I like the term liveable wage rather than minimum wage. The problem I see with a
minimum wage is that prices have to adjust so the employer can pay the worker.
However, you have to consider what the dollar can buy. In 1976, I made $1.65 an
hour. At that amount it took me about 30 weeks to buy a low tiered new car. In
todays dollars, it would take over 60 weeks. This shows that minimum wage has
fallen behind in the case of buying a new car (you have to take into account the
new technologies in the car for raising the cost). But other items show a
similar loss, just not as drastic. So I believe we are due for a raise of the
minimum wage. Going by a liveable wage to keep up with valuations is a fairer
system. Key items considered to be necessities would be totalled and the cost to
buy them would determine the liveable wage.
Having no minimum wage may be a good idea, if other laws were put in place to
ensure that workers are not abused. In Germany and other northern European
countries there is no minimum wage, but they do have laws that businesses
cannot pay workers an "immoral wage". Given the higher
inequality-adjusted human development index of northern European countries
compared to the US and other European countries with set minimum wages, such
laws may be to the benefit of workers. A business operating in a country with a
set minimum wage can say that it is obeying the law by paying workers a
(potentially) un-livable wage set by the government. With German-styled wage
laws, an un-livable wage would probably be ruled immoral and thus illegal
forcing the business to pay a higher wage. I would imagine with no clearly
defined "moral" wage, the cost of a lengthy law suite for paying workers
too little would probably encourage businesses to pay a wage well above the goal
post of what may be legally considered "moral".
It is too bad that there is even a need for a minimum wage, but under present
circumstances this need exists. Income inequality is growing worse. This
inequality is not just a matter of a low minimum wage, but a U.S. labor surplus
that is especially harmful to the unskilled and working poor. This labor surplus
depresses wages and is being caused by a generation of automation,
mechanization, off-shoring of manufacturing, and a flood of both legal and
illegal foreign labor. The labor surplus cannot be reduced by
economic expansion and more education alone, even though they would be very
helpful. Times have changed and many jobs have been lost forever. In addition
to economic expansion, the labor surplus can also be reduced by slowing or
stopping the flood of cheaper foreign labor. If the labor market were to
tighten wages would increase, due to supply and demand, perhaps making a minimum
wage unnecessary. A strongly enforced E-Verify law would go a long way
eliminating illegal labor. To see the results of a labor surplus
caused by flooding the labor market with cheap foreign labor, I suggest reading
the 1906 Upton Sinclair muckraking novel, The Jungle.
The key to making wages go up is to reduce the number of unemployed. Simple
supply and demand. No need for a law regulating wage, the open market would
take care of that. If we had an employment rate of say 2 or 3 percent, there
would be such a demand on workers that no one, not even teenagers would be paid
what the current minimum wage is. Employers would have to pay more, or they
would not have any employees to work for them. Simple economics.
Million Bluffdale, UTOkay, I was happy to see my minimum wage go
from $1.60 to $2.00 a long time ago. However, now that I am old and retired I
know the dangers of inflation on my fixed retired income. Slow to go up is the
smart reasoning for the retired crowd.8:26 a.m. Dec. 10, 2013======== Your "fixed retired income" is in
absolutely NO danger of inflation.The mean old nasty Government has
automatic "fixed" COLA [Cost Os Living Allowances] that automatically
adjust based in inflation.Minimum wage has no such guarantees, and stays the same no matter what the economy is doing.This is why
the Rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer.If
minimum wage had those COLA adjustments that your "fixed income" has,
then your paltry $1.60 and hour made would be over $12 an hour in
today's dollars, and your raise you felt so blessed to get, would be
adjusted to $15 and hour.
Okay, I was happy to see my minimum wage go from $1.60 to $2.00 a long time ago.
However, now that I am old and retired I know the dangers of inflation on my
fixed retired income. Slow to go up is the smart reasoning for the retired
Ranch says: "Lets just keep the lowest paid people down at the bottom, shall
we?"Well . . yes, actually. The way you phrase that, I
don't know what you're suggesting. Put the highest-paid people at the
top? In the middle? Pay the guy who cuts the grass more than a middle manager
who runs part of an essential department? Of course the lowest paid (read: least
skilled) people are going to be at the bottom of the pile. That's exactly
how it should be. You want to earn more? Acquire an in-demand skill so you
can't easily be replaced if you are dissatisfied with your minimum wage
salary.It's simple supply and demand. There are a lot of people
who can serve me french fries competently, so you better take what you can get.
There aren't so many who can operate on my heart, develop new technology,
or caption live television (which is what I'm studying right now).
RE: Fred44 "Without a mandate, fewer and fewer companies will pay a living
wage." True. Marx predicted that capitalism would reach a stage where
capital would become more and more concentrated and wages would collapse (along
with profits eventually). This is happening, faster and faster. Marx is sadly
@ TooSmartForYouYou said, "Scrooge repented and changed his
ways. But you choose to focus on his stingy ways. Too many fall head-long into
that trap. Scrooge ended up being very generous and supportive of his workers
and family and started making friends. And NO it WAS NOT the government coercion
that forced him to change."Should millions of American workers
be forced to wait - and they will wait forever - until Scrooge Walmart, Scrooge
McDonalds, and every other Scrooge company miraculously sees the light and
decides its time to repent and pay their workers a living wage? No! Governments
( aka We The People) can reduce this inequality now through high taxation and a
welfare state ( Sweden) or by requiring CEOs only be paid 20x the amount of
their lowest paid workers ( Japan). If you look at Sweden and Japan they are
very low on the scale of inequality, yet they use two different methods to
achieve that low inequality. It doesn't matter which way you pick, but pick
one way and stick to it!
100% disagree with this article! All workers should earn a living wage ($15 an
hour). American society will not permit anyone to starve to death or die from
life threatening issues without trying to help ( By law you will be treated if
you show up with a life threatening problem). We should expect businesses to pay
people living wages so they can truly take care of themselves without burdening
the system for healthcare (preventative care which is cheaper than reactive
care) or other assistance!
@Craig ClarkI am a research engineer for a fortune 50 company. A
quick survey around the office found exactly zero people who had never worked
for minimum wage.They all worked hard, studied in school and
produced, and then moved up.I am also an employer. If an employee is
doing a good job for me and generating revenue then I want to keep them. I do
what I have to do, withing reason, to keep them.Complainers and
trouble makers, and those that think the world owes them a living can't
leave soon enough.
It's Greed that keeps product prices going up. Both from the owner and the
workers.Workers want more money so the product price goes up. Owners
don't make enough so they increase the price of their products. How about
this I will be glad to make 3 dollars an hour. if the price of bread goes down
to 10 cents a loaf A price of a house should be 10000 dollars, for a 3
bedroom 2 bath home. And so on and so forth. What about instead of asking for
more settle for less. Both the consumers and producers if everyone was willing
to work on this there would be no need for Government meddling in it. I know
this sounds crazy . But think about it
The answer is: Yes.
Why doesn't congress take action to strengthen the dollar and keep
inflation low...seems it would make every dollar us workers make worth more. As
Obama increases the National Debt he shoulders our kids with a burden they
don't deserve and decreases the value every dollar min wage workers earn.
Where is the outcry by democrats? Democrats are supposedly standing up for those
who can't do it themselves, but it doesn't seem so in this case now
Minimum wage not good enough for you? Go find a higher-paying job if you are
worth more. No one forces you to stay where you are. Eventually, supply of
low-paid workers may well dry up then employer is forced by the market to pay
higher wages to keep his (best) workers. I know all about this situation. I am
an employer in the service industry for 32 years now. The only workers I employ
at the state-mandated minimum wage are high school students. They get raises
based on merit and performance. Sadly, Alberta minimum is $9.95/hr. (See you at
the old switcharoomesa, AZAgreed, Utah should lower it's
minimum wage to $3 an hour and see how that works out. Get the food banks ready
for the conservative Utopia.12:29 p.m. Dec. 9, 2013========== How about doing away with ANY "minimum" wage in
Utah.Those companies who out-sourced those .12 per hour jobs to Communist
China would then move them here.And if minimum wage falls to .12 and
hour, then Middle income wage earners would then be forced to compete for
$1.25 an hour, And then Top earners would be making only $10 an hour.An Ann Ryand dream come true.Everyone living like Somalia, gang, drugs and prostituition being the only careers left to get ahead....An WallStreet could careless...
This country will continue to deteriorate because as many of you have pointed
out, there is no requirement to pay a living wage. Without a mandate, fewer and
fewer companies will pay a living wage. Call it whatever you want, good
business, corporate greed. As two bits said, as long as supply exceeds demand
then there is no need to pay a decent wage. Most companies who can
outsource to third world companies are doing so with no regard to how it impacts
the United States and even less regard for the workers they employ in other
countries. For most businesses, the only measurement is profit, which they are
entitled to do.There are still Americans who will sacrifice a little
bit of profit to pay their employees s living wage, but they are few and far
between and getting harder to find every day. We will soon have a rich ruling
class and a poor working class and that is the goal of those like the Koch
brothers who control so much of the financial policy in our state houses today.
RE: 2 bits "The law of supply and demand is also involved. IF there is an
over-supply of minimum-wage workers... the $$$ they can demand naturally goes
down, just like anything when theres more supply than demand." OK, but a
price (or in this case wage) which comes out of a market is only fair if the
market approaches an "ideal" market where there are so many buyers and
sellers that no one buyer (or small number of buyers) or seller can force a
price. In the case of fast food, for example, there is a relatively small
number of buyers of minimum wage labor, so those buyers can force a price (in
this case wage). I repeat, the only pertinent question is: Are minimum wage
workers being compensated fully for the value they add. Due to the nature of
this labor market the answer is certainly no. Of course, one could argue if
minimum wage workers are willing to work at the current wage, what's their
beef? The answer is they have no choice. What ever happened to free agency?If you think they are presently fully compensated you should say why.
And this includes you, Deseret News.
toosmartforyou,I think Scrooge would have been a MUCH better play if
at the end the Government came in and upped the minimum wage and saved the day.
(just kidding, that would be Scrooge written by a Marxist). You make a good
point though. Scrooge changed and started caring for his employees and his
fellow man because HE changed (not due to a Government mandate).Maybe we should focus on actually changing, and not just focus on the
government coming in and MANDATING Scrooge pay poor Jacob Marley more.===What company is going to be the first to break the mold?
Which is going to be the first to VOLUNTARY start paying unskilled workers
$15.00/hour?Marxist, LDS Liberal, etc, why don't you open a
fast food place, or a hotel, or a farm, and pay everybody working there
$15.00/hour to set the example for us??
LDS Liberal,RE: "Since WallStreet has yieled 10,000% earnings on
the backs of these very laborers"...The Stock Market
doesn't indicate "earnings". It's an index measuring the
value of company stock (not the company's "Earnings"). So if the
stock market goes up... that does not necessarily mean "Earnings" went
up 10000%", it indicates the "Value" of a share of stock in those
companies went up (not the companies earnings/profit).The people who
benefit when the stock market goes up are... people who own stock (not the CEO
or employees). IF you have a 401K... you own stock, just like any vilified
"The only pertinent question is this: Are workers currently receiving the
minimum wage being compensated for the value they add"?That's NOT the only pertinent question.The law of supply and
demand is also involved. IF there is an over-supply of minimum-wage workers...
the $$$ they can demand naturally goes down, just like anything when theres more
supply than demand.IF there were LESS minimum-wage workers than
needed... they could demand higher wages. It's the law of
@VST.... i agree totally with what you say if there were a strong corollary
between wages and inflation. But there isn't. The two often behave quit
independently of each other. Usually this is explained through the variable of
productivity. Revenue per employ ranges wildly by industry, and job function.
So simple math precludes that wage increases are negated by increase in cost to
live. We see this throughout history.BUT... I do agree the system
and process is flawed in that we aren't getting to the root of the
problem... that certain functions in society have relatively low value. Is
there enough value that can be created by having the housekeeper in a hotel
performing higher value tasks - can they make the room that much better - that
you are willing to pay the extra wage that would be baked into your hotel bill
to justify the effort?And yet, doesn't that housekeeper deserve
to live in a safe house, and have access to health care? Most say no. It is
her own fault for doing that job. But if not her - who does that job? That
question never seems to get answered.
Agreed, Utah should lower it's minimum wage to $3 an hour and see how that
works out. Get the food banks ready for the conservative Utopia.
TMR, why do you use Scrooge as a poor example? Didn't you stay until the
end of the play? For goodness sakes, Scrooge repented and changed his ways.
But you choose to focus on his stingy ways. Too many fall head-long into that
trap. Scrooge ended up being very generous and supportive of his workers and
family and started making friends. And NO it WAS NOT the government coercion
that forced him to change. Jacob Marley didn't change and it was too late
for him. I just love that play because people can indeed change for the better.
I suggest you attend the play or read the book again and pay attention.
unbelievably weak argument. It completely ignores the fact that "from 1973
to 2011, worker productivity grew 80 percent, while median hourly compensation,
after inflation, grew by just one-eighth that amount. And since 2000,
productivity has risen 23 percent while real hourly pay has essentially
stagnated.According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, median
income for working-age households (headed by someone under age 65) slid 12.4
percent from 2000 to 2011, to $55,640. During that time the American economy
grew more than 18 percent." The country's wealth has been
systematically redistributed to the upper 1% which now holds 40% of it.
Extremely loose labor market in which workers out numbers jobs in every single
sector indicates that the unemployed are not lazy but the victims of a political
process that is owned by the very wealthy.this kind of inequality destroys the
economy. Taxpayers subsidize low income jobs in fast food, for example, to the
tune of 7 billion a year. Why do I have to pay Wal-Mart employees to compensate
for an employer that refuses to cut into their exorbitant profits? More than one
in five children's parent get a raise if the minimum wage were increased to
RE: Informed? "For me the question is: Why should we pay someone way more
money than they earn?" Please see my response. I argue that workers
currently at the minimum wage are not fully compensated for the value they add.
That is, they are receiving less pay than they earn.
yeah, I think they should lower it so Utah employers can even pay less than they
do now, which is not much, of course that would cut into the LDS church budgets,
10% of nothing is nothing
What I would like to see is all those who are pushing to raise the minimum wage
start paying their employees more. Don't wait for it to become law.
We already have an effective minimum wage that his higher than $7.25/hr. If
someone makes $7.25/hr and live on their own, they likely qualify for public
assistance, paid for by tax dollars. They live off of that combination of their
low wages plus public assistance. The cost to society for a McDonalds employee
is more than just the $7.25/hr McDonalds pays the employee. The big problem is
that those who eat at McDonalds are having the true cost of that food subsidized
by taxpayers. It's no different than dairy farmers getting subsidies to
keep down the price of milk. The true cost of milk is higher than what is paid
at the grocery store. Part of that true cost is paid by all taxpayers instead
of just milk drinkers. And the argument that increasing the minimum
wage will result in layoffs is erroneous too as all McDonalds competitors will
be subject to the same minimum wage increases. McDonalds would have to raise
prices in order to maintain their profit margins, but so would all of their
competitors. The real outcome is that the actual McDonalds customers would be
paying the full cost of their purchases with less taxpayer subsidies.
To Big Momma, I have "made my own way," thank you. Might I suggest that
you tune in to Dicken's Christmas Carol this holiday season: it may help
tame your cursory dismissal of those who for whatever reason have not made their
own way. Every time minimum wage is proposed, two reactions ensue: 1)
predictions of the economic collapse of the United States; and 2) mean-spirited
blaming of the poor for their own condition. May I remind you Big Momma and all
you other Scrooges that this economy needs minimum wage service workers. The
least we "who have made their way" can do is to support a livable salary
on those upon whom we depend for food, services, etc.
For me the question is: Why should we pay someone way more money than they
earn?Let them prove their value to their employer.
You don't need to go to college to improve your pay. There are many jobs
such as plumbers, electricians, and so many others that can pay you much better.
You can get this training at your local Applied Technology College. My Uncle
Bernard told my mother that he didn't know who would fill his job at Ford
because people are just not learning the skill. I think he was a die cutter.
Many people go to college and earn degrees that do not have any real world jobs
in their area, or at least very few. I was a music performance major until my
mother told me that I needed to get a job after college that would help me get a
job. I became an educator. I started with low wages, higher than a minimum wage
and I had good benefits, but as time went by things improved.
I'd like to think that if the minimum wage was raised, all kinds of good
things could happen. Parents would not have to work 2-3 jobs to keep a roof
over their family's head, and could spend more time parenting and nurturing
their children. Perhaps there would be less gang activity and drug problems.
Fewer kids would drop out of school and therefore move on to learn valuable
trades or get a college education. Perhaps the next generations would then have
a step up. Low wage families would depend less on food stamps, welfare, and
medicaid because they would be able to feed, cloth and shelter their own.
Increased wages would mean increased tax revenue, which would help strengthen
and repair schools and get more qualified teachers and basic quality learning
materials. I understand many inner city schools throughout our nation lack even
the basics. I believe it is never just "us" and "them". We are
all citizens of this nation and we cannot ignore poverty.
Oh well, I guess the Deseret News editorial board doesn't need a raise
since they think it'd just result in higher costs.
The only pertinent question is this: Are workers currently receiving the
minimum wage being compensated for the value they add? If not, the minimum wage
should be raised to the point that they are fully compensated for the value they
add to the final product or service. Can anyone dispute what I say?The next question is: Is there any reason to believe that workers at the
minimum wage are not being compensated for their contributions? Yes, the labor
market prevailing at low wage levels is not the "ideal" market
recommended by economists. This labor market is dominated by a few large
employers, e.g. Wal-Mart, McDonalds, BurgerKing, and the like. They have
"market power" - the ability to force a wage. The labor market for low
wage labor is not an "ideal" labor market. The buyers in this labor are
not "price takers" but are instead price setters.The last
question is: who makes up the difference between what low wage labor gets and
their total contribution to product? Answer: tax payers through assistance
programs like food stamps and other consumers through higher medical bills to
fund ER's.You need to think harder about this.
The article is right. Raising the minimum wage will not overcome poverty. But
it will give a temporary boost to the livelihood of working people. Then only
until the businessmen get the prices of goods reset to the new level. Wages are controlled by supply and demand. Technology has reduced the demand
for human labor and given an advantage to owners that threatens our society.
The only way the government can force businessmen to pay more for labor and
bring balance back to our economy is to end unemployment. If the
government would hire every unemployed person at a wage according to their needs
and skills, private enterprise would have to match or exceed that amount to
obtain the workers it needs. These workers would not be idle, there are
billions of things needed by our society. The cost of this
government program would be financed by a tax on business operations that feed
on the American economy. Business would have the choice of hiring all the
workers and reducing the tax to zero or paying the tax. Full
employment could end poverty and stabilize the economy.
"A man is only worth what he is willing to work for." That assumes a
fair market economy where one can tell the boss to "give this job to someone
else (read between the lines)" and find another. Once years ago I saw a guy
wearing a hat that said "I wish I had a job I could shove." I laughed.
There is a scripture that says "the laborer is worthy of his
hire" and many don't heed that.In my case, where I own the
company, I have at times paid my employees more than I paid myself because on
certain contracts we made more money and I recognized their worth in producing
the services of our contract. I don't know of too many who do that,
however.I do admit, also, I have a hard time with people who will
not do their job and have a gimmie, gimmie attitude. Usually they are the least
qualified in the company.
Isn't there a file somewhere where we can replay all the same tired
arguments from both sides? Must we really pretend this is new or novel, that
there isn't evidence on the impact of these actions? Must we really go
through this silliness.Minimum wage was never intended to be enough
for a family of four to live on.... at least anything that would be acceptable
by most people. That said, if we aren't going to pay these people enough
to live, we need to counter that by making sure they have access to basic
services - education, healthcare, and a safe neighborhood to live in.We can't have it both ways. We are hopefully a little more evolved than
simply survival of the fittest. We don't need to level the outcomes - just
the playing field.
Chris B,"....Go make yourself more valuable and you will get
paid more, its that simple."______________________________I wish it were that simple, Chris. But that's not the real world. For
every one who makes a success of it by applying himself, there are far more who
try just as hard or even harder and can't break the cycle of poverty that
keeps them struggling to make ends meet.
When Henry Ford doubled his workers wages to $5 a day in 1914, he was criticized
by business leaders. Ford said his workers could now afford to buy his cars. He
was thinking on a small scale, but when workers are paid more they buy more. The
economy is more consumer driven than it is production driven. Also
overlooked by the article is that the average age of fast food workers is 29.5.
The DN denigrates these workers by saying it is just a humble start and that All
should get a higher education. For many this is a long-term job and there is
nothing wrong with that. We will always need service workers. A minimum wage
service worker who makes $14,500 a year and has family cannot afford to go to
college. Finally, McDonald's made $6.95 billion in profits
last year. That is about $16,000 per worker (440,000 fulltime and part-time
workers total). McDonald's could easily afford to pay about $3 an hour
more. And who knows, maybe they will be able to buy more of their burgers.
TMRPerhaps if they didn't have a college degree. The world
doesn't owe anyone a living. Make your own way and stop crying.
Its not McDonalds responsibility to provide enough for someone to provide for a
family. Its McDonalds responsibility to pay for the work done. And if
someone's work is more valuable than what they are making, there will be
another company willing to pay more. If no company is willing to pay more, its
because the value of the work provided isn't what people think it is. Besides, if a 16 year old high school kid and a 30 year old father of 4
are both doing the same job at McDonadls, why would McDonalds be forced to pay
them both a rate at which the man can support 4 people simply because he has a
family?Go make yourself more valuable and you will get paid more,
its that simple.
@Ranch "This editorial is quite simply, disgusting." I think
the weather is disgusting. Congress should pass a law to change it. (rolls
eyes)I mean no offense to anybody, but the lack of understanding of
simple economics by many of the comments is stunning. Do your kids a favor and
teach them basic economics - teach them how the world works. The truth is
basically the following, which was stated correctly in the editorial:"Congress periodically gives a little by raising the rate, and then
inflation takes a little by lowering the real minimum wage."That
is how it works. Even your most liberal, left-wing Democrat business owner has
to adjust his business by these "laws" of economics.
Random Thoughts on a Minimum Wage:1. The minimum wage was first
proposed, in the USA, by northern states. As their industries began to migrate
south for lower labor costs, the northern states proposed a minimum wage as a
means of ending the financial incentive to go south.2. People on a
minimum wage qualify for food stamps and other government programs. This drives
the tax burden up. Raising the minimum wage would end this back door.3. Illegal aliens will work for less than American workers. A minimum wage of
$12.00 an hour would price illegal aliens out of the market. Many would simply
have to go back where they came from.4. Raising the minimum wage
frequently does not have the desired effect. My grandmother was on Social
Security. Every time she got an increase, her landlord increased her rent by the
same dollar amount. The land lord got the raise. My father-in-law was in a union
in a small town. When the union got a raise, prices all over town went up.Let's be creative and address this another way.
"Republicans like a minimum wage--the more minimum the better"--Harry
Since WallStreet has yieled 10,000% earnings on the backs of these very laborers
[producers], after 35 years, I'd like to see some of this
"trickle-down" economics Republicnas keep preaching to us about.The only FACTS I see right in front of me -- is the elimination of
the middle class and the growing disparity between the uber-rich and the
poor.The 1% who now own 85% of everything vs. the 99% of the
rest of us fighting over the 15% table straps.
Perhaps if the D-News editorial board were to live on minimum wage for a while
there would be a change of position.
If you are going to set the minimum price of labor at some arbitrary value
whether that value is $7.25, $10, $15, or $50 then you must also set a
corrosponding minumum "productivity level" at some percentage above
that.If a worker is making $15 an hour, then they must produce about
$20 an hour in real value to their employers. No business is going to stay in
business if it pays its workers more in salary and benefits than those workers
produce. That math only works in government.
This piece is bunk. Wages have ceased to have any relationship to worker
productivity, a fact that even conservative economists admit. It wasn't
always so. Up until 1980 productivity increases and wage increases went hand in
hand. All of sudden, in 1980 that stopped. Productivity has continued to
increase through that entire period, yet wages flatlined. What happened in 1980
that changed the relationship between worker productivity and wages?
I agree the government should not raise minimum wage to $15.00. Employees
should raise their skills so they are qualified to make more, or move on to
better jobs.grocery bagger and other unskilled jobs are not intended
to be a career. They are a source of inexpensive help for a business... and a
starting place for young unskilled workers who want a place to prove they can
handle the responsibilities required to hold a job, and prepare them to hold a
better job in the future.My first job (Janitor at the Elementary
School when I was in Jr High) taught me 2 important things.1. How to
be responsible and reliable, and willing to work hard.2. Convinced me that
I wanted to go to college and NOT be a janitor all my life.IF we
have to pay kids who want to earn gas money the same salary required to support
a whole family... many employers will stop hiring kids (who are inexpensive but
usually marginally necessary help). So there will be very few after school
jobs for kids to start out in.People who expect to make bagging
groceries or flipping burgers a career... need to rethink that plan.
Okay. But has the nature of unskilled work changed? Isn't a fast food
worker today just about the same as one 30 to 40 years ago?Using
constant 1996 dollars, the current minimum wage is about $4.87. Throughout most
of the 60s and 70s it floated between $6 and $7 (again in constant dollars).Why was it okay to pay a much higher minimum wage 30 or 40 years ago
"....In market economies, wages are determined by the productivity of
labor...."______________________________That may sound
great in theory but it’s a false premise. The minimum wage is very minimum
indeed and those who most vociferously oppose raising it are much better paid
people who would not want to have to live on it themselves.
As long as we're addressing the need for further higher education to get
people our of these "beginner" low-paying jobs, we should also
address the terrible student debt many end up with, by following the "you
need to get higher education" mantra. There should be a way to get an
education without ending up with the disheartening,unending,inescapable
're-payment of student loans' cash drain on young families. I know many young mothers who should and want to be home with their babies and
young toddlers, but who HAVE to work to make enough to pay off those albatrosses
of debt hanging around their necks. :(
In essence the Deseret News board are proponents of Economic Darwinism. The
question that the Editorial Board has completely missed is the economic benefits
employers have gained by not providing an income that can sustain a modest
lifestyle, which forces the employees to enroll in government programs to make
up the difference. We as taxpayers are providing a direct subsidy to employers
who then pocket the different. No, reasonable, person is suggesting $15/hr is an
actual national minimum wage, it's merely a number to begin negotiations,
whereas most interested parties would probably settle for 10-12 an hr.
How about it hurts the very people it was suppose to help. The raise in minimum
wage has sent the unemployment rate for teenage workers and those on the bottom
pay scale through the roof. The tried and true way for making more money is
increasing skills. PERIOD. Works 100% on the time. People should be paid
whatever the economic value of what they produce is, not some government
workers' definition of living wage.
For more than thirty years, I have owned and operated a business whose purpose
it has been to build process control computers that reduced the need for
"minimum wage" people in businesses. In 1982, several businesses
approached me and told me that labor costs were higher than the value of that
labor. I developed electronics that enabled each of their machines to produce
1,500 units per hour instead of 250 units per hour. The electronics cost $6,500
per machine. Labor, per employee, with benefits was $10 per hour at that time.
They were paying approximately $20,000 per year per "entry level"
employee. The electronics reduced their need for more than 50% of their
unskilled labor.If the minimum wage is raised, companies will
replace unskilled labor with machines. We rent movies from Redbox. We get cash
from machines. We buy many things from Amazon. We WILL be using touch-screens
computers to order from McDonalds. McDonalds will reduce employees by 50% or
more.Technology will replace workers when technology is less
expensive than wages. People need to increase their value if they
want higher wages.
Where is minimum wage for business owners since the American dream is to own
your own business. On they will have more spending money, Thing is people can
earn more than minimum wage without government help. Prices will go up if
minimum wage goes up. Raising minimum wage takes money away from a business
Raising the minimum wage is a great way to help out low wage workers stay off
food stamps and welfare. It also encourages college students to work more so
they don't have to drop out of school, or take onerous student loans. You would think that conservatives would be all over a plan that
"But a worker demanding a higher wage is different from a worker proving to
his or her employer that his labor is worth more money."--That's right. The employee doing the actual labor is never worth
the money, but the CEO can have his salary doubled or tripled by the company.Lets just keep the lowest paid people down at the bottom, shall we?This editorial is quite simply, disgusting.
Symbolic acts of compassion towards the poor and less fortunate has left Europe
in an overall disaster and has left the U.S.A. with a stagnant economy for 5
years. Time for a plan that will actually help our country rise as a whole.
Enough of the propaganda of division.
Minor technicality: The article implied that some states have passed min wages
as high as $15/hr. A quick google search showed that Washington had the highest
rate of $9.19, but recently Massachusetts voted to increase the minimum wage in
their state to $11/hr. So, no states at $15, maybe a city or two.
Since you see fit to mention comparisons of the minimum wage from the past, you
should also note that the inflation-adjusted minimum wage of 1968 was $10.50 and
yet the economy did quite well.By arguing to not raise the minimum
wage you are in reality arguing to force millions of people to live on incomes
so low that they must turn to public assistance programs in order to keep a roof
over their heads or feed their children. The government thus has to provide what
these workers' wages cannot. You are quite literally using public tax
dollars to subsidize corporations who make their money from the labor of
low-wage employees.Corporate profits, cash reserves, share prices
and executive salaries are at record highs, yet the real-world wages of poor and
middle class Americans has been declining for decades.A national
minimum wage of $10 would make a Big Mac cost an extra 25 cents, but would work
miracles in the lives of employees.
Well... I was hoping for some article that gave some solid reasons for why we
shouldn't raise the minimum wage. Unfortunately this one seems to say
"because experts say so." Not good enough argument for me.
"In market economies, wages are determined by the productivity of
labor."Sadly, the market has been flooded with legal and illegal
immigrants (1 million green cards a year, plus 3.2 million work visas, good for
3-6 years)during a recession when over 26 million were looking for full time
work. It's no longer supply and demand, wages have been depressed. According to the CRS report for Congress, the minimum wage has not kept
up with inflation since it was established in 1938. To equal the purchasing
power of 1968 our minimum wage would need to be increased by $2.87 (36%).
Australia, France, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and Japan all have higher minimum
wages than the US. If we want to close the gap between rich and poor, this would
be a good start.
I'm an American living in Australia and I can tell you that the high
minimum wage doesn't work. Most casual workers make $21/hr, but it simply
isn't enough. The average cost of living is very high and it still takes
two incomes to rent a home, let alone own one. Food is astronomical (for 4
people I spend $1000/month and I don't eat junk), gas is $6/gallon, rent in
Sydney averages $2800/month for a 3 bed home, etc., etc. When you raise the
minimum wage, you get a corresponding raise in the cost of everything else, so
it makes absolutely no difference in buying power.Raising the
minimum wage simply doesn't work.
Raising the minimum wage will not have the effect that proponents think. For
most service businesses wages are the highest variable cost and to maintain
their profitability those services will simply have to do the same amount of
work with fewer people. Most profitable businesses that employee minimum wage
workers make only 7 to 15% net profit and will have to adjust the employee count
to continue being profitable. So, if minimum wage goes up 40% they will have to
lay off 40% of minimum wage employees AND ask the remaining employees to do 40%
more work.I think it is crazy for people to complain that they are
not being paid what they are worth. Of course employees are generally not paid
what they are worth! Think about it, if a business paid you what you are worth
then there is no sense in having you as an employee because you generate NO