them on when the govt mandated minimum is raised and the additional labor costs put you out of business then you are definitely too stupid to own a business.

And if you think a simple COLA is an "additional labor cost" when you're already getting away with $7.25, I can see why you don't have any.

 

[Pogo]

Your post has doesn't address mine.

Let's assume I own a McDonald's. Today I pay all of my employees $7.25 an hour. Tomorrow, the minimum wage rises and I have to pay my employees $9.00 an hour, or 24% more. I can either (A) eat the costs associated with having to pay my employees a higher wage, (B) raise the cost of some product I sell or (B) reduce my workforce. Which do you think is likely to happen?

I'll give you a hint; it ain't the first. Over the past thirty years there are numerous studies which show the second two issues occur far more often than the first.



Just what I was thinking.

What part are you missing here? My turn to give you a hint....

I'll simply go back to my owm example: when I entered the workforce in 1968 the minimum wage was $1.25. Would you pay $1.25 now? Of course not, nobody would work for that even if it was legal. But that $1.25 in 1968 dollars is the equivalent of $8.27 in 2013 dollars. Yet the current minimum wage is only $7.25 -- more than a dollar below that. In other words if I were a high school kid taking your job now at $7.25 I'd be making less than I did at $1.25 in 1968.

That means raising the minimum wage wouldn't be increasing your costs; it would be bringing your costs back into line after the free ride you're getting now. In other words, party's over for your corporate welfare. Until of course the next COL adjustment has to be made, which will again lag behind the realities of everyday COL -- as it always does. The first to profit from increased COL is the employer and the last is the worker. And somehow there are still the 29% whining "yes master may I not have another (raise)".

THAT is what I mean by posting against one's own interests. That assumes of course that you're on the side of the American worker, not the side against him. Time moves on; calling a simple COLA an "increase in labor costs" is just flat out dishonest. It's pointing to one side of the equation (absolute cost of labor) while completely ignoring the economic context (value of currency).

Nice red herring. What does this post have to do with anything? That's right. Nothing. You didn't even attempt to address the central issue of my post. Instead, you sidestepped it (not merely once, but twice).

Horseshit. I directly deconstructed your fallacy that a COLA is an "increased cost". Let's watch it again in slow motion:

I'm not going to lie. I'm saddened at the fact that the majority of Americans don't understand the fact that, all else being equal, when the cost of labor rises, companies demand less of it (or they raise the cost of good and services to compensate). .

I made it big and bold so that even you could find it.

Apparently I pointed out a simple everyday observation that you didn't think of, and you can't just admit you were wrong. Lot of that going around though.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

What part are you missing here? My turn to give you a hint....

I'll simply go back to my owm example: when I entered the workforce in 1968 the minimum wage was $1.25. Would you pay $1.25 now? Of course not, nobody would work for that even if it was legal. But that $1.25 in 1968 dollars is the equivalent of $8.27 in 2013 dollars. Yet the current minimum wage is only $7.25 -- more than a dollar below that. In other words if I were a high school kid taking your job now at $7.25 I'd be making less than I did at $1.25 in 1968.

That means raising the minimum wage wouldn't be increasing your costs; it would be bringing your costs back into line after the free ride you're getting now. In other words, party's over for your corporate welfare. Until of course the next COL adjustment has to be made, which will again lag behind the realities of everyday COL -- as it always does. The first to profit from increased COL is the employer and the last is the worker. And somehow there are still the 29% whining "yes master may I not have another (raise)".

THAT is what I mean by posting against one's own interests. That assumes of course that you're on the side of the American worker, not the side against him. Time moves on; calling a simple COLA an "increase in labor costs" is just flat out dishonest. It's pointing to one side of the equation (absolute cost of labor) while completely ignoring the economic context (value of currency).

Nice red herring. What does this post have to do with anything? That's right. Nothing. You didn't even attempt to address the central issue of my post. Instead, you sidestepped it (not merely once, but twice).

Horseshit. I directly deconstructed your fallacy that a COLA is an "increased cost". Let's watch it again in slow motion:

I'm not going to lie. I'm saddened at the fact that the majority of Americans don't understand the fact that, all else being equal, when the cost of labor rises, companies demand less of it (or they raise the cost of good and services to compensate). .

I made it big and bold so that even you could find it.

Apparently I pointed out a simple everyday observation that you didn't think of, and you can't just admit you were wrong. Lot of that going around though.

You did no such thing. You didn't address a single point I made. I usually loathe quoting Wikipedia, but...

Link

According to a paper by Fuller and Geide-Stevenson, 45.6% of American economists in the year 2000 agreed that a minimum wage increases unemployment among unskilled and young workers, while 27.9% agree with this statement but with provisos.[70] As a policy question in 2006, the minimum wage has—to some extent—split the economics profession with just under half believing it should be eliminated and a slightly smaller percentage believing it should be increased, leaving few in the middle.

Experts weigh in

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, said the income boost could help some households, although it could, in turn, hurt businesses.

"The president is correct that it would raise the amount of income going to lower income households," Zandi told The Hill.

"The wage increases to those earning the minimum wage would be greater than the lost income due to fewer jobs and hours worked," he said.

"However, it would also likely mean lower profits for businesses employing minimum wage workers and higher prices as businesses try to pass through their higher labor costs."

The Economist

Today's consensus, insofar as there is one, seems to be that raising minimum wages has minor negative effects at worst. Lawrence Katz, an economist at Harvard University and signatory of the EPI's letter, agrees that “most reasonably well-done estimates show small negative effects on employment among teenagers”.

Something else

In contrast, estimates based on the payroll data suggest that the New Jersey minimum wage increase led to a 4.6 percent decrease in employment in New Jersey relative to the Pennsylvania control group. This decrease is statistically significant at the five-percent level and implies an elasticity of employment with respect to the minimum wage of -0.24.

 

[Dubya]

Your post has doesn't address mine.

Let's assume I own a McDonald's. Today I pay all of my employees $7.25 an hour. Tomorrow, the minimum wage rises and I have to pay my employees $9.00 an hour, or 24% more. I can either (A) eat the costs associated with having to pay my employees a higher wage, (B) raise the cost of some product I sell or (B) reduce my workforce. Which do you think is likely to happen?

I'll give you a hint; it ain't the first. Over the past thirty years there are numerous studies which show the second two issues occur far more often than the first.



Just what I was thinking.

If you have a business and are paying employees $7.25 per hour, when you don't absolutely need them to work for you, then you're too stupid to own a business.

and if you keep them on when the govt mandated minimum is raised and the additional labor costs put you out of business then you are definitely too stupid to own a business.

Figure this out, fool! Those employees are what makes the money for the business and any business paying people who aren't making them money needs to go out of business. You can raise the price of a hamburger and make the sucker buying it pay for it for a change.

You've been given examples of Walmarts in other countries and Subway where minimum wage is higher and they pay for health care benefits. You assholes have us living in a country paying the highest price for drugs in the world. Since when do you people know anything about business except how to screw the working man and yourself in the process?

 

[Pogo]

Nice red herring. What does this post have to do with anything? That's right. Nothing. You didn't even attempt to address the central issue of my post. Instead, you sidestepped it (not merely once, but twice).

Horseshit. I directly deconstructed your fallacy that a COLA is an "increased cost". Let's watch it again in slow motion:



I made it big and bold so that even you could find it.

Apparently I pointed out a simple everyday observation that you didn't think of, and you can't just admit you were wrong. Lot of that going around though.

You did no such thing. You didn't address a single point I made. I usually loathe quoting Wikipedia, but...

Link



Experts weigh in



The Economist

Today's consensus, insofar as there is one, seems to be that raising minimum wages has minor negative effects at worst. Lawrence Katz, an economist at Harvard University and signatory of the EPI's letter, agrees that “most reasonably well-done estimates show small negative effects on employment among teenagers”.

Something else

In contrast, estimates based on the payroll data suggest that the New Jersey minimum wage increase led to a 4.6 percent decrease in employment in New Jersey relative to the Pennsylvania control group. This decrease is statistically significant at the five-percent level and implies an elasticity of employment with respect to the minimum wage of -0.24.

Still missing the point? Amazing.

Do you understand what "refuting the premise" means? You start out with a premise, then from that premise draw a conclusion. Here, stripped out from all the extraneous stuff, is your premise that I addressed. Watch carefully ....

when the cost of labor rises

Did ya catch it?

A raise in the minimum wage is not the "cost of labor rising". It's the cost of labor equalizing after i has already lost value due to inflation of the currency. That's been going on since way before we were a glimmer in our Daddy's eyes. Your $7.25 an hour McDonald's manager has been getting off cheap, literally. Now it's time to pay the piper. Or doesn't a fair wage for fair day's work fit in with your plans?

Do you expect to buy a new Ford for $850 because that was the price in 1908?

If you dance to the music, don't you know you got to pay to the piper? Axe your mama.

 

[kidrocks]

I'm sure folks see the MW as something they would like to see go higher.

I wonder if they realize that business won't hire as many people and that the prices for products will go up??

Wonder how that poll would be answered favorably if that little factoid was thrown in??

Here's another little factoid for you to chew on... Prices will, and have gone up on everything, regardless of the minimum wage at the time.

McDonalds burgers used to cost 15 cents. Gas was 23 cents a gallon once upon a time. You could rent a 4 bedroom house for 85 dollars a month back in the day. Businessess were thriving and hired at record numbers despite the min-wage. Prices will go up on most everything no matter what.

The bastards at McDonalds raised prices 50% to 75% on many of their their dollar menu items last year. Wendy's followed suit. Gas prices... well, you know. Prices for products will go up at the drop of a hat since the beginning of time my friend. Get a ******* clue!

 

[kidrocks]

The truth. It sometimes hurt.

President Obama's re-election must hurt like crazy. This poll showing the overwhelming support for Obama's min-wage increase proposal must dig at your caw mightily. The latest job rate falling to 7.7 must sting.

The truth. It sometimes hurt. Powerfully!

I'm not going to lie. I'm saddened at the fact that the majority of Americans don't understand the fact that, all else being equal, when the cost of labor rises, companies demand less of it (or they raise the cost of good and services to compensate). And, yes, I'm saddened by the fact that the unemployment rate dropping because people give up looking for work is hailed as an accomplishment. I mean, what kind of moronic half-brain wouldn't be saddened by these things?

...Oh, wait. A liberal.

Cost of goods and services always go up for many reasons that have nothing to do with the minimum wage. And only a moronic half-brain tea-bagger isn't saddened by that fact.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm sure folks see the MW as something they would like to see go higher.

I wonder if they realize that business won't hire as many people and that the prices for products will go up??

Wonder how that poll would be answered favorably if that little factoid was thrown in??

Throw in this factoid! I say business and society can adjust to doubling what they pay for labor, but many businesses and families would fail if they cut wages in half.

Now, picture the guy who has his small business and makes $250,000 per year. What is he going to make when he loses most of his customers and only saves a little on his labor expenses? He isn't even going to make unemployment benefits, because he didn't pay in for them to cover himself. He's going to lose that business, because his other expenses aren't going to get cut in half. He could price his way out of an increase in labor, but people are going to be struggling for existence with half their pay. They aren't even going to be able to pay their bills, let alone spend money on anything else.

Paying higher wages to those earning minimum wage will mean that money will end up in circulation because at those income levels there are no investment portfolios to sock the additional income away in. The current economic malaise would be history if all corporations were to give every employee a $10/hr increase (offset against taxes naturally). The increase would approximately equate to an additional $20k p.a. per full time worker before taxes. That level of stimulus in the hands of consumers would jumpstart the economy and it would be surging forward like an express train. Yes, there would be a higher inflation rate and a couple of other negative impacts but overall it would have more benefits than drawbacks. Even for shareholders they would ultimately see much greater dividends after the initial period. Too bad this kind of thinking is sacrilege to those who sit in boardrooms.

 

[candycorn]

A solid majority of Americans support President Obama’s proposal ...

so where is the legislation ? Rather than have dinner with Republicans its about time for Obama to insist on something for those who put him in office.

Good question. Lets get moving on this!

 

[Dragonlady]

Paying higher wages to those earning minimum wage will mean that money will end up in circulation because at those income levels there are no investment portfolios to sock the additional income away in. The current economic malaise would be history if all corporations were to give every employee a $10/hr increase (offset against taxes naturally). The increase would approximately equate to an additional $20k p.a. per full time worker before taxes. That level of stimulus in the hands of consumers would jumpstart the economy and it would be surging forward like an express train. Yes, there would be a higher inflation rate and a couple of other negative impacts but overall it would have more benefits than drawbacks. Even for shareholders they would ultimately see much greater dividends after the initial period. Too bad this kind of thinking is sacrilege to those who sit in boardrooms.

The fastest way out of a recession is to get money into the hands of those who spend every dollar they get, the working poor, and the lower middle class. They spend every $$ they gets their hands on. The goods and services they purchase, provide jobs to other workers and the benefits flow throughout the community.

Overall, you could wipe out the food stamp program, which is very expensive to administer, both in terms of the means testing, the appropriation of funds and the dispersal of funds. You could wipe out that entire branch of government just by ensuring that workers receive a fair minimum wage. This puts the onus back on employers to reimburse their workers fairly, and it eliminates the expense of administering the food stamp program.

There's a way of eliminating an expensive goverment program, reducing the taxes collected for it and the number of government employees required to administer it. Who says liberals aren't for shrinking government.

I notice that the conservatives on this board are still more concerned about anyone but the workers making money. As someone said, if a business can't afford to pay its workers a living wage, it certainly can't afford to pay its owner a living wage either, because the workers should be paid first. On their backs, the success or failure of a business will rest.

 

[candycorn]

WOW! 9 dollars an hour x 40 hours a work week = $360. dollars a week. Multiply that by 4 weeks a month = at least $1440. a month. Hmmm, now many Americans would thank God for that liveable, decent wage.




Strong support continues for minimum wage - First Read

A solid majority of Americans support President Obama’s proposal in his most recent State of the Union to increase the minimum wage.

Some 71 percent of those surveyed said they supported raising the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour from $7.25, while 27 percent opposed it, according to a Gallup Poll released Wednesday.

The results attest to the popularity of Obama’s plan, wrote Gallup’s Lydia Saad in the poll’s release...

I think it should be increased but not all at once. Here in Ohio, the minimum wage is at $7.85 I believe. So getting to $9.00 over the next couple of years wouldn't be a bad thing. As for it being a living wage, even at $9.00 it is not a living wage, but it certainly would be a much better starting point for everyone. The reason it may seem high is that all other wages have been falling over the last decade.

Point taken.

But what gets lost in the debate about minimum wage quite often is that some (not you exactly) characterize it as only helping the bottom rung wage earners or the young job-focused versus the career focused people who may be up the ladder a few rungs.

For an example though, I offer that for a great many like me who are solidly middle-income Americans--the "Middle Class" if you will--a second job at Sears or Macy's or other entry level/temporary jobs becomes much more attractive when the wages become more attractive.

More disposable income for the middle income Americans is a good thing for America.

 

[Seawytch]

A solid majority of Americans support President Obama’s proposal ...

so where is the legislation ? Rather than have dinner with Republicans its about time for Obama to insist on something for those who put him in office.

Good question. Lets get moving on this!

Yes! I mean, really, what on earth could be stopping the President from passing legislation, right?

 

[Katzndogz]

Raising the minimum wage will result in higher unemployment. It always has and always will. It won't hurt major companies, they already pay more than the proposed minimum wage. The guy just starting out will be the one taking the hit. Already on a low profit margin, that's the one that won't be able to reinvest in the business, grow, get new equipment, expand to another location.

Employers find many ways around completely crippling themselves. They eliminate jobs, they hire under the table, instead of giving a job to someone, they expand that task into an additional burden on the employees they already have.

If each worker has a value, each task has a value. It is never the minimum wage worker that bears the burden of the success of the business. No one ever went out of business because the lowest skilled person wasn't making enough money. Plenty of businesses have gone under because the employer couldn't control costs. The amount of money in circulation actually shrinks, because fewer people are making money. That's why raising the minimum wage has always triggered a recession.

The ideal situation would be to completely change the minimum wage laws. At $9.00 an hour some people are going to be overpaid the task they perform isn't worth $9.00 an hour. Set up categories that would more closely match the values of the tasks and what the employee brings to the table.

 

[candycorn]

so where is the legislation ? Rather than have dinner with Republicans its about time for Obama to insist on something for those who put him in office.

Good question. Lets get moving on this!

Yes! I mean, really, what on earth could be stopping the President from passing legislation, right?

I was talking about introducing legislation. Technically, the President can't introduce bills of course but his confederates in the Senate or House can.

I'm unaware of any such bill being introduced.

What bothers me about 2013 politics from the executive side of the coin is that a bill almost needs to be a fait accompli prior to being introduced. I think that sometimes there are times when you can't risk the loss but there are other times when the tea leaves should be read, introduce the bill, and either politic and convince the others you're right, politic and make deals to get the bill passed, or fall on the sword and let the opposition suffer for going against public opinion.

If this poll is to be believed...this would seem to be the time when Mr. Obama could summon the courage to do it. There is nothing left to run for, Mr. President.

 

[candycorn]

I'm sure folks see the MW as something they would like to see go higher.

I wonder if they realize that business won't hire as many people and that the prices for products will go up??

Wonder how that poll would be answered favorably if that little factoid was thrown in??

Here's another little factoid for you to chew on... Prices will, and have gone up on everything, regardless of the minimum wage at the time.

McDonalds burgers used to cost 15 cents. Gas was 23 cents a gallon once upon a time. You could rent a 4 bedroom house for 85 dollars a month back in the day. Businessess were thriving and hired at record numbers despite the min-wage. Prices will go up on most everything no matter what.

The bastards at McDonalds raised prices 50% to 75% on many of their their dollar menu items last year. Wendy's followed suit. Gas prices... well, you know. Prices for products will go up at the drop of a hat since the beginning of time my friend. Get a ******* clue!

You're confusing them with facts...

Get ready for, "The prices went up because their expenses went up."

 

[Seawytch]

Good question. Lets get moving on this!

Yes! I mean, really, what on earth could be stopping the President from passing legislation, right?

I was talking about introducing legislation. Technically, the President can't introduce bills of course but his confederates in the Senate or House can.

I'm unaware of any such bill being introduced.

What bothers me about 2013 politics from the executive side of the coin is that a bill almost needs to be a fait accompli prior to being introduced. I think that sometimes there are times when you can't risk the loss but there are other times when the tea leaves should be read, introduce the bill, and either politic and convince the others you're right, politic and make deals to get the bill passed, or fall on the sword and let the opposition suffer for going against public opinion.

If this poll is to be believed...this would seem to be the time when Mr. Obama could summon the courage to do it. There is nothing left to run for, Mr. President.

Polls and majority opinion mean nothing to the Teapublicans in Congress. NOTHING. We saw that with the public option...which had just as much majority support as raising the minimum wage.

Top Republicans have already signaled their opposition to any increase in the minimum wage, even though 65 Republicans currently serving in Congress voted for the last increase, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007.

Pelosi Backs Bill That Would Raise Minimum Wage To $10 An Hour

The President is not going to get anything passed that is popular when the GOP has decided that "[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0"]Whatever it is, I'm against it[/ame]".

 

[candycorn]

Yes! I mean, really, what on earth could be stopping the President from passing legislation, right?

I was talking about introducing legislation. Technically, the President can't introduce bills of course but his confederates in the Senate or House can.

I'm unaware of any such bill being introduced.

What bothers me about 2013 politics from the executive side of the coin is that a bill almost needs to be a fait accompli prior to being introduced. I think that sometimes there are times when you can't risk the loss but there are other times when the tea leaves should be read, introduce the bill, and either politic and convince the others you're right, politic and make deals to get the bill passed, or fall on the sword and let the opposition suffer for going against public opinion.

If this poll is to be believed...this would seem to be the time when Mr. Obama could summon the courage to do it. There is nothing left to run for, Mr. President.

Polls and majority opinion mean nothing to the Teapublicans in Congress. NOTHING. We saw that with the public option...which had just as much majority support as raising the minimum wage.

Top Republicans have already signaled their opposition to any increase in the minimum wage, even though 65 Republicans currently serving in Congress voted for the last increase, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007.

Pelosi Backs Bill That Would Raise Minimum Wage To $10 An Hour

The President is not going to get anything passed that is popular when the GOP has decided that "[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0"]Whatever it is, I'm against it[/ame]".

Thanks for the info...was unaware of Ms. Pelosi's actions.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Whatever happened to the days when people got a raise because they earned it?

If I have to pay 10 bucks an hour for a kid to come in and sweep the floors, I'll do it myself and the kid won't get a part time job from me because sweeping the floor is NOT a $10 an hour job.