U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-27-2014, 02:13 PM
 
677 posts, read 1,025,289 times
Reputation: 756

Advertisements

Now that they are paid higher they can pay more taxes and give more to the govt. Prices will rise, their net will remain the same. Still broke, still needing more.

When will they learn the way to fix the problem is with less government, less taxes and less repression.

But until that happens, "the beatings will continue until moral improves".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2014, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,556,082 times
Reputation: 27566
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Sorry for asking, I thought you knew when you made that little Johnny comment.
I based it off the BLS demographics of min wage workers.
Many people "think" min wage workers are older married people with families.


Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 02:16 PM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,351 posts, read 14,063,234 times
Reputation: 6520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
I studied a whole lot of economics courses in college, and the simple fact is raising the minimum wage probably won't have much impact on inflation, it will likely only shift who subsidizes low wage workers from the government in the form of EITC, and food stamps, to their employers in the form of wages.
really now.........you studied hard???....

funny thing is it has been studied and documented (this is a little dated but still answers the question)

Quote:
By raising the minimum wage, the government doesn’t guarantee jobs. It guarantees only that those who get jobs will be paid at least that minimum. But precisely by requiring this, the government destroys jobs. Someone whom an employer was willing to pay only the current minimum wage of $5.15 might not produce enough to be worth paying, say, $7.25.

It’s not all or nothing. Some of the workers currently earning $5.15 would find their wages rising to $7.25. But the marginal tasks, the least important tasks in the workplace, would not be worth $7.25, thus costing jobs. In the long run, employers will find more capital-intensive ways of having those tasks accomplished.

Economists’ consensus estimate is that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage would destroy 1 to 2 percent of youths’ jobs. A federal increase to $7.25 would, therefore, destroy about 800,000 to 1.6 million youths’ jobs. Some older low-skilled workers would also suffer. And the hurt to youths isn’t just short term, according to economists David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, and Olena Nizalova of Michigan State University. In a 2004 National Bureau of Economic Research study, they found that as people reached their late 20s they worked less and earned less the longer they had been exposed, especially as teenagers, to a high minimum wage.

But couldn’t job losses of 1 to 2 percent be worth it, if the remaining 98 to 99 percent get a wage increase? This isn’t the trade-off, for two reasons. First and most important, the majority of youths are already earning more than the higher minimum that is typically proposed. For instance, in a study of a proposed minimum-wage increase in California to $7.75 from $6.75, economist David A. Macpherson of Florida State University and Craig Garthwaite of the employer-funded Employment Policies Institute found that, of 1.48 million California youths with jobs, 79 percent earned a wage higher than $7.75, and there’s no guarantee that these workers would get an increase. Some, but probably not most, would get what are called “spillover benefits” because of the new pressure on the wage structure. That is, they would get higher wages than before due to employers’ desire to maintain a differential between the wages of the lowest-paid and the wages of those further up in the wage structure.

Second, because the minimum wage does not make employees automatically more productive, employers who must pay higher wages will look for other ways to compensate: by cutting nonwage benefits, by working the labor force harder, or by cutting training. Interestingly, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a union-funded organization in Washington that pushes for higher minimum wages, implicitly admits the last two. On its website EPI states, “employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.” How would an employer get higher productivity and decreased absenteeism? By working employees harder and firing those who miss work. How would an employer lower training costs? By training less.

Nor is raising the minimum wage a good way to reduce poverty. The usual stereotype is a minimum-wage parent with no other family members working. But that’s a small segment of minimum-wage workers. The EPI website states that 14.9 million workers would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage to $7.25, 6.6 million of whom currently earn less than $7.25—it assumes zero job loss—and 8.3 million of whom earn more but, it claims, get a spillover. Yet EPI admits that only 1.4 million of the 14.9 million, less than 10 percent, are single parents with children.

and let's not forget one tidbit of info:
The federal minimum wage originated in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) signed by President Franklin Roosevelt on June 25, 1938. The law established a minimum wage of 25 cents per hour for all employees who produced products shipped in interstate commerce. That wage is equivalent to $4.04 in today's purchasing power.




Other Effects of Minimum Wages

Aside from changes in employment, empirical studies have documented other methods by which businesses and markets adjust to minimum wage increases. The congressional Joint Economic Committee published a major review of 50 years of academic research on the minimum wage in 1995. The study found a wide range of direct and indirect effects of increased minimum wages that may occur. These include
•Increasing the likelihood and duration of unemployment for low-wage workers, particularly during economic downturns;
•Encouraging employers to cut worker training;
•Increasing job turnover;
•Discouraging part-time work and reducing school attendance;
•Driving workers into uncovered jobs, thus reducing wages in those sectors;
•Encouraging employers to cut back on fringe benefits;
•Encouraging employers to install labor-saving devices;
•Increasing inflationary pressure;
•Increasing teenage crime rates as a result of higher unemployment; and
•Encouraging employers to hire illegal aliens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,550,732 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
I based it off the BLS demographics of min wage workers.
Many people "think" min wage workers are older married people with families.


Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012
People 20-25 can and do have familes, as well as can be married. This link also doesn't say how many minimum workers are teenagers living at home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,556,082 times
Reputation: 27566
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
People 20-25 can and do have familes, as well as can be married. This link also doesn't say how many minimum workers are teenagers living at home.
They are called "young adults" now and can live at home and be dependents until they are 26 years old.

70% have household incomes of over $60K.
Do you think the 20-25 crowd is making that kind of money with one working a flipper job ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,556,082 times
Reputation: 27566
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
People 20-25 can and do have familes, as well as can be married. This link also doesn't say how many minimum workers are teenagers living at home.
You live in NY so you well know who lives in CT..all those top end corporate executives and CEO's and they ride the train daily into the city to work.

Median income is $70K
Median home value is $286K
Only 10% are below FPL.

CT is a rich state and can well afford to absorb the increase in min wage.
.025% of the population of CT work at min wage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 03:01 PM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,212,924 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post

Um, gosh that's exactly what everyone said the last time the "federal" minimum wage was increased.


That's all wrong.

An increase in minimum wage harms GPs, LLPs, LLCs and private corporations. Publicly traded corporations have deep pockets and can ride it out. The only thing that happens when minimum wages are raised is you corporatize America that much more.

It's funny how Liberals rail against corporations, and yet all of their policies are pro-corporation.






You should raise the "federal" minimum wage so that your global work-force is even less competitive and the rest of your global job flee the country.

Economically...

Mircea
Which explains why all the small businesses went out of business and why we had inflation in 2007. What that didn't happen?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,556,082 times
Reputation: 27566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
Which explains why all the small businesses went out of business and why we had inflation in 2007. What that didn't happen?
Something else will have to be used for that 2007 inflation because the lat time the min wage changed was in 2009

July 24, 2009 to be exact.

And the one before that was July 24, 2008.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 03:09 PM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,212,924 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
really now.........you studied hard???....

funny thing is it has been studied and documented (this is a little dated but still answers the question)




and let's not forget one tidbit of info:
The federal minimum wage originated in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) signed by President Franklin Roosevelt on June 25, 1938. The law established a minimum wage of 25 cents per hour for all employees who produced products shipped in interstate commerce. That wage is equivalent to $4.04 in today's purchasing power.




Other Effects of Minimum Wages

Aside from changes in employment, empirical studies have documented other methods by which businesses and markets adjust to minimum wage increases. The congressional Joint Economic Committee published a major review of 50 years of academic research on the minimum wage in 1995. The study found a wide range of direct and indirect effects of increased minimum wages that may occur. These include
•Increasing the likelihood and duration of unemployment for low-wage workers, particularly during economic downturns;
•Encouraging employers to cut worker training;
•Increasing job turnover;
•Discouraging part-time work and reducing school attendance;
•Driving workers into uncovered jobs, thus reducing wages in those sectors;
•Encouraging employers to cut back on fringe benefits;
•Encouraging employers to install labor-saving devices;
•Increasing inflationary pressure;
•Increasing teenage crime rates as a result of higher unemployment; and
•Encouraging employers to hire illegal aliens.
Except that empirical data does not show any of that. Raising minimum wage doesn’t affect employment, in 3 charts (and 2 McDonald’s meals)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,550,732 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
You live in NY so you well know who lives in CT..all those top end corporate executives and CEO's and they ride the train daily into the city to work.

Median income is $70K
Median home value is $286K
Only 10% are below FPL.

CT is a rich state and can well afford to absorb the increase in min wage.
.025% of the population of CT work at min wage.
So increasing the minimum wage in Connecticut isn't a big deal. Finally someone gets it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top