Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think instead of raising the min wage a better idea is to cut or completely eliminate income tax for people earning lower wages that or give them an Earned Income Tax.
That's pretty much happened already--or pretty close to it.
"Minimum Wage 101 Thread" gets an F. When all of the armchair economists predicted higher unemployment and doom and gloom when California starting raising its minimum wage, the opposite happened. As California raised the minimum wage, hiring went up and unemployment went down.
Raising the minimum wage puts more money into the pockets of workers, who can spend it at local businesses. Businesses see increasing demand and sales, who then have to hire up to meet that demand. California's experience has blown the whole "raising the minimum wage destroys jobs" theory out of the water.
The scenario isn't nearly as rosy as you make it out to be. The University of Washington study showed people earned more per hour but ended up working fewer hours. But I'm sure you'll just dismiss that since it doesn't fit with your preconceived view:
The city’s escalating minimum wage has meant a slight increase in pay among workers earning up to $19 per hour, but the hours worked in such jobs have shrunk, a study commissioned by the city found. It estimates there would be 5,000 more such jobs without the Seattle law.
The team concluded that the second jump [in minimum wage from $10.50 to $13 an hour] had a far greater impact, boosting pay in low-wage jobs by about 3 percent since 2014 but also resulting in a 9 percent reduction in hours worked in such jobs. That resulted in a 6 percent drop in what employers collectively pay — and what workers earn — for those low-wage jobs.
Mysticaltiger, we agree on lots of things. Apparently not this.
What i mean IS they do the jobs no one wants to do and are paid minimum wage to do them.
I have some college, i work above minimum wage, but thats ok as i am a working person with disabilities, as you know. Im limited on what i can earn, so it doesnt bother me to be above minimum. There are plenty of days i physically or mentally cannot work, and days i struggle through. I definitely need more time off than the average worker. Minimum or $350k/,yr. Im a hotel desk clerk. Usually minimum wage, but i command higher, even being disabled.
Its all relative.
But DO respect the guy who cleans the toilets you use. He'll ( or she) will be most appreciative. As you are for the clean toilet.
As far as minimum wage jobs going away, i highly doubt it.
I am willing to go out on a limb and say that having been coast-to-coast, and up and down both seaboards, there are low CoL places in the US that are helped more by the $7.25 federal minimum than some higher CoL places are with a $15 minimum.
I'm not all-powerful, but I'd love to see prices drop in some areas, as opposed to having to keep hiking the minimum wage to keep up with market fluctuations that take goods out of reach of people whose wages are indexed with only inflation. I'm not talking about transfer payments. I'm talking about most jobs whose pay bands get adjusted 2-3% a year, if at all.
Most "merit raises" are 3% a year, but are anything but. It's an inflation raise. That slows down once you get close to top-of-band. It's easy to say "well, just get promoted!" but there are precious few leadership roles in comparison to non-management jobs, and in the game of musical chairs, not everyone gets a seat.
There is scarcity everywhere, whether we're talking about a W2 wage earner on a corporate ladder, or a professional managing his or her own client portfolio, looking to fill the calendar with income-producing appointments. Tying yourself down to one location with invisible ropes won't help.
If you have no marketable job skills you cannot expect high pay.
The market will pay what the market demands.
Except the upside-down logic of paying people minimum wage for jobs that "no one else wants to do". Instead of such workers making great wages for stepping up, they are employed illegally, for financial and political reasons, and everyone gets hurt in the process.
Breaking laws, selling out, undermining what could have been an honest and functional version of our current labor market...
Trusting a company not to outsource is like taking the paper towels out of a public restroom and putting in an air dryer. It only takes one person to screw up and not wash their hands, before even the people who are doing right are affected when someone poisons the well.
Likewise, it only takes one company to undercut U.S. labor before others follow suit. Once the margins thin again, and everyone is outsourcing, you're back to square 1, with many of the same competitors. Whatever you're selling is a commodity by now and most of your customers are making price-based decisions. What fun is that?
The scenario isn't nearly as rosy as you make it out to be. The University of Washington study showed people earned more per hour but ended up working fewer hours....
The city’s escalating minimum wage has meant a slight increase in pay among workers earning up to $19 per hour, but the hours worked in such jobs have shrunk...
Must be a Seattle problem. Not in California, while the minimum wage has gone up from $9 to $12/hr, there has been no change in the hours worked. It's held steady at 34 to 35 hours per week during the entire period. Source
Once all of the minimum wage hikes wash though the economy, we are going to learn (those with open minds, anyway) that there's very little correlation between the minimum wage, employment, and hours worked.
Must be a Seattle problem. Not in California, while the minimum wage has gone up from $9 to $12/hr, there has been no change in the hours worked. It's held steady at 34 to 35 hours per week during the entire period. Source
Once all of the minimum wage hikes wash though the economy, we are going to learn (those with open minds, anyway) that there's very little correlation between the minimum wage, employment, and hours worked.
"Entry level labor," as though there is really an equal to that in the bizz world, We don't see or hear of "entry level" business, just labor. So, those who can pay low wages under the guise of "offering jobs and experience" to the younger "entry level" worker are deemed to be a kind of economic saint, "allowing" their workers a chance to be employed. This view of things is skewed by the fact that all employment is a valid form of trade, and further, all labor is subject to American labor law, and the bedrock of those laws has included a large measure of what we all consider fair treatment.
This notion of "entry level wages" as a good thing is simply the wanting by high wage earners to stretch their buying power at someone else's expense. They fear that higher wages for those on the bottom will somehow impact their lives in ways which may include their having to buy less of those things they can now buy on the cheap. I've heard those complaints not from the very wealthy, but more disturbing, it's those in the middle of the compensation rungs that speculate on the idea of total chaos and financial collapse being the reward for raising wages. This all fits in with the notion of a workforce divided as a better scenario than one united..
Must be a Seattle problem. Not in California, while the minimum wage has gone up from $9 to $12/hr, there has been no change in the hours worked. It's held steady at 34 to 35 hours per week during the entire period. Source
Once all of the minimum wage hikes wash though the economy, we are going to learn (those with open minds, anyway) that there's very little correlation between the minimum wage, employment, and hours worked.
I assure you the laws of economics are not unique to Seattle. When people have to pay more for something, they find ways to use less of it, whether that be labor or detergent. The only difference is the degree to which they find ways to cut back.
I assure you the laws of economics are not unique to Seattle. When people have to pay more for something, they find ways to use less of it, whether that be labor or detergent. The only difference is the degree to which they find ways to cut back.
Rising prices, I suppose, could be construed as a "law" of economics, especially in America, a nation with a multitude of monetary policy woes. At my mid seventies I've noted quite a few things rising in price through the years, and I suppose some of that rise can be attributed to wages rising, but we all know that in many cases rising prices simply means fatter margins.
But I can't honestly say that in the last fifty years I have slowed down my buying of goods and services, if anything, I look around me and see that many in America are buying like there's no tomorrow. I can only speak for me but on that note I'm willing to pay more for what I want or need, regardless of whether the price has risen to fatten the business or the employees wallet. We're all free to discriminate in our buying habits, so I'm guessing some will refuse to pay more if they suspect the increase is going to labor...
... if anything, I look around me and see that many in America are buying like there's no tomorrow.
You evoked, in my mind, images of "Black Friday", the frenzied, post-Thanksgiving stampede to buy ... uh ... "stuff". And avoid being trampled for grabbing the last milk frother from the display.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
