Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Are you for or against a higher federal minimum wage?

Posted by   + Show Post

Raising the Federal Minimum Wage Is a Bad, Bad Idea

by Jenny Erikson

In last night’s State of the Union address, President Obama proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. He even made some quippy comment about it being easy to remember because it’s 10-10. I’m hyucking at you, speechwriters.

Anyway, that’s a terrible, horrible, rotten, no good, very bad idea. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25; so raising it to $10.10 is quite the substantial increase. I know, $7.25 isn’t really a living wage, yada yada, it’s not fair that people have to make that little amount of money, and so on and so forth.

But you know what’s worse than making $7.25 an hour? Making nothing. What exactly do you think will happen when employers can’t afford to keep around their low-level workers? They’ll let them go, that’s what.

More from The Stir: Our Country’s Big Spending Problem Is Real, No Matter What Democrats Say

My parents are small business owners. I remember one time getting a lesson in real life from my dad, because I had heard in the news that the minimum wage was going up, and being a child and therefore naïve, I thought it was swell. My father, being much older and wiser, told me that because of that mandated raise, he had to let someone go.

He’d had an entry-level employee that he paid minimum wage to keep the factory floor tidied up. He swept and cleaned spills, ran errands, you know, just basic go-fer stuff. It was worth it for the cost of his wages. The guy was happy he had a job, coworkers were happy for the help, everybody was happy with the situation.

Small businesses generally run on a very tight budget. So when the government stepped in and decided that my dad wasn’t paying that guy enough, he didn’t have the financial wiggle room to pay him more. The employee said he didn’t care, he’d keep working for the lower wage, but being an upstanding citizen, my dad wouldn’t employ him illegally.

This happens a lot. And then these entry-level workers can’t find work, because the jobs aren’t there. So they go on welfare. Now business owners have even less money to hire new employees, because in addition to paying the people that do work for them, they’re now paying higher taxes to pay the people that don’t work for them.

Work is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Most everybody starts at the bottom. If you don’t want to make $7.25 for the rest of your life, then figure out how to get promoted. Take classes, acquire new skills, do the best darn job you can at what you do and ask for more responsibility.

That’s how you climb out of poverty. Not by raising the federal minimum wage.

Are you for or against a higher federal minimum wage?

by on Jan. 30, 2014 at 9:11 AM
Replies (161-168):
furbabymum
by Gold Member on Jan. 31, 2014 at 3:25 PM
1 mom liked this

 I dont even know why I vote. The only people that get elected are the ones that put up the most/biggest signs. Sheeple here I tell ya.

Quoting yourspecialkid:

 

Quoting furbabymum:

 You been paying attention to the Cindy Hill debacle? Sometimes I lose faith in our state's intelligence.

Quoting yourspecialkid:

 

Quoting Della529:

Does the author understand what he really said?

Does the author understand that most states mandate a higher minumum wage than the federal?

When she figures it out, get back to me.

 

I am amazed by how many people don't really know what wages are actually are and what are actually being paid.

Here in Wyoming we have a legislator that has put forth a bill to raise the minimum wage to more than $9 an hour.  He was actually on tv railing about people only making $5.25 an hour.  Wyoming of course recognizes the federal minimum wage as the minimum...they just haven't bothered to change the state amount on paper.  Most employers pay more than the fed min already...even McDonald's and Walmart.  Honestly, I was embarrassed for him.

 

 

 

Not really.  It was already underway when we moved here and I just never took the time to catch up.  It didn't take long for us to realize this district doesn't meet our standards so we are homeschooling.

The whole thing seems kind of embarrassing though. 

 

turtle68
by Mahinaarangi on Jan. 31, 2014 at 6:59 PM

must of missed that memo.

We have our wages reviewed yearly by a government body (fair work)...it goes up or stays the same depending on inflation and other factors.

Could be a period thing...adjustment time.  But it has never changed work / labour / skills vs no skills job positions.

Employers....pay to their conditions.  We have three main employee's full time, part- time and casual.

Lots of room to wiggle when you can employ casual and parttime.  Its no cheap way around it though...if you employ a casual worker...sure there are no benefits to pay out in the long run, but in the short term that get more per hour.

Skilled vs not skilled is moot when the majority of work is labouring...a factory worker that has just been employed does not need that much training to get to the skill level of one who is doing the same job for 10 years.  Picking up a can and placing it in a box is not that difficult.

retail and hospitality is basically the same.  Careers and jobs where you can move up are paid accordingly so beginners are not going to be paid the same anyway....those higher up are paid more.

our adult minimum wage is different to a teens minimum wage.  An adult 20+ minimum wage is 16+ an hour.  A 15yo is 6+ an hour, 18yo- 11+.  The poor can still earn a living and they are more employable than a teenager in the biggest employable industry for non skilled workers and that isnt fast food.  A teenager living at home attending school can and will be only looking for parttime work.

Quoting LindaClement:

Because it's not a straight line: raise minimum wages, people get paid more.

The first thing that happens is that the whole 'costs more per hour' means employers have less MARGIN to be able to tolerate learning curves, moderate incompetence and the lowest end of 'barely employable.'

So, the first thing to go are the 'lots of hours for not-skilled labour'... they want people to come trained 'cause they can't afford to train them AND pay them that much. 

They cut the hours of the lowest levels and add those jobs to the people who have experience and proven ability.

Net effect: fewer hours immediately for the least-employable people.

Second, a huge proportion of people who earn minimum wage are teens who live at home, doing that 'getting experience' thing before they need to, say, live on it. They don't need to be 'lifted out of poverty' because they're not in it.

By raising the wages for all employers, all it does is limit the number of jobs available for the really poor.

Well, not quite all: the other thing it does is add to the cost of everything from toilet paper to a burger and fries... so, if you think the answer to poverty is increasing prices by a slightly wider margin than wages will be raised, I invite you to do the math.

Quoting turtle68:


Quoting LindaClement:

All the economic research I've read on the subject concludes the same way: raising minimum wages hurts the people it's supposed to be helping.

how?



AtiFreeFalls
by Silver Member on Jan. 31, 2014 at 7:08 PM

 I'm, like, 5 inches short of being a socialist and I am unsure about this.  How does raising wages NOT increase costs?  Unless you are also restricting costs or holding corporate heads accountable for their financial decisions? 

I'm serious, I want someone to explain this to me.

AuntieL333
by Member on Feb. 1, 2014 at 5:25 AM

Absolutely for raising the minimum wage. No one can live an minimum wage today. I lve listening to people making 6 and 7 figures go on about how horrible it would be if folks could actually afford to have and raise a family without being in poverty. I'd love to watch those in congress who are fighting this try and live on minimum wage for a couple months.

ReginaStar
by Gold Member on Feb. 1, 2014 at 8:53 AM

For. There is no excuse at all not to have to pay living wages. I actually don't think $10.10 is high enough. People complain so much about welfare then they won't to do nothing to get ppl off it. The higher the min. wage the more ppl who will not be eligible. IMO it's the best and most effective way to get ppl off. 

Some ppl mentioned teens as if they are not worthy of higher wages simply based on their age. Really? Some of these teens are working to provide for their families. Their own children, or their brothers, sisters, and parents. And for the ones that are just working for themselves. Why does their age make them unworthy of a higher income? You know what's better about kids having money? They tend to spend it. They don't throw it in savings account. They literally put that money back into the economy. That is a good thing. 

ReginaStar
by Gold Member on Feb. 1, 2014 at 9:02 AM

SMH It is complete and utter BS to suggest that most ppl making less than $10.10 are teens. Where I am from, Most ppl working in retail make less than that. I can assure you most ppl I come in contact with each day at walmart, dollar general, gas station, clothing stores, restaurants, etc.. ARE NOT teenagers. I even know ppl working in warehouses, and manufacturing companies making less than that. 





 Jaliyah  My video here

LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Feb. 2, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Your company's profit margin is so wide, the basic operating costs on any line of the budget can go up 10-15% and it won't make any difference to anything?

Nice.

Few small and medium-sized businesses have that kind of profit. They just cut hours, or increase prices.

Increased wages have been the cause of a number of things: outsourcing knowledge workers, offshore bidding, offshore manufacturing and the death of robust industries like the postal service, rail, textiles, shipbuilding and steel ...

Quoting turtle68:

must of missed that memo.

We have our wages reviewed yearly by a government body (fair work)...it goes up or stays the same depending on inflation and other factors.

Could be a period thing...adjustment time.  But it has never changed work / labour / skills vs no skills job positions.

Employers....pay to their conditions.  We have three main employee's full time, part- time and casual.

Lots of room to wiggle when you can employ casual and parttime.  Its no cheap way around it though...if you employ a casual worker...sure there are no benefits to pay out in the long run, but in the short term that get more per hour.

Skilled vs not skilled is moot when the majority of work is labouring...a factory worker that has just been employed does not need that much training to get to the skill level of one who is doing the same job for 10 years.  Picking up a can and placing it in a box is not that difficult.

retail and hospitality is basically the same.  Careers and jobs where you can move up are paid accordingly so beginners are not going to be paid the same anyway....those higher up are paid more.

our adult minimum wage is different to a teens minimum wage.  An adult 20+ minimum wage is 16+ an hour.  A 15yo is 6+ an hour, 18yo- 11+.  The poor can still earn a living and they are more employable than a teenager in the biggest employable industry for non skilled workers and that isnt fast food.  A teenager living at home attending school can and will be only looking for parttime work.

Quoting LindaClement:

Because it's not a straight line: raise minimum wages, people get paid more.

The first thing that happens is that the whole 'costs more per hour' means employers have less MARGIN to be able to tolerate learning curves, moderate incompetence and the lowest end of 'barely employable.'

So, the first thing to go are the 'lots of hours for not-skilled labour'... they want people to come trained 'cause they can't afford to train them AND pay them that much. 

They cut the hours of the lowest levels and add those jobs to the people who have experience and proven ability.

Net effect: fewer hours immediately for the least-employable people.

Second, a huge proportion of people who earn minimum wage are teens who live at home, doing that 'getting experience' thing before they need to, say, live on it. They don't need to be 'lifted out of poverty' because they're not in it.

By raising the wages for all employers, all it does is limit the number of jobs available for the really poor.

Well, not quite all: the other thing it does is add to the cost of everything from toilet paper to a burger and fries... so, if you think the answer to poverty is increasing prices by a slightly wider margin than wages will be raised, I invite you to do the math.

Quoting turtle68:


Quoting LindaClement:

All the economic research I've read on the subject concludes the same way: raising minimum wages hurts the people it's supposed to be helping.

how?




SpiritBear76
by on Feb. 4, 2014 at 12:23 AM

I hate to break it to ya there tanyainmizzou, but it is incredulous to think that the US doesn't have to follow Basel regulations.  You really should do your homework before telling someone else they don't know what they're talking about.  In December of 2011 the Federal Reserve stated that the US would implement "substantially" the Basel III rules and regulations.

As for your ascertaintion that the US can't be kept out of global markets, again, I would suggest you doing some research.  Non compliance with Basel III requirements would keep the US out of the global marketplace, which is why the Federal Reserve Board of Governors actually imposed significantly tougher regulations then those found in the original Basel III documents. 

JTnJT may not have spelled Basel III correctly, but she is spot on with a lot of what she says.   As more and more countries become Basel III compliant, their currency values will reflect their countries assets, which will mean prices will have to change along with the value of the currencies.  Prices on goods are based on their performance in their markets.  You don't have to be an economist to understand that if the raw goods needed (ie, the assets used to back currencies) then the prices of those goods are going to reflect those market changes.  It's economics 101, it's so simple. 

Also, on a last note, if the US doesn't have to become Basel III compliant, than I'd like you to explain to my DH, as the controlling shareholder of a corporation that holds more than $50 million in assets, why over the course of the past 18 months his corporation has had to shell out nearly 2million so that the employee's could attend training seminars held through the Federal Reserve on the compliance standards of Basel III implementation?  I'm sure he'd love to hear your response! 

Quoting tanyainmizzou: It is BASEL and yeah, they are going to keep America out of the market. Please.

If you are going to lecture me, know how to spell what you are lecturing about, understand the global economy isn't keeping America out of it if they don't follow it, and it isn't fully happening here.

So prices on things aren't dropping. Talk with people at the World Bank and see if America is going to be kept out of the global market.

Quoting JTnJT:

 And...what exactly did I spell wrong?  Also,  becoming BASAL III compliant is not an option, at least not if we want to remain in the global market.  BASAL III isn't a US thing, it's a global thing, as implemented through the IMF in partnership with the WTO and BIS.  Again, it really isn't a difficult task to actually educate yourself.  With that said, I think you're just an idiot, and I'm done wasting my time on you!  Good bye!


Quoting tanyainmizzou: If you are going to pretend to lecture me, spell it correctly. And know it isn't law, it is voluntary and the US hasn't ordered all banks to have the liquidity it suggests.

It isn't going to lower prices sweetheart.

Quoting JTnJT:  You obviously did not read what I wrote.  I did not say that the raising of the minimum wage was going to be the turning point for prices coming down.  
I stated that on a global scale they are implementing BASAL III, which will do away with Fiat Currencies.  Which means each individual Government will no longer be the ones placing value on their own currencies (such as the US has been doing for years!) 
By getting past the Fiat Currencies this IS going to level the playing field on a global scale.   It is entirely likely that for a time the prices will rise as each individual market gains balance with-in the global financial markets...but this rise will only be temporary.   Ultimately, the goal is for the entire global markets to gain equality....you can't have equality with-in the markets at staggering price points...it simply can't work.   Which is why currency values will eventually be set based on that particular countries assets...not just Gold and Silver, but also oil, timber, cotton, or anything else of "value" that a country has to offer to the rest of the world.  (Again, a part of BASAL III)
Ask your supposed economists if they've ever heard of the 80 year plan?   Or you could even ask your local bank whether they are in the process of becoming BASAL III compliant or not.  It really isn't such a difficult task to actually inform and educate yourself.   
 
Quoting tanyainmizzou: YeahI couldn't possibly know any economists or people that work for the WB with a totally different view.Raising our minimum wage to 10.10 isn't going to lower prices. Not matter what you say about me doing my research. I will stick with my conversations with economists.
Quoting JTnJT:
 I wouldn't know why you'd be laughing, instead of actually looking up the information (sorry but when there is information flying around every where that backs up what I've said, not reaching out to look at it is....well....kind of ignorant!)....but that is OK....you go ahead and laugh....because you know what....when all of this takes place over the next 4 years....I'm going to be laughing all the way to the bank!  
Quoting tanyainmizzou: Oh goodness me. Thank you for the laugh.
Quoting JTnJT:
 No...actually they will come down.  Don't be fooled into thinking these things come about by happenstance.   There have been many things taking place over the past several years in the banking and financial sectors, to assure that this is the case.
Christine Legarde, and Ban Ki Moon both gave speeches on the matter just this past weekend.   There are measures being taken to "level the playing field" on a GLOBAL scale, the likes of which has NEVER been seen before, and likely will never be seen again. 
Why else do you REALLY think China is trying to buy up all the gold they can get their hands on, while other nations such as Iraq are saying..."Hey, we're sitting on mountains of gold.  You want some?  Here it is!"  This is also the reasoning behind such initiatives as the BASAL III.  Nations across the globe are working together, to build a strong global economy.   I've spent the better part of the past 10 years researching, listening and taking notes....and YES  we are at the doorstep of a global change never before seen in the history of man! 
You can find any of the information I have listed by visiting the websites for the IMF, the BIS,  and the WTO, just to name a few.
 
Quoting tanyainmizzou: So prices are magically going to stay the same?
Quoting JTnJT:
 I am totally for a higher minimum wage.  Yes, some employers may initially have to let some of their workers go as the result of having to pay higher wages.  However, if more people have more money to spend and are not simply living hand to mouth every week, more people will spend money on "unnecessary" items....meaning, it will in turn actually make these companies more money in the long run....not take money from them.  It is a simple matter of economics and mathematics....it really isn't as difficult as the powers that be would like to brainwash so many into believing.   We can't spend money if we don't have money, in turn companies can't make money if we're not out there spending it....it's that simple.
Now, $10.10 does not even come close to bringing anyone up and out of poverty.   At $10.10/hour on a 40 hour week that would mean a person would gross $404.00, this is before taxes....on average the working American pays 12 to 18% of their gross wages in taxes....taking the lower percentage that brings a persons net pay to about $356. (give or take a few cents)  for a total monthly net income of approximately $1500.   Now consider that the average household pays no less than $700 per month for rent or mortgage payments, plus utilities which for our purposes here we will use a nice round figure of $200 for electric, gas, water, sewer, trash removal and the like.   So, now the average American is looking at roughly $600 remaining....and we haven't even covered food, clothing, vehicle and/or rental/home insurance, fuel for vehicles, or the cost of using public transportation,  or any of the other myriad of expenses that most people have to worry about on a monthly basis.   
Perhaps it is just me, but for a nation that is supposedly all about human rights and equality, it would seem to me that we would realize that having a roof over one's head, food in their bellies and clothes on their backs...these are all HUMAN RIGHTS.  If a person can not meet these rights due to a social economic policy that lines the pockets of those who already have more than they know what to do with, than there is in my mind no question that those policies need to change.
Just my two cents!
 
 
 

 

 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)