Republicans successfully block minimum wage bill

[Orlong]

There's the contradiction.

The people who are making $10/hour plus right now will see pay raises. You just said that, and then later claimed they wouldn't.

Again, any glance at wage history in the Western world disproves your claim. It doesn't happen anywhere. It's not like we don't have hundreds of minimum wage increases over the past century or so to look at.

If people making $10/hour right now don't ask for a pay raise, and end up making minimum wage, then the issue is that they didn't negotiate their salary. It has nothing to do with the increase in minimum wage, and everything to do with the apathy of the workers in question.

They wont see the huge raise immediately like minimum wage workers will, they will slowly get cost of living raises which the new minimum wage workers will also get, But they wont recover the $3 an hour they lost when new people get hired at the same rate it took someone making $10/hour 3 or 4 years to make, so now the new people are at the same table. Thats why I said they wont recover. We shouldnt be pulling the poor up to the same table as everyone else. We should moving EVERYONE up to the next table if they want to regulate pay via government. the guy currently making $10 an hour wasted the last 4 years of hard work and effort since other people dont have to do the same hard work for 4 years to get $10/hour. They get it as soon as they are old enough to work

[Cthulhu 2020]

Every single developed nation in the world has raised minimum wage many many times over the past 100 years and it has never resulted in some kind of mass price inflation. The US itself has had many minimum wage hikes over the years and it NEVER resulted in any form of price inflation whatsoever. We have history, we have FACTS that show this.

Those arguing that price inflation will happen are just wrong, and need to stop lying.

[Endus]

Based on what?

Based on the easily-checked fact that middle class incomes aren't all at the minimum wage, currently.

Because if wage inertia really existed, they would be, since the average income has gone from about $1,900/year in 1940 to something like $42,000 today.

The reality is that as minimum wages have increased during that 75 year period, so have other salaries. And the gradation of income has been preserved. The idea that wages have inertia and raising the minimum wage will make middle class incomes into lower class or minimum wage incomes is simply not true, and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

[Elegiac]

Switzerland with it's sky high minimum wage having higher buying power which was completely false?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/...last&sort=desc

Wait what?

[Endus]

They wont see the huge raise immediately like minimum wage workers will

There is no reason they shouldn't. I've worked plenty of jobs that did exactly this; when the minimum wage increased, so did my wages (which were above the new minimum, before the adjustment).

they will slowly get cost of living raises which the new minimum wage workers will also get, But they wont recover the $3 an hour they lost when new people get hired at the same rate it took someone making $10/hour 3 or 4 years to make, so now the new people are at the same table. Thats why I said they wont recover.

You're making the mistake of assuming I didn't understand your argument.

I did.

It's just wrong. And any glance at the changes following any prior minimum wage increase would demonstrate that.

[Orlong]

They wont see the huge raise immediately like minimum wage workers will, they will slowly get cost of living raises which the new minimum wage workers will also get, But they wont recover the $3 an hour they lost when new people get hired at the same rate it took someone making $10/hour 3 or 4 years to make, so now the new people are at the same table. Thats why I said they wont recover. We shouldnt be pulling the poor up to the same table as everyone else. We should moving EVERYONE up to the next table if they want to regulate pay via government. the guy currently making $10 an hour wasted the last 4 years of hard work and effort since other people dont have to do the same hard work for 4 years to get $10/hour. They get it as soon as they are old enough to work

Oh, and someone who currently works at McDonalds getting $10/hour, will be laughed out of the building when they go to ask for $13/hour since all the new people are now getting $10 and it took them 4 years to get to $10/hour. They will just hire more new people for less

[Druidjezus]

> Welfare Queens are not a myth.
> Uses anecdote to prove it.

Seriously. It in no way refutes the need for public assistance.

As I said, I know it's an anecdote. And did I say it refutes the need for public assistance? Don't put words in my mouth like that, I know it's the internet but can you at least try and act like an adult (a decent adult, not a twat). You said Welfare Queens are largely a myth. I'm saying that I know, from my own personal experiences, that they are at least not a myth.

I know that they are a very small minority of the people on welfare, I'm just saying to you that it's foolish to go around saying they don't exist as that simply isn't true. Whether you KNOW that's not true or not really does't matter to me, you can be wrong, doesn't really affect my knowledge much.

That person was a terrible example of what someone COULD do by abusing the system. I ALSO know an injured veteran who was living on government assistance because he had a decent chunk of his brain blown out in Vietnam. It would literally be impossible for him to work, and the amount he got was not nearly enough to live on so his kids had to give him a portion of their earnings to help him get by.

Just as there are people who are very deserving, there are those who take advantage, most likely the typical government assistance recipient lies somewhere between those two examples. The problem is, ultimately, that the resources to police the abusers would probably cost more than the abuse. Does that mean we should close up shop because a few kids are stealing candy from the checkout lane? No! But maybe smack those kids hands a bit harder when you catch em pocketing the Tic Tacs.

[Northy]

The poster I quoted said there are people who work 3 minimum wage jobs and still need assistance. Im saying its bullshit if true because 3 minimum wage jobs is the same as 1 job making 23.25 an hour. I make less than that and dont need assistance and neither should someone in that situation

That person isn't working three jobs simultaneously, they work one at a time. Therefore he makes minimum wage, not 23.23 an hour.

[ozzie347]

Oh, and someone who currently works at McDonalds getting $10/hour, will be laughed out of the building when they go to ask for $13/hour since all the new people are now getting $10 and it took them 4 years to get to $10/hour. They will just hire more new people for less

And this is part of the problem. Business devalue their employees and their labour. They try and get away with paying as little as they can. Guess what, every job is *worth* at least a livable wage.

[Tinykong]

There is no reason they shouldn't. I've worked plenty of jobs that did exactly this; when the minimum wage increased, so did my wages (which were above the new minimum, before the adjustment).

In the US, or Canada?

[Kezmaefele]

Once again, it's been shown that upward adjustments to the minimum wage have a cascade effect at all wage levels. More pay across the board = more buying power = more demand.

"It has been shown..." Please link me an article or study. I'm always looking to learn something new.

Just logically looking at that statement one can conclude that we should always raise the minimum wage more and more as often as we can. Obviously this is ludicrous. Therefore I don't believe we can take that statement at face value. There must be caveats where the statement is true. And likewise caveats when it is false.

Lets make sure it applies to the US national minimum wage being raised across the board to $10+ for all states in 2014 before we decide it is the best move.

One thing to consider with a "national" minimum wage is that it may not effect all parts of the country the same. It should be considered that the US economy likely does not compare 1 to 1 with for example the Swedish economy when you consider the US population and GDP is over 30X larger.

1. It’s a big country. The costs of living, especially housing, vary widely in America from state to state and city to city. If the point of raising the minimum wage is to provide a “living wage,” why should the minimum wage in low-cost areas such as Texas or Oklahoma be the same as in high-cost areas such as San Francisco or Manhattan?

2. The states are already taking care of it. Twenty states and the District of Columbia already have minimum wages higher than the current federal minimum of $7.25 an hour.

3. Private industry and the free market are already taking care of it. Even low-skill, entry level positions in many areas already pay higher than minimum wage.

[Elegiac]

Oh, and someone who currently works at McDonalds getting $10/hour, will be laughed out of the building when they go to ask for $13/hour since all the new people are now getting $10 and it took them 4 years to get to $10/hour. They will just hire more new people for less

Which, as Endus said, is disproven by the fact that minimum wage hikes have resulted in upward shifts across the board.

[Zhangfei]

Oh, and someone who currently works at McDonalds getting $10/hour, will be laughed out of the building when they go to ask for $13/hour since all the new people are now getting $10 and it took them 4 years to get to $10/hour. They will just hire more new people for less

It's often cheaper to maintain a worker than retrain a new one. Even at McDonalds that comes with a hefty price tag. Rapid staff turnover is often a sign of a weakening and failing business.

That's in addition to the obvious disputes provided by Endus.

[Orlong]

Based on the easily-checked fact that middle class incomes aren't all at the minimum wage, currently.

Because if wage inertia really existed, they would be, since the average income has gone from about $1,900/year in 1940 to something like $42,000 today.

The reality is that as minimum wages have increased during that 75 year period, so have other salaries. And the gradation of income has been preserved. The idea that wages have inertia and raising the minimum wage will make middle class incomes into lower class or minimum wage incomes is simply not true, and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

But those other salaries only increase when the companies hire new people and then the new people are making the same as the old people did when they retired. They never give enormous raises to the people that have been there for 20 years to keep their salaries much higher than new people

[Bowjobs]

Literally cannot be true. This isn't a matter where you can have a different opinion due to ideological differences; it can not be true. Mathematically impossible.



They can be both, but they can't use funds from one to shore up the other. That was the big issue in the US; banks were overextended on long mortgages and couldn't keep doing business when things came crashing down; they ran out of money. That isn't (and wasn't) allowed, here.

How is it a mathematical impossibility... I worked at both walmart and home depot around the time of the 7.15 and 7.25 wage increases. I now own my own small business. I am speaking from experience. When i worked at walmart as a manager when minimum wage first increased they company cut hours and raised prices to offset the loss. Company's don't give a shit if it goes up or not. the media pushes this on people. If you ever get the chance to talk to someone higher in a corporation and ask them what they will do about wage increases they will almost always tell you the same thing. We will simply raise prices on our products. Even as a small business owner this is the only way i would be able to continue doing business if minimum wage was increased.

I am in no way saying this is the sole reason for inflation or not passing a wage bill. But there is no way you can have a conversation about wages and not factor it in.

[Elegiac]

"It has been shown..." Please link me an article or study. I'm always looking to learn something new.

Just logically looking at that statement one can conclude that we should always raise the minimum wage more and more as often as we can. Obviously this is ludicrous. Therefore I don't believe we can take that statement at face value. There must be caveats where the statement is true. And likewise caveats when it is false.

Lets make sure it applies to the US national minimum wage being raised across the board to $10+ for all states in 2014 before we decide it is the best move.

One thing to consider with a "national" minimum wage is that it may not effect all parts of the country the same. It should be considered that the US economy likely does not compare 1 to 1 with for example the Swedish economy when you consider the US population and GDP is over 30X larger.

1. It’s a big country. The costs of living, especially housing, vary widely in America from state to state and city to city. If the point of raising the minimum wage is to provide a “living wage,” why should the minimum wage in low-cost areas such as Texas or Oklahoma be the same as in high-cost areas such as San Francisco or Manhattan?

2. The states are already taking care of it. Twenty states and the District of Columbia already have minimum wages higher than the current federal minimum of $7.25 an hour.

3. Private industry and the free market are already taking care of it. Even low-skill, entry level positions in many areas already pay higher than minimum wage.

Or we could go with my suggestion of forming a Fair Wage Commission and giving it the legal authority to set minimum wages on a state-by-state basis.

- - - Updated - - -

How is it a mathematical impossibility... I worked at both walmart and home depot around the time of the 7.15 and 7.25 wage increases. I now own my own small business. I am speaking from experience. When i worked at walmart as a manager when minimum wage first increased they company cut hours and raised prices to offset the loss. Company's don't give a shit if it goes up or not. the media pushes this on people. If you ever get the chance to talk to someone higher in a corporation and ask them what they will do about wage increases they will almost always tell you the same thing. We will simply raise prices on our products. Even as a small business owner this is the only way i would be able to continue doing business if minimum wage was increased.

I am in no way saying this is the sole reason for inflation or not passing a wage bill. But there is no way you can have a conversation about wages and not factor it in.

There's a reason why anecdotal evidence is not statistically valid.

Will people stop pretending that 'personal experience' is somehow a valid negation of statistical and economic fact?

[Orlong]

It's often cheaper to maintain a worker than retrain a new one. Even at McDonalds that comes with a hefty price tag. Rapid staff turnover is often a sign of a weakening and failing business.

That's in addition to the obvious disputes provided by Endus.

Rapid turnover is also WHY so many people are working minimum wage. They dont want to put in the level of effort needed to stick around and build any kind of tenure at a company to get their wages increased. Every time they get annoyed or asked to work late, they just quit and get another job starting at minimum wage all over again. This also leads to their resumes showing they are job hoppers, making them less employable and more likely that every job they apply for will be minimum wage

[Druidjezus]

These are high tech "high skill" corporations(I work for one of those, you did not mention it). I am talking about low skill ones. Ie, Target, Walmart, Subway, McDonalds, etc....

You also did not really comment on the inflation point, which was a bigger one.

Ahh yeah, sorry, I had mentioned my thoughts on the inflation bit in a previous post. Indeed, inflation is a natural part of a healthy economy, even conservatives (who have a clue) know and recognize that. What is really unhealthy is contraction or rapid inflation. One can argue that contraction WOULD be ok, in a situation where debt is very, very low, but that is not the case in the American economy and has not been the case for a long, long time.

If anything, our inflation over the last few years has been a bit low. We're averaging 1.2% I believe? And many economists say 2% annually is the healthy mark to aim for. Inflation is part of what makes your home a good investment, it's also part of what makes borrowing money less painful. Frankly, for the majority of americans, including those not on minimum wage, inflation bolstered by a minimum wage increase would be a good thing. It makes your loans worth less, proportionally, and makes it more likely that you'll see a pay increase if prices start to go up across the board.

Of course there are negative side effects, but there are just as many negative side effects to low or no inflation, it just depends which ones you prescribe to. Sadly, most conservatives will say it's a bad thing because that's what they've been brainwashed to believe by their party, who only tell them it's bad because the people that are most hurt by inflation are creditors and people with very large amounts of liquid assets, and frankly, boo-fucking-hoo if your $200,000,000 today can only buy as much as $190,000,000 last year.

[Kezmaefele]

Or we could go with my suggestion of forming a Fair Wage Commission and giving it the legal authority to set minimum wages on a state-by-state basis.

LOL...I like how it is YOUR suggestion to disagree with a national minimum wage.

Either way I agree it should be left to the states. Or better yet, it should be left to individuals to make their own contracts without government interference.

I linked this earlier and you just said...LOL...look at the source and dismissed it.

5. It’s not clear that it’s constitutional. The Supreme Court, in its opinion in the 1923 case Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of District of Columbia, made a strong argument that a minimum wage was a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of contract embedded in the Fifth Amendment’s language about due process and the deprivation of liberty and property: “To the extent that the sum fixed exceeds the fair value of the services rendered, it amounts to a compulsory exaction from the employer for the support of a partially indigent person, for whose condition there rests upon him no peculiar responsibility, and therefore, in effect, arbitrarily shifts to his shoulders a burden which, if it belongs to anybody, belongs to society as a whole.” The Court later, in the 1937 case West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, reversed Adkins by a five to four margin. But maybe the court was right the first time around.

6. Even if the freedom of contract isn’t protected by the Constitution, it’s a natural right that should not be infringed. As President Kennedy put it in his inaugural address, “the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” If two free people want to enter into a voluntary, consensual agreement that doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights, why should the government stop them? If someone wants to work for $5 an hour, and someone wants to hire that person for that much, and no one is forcing either one of them to enter into the agreement, by what authority does government step in and stop them?

So, raising the national minimum wage is not a good idea because having a national minimum wage is a bad idea because different regions of the US need different minimums. And frankly, contract should be between two consensual parties. Why should the gov't interfere at all.

Also, raising the national minimum wage as tool against poverty is also not a good idea:

4. As an anti-poverty tool, it is a blunt instrument. A post by David Henderson cited by the chairman of the Harvard Economics Department, Greg Mankiw, points out that a lot of minimum wage earners are second or third-job holders in households with other income. That could include a teenage summer employee whose parents both have jobs. Other minimum wage workers may include retirees with income from savings and Social Security who own their homes mortgage-free.

[Elegiac]

LOL...I like how it is YOUR suggestion to disagree with a national minimum wage.

Either way I agree it should be left to the states. Or better yet, it should be left to individuals to make their own contracts without government interference.

No, I was referring to a Federal commission.

Are you alright with paying increased taxes for welfare if we decide to get rid of the minimum wage?

I linked this earlier and you just said...LOL...look at the source and dismissed it.

[I]5. It’s not clear that it’s constitutional. The Supreme Court, in its opinion in the 1923 case Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of District of Columbia, made a strong argument that a minimum wage was a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of contract embedded in the Fifth Amendment’s language about due process and the deprivation of liberty and property: “To the extent that the sum fixed exceeds the fair value of the services rendered, it amounts to a compulsory exaction from the employer for the support of a partially indigent person, for whose condition there rests upon him no peculiar responsibility, and therefore, in effect, arbitrarily shifts to his shoulders a burden which, if it belongs to anybody, belongs to society as a whole.” The Court later, in the 1937 case West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, reversed Adkins by a five to four margin. But maybe the court was right the first time around.

Maybe this idiot should learn what the definition of Constitutional is.

6. Even if the freedom of contract isn’t protected by the Constitution, it’s a natural right that should not be infringed. As President Kennedy put it in his inaugural address, “the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” If two free people want to enter into a voluntary, consensual agreement that doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights, why should the government stop them? If someone wants to work for $5 an hour, and someone wants to hire that person for that much, and no one is forcing either one of them to enter into the agreement, by what authority does government step in and stop them?

Natural rights don't exist.

4. As an anti-poverty tool, it is a blunt instrument. A post by David Henderson cited by the chairman of the Harvard Economics Department, Greg Mankiw, points out that a lot of minimum wage earners are second or third-job holders in households with other income. That could include a teenage summer employee whose parents both have jobs. Other minimum wage workers may include retirees with income from savings and Social Security who own their homes mortgage-free.

It's not intended as an anti-poverty tool.