Businesses brace for serious cuts for $15 minimum wage

[TSA]

As talk builds on Capitol Hill over hiking the federal minimum wage, one city in Washington state is poised to set the highest rate in the nation.

On Jan. 1, an estimated 1,600 hotel and transportation workers in SeaTac, Wash., will see their pay jump to $15 an hour, a 60 percent increase from the state's $9.32 minimum wage.

While many workers look forward to the higher pay, employers are looking for ways to absorb the big increase in labor costs. Some plan on eliminating jobs.

"We're going to be looking at making some serious cuts," said Cedarbrook Lodge General Manager Scott Ostrander. "We're going to be looking at reducing employee hours, reducing benefits and eliminating some positions."

That's in the short term. Eventually, those jobs and more are expected to return as the Cedarbrook Lodge looks to build an addition to the hotel. The plan is to increase revenue to offset the higher labor costs.

But not every employer is being so ambitious. One has told a trade group it is going to close one of its two restaurants, eliminating 200 jobs.

The plan has also caused Han Kim -- who runs Hotel Concepts, a company that owns and manages 11 hotels in Washington state -- to shelve plans to build a hotel in SeaTac. The company already has three hotels in SeaTac, and Kim and a business partner were looking to build a fourth on land they own.

"Uncertainty is bad for business, and right now we're right in that area so we're just putting everything on hold," Kim said.

Opponents of the $15 minimum wage did score a legal victory late last week when a King County, Wash., judge ruled that it does not apply to any of the workers at the SeaTac airport. Superior Court Judge Andrea Darvas ruled only the Port of Seattle can set wage and other work rules at the airport. That eliminates 4,700 workers from the successful ballot initiative.

Backers of the $15 minimum wage vow to appeal the ruling up the state Supreme Court. One of the biggest supporters is Kshama Sawant, a socialist who also won her election to the Seattle City Council. She plans on making Seattle the next city to have a $15 minimum wage.

"There may be a few jobs lost here and there, but the fact is, if we don't fight for this, then the race to the bottom will continue," Sawant said.

Sawant is skeptical that the higher minimum wage will lead to mass layoffs. But the American Car Rental Association estimates 5 percent of low-wage jobs will be cut; and another 5-10 percent of those workers will be replaced by more experienced workers.

The owner of Dollar Rental Cars told Fox News she'll outsource some functions, change schedules and cut some staff in response to the new policy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/30/highest-in-nation-15-minimum-wage-stirs-concern-from-local-businesses/

[Th'Pusher]

That story really plays on your emotions doesn't it? The part about the socialist city counsel woman got you particularly fired up didn't it?

[Th'Pusher]

Compare and contrast the article in the OP with the below. What does the OP think is the difference between the two?


Raising the Minimum Wage Isn't Just Good Politics. It's Good Economics, Too.




The minimum-wage debate follows a predictable pattern any time it flares up in the media: Liberals say it’s a moral outrage that people can toil away at full-time jobs and still live in poverty. They nod at the overwhelming public support for raising the minimum wage as a way to shame reluctant politicians. Conservatives, for their part, insist that all the minimum-wage talk is just self-defeating do-gooder-ism: great for making Upper-West-Siders feel righteous, a lot less so for helping the people they claim to care about. In the real world, conservatives argue, raising the minimum wage costs jobs that the poor and young desperately need. At which point liberals mumble defensively and retreat to their original talking points, if they respond at all.


Monday’s New York Times piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/us/politics/democrats-turn-to-minimum-wage-as-2014-strategy.html?hp&pagewanted=print) on the renewed push for a minimum-wage increase is a handy case in point. The writers of the story—a nice, scoop-filled piece of reporting—talk about the issue’s potential to split Republican elites from the party’s voters, in classic wedge fashion. Intriguingly, they suggest it could goose turnout among young people and minorities, two Democratic-leaning groups that often vanish during midterm elections. And, of course, the story includes a de rigueur warning of doom and destruction from House Speaker John Boehner--“Why would we want to make it harder for small employers to hire people?”—which goes largely unanswered by anyone on the left.


Well, that’s no good. Yes, the politics of the issue sufficiently favor Democrats that they can ignore the GOP's economic argument—Republicans may resist, but that will only help Democrats on Election Day. But as White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer correctly points out to the Times, the hope isn’t just to retain a few Senate seats. It’s to improve people’s lives.


If they’re serious about doing that, Democrats can’t cede the intellectual fight. They have to expose the House GOP position for what it is—water-carrying for business, particularly the fast-food restaurateurs (http://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/News/Restaurateurs-tell-Senate-minimum-wage-hike-will-h) who are leading employers (http://www.restaurant.org/Downloads/PDFs/News-Research/20131112_Min_Wage_Issue_Brief) of minimum-wage workers and donate overwhelmingly (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=G2900) to the GOP. Until that happens, Republicans will be able to hold out with a patina of respectability among mainstream journalists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-a-better-way-to-help-working-class/2013/02/18/6e3e6538-7a02-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html) and commentators, who largely accept the GOP's job-killing claims.


When they engage at all on the job-market consequences of boosting the minimum wage, Democrats frequently cite a study (http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf) by economists David Card and Alan Krueger1 (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116070/raising-minimum-wage-isnt-just-good-politics-its-good-economics#footnote-1) from 1994, which looked at a (then) recent increase in New Jersey. After surveying over 400 similar restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Card and Krueger found that the hike had no effect on jobs, contra the Cassandra-like freak-out from fast-food proprietors.


The paper was regarded as ground-breaking and, for its troubles, immediately got labeled “controversial” by the mainstream media thanks in part to persistent grumbling on the right. But in fact what made the paper so innovative wasn’t the conclusion per se, which other studies had arrived at. (For that matter, even when you tallied together all the studies that found a negative impact on employment, the effect that was very small. Recent studies have affirmed (http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf) this.) What made it innovative was the methodology, which so cleanly tested the proposition. By comparing restaurants in New Jersey with restaurants just across the Delaware River in Pennsylvania, Card and Krueger were basically able to compare like with like, with the exception of the minimum wage law whose effects they sought to isolate.2 (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116070/raising-minimum-wage-isnt-just-good-politics-its-good-economics#footnote-2) It was about as close to a laboratory experiment as you get in economics (other than, uh, these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_economics)).


Even more relevant to the current discussion, however, was the rationale for why moderately raising the minimum wage wouldn’t kill jobs, as most of us might expect. After all, it’s one thing to look at a bunch of businesses and notice that they’re not cutting back. But unless there’s a compelling explanation for why our intuition on this is wrong, it’s hard to consider the study definitive. Even a study as well-designed as Card and Krueger’s could be flukish, or corrupted by hidden forces that aren’t evident to the authors or readers. Who knows, maybe McDonald’s managers in New Jersey are just unusually altruistic (though having patronized several fine Garden State dining establishments, I consider this to be extremely unlikely).


The bottom line is that backing the numbers with sound logical arguments is an important insurance policy against flukish-ness, and Card and Krueger identify a few. The first is that employers simply pass along the higher wages to customers rather cutting back on workers. And because the cost-increase tends to be small, and because customers accept the fairness of raising the minimum wage, they don’t buy fewer hamburgers or pizzas than before. As it happens, Card and Krueger found solid evidence that this was going on, as have many others (http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf).


Card and Krueger then nodded at a second, more interesting rationale, albeit one they buried deep in their paper. The idea is roughly as follows: A lot of companies have bargaining power when they hire employees—economists call these companies “monopsonists.” This means that, instead of hiring a burger-flipper at some going market rate (say, $10 per hour), they can throw their weight around and pay $9 or $8 per hour.


But here's the rub: Even an employer with a lot of weight to throw around will eventually run out of people who will accept $8 or $9. In order to add more workers at that point, he or she will have to woo them with a higher salary. More to the point, when the business owners get beyond that low-wage threshold and offer $10 an hour, they not only have to pay $10 for each new employee. They’ve got to bump up all their existing workers to $10 an hour, too. This turns out to be a bad deal for the owners. And so instead of hiring that $10-employee, they hire fewer employees than would be ideal so they can keep paying everyone $8 or $9.


What does this have to do with the minimum wage? Well, if you’re purposely scrimping on employees so that you don’t have to raise everyone’s wages to $10, and the government says you have to pay workers $10 whether you hire more people or not, then you’re probably going to hire more people. The only reason you weren’t was to keep wages down, and that’s no longer an option.


Before any conservative starts hyperventilating, it’s worth pointing out that this isn’t true of all industries, or even all employers in industries where it regularly happens. (In fact, Card and Krueger were skeptical of this story in their New Jersey study, before warming to a version of it in a subsequent book (http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Measurement-David-Card/dp/0691048231/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388464897&sr=1-1&keywords=david+card+alan+krueger).) But this does happen a fair amount, and often in very pronounced (http://www.nber.org/papers/w3031.pdf?new_window=1) ways.3 (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116070/raising-minimum-wage-isnt-just-good-politics-its-good-economics#footnote-3) And the phenomenon goes a long way (http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf)toward explaining why minimum wage laws frequently have so little net effect on jobs: If, in response to a minimum wage hike, some employers add a few workers while others cut back a bit, then it makes sense that the overall effect might hover around zero.


None of which is to say I expect the average Democratic pol to start lecturing minimum-wage denialists about monopsony employers any time soon. But if enough of us in the trenches band together and retake the intellectual high-ground, victory is likely to come a lot sooner.


I say this because even if the political resonance of the minimum wage issue helps Democrats wildly exceed expectations in 2014, they’re unlikely to retake the House. And, unfortunately, House Republicans have repeatedly showed they can hold out against public opinion for long stretches of time. What even they can’t do, however, is hold out against both public opinion and the received Beltway wisdom, as last fall’s shutdown fight demonstrated. The way to force Republicans to cave when public opinion won’t do the trick is to deprive them of any pretension to seriousness.


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116070/raising-minimum-wage-isnt-just-good-politics-its-good-economics

[Wild Cobra]

Well, when business moves out from the area, we will know who to blame...

[boutons_deux]

repug/(dirt poor)tea bagger/VRWC strategy: screw the working poor because they deserve to be screwed with shitty jobs and shitty wages.

[baseline bum]

Hate to agree with WC, but that's a pretty huge minimum wage. That study Th'Pusher's article is referring to couldn't have been conditioning on a rise of $5.68 per hour.

[boutons_deux]

Hate to agree with WC, but that's a pretty huge minimum wage. That study Th'Pusher's article is referring to couldn't have been conditioning on a rise of $5.68 per hour.

Should keep a lot of them out your taxpayers' pockets

[TSA]

Compare and contrast the article in the OP with the below. What does the OP think is the difference between the two?



http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116070/raising-minimum-wage-isnt-just-good-politics-its-good-economics

My OP is talking about the effects of a 60% wage increase, your OP talks about a study of the effects of a less than 20% wage increase (study is flawed by the way as they only looked at fast food chains which can handle labor rate increases and failed to account for much smaller food businesses)

Your OP is a disaster to try and read on a phone as well so there's that failure on your part as well.

[TSA]

Well, when business moves out from the area, we will know who to blame...
It'll be an interesting thing to watch on a small scale, I'm curious to see what happens.

[TSA]

You know are country is fucked when people want doctors to take a pay cut and burger flippers to get a raise.



*our

Thanks phone.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

That much of a minimum wage increase will fail spectacularly at the local level. If the entire country had the same minimum wage increase it wouldn't kill any interstate commerce since any inflation would happen nationwide. The town doing this in Washington won't be able to produce any goods that can be sold at a competitive price since the town 50 miles down the road can produce the good cheaper.

Great opportunity for Conservatives to convince the country we need a low minimum wage, as usual Dems taking the bait per par.

[boutons_deux]

You know are country is fucked when people want doctors to take a pay cut and burger flippers to get a raise.


doctors are supreme ripoff extortionists, while minimum wagers are ripped off victims, with taxpayers subsidizing moocher/wellfare-queen employers that pay minimum wages.

[Th'Pusher]

My OP is talking about the effects of a 60% wage increase, your OP talks about a study of the effects of a less than 20% wage increase (study is flawed by the way as they only looked at fast food chains which can handle labor rate increases and failed to account for much smaller food businesses)

Your OP is a disaster to try and read on a phone as well so there's that failure on your part as well.

Your op is drivel and targeted at hyper emotional rabble like you. BB made a good point based on the facts in the article I pasted. You posted garbage that made you feel good. You're too stupid to see the difference.

[TSA]

Your op is drivel and targeted at hyper emotional rabble like you. BB made a good point based on the facts in the article I pasted. You posted garbage that made you feel good. You're too stupid to see the difference.

Were you to stupid to read the study your article quotes from? You can't seriously be trying to compare a 20% increase to a 60% increase.

What was the point of posting the study?

[ChumpDumper]

That much of a minimum wage increase will fail spectacularly at the local level. If the entire country had the same minimum wage increase it wouldn't kill any interstate commerce since any inflation would happen nationwide. The town doing this in Washington won't be able to produce any goods that can be sold at a competitive price since the town 50 miles down the road can produce the good cheaper.What goods does a town built around an airport produce?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

What goods does a town built around an airport produce?

No idea. Can't say I know anything about the town. I hope it works and it leads to increases elsewhere, I just don't think it will.

[Th'Pusher]

Were you to stupid to read the study your article quotes from? You can't seriously be trying to compare a 20% increase to a 60% increase.

What was the point of posting the study?

The point was to post an article based on facts and science as opposed to the op which was a couple of businessmen speculating on how they might fire some people...

[ChumpDumper]

No idea. Can't say I know anything about the town. I hope it works and it leads to increases elsewhere, I just don't think it will.It's interesting since there are probably a lot of market distortions there already due to the presence of the airport, I can't see businesses up and moving as location is everything. Stuff closer to the airport is always more expensive anyway with the exception of strip clubs.

[TSA]

The point was to post an article based on facts and science as opposed to the op which was a couple of businessmen speculating on how they might fire some people...

Here's a fact.

20% =/= 60%

[SnakeBoy]

The point was to post an article based on facts and science as opposed to the op which was a couple of businessmen speculating on how they might fire some people...

Help me out...what are the facts and science in the article you posted? I'm not seeing them.

[Th'Pusher]

Help me out...what are the facts and science in the article you posted? I'm not seeing them.

You're joking right? There are multiple studies, all including facts, quoted and linked in the article.

[Th'Pusher]

Here's a fact.

20% =/= 60%

Stop glomming on to bb's point. Your op was shit garbage and really showed you to be the emo pofo poster you are.

[TSA]

I posted the article because I'd thought it'd be interesting to see how it works out. As you can see I made no comments either positive or negative. You're the one that stormed in here with a bone to pick, ironically you call me the emotional one.

I read your study, found it interesting and pointed out a flaw in that they only studied chain restaurants. I also pointed out the difference of the percentages in wage increases, which you continue to ignore.

Happy new year Pusher, I hope when we come back next year you will stop reacting so emotionally towards me so we can have better discussions. :toast

[Th'Pusher]

I posted the article because I'd thought it'd be interesting to see how it works out. As you can see I made no comments either positive or negative. You're the one that stormed in here with a bone to pick, ironically you call me the emotional one.

I read your study, found it interesting and pointed out a flaw in that they only studied chain restaurants. I also pointed out the difference of the percentages in wage increases, which you continue to ignore.

Happy new year Pusher, I hope when we come back next year you will stop reacting so emotionally towards me so we can have better discussions. :toast

Happy new year you hyper emotional gun felating motherfucker :toast

[boutons_deux]

http://nationalmemo.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/LivingWageRGB-2.jpg

[angrydude]

typical lib: Lets outlaw employment contracts. That won't affect employment!

[TDMVPDPOY]

the only way to solve this is to pass the benefits and shit companys pay, defer them to the employee...aka health costs...

[Jacob1983]

Won't raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars just make things significantly more expensive?

[TDMVPDPOY]

Won't raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars just make things significantly more expensive?

thats if you can move twice as much the volume to make up the fixed costs

[boutons_deux]

Won't raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars just make things significantly more expensive?

google "raise minimum wage effect on prices"

in products where the retail labor is a direct input, eg junk food shit, eg, Big Mac would go up $0.68.

or even better:

The Real Change In The Cost Of A Big Mac If McDonald's Workers Were Paid $15 An Hour: Nothing

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

... and that's from Forbes, the quintessential pro-Corporate-American / anti-Human-American class warrior.

But even if the prices did change, the increase would be paid by the employer + consumer, the direct "users" of the labor, and less paid by tax taxpayers subsidizing the employer + consumer, if $15/hour lifted low-wagers off public assistance.

In fact, I would set the minimum wage by that measure: minimum wage must be high enough so a single earner would not need public assistance, and of course indexed to inflation.

[boutons_deux]

One year, in 2006, we looked at Arizona state minimum wage proposal, which was a 30 percent increase in the state minimum wage. At the time, it was $5.15, and it was being proposed to be raised to $6.75. [...] And what we did is we went and we looked to see how much would this cost businesses. We looked at what are the wages of workers at the time, how many hours did they work. We added that all up. We looked at payroll taxes and how much that would go up for employers. [...]What we found is, for the average business in Arizona, that the cost increase would be less than 0.1 percent. And so if you want to think about it in real concrete terms, businesses, by raising their prices by less than 0.1 percent, would be able to cover all the costs of a minimum-wage increase of a size of 30 percent.

During my Senate campaign, I ate a number 11 at McDonald's many, many times a week, and I know the price on that one, $7.19. According to the data on the analysis of what would happen if we raised the minimum wage to $10.10 over three years, the price increase on that item would be about $0.04. So instead of being $7.19, it would be $7.23. Are you telling me that's unsustainable?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/13/1201068/-This-week-in-the-War-on-Workers-Raising-the-minimum-wage-would-increase-prices-by-how-much

[boutons_deux]

Nearly One And A Half Million Workers Will Get A Raise On New Year’s Day (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/28/3105581/minimum-wage-raise-year/)

Come January 1, over 1.4 million people (http://nelp.3cdn.net/c4bb17460e9e362b32_ljm6b5g6x.pdf) — 1,441,000 to be exact — will get a raise thanks to increasing minimum wages in 13 states, according to an analysis by the National Employment Law Project (NELP).

Four states — Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island — passed increases in their minimum wages this year that take effect at the beginning of 2014. The other nine — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington — will see an increase thanks to state laws that require automatic annual raises tied to the cost of living. California also passed a higher wage (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/09/26/2684641/california-governor-signs-law-raising-minimum-wage-to-10-per-hour/) of $10 an hour that will take effect later in the year.

At the city level, workers in the small Washington state town of SeaTac will get a $15 wage (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/10/3044441/seatac-minimum-wage-workers/)after a ballot initiative passed in November, and San Francisco and San Jose will both see increases on January 1 thanks to required automatic adjustments indexed to inflation, raising their wages to $10.79 and $10.15, respectively. Those in Washington, D.C. are likely to get one of $11.50 (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/17/3078611/minimum-wage-final-vote/) next year as well.

NELP also estimates that more than 1.1 million workers who make just above the minimum will be indirectly impacted by the 13 states’ higher wages as pay scales are revised upward. The increased wages for both those making minimum wage and those just above it will come to nearly a billion dollars, or $978 million. The extra spending that will generate will boost GDP by nearly $620 million.

According to NELP, 21 states will have minimum wages higher than the federal level of $7.25 as of January 1. Higher wages could be on their way across the country, as proposals have been introduced in Delaware (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/13/3059781/delaware-minimum-wage/), Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/11/20/2972421/massachusetts-minimum-wage/), Minnesota, and New Hampshire. Organizers are also trying to get the issue in front of voters with ballot initiatives in Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Washington, D.C.
This flurry of action comes amid stalled efforts at the federal level to boost wages for all of the country’s workers.

Democrats introduced a bill to raise the national minimum wage to $10.10 an hour (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03/05/1673141/harkin-miller-minimum-wage/) in March, a level that is now backed (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/11/08/2914901/obama-10-minimum-wage/) by President Obama, but House Republicans unanimously voted it down (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03/15/1729201/republicans-reject-minimum-wage/) despite many of them supporting increases (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/15/1601831/65-republicans-supported-increasing-the-minimum-wage-when-bush-was-president/) under President George W. Bush.

A $10.10 wage would put it back in line with increasing inflation since the 1960s, but to keep pace with increasing worker productivity it would have to be more than $20 an hour (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/01/3007011/minimum-wage-percent-leave-workers/).

A $10.10 wage would also lift nearly 6 million people (http://rocunited.org/files/2013/06/ROC_racialjustice_revfinal1.pdf) out of poverty while boosting GDP by $22.1 billion (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/19/3091141/minimum-wage-gdp-jobs/) and supporting the creation of about 85,000 new jobs.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/28/3105581/minimum-wage-raise-year/

[boutons_deux]

Most Americans for Raising Minimum Wage


http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/otcgbmcflu2bbjh0auq-mq.png

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/0rf21wd8ie-_jlc9nfg_rg.png



http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/-cdwhleix0qw26g2t39vfw.png

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165794/americans-raising-minimum-wage.aspx

[boutons_deux]

And while Dems and some states are trying unfuck minimum wagers, Repugs are fucking over the military

Younger military veterans are angered by budget cuts to their pension benefits


The plan to trim pension increases for working-age military retirees such as Preston is by far the most controversial provision in a bipartisan budget deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-pass-bipartisan-budget-agreement/2013/12/18/54fd3a1a-6807-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html)approved by Congress and signed last week (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-signs-bipartisan-budget-deal-easing-cuts/2013/12/26/8ac5ce12-6e71-11e3-a5d0-6f31cd74f760_story.html)by President Obama.

The cut is small — a one-percentage-point reduction in the annual cost-of-living increase — but it has provoked outrage among veterans, some of whom argue that the country is reneging on a solemn pact. And even though lawmakers, especially in the GOP, fulminate about the need to cut the cost of federal health and retirement benefits, many have vowed to roll the cut back when Congress returns to work next week.


The authors of the budget deal, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/paul-ryan-r-wis/gIQAUWiV9O_topic.html) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/patty-murray-d-wash/gIQARXaU9O_topic.html), have agreed to amend the provision to exempt disabled retirees and survivors of those killed in action, eliminating roughly 10 percent of the $6 billion in savings projected over the next decade.

But Ryan has resisted efforts to abandon the pension cut entirely, calling it a “modest” adjustment to a particularly generous program — and therefore a more sensible choice than harder decisions that may lie ahead.

“I stand behind the need for reform,” Ryan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/younger-veterans-outraged-by-budget-cuts-to-their-pension-benefits/2013/12/30/c43cbbec-6f02-11e3-b405-7e360f7e9fd2_story.html?hpid=z1

$4B PER YEAR in BigOil tax expenditures, $40B handed to BigOil over the 10 years when Ryan is cutting vets by $6B.

[dbestpro]

Increasing the minimum wage has never really had much effect on wealth redistribution. Raise the rate for everyone, then the cost of everything goes up. It can actually push people off of government assistance, but does not really improve the quality of life as inflation makes the raise moot. The key to economic growth for the poor is through skills development. Better skills will provide better pay. Minimum wage jobs should be looked at a transient positions to a higher skill level. How these skills are achieved can be debated. Also, developing better opportunities for the working poor to create and manage their own business should be part of the solution, as well.

[boutons_deux]

Increasing the minimum wage has never really had much effect on wealth redistribution. Raise the rate for everyone, then the cost of everything goes up. It can actually push people off of government assistance, but does not really improve the quality of life as inflation makes the raise moot. The key to economic growth for the poor is through skills development. Better skills will provide better pay. Minimum wage jobs should be looked at a transient positions to a higher skill level. How these skills are achieved can be debated. Also, developing better opportunities for the working poor to create and manage their own business should be part of the solution, as well.

bullshit

[angrydude]

Just give everyone a living stipend of 100,000/year and nobody will ever have to work.

[BradLohaus]

I wonder if letting in 10s of millions of low skilled immigrants from 3rd world countries has had any effect on the wages of low skill jobs. You know, that whole supply and demand thing.

[boutons_deux]

I wonder if letting in 10s of millions of low skilled immigrants from 3rd world countries has had any effect on the wages of low skill jobs. You know, that whole supply and demand thing.

there have been stores of farmers saying they cannot get Americans to do seasonal ag work, low-level hotel staff after xenophobes/racists in their states scared away the illegals. iow, there is no supply of American workers to meet the ag work demand.

[BradLohaus]

Funny, I thought the point of this thread was to pay American workers more.

[boutons_deux]

Funny, I thought the point of this thread was to pay American workers more.

The point of TSA's post was the typical "fuck poor people, don't raise the minimum wage (abolish it if possible, some Repugs say, and put children to work)".

Farmers would rather let their crops rot in the fields, on the trees, sell their water to Coca Cola, rather than pay $15/hour + benefits.

[BradLohaus]

If you cut off immigration the farmers would have to pay higher wages for human-American workers, or they wouldn't have any workers.

[CosmicCowboy]

It will ultimately balance out. The low skill/low wage employees will eventually get fired/be unemployed as higher motivated and skilled workers from other unregulated parts of the economy take those jobs and produce more output with fewer hours.

[boutons_deux]

It will ultimately balance out. The low skill/low wage employees will eventually get fired/be unemployed as higher motivated and skilled workers from other unregulated parts of the economy take those jobs and produce more output with fewer hours.

manual labor is manual labor. paying more for manual labor doesn't get more productive labor. mechanization is the best way to harvest fruit, veg, nuts.

[CosmicCowboy]

manual labor is manual labor. paying more for manual labor doesn't get more productive labor. mechanization is the best way to harvest fruit, veg, nuts.

That just shows how little you know about the real world. All workers are not equal.

[boutons_deux]

That just shows how little you know about the real world. All workers are not equal.

Do you really think paying good wages to American citizens as ag workers is going to get really fast tomato picking?

[CosmicCowboy]

Tho OP was specifically about hotel workers in one town in Washington State. and yeah, they can get better quality workers for $15 than they can get at $10. At $15 an hour your hard working construction laborers would consider switching jobs to working for a hotel and the $10 an hour slugs that are working for the hotels now will eventually get replaced by better workers.

[PlayNando]

One year, in 2006, we looked at Arizona state minimum wage proposal, which was a 30 percent increase in the state minimum wage. At the time, it was $5.15, and it was being proposed to be raised to $6.75. [...] And what we did is we went and we looked to see how much would this cost businesses. We looked at what are the wages of workers at the time, how many hours did they work. We added that all up. We looked at payroll taxes and how much that would go up for employers. [...]What we found is, for the average business in Arizona, that the cost increase would be less than 0.1 percent. And so if you want to think about it in real concrete terms, businesses, by raising their prices by less than 0.1 percent, would be able to cover all the costs of a minimum-wage increase of a size of 30 percent.

During my Senate campaign, I ate a number 11 at McDonald's many, many times a week, and I know the price on that one, $7.19. According to the data on the analysis of what would happen if we raised the minimum wage to $10.10 over three years, the price increase on that item would be about $0.04. So instead of being $7.19, it would be $7.23. Are you telling me that's unsustainable?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/13/1201068/-This-week-in-the-War-on-Workers-Raising-the-minimum-wage-would-increase-prices-by-how-much



:lol

What an idiotic, simple-minded, ridiculous analysis.

[boutons_deux]

:lol

What an idiotic, simple-minded, ridiculous analysis.

thanks for the explanation.

[Wild Cobra]

there have been stores of farmers saying they cannot get Americans to do seasonal ag work, low-level hotel staff after xenophobes/racists in their states scared away the illegals. iow, there is no supply of American workers to meet the ag work demand.
Excuses excuses.

Stop the illegal immigrants, and these places will raise wages to the point they can attract employees.

[boutons_deux]

Excuses excuses.

Stop the illegal immigrants, and these places will raise wages to the point they can attract employees.

the farmers are squeezed by the big ag wholesalers and buyers, wages won't be raised. Burger King refused to add one nickel to FL tomato pickers.

[Wild Cobra]

the farmers are squeezed by the big ag wholesalers and buyers, wages won't be raised. Burger King refused to add one nickel to FL tomato pickers.
LOL...

prove it.

[CosmicCowboy]

Excuses excuses.

Stop the illegal immigrants, and these places will raise wages to the point they can attract employees.

Not necessarily. Produce is now a world wide commodity. Grow it somewhere cheap, throw it on a 747 cargo plane and it's in the stores the next day.

[boutons_deux]

LOL...

prove it.

http://consumerist.com/2008/01/17/burger-king-will-not-pay-extra-for-tomatoes-may-buy-them-elsewhere/

BigFood fucks over the ag workers and retail workers with shitty wages.

[Wild Cobra]

Not necessarily. Produce is now a world wide commodity. Grow it somewhere cheap, throw it on a 747 cargo plane and it's in the stores the next day.
True.

I will remind people that this free trade bullshit is just that. Bullshit. We need to undo what was done, and impose reasonable tariffs on items in competition with US products.

[Wild Cobra]

http://consumerist.com/2008/01/17/burger-king-will-not-pay-extra-for-tomatoes-may-buy-them-elsewhere/

BigFood fucks over the ag workers and retail workers with shitty wages.
Where would the other source be? USA or foreign?

[Wild Cobra]

You know what.

I don't care where they buy their tomatoes. They will probably taste better than those in Florida.

[SnakeBoy]

manual labor is manual labor. paying more for manual labor doesn't get more productive labor. mechanization is the best way to harvest fruit, veg, nuts.

Proof you've never been an employer.

[boutons_deux]

Proof you've never been an employer.

BK's tomato pickers are paid piece work, not hourly, do you think they're slackers?

what manual labors have you employed and how did you prove that paying manual laborers more gets them to produce more? were they hourly or piece work?

[CosmicCowboy]

BK's tomato pickers are paid piece work, not hourly, do you think they're slackers?

what manual labors have you employed and how did you prove that paying manual laborers more gets them to produce more? were they hourly or piece work?

Way to move the goalpost Boo. The subject was raising the minimum wage for a specific class of union worker (hotel workers).

As to your piece work interjection I guarantee the same person picking tomatos would pick more per hour doing piece work that he would being paid by the hour.

In a pay by the hour arrangement I guarantee you would get a higher quality worker for $15 per hour than you would get for $10 per hour. The low quality employee that's only worth $10 and hour would soon be unemployed.

[ElNono]

I just don't understand why wait for the minimum wage to go up to fire employees. Apparently these employers can make do with less employees, so what's the point of waiting?

[Drachen]

I just don't understand why wait for the minimum wage to go up to fire employees. Apparently these employers can make do with less employees, so what's the point of waiting?

Exactly, if I were a shareholder, I would be quite upset with management's altruism.

[SnakeBoy]

I just don't understand why wait for the minimum wage to go up to fire employees. Apparently these employers can make do with less employees, so what's the point of waiting?

Same reason they waited until the economy crashed before laying off superfluous workers.

[ElNono]

Same reason they waited until the economy crashed before laying off superfluous workers.

Which is?

[TeyshaBlue]

Market contraction?

[SnakeBoy]

Which is?

Math

[Th'Pusher]

Math
It took a market crash for business leaders to do math? Shareholders should be diving for the exit. Conversely they should be begging for a minimum wage if it'll force management to do math.

[SnakeBoy]

It took a market crash for business leaders to do math? Shareholders should be diving for the exit. Conversely they should be begging for a minimum wage if it'll force management to do math.

Well they are just people. I'm fortunate to have plenty of disposable income so I bought a car I don't need, yesterday I ordered a $250 crossfit weight vest that I probably won't use. If the math ever changes I'll make the necessary cuts.

As far as shareholders, if they are happy with the return why would they dive for the exit?

[ElNono]

Math

The math is the same... if 3 workers can do the job of 5, then 3 workers can do the job of 5. The market crashing or the minimum salary being $10, $15 or $100 isn't changing that.

[ElNono]

If you're telling me the company needs to close or provide an inferior product due to the inability to pay as many workers, then that's certainly a valid concern... but apparently not the case here.

[ElNono]

Market contraction?

Market contracts and expands all the time, companies adjust accordingly. Not sure that an increase in the minimum wage has a direct impact on that, but if you have any pointers, I'll be glad to read up on em

[SnakeBoy]

The math is the same... if 3 workers can do the job of 5, then 3 workers can do the job of 5. The market crashing or the minimum salary being $10, $15 or $100 isn't changing that.

3 jobs does not equal 5 jobs.
15 x 40 does not equal 8 x 40.

If you believe raising the minimum wage to $15 will be beneficial then fine but don't try to act like it will have no effect on business owners or the economy and that the math is exactly the same.

[boutons_deux]

don't try to act like it will have no effect on business owners or the economy and that the math is exactly the same.

google "effect of raising minimum wage on unemployment"


The Impact of Increasing the Minimum Wage on Unemployment: No Evidence of Harm
http://aneconomicsense.com/2013/03/06/the-impact-of-increasing-the-minimum-wage-on-unemployment-no-evidence-of-it/


Five myths about the minimum wage
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-minimum-wage/2013/04/05/d89b5fa8-9c8f-11e2-9a79-eb5280c81c63_story.html


Does raising the minimum wage really help workers
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-raising-the-minimum-wage-really-help-workers/


Raising the Minimum Wage Is Good for Business (But the Corporate Lobby Doesn't Think So)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/raising-the-minimum-wage-_b_2750336.html


With the 35+ year "war on employees" having stagnated, reduced the incomes of Human-Americans, we can be pretty sure that taxpayer-subsidized-with-public-assistance-to-the-poor Corporate-Americans aren't carry Ms of dead-beat, low-wagers just because they are cheap, but because they really need them.

Firing 10Ks of employees like HP did "to raise corporate profits" richly rewards the management.

[ElNono]

3 jobs does not equal 5 jobs.
15 x 40 does not equal 8 x 40.

That's not the argument presented though... if the argument presented would be "raising the minimum wage will affect our bottom line, product or services because our salary costs will raise" then that's a solid argument (and the one you're making, which I agree with).

But the argument presented is: "If you raise the minimum wage, we're going to make massive job cuts!" (with the implied admission that neither their product/service will take a hit for it). Under THAT argument, the question then becomes: why are you employing superfluous employees in the first place?


If you believe raising the minimum wage to $15 will be beneficial then fine but don't try to act like it will have no effect on business owners or the economy and that the math is exactly the same.

My issue is with the treats about cutting apparently already superfluous positions due to the wage increase. In general, I understand a minimum wage hike adds extra costs to any business, and the macro view of that has been debated for many years (more disposable income for people, better for the economy or not, etc). In general, I think unless this is done on a federal level, then it's not going to work.

[TDMVPDPOY]

these fkn clowns complaining about affecting their bottom line profits, when they all defer thei profits to tax havens...

[boutons_deux]

New Study: $10.10 Minimum Wage Could Lift Millions Out Of Poverty

Raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour could directly lift nearly five million Americans out of poverty, according to a new study (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15038936/Dube_MinimumWagesFamilyIncomes.pdf) from University of Massachusetts-Amherst economist Arindrajit Dube.

According to Dube’s findings, a $10.10 per hour minimum wage — the same level proposed by a bill (http://www.nationalmemo.com/for-democrats-raising-the-minimum-wage-is-good-policy-better-politics/) co-authored by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Rep. George Miller (D-CA), and supported by President Barack Obama — would reduce the poverty rate among the non-elderly population by 1.7 percent. Taking lagged effects into account, the minimum-wage hike could eventually reduce the poverty rate by 2.5 percent, lifting 6.8 million out of poverty.

“To put this in context, the poverty rate among the non-elderly rose by as much as 3.4 percentage points during the Great Recession,” Dube writes. “So the proposed minimum wage change can reverse at least half of that increase.”

Dube is not the first economist to illustrate the impact that a minimum wage hike could have on fighting poverty; as this chart from the Economic Policy Center makes clear, a raise to $10.10 per hour would lift minimum-wage income above the poverty line for a family of three for the first time in 46 years.

http://s3.epi.org/files/2013/snapshot-12-03-2013-2.png

In addition to helping families in need, raising the minimum wage is also a potent political tool; polls have repeatedly found large majorities (http://www.nationalmemo.com/poll-large-majorities-support-raising-the-minimum-wage-tying-it-to-inflation/) in favor of raising the minimum wage and tying it to inflation. Due to the proposal’s popularity, Democrats are expected (http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-democrats-not-so-secret-weapon-for-2014-raising-the-minimum-wage/) to make increasing the minimum wage a central tenet of their 2014 election strategy.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/new-study-10-10-minimum-wage-could-lift-millions-out-of-poverty/

[boutons_deux]

...

[CosmicCowboy]

I just don't understand why wait for the minimum wage to go up to fire employees. Apparently these employers can make do with less employees, so what's the point of waiting?

Employees are not identical. Minimum wage jobs typically employ minimum skilled or minimum experienced employees. Historically, minimum wage jobs were entry level positions and the path to higher pay was not remaining static and stupid, but rather growing in experience and skills making yourself more valuable to your current (or another) employer. Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be careers that you raised a family on. You raised a family AFTER you acquired enough skills to make yourself valuable enough to your employer that they paid you enough so you could afford to raise a family.

As an employer in a technical field I am currently hiring and am reading 5 or 6 resumes a day. The common theme is that they all started our in minimum wage jobs and made multiple job changes/advancements as they grew and acquired skills till they reached a point that I would gladly pay them $20 an hour if they have acquired most of the skill sets I need.

[SnakeBoy]

As an employer in a technical field I am currently hiring and am reading 5 or 6 resumes a day. The common theme is that they all started our in minimum wage jobs and made multiple job changes/advancements as they grew and acquired skills till they reached a point that I would gladly pay them $20 an hour if they have acquired most of the skill sets I need.

Well let's say you have 10 full time employees and are paying them each $10/hr and the govt tells you that you must give them all 50% pay raises. I think it's awesome that you as an employer won't get rid of any employees and expect more from the remaining ones, and that you won't raise the price of your services. Instead you'll just take that extra $100k out of your own pocket, give it to your employees, and bask in the warm fuzzy feeling you get from helping society. That's really cool.

[boutons_deux]

Employees are not identical. Minimum wage jobs typically employ minimum skilled or minimum experienced employees. Historically, minimum wage jobs were entry level positions and the path to higher pay was not remaining static and stupid, but rather growing in experience and skills making yourself more valuable to your current (or another) employer. Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be careers that you raised a family on. You raised a family AFTER you acquired enough skills to make yourself valuable enough to your employer that they paid you enough so you could afford to raise a family.

As an employer in a technical field I am currently hiring and am reading 5 or 6 resumes a day. The common theme is that they all started our in minimum wage jobs and made multiple job changes/advancements as they grew and acquired skills till they reached a point that I would gladly pay them $20 an hour if they have acquired most of the skill sets I need.

wonderful in theory.

in practice, shitty jobs with shitty wages require no skill and so offer no opportunity to acquire new skills on the job.

Raising the minimum wage to $15/hour would reduce taxpayer public assistance, give the employees a higher sense of worth, and hopefully encourage them to night school or whatever to pick up skills, training, knowledge they don't get on the job.


======================

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012

In 2012, 75.3 million workers in the United States age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.0 percent of all wage and salary workers. 1 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm#1) Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.0 million had wages below the federal minimum.2 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm#2) Together, these 3.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 4.7 percent of all hourly paid workers. Tables 1 through 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage. The following are some highlights from the 2012 data.



Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 21 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over. (See table 1 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#1) and table 7 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#7).)


In 2012, 6 percent of women paid hourly rates had wages at or below the prevailing federal minimum, compared with about 3 percent of men. (See table 1 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#1).)


About 5 percent of White, Black, and Hispanic or Latino hourly paid workers earned the federal minimum wage or less. Among Asian workers paid at hourly rates, about 3 percent earned the minimum wage or less. (See table 1 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#1).)


Among hourly paid workers age 16 and over, about 10 percent of those who had less than a high school diploma earned the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 4 percent of those who had a high school diploma (with no college) and about 2 percent of college graduates. (See table 6 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#6).)


Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely than married workers to earn the federal minimum wage or less (about 8 percent versus about 2 percent). (See table 8 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#8).)


About 11 percent of part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were paid the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 2 percent of full-time workers. (See table 1 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#1) and table 9 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#9).)


By major occupational group, the highest proportion of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage was in service occupations, at about 12 percent. About three-fifths of workers earning the minimum wage or less in 2012 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and serving related jobs. (See table 4 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#4).)


The industry with the highest proportion of workers with hourly wages at or below the federal minimum wage was leisure and hospitality (about 19 percent). About half of all workers paid at or below the federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, the vast majority in restaurants and other food services. For many of these workers, tips and commissions supplement the hourly wages received. (See table 5 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#5).)


The states with the highest proportions of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage were Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and Idaho (all between 7 and 8 percent). The states with the lowest percentages of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage were Alaska, Oregon, California, Montana, and Washington (all under 2 percent). It should be noted that some states have minimum wage laws establishing standards that exceed the federal minimum wage. (See table 2 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#2) andtable 3 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#3).)


The proportion of hourly paid workers earning the prevailing federal minimum wage or less declined from 5.2 percent in 2011 to 4.7 percent in 2012. This remains well below the figure of 13.4 percent in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis. (Seetable 10 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#10).)



http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm)

[CosmicCowboy]

Well let's say you have 10 full time employees and are paying them each $10/hr and the govt tells you that you must give them all 50% pay raises. I think it's awesome that you as an employer won't get rid of any employees and expect more from the remaining ones, and that you won't raise the price of your services. Instead you'll just take that extra $100k out of your own pocket, give it to your employees, and bask in the warm fuzzy feeling you get from helping society. That's really cool.

You totally misunderstood me. Especially in the OP's scenario where the minimum wage increase only applied to one class of employees (hotel and motel workers) those current $10 an hour slug employees are inevitably toast. The hotels and motels can hire smarter, more motivated and industrious employees for $15 an hour now that they are required to do so. They will probably get by with a few less employees because of the higher quality workers but inevitably they will raise prices to cover the difference. And those $10 an hour workers? They will either get with the program and up their game, or be unemployed or working somewhere else for $10 an hour.

[ElNono]

Employees are not identical. Minimum wage jobs typically employ minimum skilled or minimum experienced employees. Historically, minimum wage jobs were entry level positions and the path to higher pay was not remaining static and stupid, but rather growing in experience and skills making yourself more valuable to your current (or another) employer. Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be careers that you raised a family on. You raised a family AFTER you acquired enough skills to make yourself valuable enough to your employer that they paid you enough so you could afford to raise a family.

As an employer in a technical field I am currently hiring and am reading 5 or 6 resumes a day. The common theme is that they all started our in minimum wage jobs and made multiple job changes/advancements as they grew and acquired skills till they reached a point that I would gladly pay them $20 an hour if they have acquired most of the skill sets I need.

I understand and mostly agree with your historical view of that. The problem is that the job market changes and has changed. A lot of what used to be skilled work has been entirely replaced with automation and computers. You see it in all sorts of industries: Highly trained CPAs crunching numbers replaced by software, factory workers/packaging workers replaced by robots, sales people replaced by vending machines... on top of that, globalization has shifted most of massive low skilled work elsewhere. Wages have also not kept up with inflation, which starts eating up the middle-class (minimum wage increases modify the entire salary structure, not just low skilled jobs).

So a lot of these people will have to live with min wage jobs until they can re-train and get back into a path that moves them up on the food chain. There's also a lot of overqualified workers doing lower-skill work. That's just a reality that gets more and more severe as technology keeps on taking over. The Chinese tried to address this with the 1-child policy and manipulating their currency to get most of the low-skill work. That's how severe this thing can get.

BTW, there's no easy solution to this, IMO.

[ElNono]

You totally misunderstood me. Especially in the OP's scenario where the minimum wage increase only applied to one class of employees (hotel and motel workers) those current $10 an hour slug employees are inevitably toast. The hotels and motels can hire smarter, more motivated and industrious employees for $15 an hour now that they are required to do so. They will probably get by with a few less employees because of the higher quality workers but inevitably they will raise prices to cover the difference. And those $10 an hour workers? They will either get with the program and up their game, or be unemployed or working somewhere else for $10 an hour.

Increased cost will always be passed over to the customer. There's no scenario where I don't see that happening. However, I think you're misguided on how such a min wage only affects one class. Somebody is going to be doing the job that a $10 worker was doing for $15. So the guy that was already doing a more complex job for $15, will now want $20. AFAIK, salary structures always scale from the bottom up, not from top to bottom. A min wage increase will create pressure on the entire salary structure.

[SnakeBoy]

You totally misunderstood me. Especially in the OP's scenario where the minimum wage increase only applied to one class of employees (hotel and motel workers) those current $10 an hour slug employees are inevitably toast. The hotels and motels can hire smarter, more motivated and industrious employees for $15 an hour now that they are required to do so. They will probably get by with a few less employees because of the higher quality workers but inevitably they will raise prices to cover the difference. And those $10 an hour workers? They will either get with the program and up their game, or be unemployed or working somewhere else for $10 an hour.

Should've used blue. I was just mocking the idea that raising the minimum wage to $15 would have no impact on employers like yourself and be nothing but rainbows and butterflies for everyone.

[boutons_deux]

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/1623675_10151940066248367_910355885_n.jpg

[angrydude]

http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/minwage3-600x406.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Henry Ford paid $5/day 100 years ago. That's $15/hour today

[boutons_deux]

http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/minwage3-600x406.jpg

what bullshit.

the 2008 and following years increase in teenage (and all) unemployment was due to the Banksters Great Depression, not the rise in minimum wage.

[Wild Cobra]

Henry Ford paid $5/day 100 years ago. That's $15/hour today
Was he competing with China, Mexico, Japan, Indonesia, etc?

[boutons_deux]

Was he competing with China, Mexico, Japan, Indonesia, etc?

it's not competition that suppresses wages, it's VRWC War on Employees

[angrydude]

what bullshit.

the 2008 and following years increase in teenage (and all) unemployment was due to the Banksters Great Depression, not the rise in minimum wage.

You're right. Outlawing employment contracts has nothing to do with employment.

It's almost like, there can only be one cause of anything.

[boutons_deux]

You're right. Outlawing employment contracts has nothing to do with employment.

outlawing, denying employment contracts is part of the War on Employees

[angrydude]

outlawing, denying employment contracts is part of the War on Employees

You're so smart! Clearly businesses never hire people. War on Employees and all.

[angrydude]

Every time a business hires someone is another defeat in this epic struggle. They will only be satisfied when there is 100% unemployment!

[Wild Cobra]

it's not competition that suppresses wages, it's VRWC War on Employees
The great Bouton's has spoken... and so it is written...

[boutons_deux]

Economic War on Low Wage Workers Continues

A report from the Economic Policy Institute finds that low-wage workers are robbed far more often than banks, gas stations and convenience stores combined. The culprits are employers who fail to adhere to minimum wage laws or pay overtime.

“The country suffers an epidemic of wage theft, as large numbers of employers violate minimum-wage, overtime, and other wage and hour laws with virtual impunity,” University of Oregon economist Gordon Lafer wrote in the report.

Such workplace abuses are occurring as some of the most powerful corporate lobbies attack labor standards and workplace protections, including minimum wage laws, paid sick leave, and even child labor protections.

“According to our statistics,” EPI Vice President Ross Eisenbrey observed, “from 1983 to 2010 the bottom 60 percent of Americans actually lost wealth, despite the fact that the overall U.S. economy has grown over this same time period. This is a remarkable indictment of how the economy is not working for everybody.”

http://www.projectcensored.org/economic-war-low-wage-workers-continues/

[boutons_deux]

Crossing Borders and Changing Lives, Lured by Higher State Minimum Wages

There are restaurant jobs closer to home, but she is willing to drive the extra miles for a simple reason: Oregon’s minimum wage is $1.85 higher per hour than Idaho’s.

“It’s a big difference in pay,” said Ms. Lynch, 20, who moved last summer from her parents’ home in Boise, 30 miles farther east, to make her Oregon commute more bearable. “I can actually put some in the bank.”

Ms. Lynch is one of the many minimum-wage migrants who travel from homes in Idaho, where the rate is $7.25, to work in Oregon, where it is the second highest in the country, $9.10. Similar migrations unfold every day in other parts of Idaho — at the border with Washington, which has the highest state minimum, $9.32, and into Nevada, where the minimum rate tops out at $8.25.

Their experiences underscore what many proponents of raising the wage assert: that even seemingly small increases in pay can galvanize people’s lives, allowing workers to quit second jobs, buy cars or take vacations.

The competition for workers has in turn forced many businesses on the Idaho side to raise their wages.

But opponents of raising the minimum wage can also point to evidence here of negative, or uneven, consequences. When wages go up, they say, prices do as well. And a question resonates here no matter what side you are on: Can any region dependent on the minimum wage ever fully prosper?

“It feels like a wash,” he said. “It is not the consumer that wins, because most businesses will pass their increase on to the consumer through higher prices. The business doesn’t win, because they are forced to increase their prices to maintain proper margins to keep their doors open, thus affecting current customers and the potential of loss of new business. The employee doesn’t win, because they are the consumer.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/us/crossing-borders-and-changing-lives-lured-by-higher-state-minimum-wages.html?from=homepage

the business owner who says “It feels like a wash,” is full of bullshit, like so many minimum wage employers screwing their employees with shitty wages.

Raising the minimum wage has minimum impact on retail prices, and the people who get the increased minimum wage don't buy all their stuff from minimum wage suppliers.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Seriously?

OK...

$1.85/hr more and pay extra gas, extra car maintenance, and Oregon income tax!

Why do liberal rags glorify stupidity?

Oregon taxes start pretty quickly as well. After you subtract your federal tax liability, the standard deduction is small, and you start paying taxes fast!

Single............................................ ...........$2,080
Married/RDP filing jointly................................ 4,160
Married/RDP filing separately
If spouse/RDP claims standard deduction...........2,080
If spouse/RDP claims itemized deductions.............-0-
Head of household........................................ 3,345
Qualifying widow(er)..................................... 4,160

[CosmicCowboy]

You get what you pay for.

This is what minimum wage gets you.

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1899925_10151988389366700_99671072_n.jpg

[Blake]

Why do liberal rags glorify stupidity?



If you need some links to conservative rags glorifying stupidity, let me know

[boutons_deux]

Here's What Texas Gets When It Elects Minimum Brains

Rick Perry: Government Shouldn’t Set A Minimum Wage

“I don’t think — I don’t think it’s government’s business to be setting the minimum wage out there,” Perry said. “And even the CBO said if you want to get rid of a half a million jobs between now and 2016, raise the minimum wage.”

the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that even when potential job losses are taken into account, an increase in the minimum wage to $9, as President Obama proposed in his 2013 State of the Union, would increase household spending by $28 billion, or 0.2 percent of GDP. That extra spending stimulates the economy, which can lead to more job growth.

Real world experience of state and local efforts to raise the minimum wage with the unemployment rate at 7 percent or more have also found that the rate actually declined 52 percent of the time and in a few cases remained unchanged.

Perry claimed that 95 percent of all the wages in Texas are above minimum wage, but the state leads the nation in the number and percentage of minimum wage jobs. Nationwide, American workers’ wages are growing at just 2 percent per year, the slowest rate since at least 1965.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/22/3320851/rick-perry-government-set-minimum-wage/

[boutons_deux]

In Real Life, Higher Minimum Wage Doesn’t Kill Jobs

Economists and government officials endlessly speculate on the impact of raising the $7.25 federal minimum wage.

Most recently, a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour might cut employment by 500,000 workers. That is balanced by the projection that higher pay could also boost about 900,000 people out of poverty.

But some places in the U.S. already have real-life experience with raising their minimum wage.

Washington state, for example, has the nation’s highest rate (http://www.dol.gov/whd/minimumwage.htm), $9.32 an hour. Despite dire predictions that increases would cripple job growth and boost unemployment, this isn’t what happened.

At 6.6 percent, the unemployment rate in December was a click below the U.S. average, 6.7 percent, and the state’s job creation is sturdy, 16th in the nation, according to a report (http://www.pewstates.org/research/data-visualizations/top-states-for-job-creation-in-2014-85899531089)by Stateline, the news service of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

In Seattle, where metropolitan-area unemployment is 5.3 percent, that $9.32 sounds so yesterday. The mayor and city council are practically in a race (http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/12/ed-murray-wants-minimum-wage-plan-in-four-months/) to see who can move faster and with more gusto to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Safe bet: They will make a move by summer. Seattle could then surpass San Francisco, another city that fancies its role as a laboratory.
The City by the Bay’s minimum wage is the highest (not counting airport workers), at $10.74 an hour, and officials are discussing (http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Ed-Lee-backs-significant-increase-in-minimum-wage-5053183.php)a new rate of about $15.

While Seattle and San Francisco are unrepresentative of the nation, they have helped pressure their states to raise their minimum wages. Fifteen years ago, Washington voters approved an initiative giving the lowest-paid workers a raise almost every year, with increases now tied to inflation.

Those increases produced the highest U.S. rate, although California could lap that in 2016 when it hits $10 an hour. Washington governor Jay Inslee and Democratic legislators have been pushing to raise the statewide amount to almost $11 or $12 an hour, but that now seems unlikely this year.

Critics of the voter-approved increase in Washington said it would harm the economy and cause businesses to flee to lower-wage states, such as neighboring Idaho, where the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. That didn’t happen, as the experience of Washington counties bordering Idaho show.

At the Olive Garden in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, the spaghetti and meatballs are about $1.70 cheaper than at the Olive Garden about a half-hour away in Spokane, Washington. That may be explained by Idaho’s lower minimum wage, taxes, land costs or something else. A restaurant spokeswoman would only cite vague costs of products and of doing business in various locations. Whatever it is hasn’t stopped Olive Garden from operating two restaurants in the Spokane area.

Bruce Beckett, government affairs director of the Washington Restaurant Association, said he wasn’t aware of any restaurants bailing out (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-18/should-restaurants-worry-about-minimum-wages-.html) of Spokane for Idaho. He said he had heard anecdotes about local restaurateurs buying cheaper supplies in Idaho — fairly small potatoes.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/real-life-higher-minimum-wage-doesnt-kill-jobs/

[Wild Cobra]

Washington state, for example, has the nation’s highest rate (http://www.dol.gov/whd/minimumwage.htm), $9.32 an hour. Despite dire predictions that increases would cripple job growth and boost unemployment, this isn’t what happened.
You have to remember. Oregon and Washington have had higher minimum wage level for for nearly 100 years. This is not sudden change for us here in the Pacific NW. If you wish to do this on a Federal scale, then it needs to be implemented slowly. Maybe an extra 2% to 4% per quarter, until the desired levels are archived. I don't think having a higher minim wage is going to cause us any significant harm, unless it's done in such a manner that it creates economic shock. I don't think it will do any good either, unless you consider more inflation good.

[Nbadan]

Inflation is gonna happen either way...at some point we have to increase wages so that consumers have money to drive the economy..no disposable money, no domestic economic growth..

[boutons_deux]

Minimum wage hike would cut food stamp spending by $4.6 billion a year

Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour would reduce federal food stamp spending by $4.6 billion a year, according to a report to be released Wednesday by the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress.

The proposal, a top legislative priority for President Obama and congressional Democrats, would reduce enrollment in the food stamp program by as much as 9.2 percent, the report said.

A report last month from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said about 15 percent of the nation’s workforce would see wages rise under Obama’s plan to raise the minimum wage, adding that the increase would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.

The CAP report, which was written by University of California Berkeley researchers Rachel West and Michael Reich, is the latest in a line of research highlighting the connection between low-wage work and government support programs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/report-minimum-wage-hike-would-cut-food-stamp-spending-by-46-billion-a-year/2014/03/04/150e4bfa-a3db-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html?tid=hpModule_79c38dfc-8691-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z15

Repugs/Ryan: no minimum wage hike AND cut their benefits, they're poor and therefore deserve to be punished, by Repugs acting on behalf of God, for being poor.

Dems: hike the minimum wage AND extend their benefits.

[TSA]

Minimum wage hike would cut food stamp spending by $4.6 billion a year

Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour would reduce federal food stamp spending by $4.6 billion a year, according to a report to be released Wednesday by the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress.

The proposal, a top legislative priority for President Obama and congressional Democrats, would reduce enrollment in the food stamp program by as much as 9.2 percent, the report said.

A report last month from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said about 15 percent of the nation’s workforce would see wages rise under Obama’s plan to raise the minimum wage, adding that the increase would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.

The CAP report, which was written by University of California Berkeley researchers Rachel West and Michael Reich, is the latest in a line of research highlighting the connection between low-wage work and government support programs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/report-minimum-wage-hike-would-cut-food-stamp-spending-by-46-billion-a-year/2014/03/04/150e4bfa-a3db-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html?tid=hpModule_79c38dfc-8691-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z15

Repugs/Ryan: no minimum wage hike AND cut their benefits, they're poor and therefore deserve to be punished, by Repugs acting on behalf of God, for being poor.

Dems: hike the minimum wage AND extend their benefits.





http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-02-26.html

Democrats believe they've hit on the perfect issue to distract from the horror of Obamacare in the 2014 elections: the minimum wage.

Apparently, increasing the minimum wage was not important for American workers during the first five years of Obama's presidency -- least of all his first two years, when Democrats controlled Congress and could have passed anything. (And did!)

No. The minimum wage did not become a pressing concern until an election year in which the public's hatred of Obamacare is expected to be the central issue.

As The New York Times explained, Democrats see the minimum wage as an issue that "will place Republican candidates in a difficult position," and also as a tool "to enlarge the electorate in a nonpresidential election, when turnout among minorities and youths typically drops off."

(Unlike Republicans, Democrats consider it important to win elections.)

To most people, it seems as if the Democrats are giving workers something for nothing. But there are always tradeoffs. No serious economist denies that increasing the minimum wage will cost jobs. If it's not worth paying someone $10 an hour to do something, the job will be eliminated -- or it simply won't be created.

The minimum wage is the perfect Democratic issue. It will screw the very people it claims to help, while making Democrats look like saviors of the working class, either by getting them a higher wage or providing them with generous government benefits when they lose their jobs because of the mandatory wage hike.

Of course, the reason American workers’ wages are so low in the first place is because of the Democrats' policies on immigration. Republicans might want to point that out.

Since the late 1960s, the Democrats have been dumping about a million low-skilled immigrants on the country every year, driving down wages, especially at the lower end of the spectrum.

According to Harvard economist George Borjas, our immigration policies have reduced American wages by $402 billion a year -- while increasing profits for employers by $437 billion a year. (That's minus what they have to pay to the government in taxes to support their out-of-work former employees. Of course, we're all forced to share that tax burden.)



Or, as the White House puts it on its website promoting an increase in the minimum wage, "Today, the real value of the minimum wage has fallen by nearly one-third since its peak in 1968."

Why were wages so high until 1968? Because that's when Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act kicked in, bringing in about a million immigrants a year, almost 90 percent of them unskilled workers from the Third World.

Our immigration policies massively redistribute wealth from the poorest Americans to the richest. It's a basic law of economics that when the supply goes up, the price goes down. More workers means the price of their labor plummets.

Unfortunately, politicians spend a lot more time talking to rich employers than to working-class Americans. And the rich apparently have an insatiable appetite for cheap labor.

Having artificially created a glut of low-wage workers, now Democrats want to artificially raise their wages.

It's win-win-win-win-win for Democrats.

-- Employees who get a higher minimum wage are grateful to the Democrats.

-- Employees who lose their jobs because of the minimum wage hike are grateful to the Democrats for generous government handouts.

-- Poor immigrants who need government benefits are grateful to the Democrats.

-- American businesses enjoying the deluge of cheap labor are grateful to the Democrats.

-- Democratic politicians guaranteed re-election by virtue of ethnic bloc voting are grateful to the Democrats.

Do Republicans have any principles at all? Why isn't the GOP demanding an end to this dump of unskilled workers/Democratic voters on the country?

Democrats show how much they love the poor by importing a million more of them to America each year. But then they prevent the last batch of poor immigrants from getting decent, well-paying jobs by bringing in another million poor people the next year.

You want a higher minimum wage? Turn off the spigot of low-wage workers pouring in to the U.S. and it will rise on its own through the iron law of supply and demand.

In response to the Democrats' minimum wage proposal, Republicans should introduce a bill ending both legal and illegal immigration until the minimum wage rises naturally to $14 an hour.

Australia has a $15 minimum wage for adults -- more than twice the U.S. minimum wage. Meanwhile, their official unemployment rate is lower than ours: 6 percent compared to 6.6 percent in the U.S. -- and that's with a lousy $7.25 minimum wage.

Sound good? Try immigrating there. Australia has some of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world. Their approach to immigration is to admit only people who will be good for Australia. (Weird!) Applicants are evaluated on a point system that gives preference to youth, English proficiency, education and skill level.

Similarly, New Zealand will soon have an official minimum wage of $14.25 for adults. Even our Democrats aren't proposing that! New Zealand's minimum wage hit $10.10 -- the Democrats' current proposal for us -- back in 2006. Their unemployment rate is also 6 percent -- up from several years of 4 percent unemployment a few years ago.

Like Australia, New Zealand's immigration laws are based on helping New Zealand, not on helping other countries get rid of their poor people, which is our policy.

Instead of training the citizenry to look at the government as our paternal benefactor, distributing minimum wage laws and unemployment benefits in important election years, why don't Republicans put an end to the artificial glut of low-wage, low-skilled workers being imposed on the country by our immigration laws?

Republicans could guarantee a $14 minimum wage simply by closing the pipeline of more than 1 million poor immigrants coming in every year.

Businessmen will gripe, but maybe the GOP could explain to their Chamber of Commerce friends that they will help them by slashing oppressive regulations, reining in government bureaucracies, passing tort reform, etc. They'll also be able to cut taxes because the welfare state will shrink, a result of Americans going back to work.

But if the plutocrats insist on admitting another 30 million Democratic voters in order to get ever-cheaper labor, then, soon, Republicans won't be in a position to help them at all.

[boutons_deux]

"distract from the horror of Obamacare"

the only horror is that FABRICATED by Repugs who have deluded themselves into believing the HORROR is a winning Repug issue, like Benghazi, IRS, food stamps provide luxury goods, etc, etc.

[TSA]

"distract from the horror of Obamacare"

the only horror is that FABRICATED by Repugs who have deluded themselves into believing the HORROR is a winning Repug issue, like Benghazi, IRS, food stamps provide luxury goods, etc, etc.




Seriously, that's your only rebuttal?

[boutons_deux]

Seriously, that's your only rebuttal?

seriously, you think Ann Coulter is anything but an extreme right-wing provocateur, you think she's serious?

[Th'Pusher]

seriously, you think Ann Coulter is anything but an extreme right-wing provocateur, you think she's serious?
No joke. Come on TSA. Fucking Ann Coulter?

[TSA]

No joke. Come on TSA. Fucking Ann Coulter?

I like Coulter as much as I like Maddow. Having said that, remove the democrat/republican drivel and she brings up some good points.

"Our immigration policies massively redistribute wealth from the poorest Americans to the richest. It's a basic law of economics that when the supply goes up, the price goes down. More workers means the price of their labor plummets. Unfortunately, politicians spend a lot more time talking to rich employers than to working-class Americans. And the rich apparently have an insatiable appetite for cheap labor."

"Government" show how much they love the poor by importing a million more of them to America each year. But then they prevent the last batch of poor immigrants from getting decent, well-paying jobs by bringing in another million poor people the next year. Turn off the spigot of low-wage workers pouring in to the U.S. and it will rise on its own through the iron law of supply and demand."

[boutons_deux]

"More workers means the price of their labor plummets."

supply and demand? :lol

bullshit, undoc workers are ripped off, wage theft, raped, exploited by the business people that Randian AC adores. As undoc workers, they have NO bargaining power.

the govt doesn't import workers. NAFTA destroyed millions of MX subsistence farmers AND stopped MX govt from subsidizing them. In desperation, guess where they went looking for work? Perot's "huge sucking sound" was USA sucking MX workers across the border.

AC's point just suck.

[TSA]

lax immigration policies=importing

[TSA]

bullshit, undoc workers are ripped off, wage theft, raped, exploited by the business people that Randian AC adores. As undoc workers, they have NO bargaining power.



She says as much right here.

"Unfortunately, politicians spend a lot more time talking to rich employers than to working-class Americans. And the rich apparently have an insatiable appetite for cheap labor."

[Nbadan]

Highest Minimum-Wage State Washington Beats U.S. in Job Creation
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-05/washington-shows-highest-minimum-wage-state-beats-u-s-with-jobs.html


When Washington residents voted in 1998 to raise the state’s minimum wage and link it to the cost of living, opponents warned the measure would be a job-killer. The prediction hasn’t been borne out.

In the 15 years that followed, the state’s minimum wage climbed to $9.32 -- the highest in the country. Meanwhile job growth continued at an average 0.8 percent annual pace, 0.3 percentage point above the national rate. Payrolls at Washington’s restaurants and bars, portrayed as particularly vulnerable to higher wage costs, expanded by 21 percent. Poverty has trailed the U.S. level for at least seven years.

The debate is replaying on a national scale as Democrats led by President Barack Obama push for an increase in the $7.25-an-hour federal minimum, while opponents argue a raise would hurt those it’s intended to help by axing jobs for the lowest-skilled. Even if that proves true, Washington’s example shows that any such effects aren’t big enough to throw its economy and labor market off the tracks.


“It’s hard to see that the state of Washington has paid a heavy penalty for having a higher minimum wage than the rest of the country,” said Gary Burtless, an economist at Brookings Institution who formerly was at the U.S. Labor Department.
43

[boutons_deux]

Repugs, and their asshole voters here, are blatantly Bad For The American People.

[pgardn]

So what would occur if there was NO minimum wage?

Your own thoughts please, gleaned from what you know about the whole debate.
These questions need to be asked. Is there even a need for minimum wage?
If yes, then please explain how you determine what it should be. ( seems a minimum wage for the entire country will go a lot further in some States than others )

I have read on this topic and it seems as if both sides can present data to bolster their claims, so back to fundamentals. I look forward to trying to getting a better grip on this topic, thus an answer to the most fundamental question is appreciated.

[boutons_deux]

you can't answer that yourself?

no minimum wage would mean asshole employers would pay a couple $/hour. Would mean an increase in unemployment since people would refuse to work for such shitty wages, and go welfare, or into the black market

Repugs also want to repeal child labor laws so kids can be paid shit wages.

[pgardn]

you can't answer that yourself?

no minimum wage would mean asshole employers would pay a couple $/hour. Would mean an increase in unemployment since people would refuse to work for such shitty wages, and go welfare, or into the black market

Repugs also want to repeal child labor laws so kids can be paid shit wages.

So having good employees unwilling to work is good for business? As an employer I would want good workers, otherwise I don't survive. I would try to negotiate a reasonable wage. I beat the asshole employers because I have good reliable workers as opposed to a bunch of crapy workers I can't rely on.

Thats too simple Boots.

The child labor issue is what got minimum wage started. I got that.

[boutons_deux]

So having good employees unwilling to work is good for business? As an employer I would want good workers, otherwise I don't survive. I would try to negotiate a reasonable wage. I beat the asshole employers because I have good reliable workers as opposed to a bunch of crapy workers I can't rely on.

Thats too simple Boots.

The child labor issue is what got minimum wage started. I got that.

you pay peanuts, you get monkeys (disengaged, unreliable employees, high turnover, don't-GAF attitude towards their bosses or customers). This is true of K12 teachers, too. Pay throw-away wages, get throw-away workers.

[pgardn]

you pay peanuts, you get monkeys (disengaged, unreliable employees, high turnover, don't-GAF attitude towards their bosses or customers). This is true of K12 teachers, too. Pay throw-away wages, get throw-away workers.

Do monkeys deserve minimum wage?

Most of my HS teachers were very good. And elementary. Don't remember MS

[Wild Cobra]

Highest Minimum-Wage State Washington Beats U.S. in Job Creation
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-05/washington-shows-highest-minimum-wage-state-beats-u-s-with-jobs.html
Correlation equals causation...

I think not.

I can correlate so many other things, but I would be making it up like your source is.

[TeyshaBlue]

The article was pointing out that the min wage increase did not cause a decrease in jobs. Their conclusion is demonstrably true. :facepalm

[boutons_deux]

Robert Reich: Lousy wages are the real job killers

When in 1996 I recommended the minimum wage be raised, Republicans and the Chamber screamed it would “kill jobs.” In fact, in the four years after it was raised, the U.S. economy created more jobs than were ever created in any four-year period.

For one thing, a higher minimum wage doesn’t necessarily increase business costs. It draws more job applicants into the labor market, giving employers more choice of whom to hire. As a result, employers often get more reliable workers who remain longer – thereby saving employers at least as much money as they spend on higher wages.

A higher wage can also help build employee morale, resulting in better performance. Gap, America’s largest clothing retailer, recently announced it would boost its hourly wage to $10. Wall Street approved. “You treat people well, they’ll treat your customers well,” said (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=webport_news&tkr=MCD:US,PFE:US,WMT:US&tkr2=WMT:US&sid=a2ZJ55vwtY3Q) Dorothy Lakner, a Wall Street analyst. “Gap had a strong year last year compared to a lot of their peers. That sends a pretty strong message to employees that, ‘we had a good year, but you’re going to be rewarded too.’”

Even when raising the minimum wage — or bargaining for higher wages and better working conditions, or requiring businesses to provide safer workplaces or a cleaner environment — increases the cost of business, this doesn’t necessarily kill jobs.

Most companies today can easily absorb such costs without reducing payrolls. Corporate profits now account for the largest percentage of the economy on record. Large companies are sitting on more than $1.5 trillion in cash they don’t even know what to do with. Many are using their cash to buy back their own shares of stock – artificially increasing share value by reducing the number of shares traded on the market.
Walmart spent $7.6 billion last year buying back shares of its own stock — a move that papered over its falling profits. Had it used that money on wages instead, it could have given its workers a raise (denied:%20%20%20http://www.demos.org/publication/higher-wage-possible) from around $9 an hour to almost $15. Arguably, that would have been a better use of the money over the long-term – not only improving worker loyalty and morale but also giving workers enough to buy more goods from Walmart (reminiscent of Henry Ford’s pay strategy a century ago).

There’s also a deeper issue here. Even assuming some of these measures might cause some job losses, does that mean we shouldn’t proceed with them?

Americans need jobs, but we also need minimally decent jobs. The nation could create millions of jobs tomorrow if we eliminated the minimum wage altogether and allowed employers to pay workers $1 an hour or less. But do we really want to do that?

Likewise, America could create lots of jobs if all health and safety regulations were repealed, but that would subject millions of workers to severe illness and injury.

Lots of jobs could be added if all environmental rules were eliminated, but that would result in the kind of air and water pollution that many people in poor nations have to contend with daily.

If the Affordable Care Act were repealed, hundreds of thousands of Americans would have to go back to working at jobs they don’t want but feel compelled to do in order to get health insurance.

We’d create jobs, but not progress. Progress requires creating more jobs that pay well, are safe, sustain the environment, and provide a modicum of security. If seeking to achieve a minimum level of decency ends up “killing” some jobs, then maybe those aren’t the kind of jobs we ought to try to preserve in the first place.

Finally, it’s important to remember the real source of job creation. Businesses hire more workers only when they have more customers. When they have fewer customers, they lay off workers. So the real job creators are consumers with enough money to buy.

Even Walmart may be starting to understand this. The company is “looking at” whether to support a minimum wage increase. David Tovar, a Walmart spokesman, noted (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-19/wal-mart-says-looking-at-support-of-federal-minimum-wage-rise.html) that such a move would increase the company’s payroll costs but would also put more money in the pockets of some of Walmart’s customers.

In other words, forget what you’re hearing from the Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce. The real job killers in America are lousy jobs at lousy wages.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/01/robert_reich_lousy_wages_are_the_real_job_killers_ partner/

[Wild Cobra]

The article was pointing out that the min wage increase did not cause a decrease in jobs. Their conclusion is demonstrably true. :facepalm
I was responding to what Dan wrote, not the article or quote. The title suggests falsehood. I have lived in the northwest all my life except when I was in the military.

Its not excessive at $9.32, and Oregon's not far behind for minimum wage at $9.10 per hr. It neither helps the economic conditions or hurt it because such higher minimum wages were going on for decades in both states. Minimum wage increases that are slow and predicable are not a problem. The notion of suddenly increasing minimum wage to like $15/hr that this thread is about is ridiculous. If we are to choose such a number as a goal, or even the $10+, then maybe we should increase it by double or triple the change in cost of living per quarter. But do things in slow progressive step. Not suddenly.

[boutons_deux]

"The notion of suddenly increasing minimum wage to like $15/hr that this thread is about is ridiculous. "

that's why $15 or $18/hour min wage indexed to inflation should be implemented +$1 per year.

[pgardn]

So everyone agrees that some sort of minimum wage has to be present because the majority of employers would be more than willing to pay next to nothing, there is no real competition for unskilled labor?

[boutons_deux]

So everyone agrees

... won't happen here.

Going to work everyday, for 1 or 2 jobs, plus weekends for at or near today's minimum wage, very probably in shitty jobs with shitty bosses and shitty co-workers must be spirit-crushing.

If jobs paid $15/hour minimum, companies would design the jobs better to get their money's worth, while the employees would feel more valued and challenged by a well-designed job.

At minimum wage now, employers don't GAF about the jobs or employees.

[Wild Cobra]

So everyone agrees that some sort of minimum wage has to be present because the majority of employers would be more than willing to pay next to nothing, there is no real competition for unskilled labor?

I have no problem keeping minimum wage low. We have to stop employing illegal aliens though. I do believe supply and demand will work things out right, and the employers who want to attract better than minimum workers will pay better than minimum wage.

That said, I don't see raising minimum wages a problem either. I am adamant however, that it cannot be done suddenly. If we are going to shoot for a large increase as an end goal, then I really believe the best way is to do so in quarterly stages. take the cost of living changes, and double or triple it. If the quarterly COLA increased by 1.5%, then increase the minimum wage by 3% to 4.5%. Keep making these quarterly increases until we achieve the level we want.

[Wild Cobra]

At minimum wage now, employers don't GAF about the jobs or employees.
When employees with such attitudes are a dime a dozen, that's all they should get paid...

[pgardn]

So there is no real market for unskilled labor in the US.
The US government must determine the market value of unskilled labor.

[Wild Cobra]

So there is no real market for unskilled labor in the US.
The US government must determine the market value of unskilled labor.
There would be if we had more jobs available to the point that any skill had value again.

I don't think it matters what the minimum wage is, and suspect it may attract even more illegal immigration, people who will work harder for the same minimum wage that US citizens. I fear this is how it will do more harm, unless we get a handle on illegal immigration.

[boutons_deux]

There would be if we had more jobs available to the point that any skill had value again.

I don't think it matters what the minimum wage is, and suspect it may attract even more illegal immigration, people who will work harder for the same minimum wage that US citizens. I fear this is how it will do more harm, unless we get a handle on illegal immigration.

undoc immigrants don't take jobs away from Americans, they do, like immigrants do in all industrial countries, the jobs the natives refuse to do.

[boutons_deux]

Six In Ten Small Business Owners Want A $10.10 Minimum Wage (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/06/3373961/small-business-owners-minimum-wage-poll/)


Nearly six in 10 small business owners support raising the minimum wage to $10.10, according to a new poll (http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/minimum-wage/small-business-support-increasing-minimum-wage.php) on behalf of Small Business Majority (SBM), with most respondents citing the prospect of increased consumer demand and improved competitiveness with large chain retailers as reasons for their endorsement of the wage hike.

The poll (http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/downloads/030614-National-Minimum-Wage-Poll.pdf) found 57 percent of small business owners support a $10.10 federal minimum wage, with 27 percent strongly in favor of the idea. The entrepreneurs polled were predominantly Republican, with 47 percent identifying as Republican or Republican-leaning as compared to just 35 percent who identified more with the Democratic party. Two thirds of the businesses polled had less than half a million dollars in revenue in 2013, and 59 percent of the business owners were older than 50 years of age.


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/06/3373961/small-business-owners-minimum-wage-poll/

[Wild Cobra]

undoc immigrants don't take jobs away from Americans, they do, like immigrants do in all industrial countries, the jobs the natives refuse to do.

That is a flat out lie, or you have no clue as to the lies you are repeating.

[Nbadan]

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/47624_10151952299366275_762828070_n.jpg

[Nbadan]

Flat out lie :lol

Why? Because it doesn't coincide with your confirmation bias?


Walmart’s Greed Exposed: They Could Pay Employees $25,000/Year Without Raising Prices


A new Demos study has revealed that the only thing stopping Walmart from paying their employees $25,000 a year without raising prices is their ridiculous level of greed.

According to Demos, here is how Walmart could afford to pay their workers $25,000 a year without raising prices:


Now as another holiday season approaches, this research brief considers one way Walmart could meet the wage target its employees are calling for— without raising prices. We find that if Walmart redirected the $7.6 billion it spends annually on repurchases of its own company stock, these funds could be used to give Walmart’s low-paid workers a raise of $5.83 an hour, more than enough to ensure that all Walmart workers are paid a wage equivalent to at least $25,000 a year for full-time work.

Curtailing share buybacks would not harm the company’s retail competitiveness or raise prices for consumers. In fact, some retail analysts have argued that by providing a substantial investment in the company’s front-line workforce, higher pay could be expected to improve employee productivity and morale while reducing Walmart’s expenses related to employee turnover.

With more money in their wallets, Walmart employees would likely spend a portion of the cash at Walmart itself, boosting the company’s sales. Sales might also increase as customers benefit from an improved shopping environment.


Walmart’s business model reflects the narrow minded economic views of the Republican Party. By choosing to only share profits at the top, Walmart is calling the stockholders makers and their employees takers.

The Republican idea that a business has to raise prices if wages are raised is false. Companies like Walmart can afford to raise wages without raising prices if they choose to do so. Costco has proven both Republicans and Walmart wrong by paying a living wage and watching their profits soar. Customers have abandoned Walmart for Costco in 2013, because unlike Walmart, Costco supports raising the minimum wage.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11/19/walmarts-greed-exposed-pay-employees-25000year-raising-prices.html

[boutons_deux]

That is a flat out lie, or you have no clue as to the lies you are repeating.

evidence that undoc workers take jobs from US citizens?

Ask your Oregon ag operators how many US citizens works in their fields and orchards.

[TeyshaBlue]

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/47624_10151952299366275_762828070_n.jpg

Love me some Costco. Damn hard to find a job opening with them tho.

[boutons_deux]

Love me some Costco. Damn hard to find a job opening with them tho.

good paying jobs are in demand, so job-supplier Costco can choose the better candidates. You better give up.

[pgardn]

Do you have to buy everything in bulk at Costco?

I wish to to patronize them after this info.
I just go to HEB.

[TeyshaBlue]

good paying jobs are in demand, so job-supplier Costco can choose the better candidates. You better give up.

I'm doing just fine, bot. Thanks for your concern.
My youngest son would like a gig there tho but positions just dont open up...good employer=low turnover.

[TeyshaBlue]

Do you have to buy everything in bulk at Costco?

I wish to to patronize them after this info.
I just go to HEB.

Not everything is bulk...kinda like Sam's in that regard.

[Wild Cobra]

evidence that undoc workers take jobs from US citizens?

Ask your Oregon ag operators how many US citizens works in their fields and orchards.

And construction, fast food, and so many other places.

Construction jobs use to pay well until the illegals would do the work cheaper.

[Wild Cobra]

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/47624_10151952299366275_762828070_n.jpg
This isn't how they make record profits. Nice touch by the AFL-CIO, as that's where that graphic comes from. There are other reasons why they are profitable.

[boutons_deux]

This isn't how they make record profits. Nice touch by the AFL-CIO, as that's where that graphic comes from. There are other reasons why they are profitable.

but good wages + benefits doesn't prevent Costco from being profitable, as other mega-corps claim.

[Th'Pusher]

This isn't how they make record profits. Nice touch by the AFL-CIO, as that's where that graphic comes from. There are other reasons why they are profitable.

Explain Costco's business model.

[Th'Pusher]

This isn't how they make record profits. Nice touch by the AFL-CIO, as that's where that graphic comes from. There are other reasons why they are profitable.

And the larger point is, they can pay $45k, provide health insurance and let their workers unionize and still make record profits.

[RandomGuy]

anncoulter.com

I stopped reading right there, as would anybody not drinking the coolaid.

Do any of you self-styled conservatives have any original thoughts, outside of copy pasta?

[TeyshaBlue]

And the larger point is, they can pay $45k, provide health insurance and let their workers unionize and still make record profits.

Agreed. Stable workforce has got to have a positive bottom line as well.

[RandomGuy]

Robert Reich: Lousy wages are the real job killers

When in 1996 I recommended the minimum wage be raised, Republicans and the Chamber screamed it would “kill jobs.” In fact, in the four years after it was raised, the U.S. economy created more jobs than were ever created in any four-year period.

For one thing, a higher minimum wage doesn’t necessarily increase business costs. It draws more job applicants into the labor market, giving employers more choice of whom to hire. As a result, employers often get more reliable workers who remain longer – thereby saving employers at least as much money as they spend on higher wages.

A higher wage can also help build employee morale, resulting in better performance. Gap, America’s largest clothing retailer, recently announced it would boost its hourly wage to $10. Wall Street approved. “You treat people well, they’ll treat your customers well,” said (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=webport_news&tkr=MCD:US,PFE:US,WMT:US&tkr2=WMT:US&sid=a2ZJ55vwtY3Q) Dorothy Lakner, a Wall Street analyst. “Gap had a strong year last year compared to a lot of their peers. That sends a pretty strong message to employees that, ‘we had a good year, but you’re going to be rewarded too.’”

Even when raising the minimum wage — or bargaining for higher wages and better working conditions, or requiring businesses to provide safer workplaces or a cleaner environment — increases the cost of business, this doesn’t necessarily kill jobs.

Most companies today can easily absorb such costs without reducing payrolls. Corporate profits now account for the largest percentage of the economy on record. Large companies are sitting on more than $1.5 trillion in cash they don’t even know what to do with. Many are using their cash to buy back their own shares of stock – artificially increasing share value by reducing the number of shares traded on the market.
Walmart spent $7.6 billion last year buying back shares of its own stock — a move that papered over its falling profits. Had it used that money on wages instead, it could have given its workers a raise (denied:%20%20%20http://www.demos.org/publication/higher-wage-possible) from around $9 an hour to almost $15. Arguably, that would have been a better use of the money over the long-term – not only improving worker loyalty and morale but also giving workers enough to buy more goods from Walmart (reminiscent of Henry Ford’s pay strategy a century ago).

There’s also a deeper issue here. Even assuming some of these measures might cause some job losses, does that mean we shouldn’t proceed with them?

Americans need jobs, but we also need minimally decent jobs. The nation could create millions of jobs tomorrow if we eliminated the minimum wage altogether and allowed employers to pay workers $1 an hour or less. But do we really want to do that?

Likewise, America could create lots of jobs if all health and safety regulations were repealed, but that would subject millions of workers to severe illness and injury.

Lots of jobs could be added if all environmental rules were eliminated, but that would result in the kind of air and water pollution that many people in poor nations have to contend with daily.

If the Affordable Care Act were repealed, hundreds of thousands of Americans would have to go back to working at jobs they don’t want but feel compelled to do in order to get health insurance.

We’d create jobs, but not progress. Progress requires creating more jobs that pay well, are safe, sustain the environment, and provide a modicum of security. If seeking to achieve a minimum level of decency ends up “killing” some jobs, then maybe those aren’t the kind of jobs we ought to try to preserve in the first place.

Finally, it’s important to remember the real source of job creation. Businesses hire more workers only when they have more customers. When they have fewer customers, they lay off workers. So the real job creators are consumers with enough money to buy.

Even Walmart may be starting to understand this. The company is “looking at” whether to support a minimum wage increase. David Tovar, a Walmart spokesman, noted (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-19/wal-mart-says-looking-at-support-of-federal-minimum-wage-rise.html) that such a move would increase the company’s payroll costs but would also put more money in the pockets of some of Walmart’s customers.

In other words, forget what you’re hearing from the Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce. The real job killers in America are lousy jobs at lousy wages.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/01/robert_reich_lousy_wages_are_the_real_job_killers_ partner/


Pretty much. I like Reich's take on most things. Measured, evidence-based, and even-handed. Decidedly progressive, so that alone earns him a lot of undeserved animus.

[RandomGuy]

This isn't how they make record profits. Nice touch by the AFL-CIO, as that's where that graphic comes from. There are other reasons why they are profitable.

I'm with pusher.

Pretty clear statement, so you must have some ready-at-hand-reasons.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/e9/e9a2295b3db9b45c8f5484a09033c1c71cf88e3375bb7ff604 56bc81c29a4e04.jpg

[pgardn]

This isn't how they make record profits. Nice touch by the AFL-CIO, as that's where that graphic comes from. There are other reasons why they are profitable.

What are the reasons then?

And so if you were Costco CEO you would NOT pay employees like they do and make even more profit?

[Wild Cobra]

Explain Costco's business model.
LOL...

Their entire operation is different than other stores. They have different clientele.

[Wild Cobra]

but good wages + benefits doesn't prevent Costco from being profitable, as other mega-corps claim.
They are not competing against the same circle of businesses.

[Wild Cobra]

Agreed. Stable workforce has got to have a positive bottom line as well.

Yes, it does. I'm surprised they are only paying $45k.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm with pusher.

Pretty clear statement, so you must have some ready-at-hand-reasons.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/e9/e9a2295b3db9b45c8f5484a09033c1c71cf88e3375bb7ff604 56bc81c29a4e04.jpg
Wouldn't it be good to see the whole staement in context?

That is a blip that the AFL-CIO used for their purposes. Any company that treats it's employees better than others of the same market type will attract the better of the workers. That's a given. That is not the reason for record profits. Only one of many reasons. This is where you guys fail to see deeper than the propaganda. If only paying better wages and benefits made a business more profitable, then wouldn't McDonalds be paying $100/hr?

[boutons_deux]

Wouldn't it be good to see the whole staement in context?

That is a blip that the AFL-CIO used for their purposes. Any company that treats it's employees better than others of the same market type will attract the better of the workers. That's a given. That is not the reason for record profits. Only one of many reasons. This is where you guys fail to see deeper than the propaganda. If only paying better wages and benefits made a business more profitable, then wouldn't McDonalds be paying $100/hr?

Who said paying more on the low-end makes companies more profitable?

Obviously, increased labor cost takes money out of the pockets of top mgmt and investors. That's why the VRWC War on Employees for 35+ years has stagnated household real income, to stuff their own pockets with the good salaries they don't pay their employees.

The Costco example is that paying employees a living wage doesn't preclude a successful, profitable operation.

[TeyshaBlue]

Wouldn't it be good to see the whole staement in context?

That is a blip that the AFL-CIO used for their purposes. Any company that treats it's employees better than others of the same market type will attract the better of the workers. That's a given. That is not the reason for record profits. Only one of many reasons. This is where you guys fail to see deeper than the propaganda. If only paying better wages and benefits made a business more profitable, then wouldn't McDonalds be paying $100/hr?
Nobody said it was the reason for higher profits. The point is Costco brings in high profit while paying good, solid living wages.

[Wild Cobra]

Nobody said it was the reason for higher profits. The point is Costco brings in high profit while paying good, solid living wages.

Yes, I agree that happens. Wages and profits are rarely mutually exclusive.

The gist of the AFL-CIO graphic in post #136 is that the pay and benefits are why Costco had record profits.

[TeyshaBlue]

It certainly is a factor.

Here's an interview with the CEO and company overview. Pretty interesting.

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/costco-ceo-craig-jelinek-leads-the-cheapest-happiest-company-in-the-world

[Wild Cobra]

It certainly is a factor.

Here's an interview with the CEO and company overview. Pretty interesting.

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/costco-ceo-craig-jelinek-leads-the-cheapest-happiest-company-in-the-world
Yes, it is a factor. No doubt at all. It is one part of several things that make the success. Just don't think it is "THE" factor.

[boutons_deux]

It certainly is a factor.

Here's an interview with the CEO and company overview. Pretty interesting.

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/costco-ceo-craig-jelinek-leads-the-cheapest-happiest-company-in-the-world

"If you have 30 percent of the population that wants to reduce government or eliminate it,"

aka, as in Congress, it's the extreme VRWC-WELL-FINANCED tea bagger fringe minority ruling by intimidation.

[angrydude]

Nobody said it was the reason for higher profits. The point is Costco brings in high profit while paying good, solid living wages.

And no other company has a different business model. And if they do we should make it illegal. Am I right?

Land of the free.

[TeyshaBlue]

Put that strawman down before you hurt yourself.

[pgardn]

So one business model that works is the throwaway employee.


There is a pool of uneducated, disgruntled, lazy, disinterested people. But they need money every once in a while so they need work. So just recycle these people, replace the used up with those who want to work for a while.

This works for some businesses?

[Wild Cobra]

So if you ran the company, would you reduce wages and drop the insurance, this theoretically could raise profits?
Do you think this move could hurt profits? Explain.
No, I would pay my employees more than the competition and give them better benefits than the competition to attract the largest pool of the best workers I can select from. The problem is when lazy liberals think they are entitled to what others deserve.

[pgardn]

No, I would pay my employees more than the competition and give them better benefits than the competition to attract the largest pool of the best workers I can select from. The problem is when lazy liberals think they are entitled to what others deserve.

I changed my question.
Sorry.

But another interesting reply leads me to ask...

Are there lazy conservatives that just expect to live off of say... Inheritance?
Or the majority of lazy people are liberals?

[Wild Cobra]

Are there lazy conservatives that just expect to live off of say... Inheritance?
Or the majority of lazy people are liberals?
I would say there are lazy people living off inheritances. That's their problem. How does that apply? Are they asking for their inheritance to be supported by tax payers, or demanding business shell out more?

Better wages and benefits are not entitlements. They are incentives.

[boutons_deux]

All of the Arguments Against Raising the Minimum Wage Have Fallen Apart

Conservatives should be on the front line of the battle to raise the minimum wage. Work is supposed to make one independent, but with the inflation-adjusted federal minimum down by a third (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-joe-sestak/making-the-case-for-raisi_b_4804116.html) from its peak, low-wage workers depend on billions of dollars in public assistance (http://billmoyers.com/2013/10/24/audio-mcdonalds-tells-full-time-employee-to-apply-for-welfare-benefits/) just to make ends meet. Just this week, Rachel West and Michael Reich released a study conducted for the Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2014/03/05/85158/the-effects-of-minimum-wages-on-snap-enrollments-and-expenditures/) that found raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would save taxpayers $4.6 billion in spending on food stamps.

And even if you break your back working in today’s low-wage economy, it’s exceedingly difficult to raise yourself up by the bootstraps; it’s all but impossible to put yourself through school or save enough money to start a business if you’re making anything close to $7.25 an hour.

But those predisposed to defending the interests of corporate America – including retailers and fast-food restaurants – oppose any increase. That’s tough given that 73 percent of Americans – including 53 percent of registered Republicans – favor hiking the minimum to $10.10 per hour, according to a Pew poll conducted in January (http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/23/most-see-inequality-growing-but-partisans-differ-over-solutions/).
...

http://billmoyers.com/2014/03/07/all-of-the-arguments-against-raising-the-minimum-wage-have-fallen-apart/

[pgardn]

I would say there are lazy people living off inheritances. That's their problem. How does that apply? Are they asking for their inheritance to be supported by tax payers, or demanding business shell out more?

Better wages and benefits are not entitlements. They are incentives.

So is it lazy to make money off inheritance by merely having Daddy's advisors invest it for you while you party? When you party you contribute to the economy. When you are poor and lazy... What good are you?
Are the majority of lazy people liberals?
You have to see what I am asking of you, or maybe not.

[Wild Cobra]

So is it lazy to make money off inheritance by merely having Daddy's advisors invest it for you while you party? When you party you contribute to the economy. When you are poor and lazy... What good are you?
Are the majority of lazy people liberals?
You have to see what I am asking of you, or maybe not.
I would say more people who are lazy are liberal rather than conservative. The rich are comprised of both conservative and liberal who have trust funds, or what ever inheritance you wish to use. There are also both conservative and liberal who use the social resources of this country. However, I will maintain that it is the liberal who feel they are entitled to other peoples money, and that's why we get the liberal politicians we do.

[pgardn]

I would say more people who are lazy are liberal rather than conservative. The rich are comprised of both conservative and liberal who have trust funds, or what ever inheritance you wish to use. There are also both conservative and liberal who use the social resources of this country. However, I will maintain that it is the liberal who feel they are entitled to other peoples money, and that's why we get the liberal politicians we do.

so you are for a big inheritance tax to get that money into circulation, or just let it sit and party off the interest?

So companies that get big subsidies not only feel entitled to other peoples money, they actually receive vast sums of other peoples money, but that's ok. Because they are not lazy. And definitely not Conservative.

[Wild Cobra]

so you are for a big inheritance tax to get that money into circulation, or just let it sit and party off the interest?

Let them party if that's their gig. Why should it concern me? Their spending will add to the economy. If it's drawing interest someplace, it is funding growth through borrowing.



So companies that get big subsidies not only feel entitled to other peoples money, they actually receive vast sums of other peoples money, but that's ok. Because they are not lazy. And definitely not Conservative.
What companies are getting other people's money besides those who I already have complained about myself? I say we stop all subsidies.

[pgardn]

Let them party if that's their gig. Why should it concern me? Their spending will add to the economy. If it's drawing interest someplace, it is funding growth through borrowing.


What companies are getting other people's money besides those who I already have complained about myself? I say we stop all subsidies.

Boutons had a huge list.
But of course I would have to question the accuracy as he is into dogma.
So no Boeing Lockheed subsidies. We can get our weapons supplied by other counties.

So lazy with money does not concern you, but lazy without money does. Because lazy without money steal money from tax payers?

[Wild Cobra]

So lazy with money does not concern you, but lazy without money does. Because lazy without money steal money from tax payers?
Pretty much.

[Wild Cobra]

So no Boeing Lockheed subsidies. We can get our weapons supplied by other counties.

If they are getting subsidies, stop them. It appears however you are suggesting being paid for weapons is a subsidy.

[pgardn]

If they are getting subsidies, stop them. It appears however you are suggesting being paid for weapons is a subsidy.

No, being paid by the government for basic research to produce new weapons is.
sooo? Subsidize this?

[Wild Cobra]

No, being paid by the government for basic research to produce new weapons is.
sooo? Subsidize this?
I understand your point, but I disagree. Have you ever worked for a manufacturer? I was an engineering tech for four years for a manufacturer. One way or another, the research and developments gets cost factored into the sale of the product.

[pgardn]

I understand your point, but I disagree. Have you ever worked for a manufacturer? I was an engineering tech for four years for a manufacturer. One way or another, the research and developments gets cost factored into the sale of the product.

I work with people who are extraordinarily bright engineers and biochemists. Flow cytometry improvement. I help the two groups understand each other, overpriced translator and diplomat is what I am.

I fully understand the critical role GOVERNMENT plays in producing basic research that PRIVATE companies can use to make money and help people. The stuff I mention is absolutely critical in the proper diagnosis of specific cancers so they can be properly treated, many for children.

But make no mistake, a lot of this would never get started without basic research funding supplied by our government. And some basic research leads to dead ends. Not profitable.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If they are getting subsidies, stop them. It appears however you are suggesting being paid for weapons is a subsidy.

Being paid for tanks that sit in a parking lot in Nevada until they got decommissioned is a subsidy.

[Wild Cobra]

Being paid for tanks that sit in a parking lot in Nevada until they got decommissioned is a subsidy.
Is your name "Any Excuse Duncan?"

You are reaching without proof claiming that as a subsidy.

Besides, what is that bullshit you are speaking of? You mean seirra Army Depot, right?

Have a look-see yourself:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sierra+Army+Depot&ll=40.182775,-120.126958&spn=0.032262,0.029054&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&fb=1&gl=us&hq=sierra+army+depot&cid=9201484923205417597&t=h&z=15&iwloc=A

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Is your name "Any Excuse Duncan?"

You are reaching without proof claiming that as a subsidy.

Besides, what is that bullshit you are speaking of? You mean seirra Army Depot, right?

Have a look-see yourself:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sierra+Army+Depot&ll=40.182775,-120.126958&spn=0.032262,0.029054&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&fb=1&gl=us&hq=sierra+army+depot&cid=9201484923205417597&t=h&z=15&iwloc=A

What the fuck are you trying to triangulate on google maps now?

And I'm not speaking of bullshit. The government buys tanks that don't get used at all and literally sit in a parking lot.

[boutons_deux]

College Grads Taking Low-Wage Jobs Displace Less Educated

Jenkins and O’Malley are at opposite ends of a dynamic that is pushing those with college degrees down into competition with high-school graduates for low-wage jobs that don’t require college. As this competition has intensified during and after the recession, it’s meant relatively higherunemployment (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USAEHURT:IND), declining labor market participation (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USAEHPAR:IND) and lower wages for those with less education.

The jobless rate of Americans ages 25 to 34 who have only completed high school grew 4.3 percentage points to 10.6 percent in 2013 from 2007, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Unemployment for those in that age group with a college degree rose 1.5 percentage points to 3.7 percent in the same period.

“The underemployment of college graduates affects lesser educated parts of the labor force (http://topics.bloomberg.com/labor-force/),” said economist Richard Vedder, director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, a not-for-profit research organization in Washington (http://topics.bloomberg.com/washington/). “Those with high-school diplomas that normally would have no problem getting jobs as bartenders or taxi drivers are sometimes kept from getting the jobs by people with college diplomas,” said Vedder, who is also a Bloomberg View contributor.

...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-06/college-grads-taking-low-wage-jobs-displace-less-educated.html

[Wild Cobra]

What the fuck are you trying to triangulate on google maps now?

And I'm not speaking of bullshit. The government buys tanks that don't get used at all and literally sit in a parking lot.

LOL...

The link is the parking lot!

There are various trucks in it, but I couldn't find any tanks. Maybe you can.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, it's a large lot. I found tanks there. A pretty small percentage of the inventory, and mostly Abrams. Haven't they been going to the depot for MWO's? Do you have a source that is reliable, proving they are just sitting for no reason?

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sierra+Army+Depot&ll=40.193861,-120.141855&spn=0.001008,0.000908&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&fb=1&gl=us&hq=sierra+army+depot&cid=9201484923205417597&t=h&z=20

[RandomGuy]

Wouldn't it be good to see the whole staement in context?

That is a blip that the AFL-CIO used for their purposes. Any company that treats it's employees better than others of the same market type will attract the better of the workers. That's a given. That is not the reason for record profits. Only one of many reasons. This is where you guys fail to see deeper than the propaganda. If only paying better wages and benefits made a business more profitable, then wouldn't McDonalds be paying $100/hr?

I don't see you actually outlining what those reasons are.

I see you tap-dancing. Granted: Higher pay gets and keeps better workers. Oddly enough unions are a way to get that higher pay. Kind of hard to blame unions, therefore, for low pay or poor corporate performance.

Do you have a reason to give for their profitability? You said "one of many reasons".

[boutons_deux]

When unions were gettting good middle class wages for their workers, they were the "salary leaders" such that non-unionized companies wanting good employees competed with unionized companies by offering union-level salaries.

It's obvious, and inarguable, why the VRWC War on Employees has concentrated on busting unions to lower EVERYBODY's income and transfer those unpaid salaries to mgmt and shareholders.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't see you actually outlining what those reasons are.

I see you tap-dancing. Granted: Higher pay gets and keeps better workers. Oddly enough unions are a way to get that higher pay. Kind of hard to blame unions, therefore, for low pay or poor corporate performance.

Do you have a reason to give for their profitability? You said "one of many reasons".
Please, I know you aren't that blind. See outside the box you are in.

Higher pay than minimum wage brings in better applicants. Higher pay for a job group does the same thing. Raising minimum wage will not make better workers. This is a choice that should be left to the people deciding the salary structure for their business model. Not by some bureaucrat buying people's votes.

[Wild Cobra]

When unions were gettting good middle class wages for their workers, they were the "salary leaders" such that non-unionized companies wanting good employees competed with unionized companies by offering union-level salaries.

It's obvious, and inarguable, why the VRWC War on Employees has concentrated on busting unions to lower EVERYBODY's income and transfer those unpaid salaries to mgmt and shareholders.
Unions today in a global economy where manufacturing is cheaper in other countries, is the problem. In the past when unionization started growing, overseas competition wasn't taking away union jobs.

[boutons_deux]

Unions today in a global economy where manufacturing is cheaper in other countries, is the problem. In the past when unionization started growing, overseas competition wasn't taking away union jobs.

The VRWC push for globalization from the 1970s was directly aimed at busting unions as a source of Dem funding by pitting middle class workers against Asian, Central, South American sweatshop slaves.

It worked. VRWC won, inequality exploded, the 99% got screwed, and is unscrewable.

[Wild Cobra]

The VRWC push for globalization from the 1970s was directly aimed at busting unions as a source of Dem funding by pitting middle class workers against Asian, Central, South American sweatshop slaves.

It worked. VRWC won, inequality exploded, the 99% got screwed, and is unscrewable.

Really?

Why was it Clinton and his democrats in his first two years that expanded free trade to what it is today?

[RandomGuy]

Please, I know you aren't that blind. See outside the box you are in.

Higher pay than minimum wage brings in better applicants. Higher pay for a job group does the same thing. Raising minimum wage will not make better workers. This is a choice that should be left to the people deciding the salary structure for their business model. Not by some bureaucrat buying people's votes.

So you don't have any other reasons.

Got it, talking out your ass, per par.

[boutons_deux]

Really?

Why was it Clinton and his democrats in his first two years that expanded free trade to what it is today?

Globalization got really going in the late 1970s, after the VRWC got organized and institutionalized in the 1970s, and was really legitimized in the 1980s under St Ronnie/Repugs.

Clinton was a brilliant politician but he really wasn't that liberal or progressive, and went along with 99%-screwing shit like financial deregulation and globalization.

[Wild Cobra]

So you don't have any other reasons.

Got it, talking out your ass, per par.
Not my fault you don't understand my point. that's your bad. Not mine.

[Wild Cobra]

Globalization got really going in the late 1970s, after the VRWC got organized and institutionalized in the 1970s, and was really legitimized in the 1980s under St Ronnie/Repugs.

Clinton was a brilliant politician but he really wasn't that liberal or progressive, and went along with 99%-screwing shit like financial deregulation and globalization.
We also had pretty good tariffs that Clinton's free trade agreements changed.

[boutons_deux]

We also had pretty good tariffs that Clinton's free trade agreements changed.

globalization is all about killing tariffs, duh

[Wild Cobra]

globalization is all about killing tariffs, duh
Ok, so you agree, but you aren't going to...

Par for the course.

[boutons_deux]

The Average Low-Wage Worker Is Responsible for Half of His or Her Family’s Income

One common myth perpetuated by opponents of raising the minimum wage is that increasing it will mostly benefit young workers who will use the money to support discretionary spending. The reality is much different:

Among workers who would be affected by raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10, the average age is 35 years old, and more than a third (34.5 percent) are at least 40 years old.

In fact, minimum-wage workers are often bread-winners, with families who depend on their earnings.

The average low-wage worker who would benefit from a minimum-wage increase is responsible for half (50 percent) of his or her family’s income (ranging from 33 percent in New Hampshire to 60 percent in Louisiana).

Nationally, nearly one in five children (19 percent) has a parent who would be affected by raising the minimum wage to $10.10 (ranging from 11 percent in Alaska to 26 percent in Texas).

While some minimum-wage earners are young workers looking for some spending money, the majority are adults working to put food on their families’ tables.

These numbers further reinforce how important raising the minimum wage is to improving the economic well-being of America’s families.

Raising the minimum wage increases the number of economy boosting jobs that pay enough for families to maintain spending on the basics, lifting families, communities, and local businesses in the process.

http://www.epi.org/publication/minimum-wage-good-for-families/

[DMX7]

It's amazing we're arguing over a $10.10 minimum wage... I can't imagine trying to raise a family on that either. I honestly couldn't take care of myself on minimum wage or anything close to it. About $10 an hour is what I made at my part-time college job and it was hardly enough for beer money and a fun night out every weekend.

[boutons_deux]

It's amazing we're arguing over a $10.10 minimum wage... I can't imagine trying to raise a family on that either. I honestly couldn't take care of myself on minimum wage or anything close to it. About $10 an hour is what I made at my part-time college job and it was hardly enough for beer money and a fun night out every weekend.

This is brutalizing, Randian, dog-eat-dog Social Darwinism. Americans seem to love (the idea of) America, but they sure love to screw over Americans.

The wealthy need more money so they get more motivation, but somehow that logic doesn't apply to the poor.

Also, tax expenditures for the 1% and corps don't need a pay-for, but anything for anybody else absolutely must have a pay-for, is how the Repugs see it.

The rich deserve to be rich and richer, God loves them best, and the poor deserve to be poor and poorer (Ryan's brutal austerity budget) because they are sinners and criminals, is how it goes in Randian politics.

USA is fucked and fuckable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WC works in a union shop on does not want to leave in because of the benefits and security it provides him. He has admitted to this.

Cognitive dissonance much?

[Wild Cobra]

It's amazing we're arguing over a $10.10 minimum wage... I can't imagine trying to raise a family on that either. I honestly couldn't take care of myself on minimum wage or anything close to it. About $10 an hour is what I made at my part-time college job and it was hardly enough for beer money and a fun night out every weekend.
I'm OK with raising the minimum wage, though i think it will be meaningless in the end as other prices rise from inflation. Still, I'm game for that experiment. My only concern is doing it too quickly, and shocking the economy. We need to to it in increments. How does a quarterly 10% increase sound to you until we achieve the level we want?

[boutons_deux]

The Burger Chain That Pays $10 An Hour With Benefits (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/21/3417056/shake-shack-wages-benefits/)

Shake Shack, a burger chain with locations in Florida, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C. as well as international locations in the Middle East, Russia, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, pays starting workers $9.50 an hour outside of New York City and $10 an hour for New Yorkers, CEO Randy Garutti told ThinkProgress. It also offers full-time employees health, dental, vision, retirement, and disability benefits plus paid time off.

But on average, workers get $10.70 an hour thanks to a program it calls Shack Bucks. Every month, it gives employees a percentage of the company’s top-line sales. “It’s sort of immediate revenue sharing, not a long-term program,” he noted.

The company pays about 70 percent of employees’ health care premiums and also matches contributions to their 401(k)s.

He added that he is “more excited” than all of these perks about how many employees move up into manager roles. “There are a lot of people who started making $9 an hour and are now general managers in our restaurants making very good money,” he said. The owners started in fine dining and brought the compensation practices from those restaurants into its original burger and hot dog stand.

When asked if these practices have come with concrete benefits for the company itself, he responded, “Absolutely,” adding, “Our turnover is lower, we can hire the best, they stay longer, and we can grow them into management.”

And it pays off for customers. “If the team feels taken care of, then they’ll go out and take care of the guests.”

And he thinks other business owners in the fast food industry can take this approach and see similar results. “I know they can,” he said. “Because I just know that it works.”

And Shake Shack isn’t the only eatery taking this approach to its workforce. Michigan’s Moo Cluck Moo pays entry-level workers $15 an hour (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/09/09/2591251/burger-place-paying-entry-level-workers-15-hour/), a move its owners say leads to less turnover, better customer service, and more skilled employees.

In-N-Out, a West Coast burger chain, pays $10.50 an hour (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/31/what-happens-when-fast-food-actually-pays.html) for entry-level employees.

Outside of the burger world, Boston-based burrito chain Boloco pays starting workers anywhere from $9 to $11 an hour (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/30/2556301/burrito-chain-pays-entry-level-workers-10-hour-pay/), which the owner says increases loyalty and productivity and, in turn, profitability.

In light of the conversation to raise the minimum wage, others have decided to join in. Two pizza companies in St. Louis will soon pay at least $10.10 an hour (http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/03/19/pi-gringo-minimum-wage-increase/6601913/). It has also spread outside of the food industry: clothing retailer The Gap recently announced it will also raise its lowest wage to $10 (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/19/3306841/gap-raising-minimum-wage-10/).

But the fast food industry is notorious for low pay, where workers make so little that they consume $243 billion in public benefits (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/10/15/2781951/wages-taxpayers/) each year just to get by.

And while some executives argue that these jobs are just a starting place for teens (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/22/2509161/mcdonalds-minimum-wage-kill-jobs/) earning extra cash, the reality is that the majority of workers are well out of their teenage years (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/08/2433601/fast-food-workers-young/). Meanwhile, the average low-wage worker brings in half (http://www.epi.org/publication/minimum-wage-good-for-families/) his or her family’s income, while more than a third (http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/fast-food-strike-minimum-wage) of fast food workers are supporting children.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/21/3417056/shake-shack-wages-benefits/

[Wild Cobra]

Are you still making the argument that paying people better makes for better employees?


Our turnover is lower, we can hire the best, they stay longer, and we can grow them into management.

Now where is this incentive if the worse workers are required to be paid $10/hr.

Please note that this is because they pay higher than minimum. Bad workers do not become good workers by paying them more.

[boutons_deux]

Are you still making the argument that paying people better makes for better employees?



Now where is this incentive if the worse workers are required to be paid $10/hr.

Please note that this is because they pay higher than minimum. Bad workers do not become good workers by paying them more.

Take you Randian, punitive bullshit and stick it up your ass. To keep "whipping" people with shitty wages until their morale/work improves doesn't work.

It's on the employer to choose employees, even low-wage employees, carefully. If a hiring mistake is made, the employee is let go.

[Wild Cobra]

I see my arguments go way over your head.

[boutons_deux]

I see my arguments go way over your head.

I see your head is habitually up your ass

[Bito Corleone]

Are you still making the argument that paying people better makes for better employees?

Now where is this incentive if the worse workers are required to be paid $10/hr.

Please note that this is because they pay higher than minimum. Bad workers do not become good workers by paying them more.
Bad workers are bad workers, you can pay them as much or a little as you want and they will still be bad workers, but you shouldn't assume that someone making minimum wage is a "bad worker" just because they get a shitty paycheck. I know people who bust their ass every day for pennies, and I know people who are the definition of lazy that make a ton of money. Perhaps some of these low wage workers just haven't gained the knowledge or skills to move into a better position, but how do you expect them to actively seek the resources to gain that extra knowledge or acquire those extra skills when they can barely afford to feed, cloth, and shelter themselves.

Higher pay may not always create an incentive for better work in all people, but low pay certainly tends to create disincentive to work harder. Most low wage workers are under the impression that their employers couldn't give a shit about them, and in most cases they're right. Why should they be busting their ass just so their boss's boss's boss can line their pockets? If they work harder, and don't get rewarded (see increased worker production vs increased worker wages over the last 30 years) where is the incentive to keep working hard?

[pgardn]

WC

Offering higher pay will theoretically give a company an advantage in the type of applicants they get to choose from compared to the same company offering low wages... Is this reasonable?

[boutons_deux]

Paul Ryan Claims Most Minimum Wage Workers Are Young And Just Starting Out (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/21/3417540/ryan-minimum-wage-teenagers/)

Yet the majority of low-wage workers who would benefit from raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour are not in fact teenagers getting a foothold in the workforce, but rather grown-ups with rent, medical bills, and often children. Nearly 90 percent of these workers are older than 20. “The typical worker who would be affected by an increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour by 2015 looks nothing like the part-time, teen stereotype (http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/),” according to the Economic Policy Institute. “She is in her early thirties, works full-time, and may have a family to support.”

Nationwide, these workers provide almost exactly half of their families’ income. One in five American children (http://www.epi.org/publication/bp357-federal-minimum-wage-increase/) has a parent like Alicia McCrary (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/14/3408831/minimum-wage-alicia-mccrary/) who would benefit from raising the minimum wage.

And in Ryan’s own state (http://www.cows.org/_data/documents/1592.pdf), 87 percent of workers affected by the proposed minimum wage hike are older than 20, while nearly a quarter-million children would see their family income rise thanks to a $10.10 minimum wage.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/21/3417540/ryan-minimum-wage-teenagers/

[Jacob1983]

I think Paul Ryan has spent too much trying to ban online poker. That guy is living in an alternate universe. Maybe he should work minimum wage for a year and see if he likes it.

[Wild Cobra]

Paul Ryan is living in the past with that thought. It used to be true. Since we now buy most our goods from Malaysia, China, and other nations.... we have less factory wage jobs here.

[boutons_deux]

Taking On Big-Business Wage Theft

Despite the extensive press coverage of the fight of fast-food workers for a $15 hourly wage, one recent development hasn’t gotten much attention: fast-food workers around the country have started to win significant wage-theft lawsuits against McDonald’s franchisees, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. These lawsuits raise an important question: How has McDonald’s been able to get away with stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from low-wage workers? The answer is straightforward. Our system for enforcement has been so severely weakened that many employers are able to regularly violate workers’ basic rights. And the law itself is broken. Its structure allows corporations like McDonald’s to escape responsibility for the conditions in their workplaces.

In February, student guest workers won a lawsuit (http://www.guestworkeralliance.org/2014/02/victory-at-mcdonalds-2-18-14/) that charged a McDonald’s franchise in Pennsylvania with wage theft. They had been paid sub-minimum wages, denied overtime pay and charged exorbitant prices for company housing. The Department of Labor required the franchise to pay $205,977 to both guest workers and native-born workers at the franchise. This victory was rapidly followed by a wave of other lawsuits around the country.

Last week, McDonald’s workers in three cities launched highly publicized cases (http://www.salon.com/2014/03/13/breaking_mcdonalds_workers_mount_class_action_suit s_in_three_states/) charging the corporation with wage theft. These workers had experienced many types of wage theft. The workers in California claim that they were not paid for overtime work. In Michigan, workers are asserting that they were required to show up for work but were not allowed to clock in. Workers in New York allege that they were not compensated for the time they spent cleaning their uniforms, required to do work off the clock and not paid overtime. The New York suit was almost immediately successful (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/mcdonalds-wage-theft_n_4981336.html). Last week, seven franchises agreed to settle for almost $500,000.

McDonald’s workers are not alone. Wage theft has become a widespread problem in low-wage industries in the United States. An influential study found that more than two-thirds (68 percent) of workers had experienced some form of wage theft (http://www.unprotectedworkers.org/index.php/broken_laws/index) in their previous week of work:

They were paid below the minimum wage,

not paid for overtime,

required to work off the clock or

had their breaks limited.

An organization of fast-food workers in New York City surveyed workers (http://www.thenation.com/blog/174375/84-percent-nyc-fast-food-workers-report-wage-theft-new-survey) and found that 84 percent of workers had experienced wage theft in the last year.

Addressing wage theft will take a two-pronged solution: rebuilding the enforcement system in the U.S., and cutting through the smokescreen of subcontracting and franchising to hold employers responsible for the wages and working conditions in their workplaces.

The enforcement regime in the United States has been significantly weakened over the last several decades. There has been an overall downward trend (http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/725.short) in funding for the Department of Labor. The number of labor inspectors had plummeted for years. The Obama administration has added new inspectors, but not enough to make up for the long-term decline. Meanwhile, the number of workers who need protection has grown. This pattern has to be turned on its head. If rampant wage theft is to be stopped, we need to radically increase the number of labor inspectors on the ground.

...

http://www.nationalmemo.com/taking-big-business-wage-theft/

Dept of Labor and NLRB are two orgs the Repugs want to defund to zero, if they can't actually dissolve them.

And you fuckers keep voting for Repugs

[boutons_deux]

9 of the top 10 occupations in America pay less than $35k a year

According to stunning new numbers just released by the federal government (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.nr0.htm?_ga=1.73666065.22471688.1396473081) , nine of the top ten most commonly held jobs in the United States pay an average wage of less than $35,000 a year. When you break that down, that means that most of these workers are making less than $3,000 a month before taxes. And once you consider how we are being taxed into oblivion (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/a-list-of-97-taxes-americans-pay-every-year), things become even more frightening. Can you pay a mortgage and support a family on just a couple grand a month?

Of course not. In the old days, a single income would enable a family to live a very comfortable middle class lifestyle in most cases. But now those days are long gone. In 2014, both parents are expected to work, and in many cases both of them have to get multiple jobs just in order to break even at the end of the month.

The decline in the quality of our jobs is a huge reason for the implosion of the middle class in this country (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/28-signs-that-the-middle-class-is-heading-toward-extinction). You can’t have a middle class without middle class jobs, and we have witnessed a multi-decade decline in middle class jobs in the United States. As long as this trend continues, the middle class is going to continue to shrink.

The following is a list of the most commonly held jobs in America according to the federal government. As you can see, 9 of the top 10 most commonly held occupations pay an average wage of less than $35,000 a year (http://qz.com/194264/sales-and-related-jobs-account-for-11-american-jobs/)…




Retail sales persons, 4.48 million workers earning $25,370
Cashiers 3.34 million workers earning $20,420
Food prep and serving staff, 3.02 million workers earning$18,880
General office clerk, 2.83 million working earning $29,990
Registered nurses, 2.66 million workers earning $68,910
Waiters and waitresses, 2.40 million workers earning$20,880
Customer service representatives, 2.39 million workers earning $33,370
Laborers, and freight and material movers, 2.28 million workers earning $26,690
Secretaries and admins (not legal or medical), 2.16 million workers earning $34,000
Janitors and cleaners (not maids), 2.10 million workers earning, $25,140


http://intellihub.com/9-top-10-occupations-america-pay-less-35k-year/

[pgardn]

9 of the top 10 occupations in America pay less than $35k a year

According to stunning new numbers just released by the federal government (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.nr0.htm?_ga=1.73666065.22471688.1396473081) , nine of the top ten most commonly held jobs in the United States pay an average wage of less than $35,000 a year. When you break that down, that means that most of these workers are making less than $3,000 a month before taxes. And once you consider how we are being taxed into oblivion (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/a-list-of-97-taxes-americans-pay-every-year), things become even more frightening. Can you pay a mortgage and support a family on just a couple grand a month?

Of course not. In the old days, a single income would enable a family to live a very comfortable middle class lifestyle in most cases. But now those days are long gone. In 2014, both parents are expected to work, and in many cases both of them have to get multiple jobs just in order to break even at the end of the month.

The decline in the quality of our jobs is a huge reason for the implosion of the middle class in this country (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/28-signs-that-the-middle-class-is-heading-toward-extinction). You can’t have a middle class without middle class jobs, and we have witnessed a multi-decade decline in middle class jobs in the United States. As long as this trend continues, the middle class is going to continue to shrink.

The following is a list of the most commonly held jobs in America according to the federal government. As you can see, 9 of the top 10 most commonly held occupations pay an average wage of less than $35,000 a year (http://qz.com/194264/sales-and-related-jobs-account-for-11-american-jobs/)…




Retail sales persons, 4.48 million workers earning $25,370
Cashiers 3.34 million workers earning $20,420
Food prep and serving staff, 3.02 million workers earning$18,880
General office clerk, 2.83 million working earning $29,990
Registered nurses, 2.66 million workers earning $68,910
Waiters and waitresses, 2.40 million workers earning$20,880
Customer service representatives, 2.39 million workers earning $33,370
Laborers, and freight and material movers, 2.28 million workers earning $26,690
Secretaries and admins (not legal or medical), 2.16 million workers earning $34,000
Janitors and cleaners (not maids), 2.10 million workers earning, $25,140


http://intellihub.com/9-top-10-occupations-america-pay-less-35k-year/

And the nurses absolutely work their rears off. Much more likely to get some infection that is really bad as well.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/whobenefits_816.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Saw this wonderful, impressive lady last night on Bill Moyers.

She totally destroys the NRA, OVER AND OVER AND OVER

All Work and No Pay

http://billmoyers.com/episode/all-work-and-no-pay/

America, one nasty fucking country.

[boutons_deux]

Governor Bans Minimum Wage Increases And Paid Sick Leave Laws (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/15/3426716/oklahoma-ban-minimum-wage-paid-sick-leave/)

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) has gone in the opposite direction and signed a law banning cities from passing higher wages (http://m.newsok.com/gov.-mary-fallin-signs-minimum-wage-hike-ban-in-oklahoma/article/3955336). The bill also bans them from enacting paid sick days or vacation requirements.

The law will stymie the efforts of activists in Oklahoma City, where a labor federation has led the push on a petition to raise the city’s minimum wage to $10.10 (http://www.okcfox.com/story/24840899/petition-started-to-raise-minimum-wage-in-oklahoma-city) per hour. The state’s current minimum has been set at the federal level of $7.25. In 2012, 64,000 workers (http://www.bls.gov/ro6/fax/minwage_ok.htm) in the state earned $7.25 an hour or less, making up 7.2 percent of all hourly workers, a larger share than the 4.7 percent figure for the country as a whole.

Fallin said she signed the bill out of the worry (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/gov-fallin-signs-bill-curbing-minimum-wage-increases-in-oklahoma/article_bdea4c40-c01c-51f7-ba52-25ba7ec934d7.html) that higher local minimum wages “would drive businesses to other communities and states, and would raise prices for consumers.” She also argued that “most minimum wage workers are young, single people working part-time or entry level jobs” and that “many are high school or college students living with their parents in middle-class families.” She warned that increasing the minimum wage “would require businesses to fire many of those part-time workers” and harm job creation.
But that’s not what the typical American minimum wage worker looks like. Nearly 90 percent of workers (http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/) who would be impacted by an increase in the wage are older than 20, while the average age is 35. More than a quarter have children to support. More than half work full time, and 44 percent have at least some college education, while half a million (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/31/3420987/college-degree-minimum-wage/) minimum wage workers are college graduates.

Meanwhile, experts have analyzed state minimum wage increases over two decades and found that even at times of high unemployment, there is no clear evidence that the hikes affected job creation (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2014/02/18/84257/evidence-shows-increasing-the-minimum-wage-is-no-threat-to-employment/). Five other studies have come to the same conclusion. The same has held true for the city of San Francisco, where employment grew by more than 5 percent (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/05/3362681/evidence-minimum-wage-jobs/) after it passed a higher minimum wage while nearby counties experienced declines.

Oklahoma is not the only state to pass a blanket ban on raising the wage. Wisconsin lawmakers recently considered (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/12/3286321/wisconsin-ban-local-minimum-wage/) doing the same, and Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (R) signed a law (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/18/1887571/kansas-prevailing-wage-ban/) that prevents local governments from requiring contractors to pay higher wages last year.

According to Paul Sonn, general counsel and program director at the National Employment Law Project, a handful of mostly Republican-leaning states passed these kinds of bans about a decade ago, including Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, and Texas.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/15/3426716/oklahoma-ban-minimum-wage-paid-sick-leave/

so you minimum wage redstate red necks still voting Repug? :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Governor Bans Minimum Wage Increases And Paid Sick Leave Laws (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/15/3426716/oklahoma-ban-minimum-wage-paid-sick-leave/)

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) has gone in the opposite direction and signed a law banning cities from passing higher wages (http://m.newsok.com/gov.-mary-fallin-signs-minimum-wage-hike-ban-in-oklahoma/article/3955336). The bill also bans them from enacting paid sick days or vacation requirements.

The law will stymie the efforts of activists in Oklahoma City, where a labor federation has led the push on a petition to raise the city’s minimum wage to $10.10 (http://www.okcfox.com/story/24840899/petition-started-to-raise-minimum-wage-in-oklahoma-city) per hour. The state’s current minimum has been set at the federal level of $7.25. In 2012, 64,000 workers (http://www.bls.gov/ro6/fax/minwage_ok.htm) in the state earned $7.25 an hour or less, making up 7.2 percent of all hourly workers, a larger share than the 4.7 percent figure for the country as a whole.

Fallin said she signed the bill out of the worry (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/gov-fallin-signs-bill-curbing-minimum-wage-increases-in-oklahoma/article_bdea4c40-c01c-51f7-ba52-25ba7ec934d7.html) that higher local minimum wages “would drive businesses to other communities and states, and would raise prices for consumers.” She also argued that “most minimum wage workers are young, single people working part-time or entry level jobs” and that “many are high school or college students living with their parents in middle-class families.” She warned that increasing the minimum wage “would require businesses to fire many of those part-time workers” and harm job creation.
But that’s not what the typical American minimum wage worker looks like. Nearly 90 percent of workers (http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/) who would be impacted by an increase in the wage are older than 20, while the average age is 35. More than a quarter have children to support. More than half work full time, and 44 percent have at least some college education, while half a million (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/31/3420987/college-degree-minimum-wage/) minimum wage workers are college graduates.

Meanwhile, experts have analyzed state minimum wage increases over two decades and found that even at times of high unemployment, there is no clear evidence that the hikes affected job creation (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2014/02/18/84257/evidence-shows-increasing-the-minimum-wage-is-no-threat-to-employment/). Five other studies have come to the same conclusion. The same has held true for the city of San Francisco, where employment grew by more than 5 percent (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/05/3362681/evidence-minimum-wage-jobs/) after it passed a higher minimum wage while nearby counties experienced declines.

Oklahoma is not the only state to pass a blanket ban on raising the wage. Wisconsin lawmakers recently considered (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/12/3286321/wisconsin-ban-local-minimum-wage/) doing the same, and Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (R) signed a law (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/18/1887571/kansas-prevailing-wage-ban/) that prevents local governments from requiring contractors to pay higher wages last year.

According to Paul Sonn, general counsel and program director at the National Employment Law Project, a handful of mostly Republican-leaning states passed these kinds of bans about a decade ago, including Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, and Texas.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/15/3426716/oklahoma-ban-minimum-wage-paid-sick-leave/

so you minimum wage redstate red necks still voting Repug? :lol



LOL...

Another stupid and ignorant link posted by B-Shit!


According to Paul Sonn, general counsel and program director at the National Employment Law Project, a handful of mostly Republican-leaning states passed these kinds of bans about a decade ago, including Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, and Texas.

LOL...

Oregon has the second highest minimum wages in the nation, by law, contrary to what the link claims.

Once again, boutons is listening and regurgitating the leftist leaders of lies, and never verifying facts.

[Wild Cobra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_25_%282002%29

[boutons_deux]

Oregon has the second highest minimum wages in the nation, by law, contrary to what the link claims.

I knew Oregon had a higher-than-fed, but not high enough, STATE minimum wage, AND blocks cities from raising the state wage higher, just as the article claims.

"A few others —Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, South Carolina, Oregon and
now Wisconsin — have passed laws that actually forbid citywide minimum wage laws.3"

http://brennan.3cdn.net/61d71f6dc9f7116f1d_phm6bx3n9.pdf

[Wild Cobra]

I knew Oregon had a higher-than-fed, but not high enough, STATE minimum wage, AND blocks cities from raising the state wage higher, just as the article claims.

"A few others —Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, South Carolina, Oregon and
now Wisconsin — have passed laws that actually forbid citywide minimum wage laws.3"

http://brennan.3cdn.net/61d71f6dc9f7116f1d_phm6bx3n9.pdf
I call bullshit. I would like to see the Oregon statute that prevents a city from making a higher minimum wage than the state.

[boutons_deux]

I call bullshit. I would like to see the Oregon statute that prevents a city from making a higher minimum wage than the state.

"Do Your Own Research" -- WC

[Wild Cobra]

"Do Your Own Research" -- WC

LOL...

You idiot. Note 39 in your link does not support the contention they make. How am I going to prove a law doesn't exist?

I have lived in Oregon all my life except during my military service, and I have never heard of this. That is why I say your source is bullshit.

[Winehole23]

Oregon prohibits cities from raising the minimum wage, but indexes it to the rate of inflation:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/04/oregon_minimum_wage_increase_d.html

[Winehole23]

took me 30 seconds

[boutons_deux]

LOL...

You idiot. Note 39 in your link does not support the contention they make. How am I going to prove a law doesn't exist?

I have lived in Oregon all my life except during my military service, and I have never heard of this. That is why I say your source is bullshit.

so if WC hasn't heard of it, it doesn't exist.

again:

http://brennan.3cdn.net/61d71f6dc9f7..._phm6bx3n9.pdf (http://brennan.3cdn.net/61d71f6dc9f7116f1d_phm6bx3n9.pdf)

note 39 only makes exceptions to the OR law forbidding cities from their own minimum wages.

[Wild Cobra]

Oregon prohibits cities from raising the minimum wage, but indexes it to the rate of inflation:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/04/oregon_minimum_wage_increase_d.html


took me 30 seconds
The link says:

But unlike in Seattle, Oregon local officials’ opinions about the minimum wage have little impact. State law prohibits cities from raising their minimum wage. The most local officials can do is encourage state legislators to bring the issue forward, Lunch said.
Note, no reference to a statute.

Again, I say bullshit.

[Wild Cobra]

so if WC hasn't heard of it, it doesn't exist.

again:

http://brennan.3cdn.net/61d71f6dc9f7..._phm6bx3n9.pdf (http://brennan.3cdn.net/61d71f6dc9f7116f1d_phm6bx3n9.pdf)

note 39 only makes exceptions to the OR law forbidding cities from their own minimum wages.
It says that. It gives no source reference. This is very unprofessional.

[Winehole23]

The link says:

Note, no reference to a statute.

Again, I say bullshit.you disbelieve the Oregonian because the statute isn't cited?

[Wild Cobra]

you disbelieve the Oregonian because the statute isn't cited?
I never believe the Oregonian at face value anyway. It lies constantly as it is. I say bullshit until someone references the Oregon statute that prevents cities from having their own minimum wage as claimed. If this is a fact, then source it.

Unfounded allegations don't fair well with me.

[Winehole23]

here you go: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/653.017

[Winehole23]

took me a little longer, about five minutes. rather than educate yourself, you seem to prefer using your ignorance as a shield.

[Winehole23]

looks like the Oregonian did its job, while you hid behind bs.

[Wild Cobra]

here you go: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/653.017
Thank-You.

It's about time you guys support a claim.

[Wild Cobra]

took me a little longer, about five minutes. rather than educate yourself, you seem to prefer using your ignorance as a shield.
No, you have it all wrong. I find it disturbing when people believe what they read without verification. Worse yet when they repeat what is often an unfounded rumor, like gossiping girls.

[TeyshaBlue]

No, he has it absolutely right.

[TeyshaBlue]

Thank-You.

It's about time you guys support a claim.

lol "Do your own research."

[Winehole23]

Thank-You.

It's about time you guys support a claim.no, thank you. it's pretty rare that you admit your skepticism is mostly based on laziness and ignorance.

[Winehole23]

willful ignorance, I should say. your skepticism quickly evaporates when the source agrees with your biases.

[Wild Cobra]

Believe as you wish. I don't mind because you don't matter in the real world.

[pgardn]

Believe as you wish. I don't mind because you don't matter in the real world.


He does not matter in the real world...

That'll show him.

[Wild Cobra]

He does not matter in the real world...

That'll show him.

Well, I am guilty of asking others to do their own homework, but I believe I generally do such things when dealing with topics others clearly haven't educated themselves with. Especially like global warming. If you follow what I challenged, it was a post making a statement without referencing a source. The next link did the same thing. Just look at how often there are misstatements, misdirection, and outright lies in the media today.

I am a firm believer that is someone is going to post a claim as fact, it should be sourced with a reliable reference to back it up. Especially when it appears laughable, or a source is asked for. I am truly surprised that Oregon made such a law. I have never heard word of it, and also surprised I never heard of a local advocate streak out against it.

In post 220, I quoted this:
According to Paul Sonn, general counsel and program director at the National Employment Law Project, a handful of mostly Republican-leaning states passed these kinds of bans about a decade ago, including Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, and Texas.
It especially seemed fishy since they included Oregon in the "mostly republican leaning states" remark. In all honesty, I thought someone wrote the wrong state name, misreading a two character abbreviation and it went overlooked or something.

[ElNono]

lol "Do your own research."


The link says:

Note, no reference to a statute.

Again, I say bullshit.


It says that. It gives no source reference. This is very unprofessional.


I never believe the Oregonian at face value anyway. It lies constantly as it is. I say bullshit until someone references the Oregon statute that prevents cities from having their own minimum wage as claimed. If this is a fact, then source it.

Unfounded allegations don't fair well with me.


took me a little longer, about five minutes. rather than educate yourself, you seem to prefer using your ignorance as a shield.

BANG :lmao

[Winehole23]

Believe as you wish. I don't mind because you don't matter in the real world.Believe as you wish; this forum is part of the real world.

The posts are real. The entertainment value and the boredom that underwrites it are real. The conversations involve real posters, interacting in real time. Every part of this forum is real world related and occurs within it. It's a thing among things. It's not nothing.

None of that may not be important to you, but no matter: the real world includes a lot of things that are unimportant to you.

[boutons_deux]

The Country’s Largest City Is Considering A $15 Minimum Wage (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/17/3427778/15-minimum-wage-new-york-city/)

Lawmakers in New York City announced a proposal to raise the city’s minimum wage (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/nyregion/new-york-lawmakers-push-to-raise-wages-at-biggest-chains.html) for businesses with yearly sales of $50 million or more to $15 an hour on Wednesday.
The state passed a higher minimum wage that took place (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/28/3105581/minimum-wage-raise-year/) at the beginning of this year, rising to $8 an hour (http://nypost.com/2013/12/27/ny-increasing-minimum-wage-to-8-an-hour-in-2014/) this year and $9 by 2015. The $15 wage would apply to chain stores and restaurants with at least 11 locations nationwide. While manufacturers would be exempt, those involved in transportation such as airport subcontractors would be covered. The lawmakers estimate that at least 120 chains (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/state-bill-require-15-hour-minimum-wage-chains-large-businesses-blog-entry-1.1758740) in the city would be impacted. The wage would also be indexed to inflation, rising automatically as prices rise.

Daniel Squadron (D), who proposed the bill, said that while he supports raising the wage for everyone, it makes sense to target big chains. “These aren’t those small businesses that are just barely getting by,” he said at a news conference.

The lawmakers face a tough fight in trying to pass the wage. Currently, the city can’t set its own wage thanks to a court decision from 1961, which struck down the city’s higher minimum wage (http://www.nyslocalgov.org/pdf/Strengthening_Home_Rule.pdf) as being in conflict with the state’s wage. Advocates are pushing state lawmakers to pass legislation t hat would give New York cities and counties the authority to set higher minimum wages, according to Jack Temple, policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project. But Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and state leaders shot down a proposal from New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) earlier this year that would have let the city set its own wage.

New York is not the only city considering the $15 wage level. Activists in Seattle filed paperwork this week (http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/15/labor-activists-file-initiative-to-raise-seattles-minimum-wage-to-15/) to put a question on the ballot to raise the city’s minimum wage to that level over three years, although they are also pressuring the city council and Mayor Ed Murray (D), who supports raising the wage to $15 an hour (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/06/3122991/seattle-minimum-wage/), to pass the increase without exemptions or delays in the meantime. In Davis, CA, activists are also trying to put a $15 wage on the ballot (http://www.news10.net/story/news/local/davis/2014/04/14/davis-group-trying-to-raise-city-minimum-wage-to-15/7719645/) and will need to collect about 7,000 signatures by May 1. They currently have about 1,200. Lawmakers in Los Angeles have been pushing to raise the minimum wage for hotel workers (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/16/3171441/15-minimum-wage-jobs/) to $15.37 an hour. And while it wasn’t a binding vote, Chicago voters overwhelmingly supported (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/19/chicago-minimum-wage-referendum_n_4995110.html) an advisory question on whether to raise (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/10/3146341/chicago-15-minimum-wage/) the city’s wage to that level.

The only success so far has been in the small town of SeaTac, just outside of Seattle, where voters passed a $15 minimum wage (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/10/3044441/seatac-minimum-wage-workers/) in November. But the outcome has since been embroiled in a court battle and a court ruling has limited the impact to workers outside of the airport that calls the town home, not those inside the airport.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/17/3427778/15-minimum-wage-new-york-city/

[boutons_deux]

All Economics Is Local

With the national debate stuck in the same old rut, states and cities have again become laboratories of democracy. Are they on the right path? For the last 15 years we have been doing research on just this question.

One city we have studied in detail, San Francisco, has passed a dozen labor standards laws since the late 1990s. After adding the effects of other local laws mandating employers to pay for sick leave and health spending, the minimum compensation standard at larger firms in San Francisco reaches $13. Our studies (http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/publications/when-mandates-work/when-mandates-work-slides.pdf) show that the impact of these laws on workers’ wages (and access to health care) is strong and positive and that none of the dire predictions of employment loss have come to pass.

Research at the University of New Mexico on Santa Fe (https://bber.unm.edu/pubs/SantaFeEarningsFinalReport.pdf)’s floor (now $10.66) found similar results.

These are not isolated cases. Research on the effects of differing minimum wage rates across state borders (http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/149-13.pdf) confirms the results of the city studies. But how can minimum wage increases not have negative effects on employment? After all, according to basic economic theory, an increase in the price of labor should reduce employer demand for labor.

That’s not the whole story, though. A full analysis must include the variety of other ways labor costs might be absorbed, including savings from reduced worker turnover and improved efficiency, as well as higher prices and lower profits.

Modern economics therefore regards the employment effect of a minimum-wage increase as a question that is not decided by theory, but by empirical testing.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/all-economics-is-local/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[boutons_deux]

What You Need to Earn to Rent a Decent One-Bedroom in America

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/Screen_Shot_2014-04-26_at_10.40_.03_AM_.png


Mapped in finer detail than by state, several geographic patterns are clearer. No single county in America has a one-bedroom housing wage below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 (several counties in Arkansas come in at $7.98).

Coastal and urban counties are among the most expensive. The entire Boston-New York-Washington corridor includes little respite from high housing wages. Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties in California rank as the least affordable in the country (scroll over each county in the interactive version for rankings; click to zoom). In each of those counties, a one-bedroom hourly housing wage is $29.83, or the equivalent of 3.7 full-time jobs at the actual minimum wage (or an annual salary of about $62,000). Move inland in California, and housing grows less expensive.

… As a commentary on the national minimum-wage debate, this map is limited. While it suggests that a minimum-wage worker can’t afford housing in Seattle (where the one-bedroom housing wage is $17.56 an hour), in reality that person probably finds housing by renting a room in someone else’s home, by living in the cheapest part of town, or by working considerably more than 40 hours a week.

(Remember George W. Bush’s praise for the “uniquely American” story of the single mother of three who worked three jobs in Omaha?)

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/what_you_need_to_earn_to_rent_a_decent_one-bedroom_in_america_20140426

[Wild Cobra]

Why do people insist on thinking that minimum wage should be a living wage?

Wake up Larry!