Unemployment ??? (fund, unemployment benefits, employer, paycheck)

[Wicked Felina]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

According to the US Department of Labor's stats for May of 2008 (are they an acceptable source??) [Does disagreemnt incite sarcasm with you? Hopefully, that's not your intent].

Top 5 states for highest unemployment
1) Michigan $7.40 minimum wage law (no big surprise here with automotive)
2) Alaska-has no minimum wage requirement
3) California- $8.00 per hour
4) Rhode Island $7.40 per hour
5) DC- $7.55 per hour


Top 5 states for least unemployment
1) South Dakota $5.85 changing to new federal of $6.55
2) Wyoming $5.15 per hour
3) Idaho $5.85 changing to new federal of $6.55
4) Nebraska $5.85 changing to new federal of $6.55
5) North Dakota $5.85 changing to new federal of $6.55

You and I can disagree, but minimum wage plays a factor in a business locating to a state. Businesses are about the numbers.

If you have 10 employees making minimum wage and you are located in South Dakota it will cost you $117,000 in wages over the course of the year (40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year).

If you are located in Michigan it would cost you $148,000 a year in wages. You save, as a company, $31,000 in wages by being in South Dakota.

So, yes, I do think it is a factor that business's look at when crunching the numbers. If wages weren't a factor that why the heck are we outsourcing and moving so much manufacturing to Asia where people make $2 a day. It matters because most business is about the numbers.

Is it the main factor? Probably not, but it is one of many. That's the thing about business. It's all about the numbers. If you can make the numbers work with tax breaks, etc then that is all they care about.

Of course, Silverfall, the United States Department of Labor is a legitimate source. It's the same one I used, and all you're doing is repeating what I said, with numbers thrown around.

As a model you use a company with 10 employees, and show how they would "save" $31,000 by being in to South Dakota. It's a moot point if the business is not already in SD.

We're not talking here about "being" anywhere, but relocating a business to a certain location. A small company would "save" absolutely nothing by being in South Dakota or Wyoming, unless they were magically transported there.

Again, it's simply misleading to use only wages as a determining factor in attracting business, or even as having a major causal effect in large coporate relocation.

"If wages weren't a factor that why the heck are we outsourcing and moving so much manufacturing to Asia where people make $2 a day."

Of course wages are a factor, I never said they weren't a factor or didn't matter. To me, it's fairly simple - so manufacturing/large businesses can increase their profits expodentially, and we can have very cheap goods. No worker's compensation, no social security payments, no one to force them to adhere to federal safety and health standards, no FSLA, no labor laws, etc., etc. And that all equates to greater profit. It's called slave labor, sweat shops, whatever - those people have no choice.

I refer you back to Seattlite's post. I agree with him/her that depressed wages are a contributing factor to high unemployment, not the other way around. And as had been said, this thread is a re-hash.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[elgusano]

Alaska most certainly does have a minimum wage. Your web site is incorrect. Right now, it is $7.15 per hour, and it has been for a long time. (In fact, I'm surprised that some politician trying to buy votes didn't get it raised when the Fed raised it.)

That being said, one of the misleading things about unemployment numbers is that it includes people who are voluntarily going from one job to another.

Also, some states (such as Alaska), have a high unemployment rate for odd reasons. Here, a lot of natives live off their native corporation checks. Also, a lot of people work seasonal jobs and take the rest of the year off, so although they make a decent annual salary, they are only "employed" for a few months out of the year. I drive a bus, and although summer employment was offered to all the drivers, most rejected it, and they are classified as unemployed.

[Wicked Felina]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

Not sure why you think I'm anti-minimum wage. I also didn't say it was a prime factor. It is one of many.

You are reading way too much into my post.

That's not what I meant, that you're anti anything. I was trying to inject a little humor into the conversation. Well, I'm not trying to deliberately read anything into your posts. ~

[jamesandveybe]

Originally Posted by tea.and.cookies

This subject is often discussed , sorry. Do they include the homeless population in the statistics , is that why it is so high?? Are there jobs but people don't want to work ? Any input would be apreciated.

Government unemployment figures do not include those who previously looked for work and simply gave up after a long period. Therefore, the actual unemployment rate is much higher for any given state. The rules to quantify the unemployment rate were changed by Bill Clinton, with the effect of improving the appearance of the economy. For verification, look at the before and after numbers.

[PG77]

Originally Posted by jamesandveybe

Government unemployment figures do not include those who previously looked for work and simply gave up after a long period.

Sorry. This might be a little off track, but how does one just "give up looking for work" and still make it?

[gardener34]

Unemployed means just those who are collecting unemployment benefits - right? So once the benefits run out, you are officially not counted anymore in the unemployment index?

[elgusano]

No, you can be unemployed and not drawing benefits.

I have a feeling that if people had to work in exchange for unemployment benefits, even if it's only busy work, the unemployment rate would be very close to 0%. Same with welfare benefits.

[supermoody]

The minimum wage is mostly to blame for these states not being business friendly!!!! Why start a business somewhere where you have to pay outragous taxes (property, income etc...), outragous rent or mortgage payments, and an extremely high minimum wage when they can go just across state lines and only pay the federal minimum wage? It's beyond me why people think RAISING the minimum wage does good things. It makes all other living costs skyrocket because now they have to make up for lost revinue....come on people!!!!! I live in Washington now, and our minimum wage is $8.55 an hour...compare that to the federal which is $7.25. While that may not seem like a huge difference some of you out there, immagine you have hundreds of employees at a fast food or otherwise low paying employer. It ends up being a lot after you consider that now that the wages are higher, the products are higher priced, chain reaction much? Those jobs are generaly occupied by young people in some level of school. If people want to make more money, they need to get the proper education and actually do something with themselves. Those who make minimum wage after the general college age almost always have no desire to do any better in life. I can speak on this subject because I am a person with low motivation and honestly no desire to do anything other than what I'm doing (no longer make minimum wage, however)

Originally Posted by SeeBee

Why are you stating that minimum wage in Oregon is partly responsible for Oregon not being "the most business friendly state"? It's only $7.95 per hour - do you really think people can survive in this area on that? Factor in doctor's visits, transportation, food, utilities, housing, clothing, etc., and one would almost immediately be in debt, or on the street.

No large manufacturer or industry will back out of doing business in Oregon just because they must pay workers $7.95. I doubt that has anything to do with it. Would businesses flock to Oregon if the minimum wage was set at the even more ridiculous amount of $6.55 an hour? I don't consider that to be far above the federal minimum level.

No offense meant, and none taken, but I do wonder why people complain, or at least infer, that being forced to pay workers $7.95 an hour is partly to blame for a high unemployment rate.

I don't know much about the other factors invovled, such as zoning and taxes, as you do, but I'm not convinced that the minimum wage has much to do with unemployment rates. Rather, I think it's the other way around.

[supermoody]

Yes, my father does seasonal work also. His anual income is awesome, but he's laid off and on unemployment from the time the ground freezes to the time it thaws. And obviously they do count that in the unemployment rates because it's unemployment lol.

[supermoody]

why should you have to work for something YOU pay into? You pay out of every paycheck into unemployment security, so it's actually YOUR money you get when you apply for it, this being the reason everyone gets so upset when they get denied unemployment benefits. Welfare you should have to work in the office doing things like sanitizing everything someone coming in for benefits touches in the welfare office. I don't care what they have to do, they should be doing it not getting free money.