Minimum wage isn't meant to be a living wage (interviews, good news, claim)
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.
It will only affect less than 5 % of workers since a lot of states already have higher minimum wages than are federally mandated. That's not going to make "costs for everything rise." Most jobs in the U.S. are not union jobs, I believe it's around 10 %.
The average minimum wage is $7/hr. Look at teenage unemployment figures, if we raise the min wage by two to three dollars, a lot fewer teens will get hired, and lot of jobs will just go away, because they just won't be worth it.
It's common sense. A simplified way of looking at it, if I raise my wages from $7 to $9. If I have 100 employees, and I pay them each $2/hr more, I will be paying $8,000 more a week, @40/hr a week, that's the equivalent of 27 more paychecks a week. I will probably cut some of them back on their hours, and raise prices. Or try to compete with my competitors and cut more jobs to try and keep my costs or prices to my customers lower.
I sure as hell will not be paying some 15 year old kid $9/hr to sweep floors or help customers at my gas station to check the oil, tire inflation and clean their windows either.
$9/an hour isn't $15 or $20/hour. It's enough of an increase above $7.25 to get a chunk of people off of food stamps. They still won't be living comfortably, but at least they won't have to rely on welfare to eat, and the businesses will be carrying their weight vs. being subsidized by the tax payers. They still have the same incentives to get ahead in life, but at least the tax payers won't be paying part of their salary through foodstamps while they do it. As I've said before, the business model for most of the companies paying the lowest wages is cheap, fast, and high volume. 92% of those companies are making profits well above their pre-recession profits. They're going to have to eat the cost of some of this (as they should--why is the government subsidizing profitable companies) because they may lose customers if they raise prices too much.
The only people that should be qualifying for food stamps are those that have ZERO job only. If you can't survive on $7/hr then you should be sharing your living space.
Cost of living in all three of these states is above the national average, so even though their minimum wage is higher, between unemployment and cost of living, I wouldn't think their workers are too happy with the economy.
And interestingly, high tech employers in Washington cannot find qualified people to fill their massive full time and well paid job vacancies. Employers compete for talent, meaning they pay more than they would elsewhere. Tech, engineering and housing , not the minimum wage, drives the local economy in Washington.
The 2010 U.S. Census determined that 40.3 Million people were 65 or older, an increase of 15% over 2000. Begining in 2011, the oldest baby boomers began to turn 65 at a rate of 10,000 people a day. This is expected to continue for 20 years.
Disability increases with an aging population. Qualified disabled may receive Social Security, Medicaid, Snap benefits, Section 8 housing and other welfare benefits. At 65 abled people automatically qualify for Medicad and SS. Income determines eligibility for other welfare benefits.
It's perplexing that so many seem to fixate on the welfare mama and ignore the most obvious -the aging of the U.S. population.
By the time you reach 65, you have had an entire lifetime to prepare for a life with no income. Your savings and investments should be funding your retirement. The majority of the actual "wealth" in this country is controlled by SENIORS. If you retire with nothing, then you have no one to blame but your own poor choices. You should have skipped those trips around the world or stopped bailing out your deadbeat kids.
Say you're a $12 an hour worker whose been working someplace for a couple of years and you've got a good work record.
Suddenly all the minimum wage workers get a $1-$2 an hour pay raise. For doing nothing. The least skilled workers there suddenly get a 15-20 percent pay raise.
Wouldn't you expect a pay raise as well? I would think so - and everyone above you on the food chain as well. Why should the least skilled and least qualified and least experienced workers get a big pay raise and yet the other workers don't?
When minimum wage is increased, ALL hourly wages (and many salaried wages) must be increased in order to retain quality workers.
THIS is what makes labor costs - which are passed on to all of us - go up.
If you're already paying your staff above minimum wage, this doesn't impact you. Of the top 50 companies paying low wages (under $10 an hour) 92% of them are making profits right now at pre-recession levels. Sixty six percent of companies paying low wages are large companies with over 100 employees. If you're making record profits and paying people wages so low that they qualify for foodstamps, I'm not sure why the government should be subsidizing your company with tax dollars through social welfare programs for your workers. Again--most of those companies work off of a business model of cheap, fast and high volume. They can only raise prices to cover increased wages to the point where people will pay the extra vs. shopping elsewhere. If they have to pay their workers the REAL cost of doing business vs. the government subsidized cost, then so be it. If they have to raise lower worker salaries up the chain, then so be it.
If you're already paying your staff above minimum wage, this doesn't impact you. Of the top 50 companies paying low wages (under $10 an hour) 92% of them are making profits right now at pre-recession levels. Sixty six percent of companies paying low wages are large companies with over 100 employees. If you're making record profits and paying people wages so low that they qualify for foodstamps, I'm not sure why the government should be subsidizing your company with tax dollars through social welfare programs for your workers. Again--most of those companies work off of a business model of cheap, fast and high volume. They can only raise prices to cover increased wages to the point where people will pay the extra vs. shopping elsewhere. If they have to pay their workers the REAL cost of doing business vs. the government subsidized cost, then so be it. If they have to raise lower worker salaries up the chain, then so be it.
I worked in the staffing industry for ten years and in HR (hiring) for five years. I know the gig. Every time minimum wage has been raised, it impacted all hourly wage rates.
When minimum wage goes up, ALL local wages go up, whether a company hires minimum wage people or not.
Generally, successful companies pay a higher than average starting wage, but they expect more of their employees as well. Their standard of excellence is higher in other words. You pay for what you get.
When you pay MORE for mediocre, superior becomes even MORE valuable - ie, COSTLY.
Of the top 50 companies paying low wages (under $10 an hour) 92% of them are making profits right now at pre-recession levels. Sixty six percent of companies paying low wages are large companies with over 100 employees. If you're making record profits and paying people wages so low that they qualify for foodstamps, I'm not sure why the government should be subsidizing your company with tax dollars through social welfare programs for your workers. Again--most of those companies work off of a business model of cheap, fast and high volume. They can only raise prices to cover increased wages to the point where people will pay the extra vs. shopping elsewhere. If they have to pay their workers the REAL cost of doing business vs. the government subsidized cost, then so be it.
With rare exception, publicaly traded companies are governed to maximize stock price. Their shareholders elect the board and officers who they charge with the responsibility to meet their objectives.
The earned income tax credit and other benfits available to the working poor attempt to balance low wage and living wage. What are the possible outcomes related to the elimination of the tax code and welfare that benefits the working poor?
Waiters get less than minimum plus tips so I guess it is possible.
No. They get less due to tips but the restaurant must cover the difference if they don't make minimum.
So they are still being paid at least minimum wage.
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.
