Raising the minimum wage will help low-wage earners in the short term, and
that's good. But raising the minimum wage increases inflation in the longer
term, which is both good and bad. For people or nations with a lot
of debt, inflation is good because it decreases what they owe, and the amount
of indebtedness is worth comparably less. Anyone paying a mortgage should be
happy to see the minimum wage raised because the resulting bump in inflation
decreases the amount they pay and owe in real terms.For people
living on a fixed income or pension with no cost of living increase built in,
it's a bad thing, because inflation makes their income worth less in real
terms, and it would be in their best interest to keep the minimum wage where it
To "Commodore" what you propose was tried in the 1930's. It
failed. It kept us in the depression for 7 years longer than most any other
nation.Why go back to failed laws that only create misery?
The author makes a good point at the beginning of the article - that they paid
their employees more than the minimum wage and, in return got better employee
performance - but then undercuts it. If the minimum wage is increased, the
workers will, in fact receive more money (at least those who are still
employed), but the incentive will be lost. They won't know whether their
employer would have paid them the same if the minimum wage were lower.Greedy employers who exploit their employees should go out of business. But
having a higher minimum wage helps prop up the greedy employer because it
shields the employee from at least one aspect of the employer's greediness.
Wouldn't it be better if that type of employer could only hire really
crappy employees because of crappy pay, and, as a result, nobody would give them
any business?A lot of commenters here appear to have never had a job
in the real world. The notions that businesses are evil and that government can
coerce them to be good are both foolish. Go start a business and you'll
soon find out for yourself what is reality and what is fantasy.
Workers deserve fair wages. We have some crazy notion in this country that
workers are truly paid what they are worth. Are CEOs of mega corporations really
worth $200 million a year plus stock options? Are their lowest paid employees
really only worth $7.25 an hour? Nope.I think many people will be
disappointed come the day of judgement to discover they oppressed the poor,
denied them fair wages, and effectively perpetrated their suffering. Oh the
irony when these business men were lifetime church goers that sang " Have I
done any good in the world today?.....if not I have failed indeed." Sadly many businesses have failed to treat their employees fairly and
have regarded them as tissue paper. Cheap, abundant, and disposable. If
businesses won't do the right thing (most won't out of greed) then
regulation is required. Commodore's list of suggested economic
regulations:1. All jobs for adults receive a living wage of at least
$152. No job may be sent over seas unless the company pays a tax equal to
200% of the annual wage of the American worker. 3. End Corporate
welfare4. Implement tariffs to encourage more American production ( Yes we
will have to consume less).
Tell you what, if you Liberals don't feel like employers are paying their
low-skilled, entry-level employees enough, why don't you help these folks
out by writing them a check for the difference. I mean, after all, it
isn't fair that you make more than them, and you folks do believe in wealth
redistribution. Okay, put your money where your mouth is. I
challenge each Liberal posting here to go to their local fast food restaurant
(or other business where there are low-skilled, entry-level positions), pick one
individual, and commit to writing them a personal check every two weeks to make
up the difference for the minimum wage increase of $7.25 - to $9.00 per hour
that you demand.Since you folks are adamant that this additional
cost won’t affect the businesses who are being asked to raise the minimum
wage, and that it really stems from the greed of the business owner, it also
shouldn’t be a problem for you to step up to the plate and cough up this
additional cost for the minimum wage increase of one worker. Come on; show us
how it’s done!((Crickets))
I have no problem increasing the minimum wage, but the belief that it is a
panacea for low income workers doesn't make any more sense than rent and
price controls. Ignoring that a labor surplus is the problem insures that there
will be no real solution. A large labor surplus has developed due to
1) Automation, 2)Mechanization 3)Off-shoring of factory jobs to cheap labor
countries, and 4)Flooding the labor market with cheap legal and illegal
immigrant labor. Not much can be done about the jobs lost to automation,
mechanization and in a global environment off-shoring of jobs. However, there is
no reason to continually give away American jobs to cheap labor immigrants,
which is most harmful to the low income workers. Often nasty
cold/hot bad jobs are seen as jobs for immigrants. The only thing that makes a
job a bad job is the wage. I don't care how nasty the job is, if the wage
is high enough it will be viewed as a good job. If the flood of illegal and
legal immigrant labor were eliminated or stopped, the labor market would tighten
and wages would increased due to supply and demand.
To "LOU Montana" it goes both ways. Remember when Hostess closed its
doors? Their Union was demanding more money that the company didn't have.
It killed the business.
When employers pay a better wage the employee do not look for better paying
jobs, they get hurt less on the job, they miss less work and they make fewer
mistakes. The overall attitude of the employee is better and production is
better. When employers pay a better wage the get far more in return
from their employees. It is simple math!Greed of the employer makes
his business fail.
If paying higher wages is simply good business practice, then why do we need the
government to dictate to businesses what they pay their workers?The
question is not "What is a living wage?" $7 an hour was never meant to
provide a middle class life, it is entry level and and it does NOT provide a
comfortable life. In fact, neither does $10.The question is not
"what is a living wage?" the question is rather "Is it the proper
role of the government to dictate to businesses what they pay their workers?
Does the government really know better than you, business owner/manager what the
supply and demand is for labor for your business?" The government does a
poor job of this task, to say the least. The author knows what to
pay her workers in order to attract quality talent. But if the federal
government mandates this wage for all businesses and types of jobs, it does so
with a sledge hammer, and many jobs and businesses will be shut down and workers
laid off. WE the people know better than the government what it takes to attract
To "Badgerbadger" how can the minimum wage be an indicator of the
economy when only 1.1% of workers earn minimum wage, and nearly 1/3 of those
workers are teenagers? I would think that looking at the average wage for jobs
that don't require a college degree would be a better indication. For
example, the median wage for fast food workers is nearly $9/hr. So why
artifically bump that up more?
Mandating a higher minimum wage will not help in the long term.For
three years I was a supervisor in a nursing home and hired for every department
but nursing. We brought entry level (certified aides, no experience) in for $9
to $11 an hour, depending on age and "life experience." Those with
experience came in at $10 to $13 an hour. Most employees got a raise of 50 cents
an hour at 90 days, and 50 cents to a full dollar at the first anniversary. In
other words, a significant recognition of work performed. We paid
more than our competitors. I often hired people who's last annual raise was
in the 10 to 15 cents an hour range. That kind of raise is not recognition of
work done and experience gained. In my opinion the problem is not
the minimum wage, it is giving raises up from minimum that are essentially
meaningless. Especially when the owners of mega corporations get bonus in the
multi-million range. How about limiting total CEO compensation to a
multiple of the lowest hourly wage paid in the company.
"The MINIMUM wage doesn't drive the economy."I agree
with 2 bits. The minimum wage is an indicator, not a driver of the
economy.The naturally occurring minimum wage is an indication of the
strength of the economy. The low wage now tells the economy is still sick. Liberals don't want the economy to look bad when their
'guys' run the senate and live in the white house. That is why they
want to artificially raise the minimum wage, so the economy will look better and
thus the president will look better. And they don't care about
families trying to live on minimum wage, and they don't care about those
who will lose their jobs when they raise the minimum wage. It is all about them,
the liberals in office, particularly Obama.
To "Pagan" obviously following your advice won't work. We have now
had Obama in office for the past 6 years, leading the economy. Lets see how
well liberal policies work.From Investors "Household Incomes
Fall In August, Down 8.2% Under Obama " apparently the average household is
earning less under liberal policies than under conservativeish policies.From the Huffington Post "Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than
George W. Bush". I think that says it all.Why listen to people
who have a track record of killing incomes for the average worker and boosting
their wealthy supporters?For you liberals out there, explain why a
person needs to earn more now than in 1950, adjusting for inflation? The
article stated that the minimum wage is roughly the same as it was in 1950, that
means you have the same buying power as you would have had back then. Why do
you need more buying power now, what has changed except for greedy workers that
want more "stuff"?
I think the fundamental assumption of this article is flawed.The
MINIMUM wage doesn't drive the economy. And no strong economy has ever
been built on a MINIMUM wage (high or low).You can't build a
strong economy on a weak minimum wage. And you can't build a strong
economy on a strong minimum wage. Economies aren't driven by the minimum
wage.===STRONG economies are build on OPPORTUNITY....
(not minimum wage laws). Opportunity to increase your wage WAY above the
Minimum-wage.===To have a strong economy... we need more
opportunity... Which means more people willing to develop their skills, and more
businesses willing to pay more and take the place of the businesses that fail
because they are only willing to pay the minimum, so they couldn't attract
the best employees.===If you think people aren't
paid enough... start your own business and pay yourself what you think you are
worth, and pay your help what they are worth. Don't expect the government
to force others to do what YOU want. Just do like the people in the article...
start your business and pay your help more than minimum!Be the
LDS Liberal,Thank you for telling me about too prideful. My
religious leaders do not share your opinion. They were appointed to their
office by those having authority. We visit regularly. Did anyone with authority
appoint you to be my priesthood leader? (I'm politely trying to tell you
that are acting as a judge in Israel without having been appointed to that
position.)If you have advice to those who think that they are owed a
better wage without providing greater value, we're all waiting to read your
opinion; but, if you're only concerned with telling those of us who have
worked 80 hour weeks for thirty years that we're being overpaid for our
expertise, then you're wasting your time. Let me tell you a
little secret. It takes a lot of money to raise eight children and one foster
child. It takes a lot of money to send five children on missions. It takes a
lot of money to house them, clothe them and to feed them.The Lord
has been generous, but He expected me to prepare myself and to work hard six
days a week.
At the end of the day, between this and other stories in the media, I don't
understand why conservative hate other people, especially the weaker and poor,
@2bits"The solution is...Don't work for people who only pay
the minimum"The problem with that is that the people who need to
scrape together whatever they can just to get by don't generally have the
flexibility to stage that sort of boycott.
LDS Liberal,Nobody in my field who is qualified would be satisfied
with an hourly wage of $69.62 an hour. That is far below "entry level"
wages for systems admins. People in my field are well paid because they perform
a service that is valuable. We administer millions of dollars worth of hardware
and software. We have been trained. We have become qualified. We are not
satisfied with doing as little as possible to get through life, but to be able
to do whatever is required of us.When we hire people, we hire people
who have the same attitude as we have. We will not take a chance on someone who
cannot do the job on the day that he is hired.Minimum wage or
near-minimum wages are paid to people who have not qualified themselves for
higher wages. There are two ways for a person to earn more. He can
risk his own money and hope that he knows what he is doing or he can be well
trained. Waiting for "minimum wage" to lift him will never help.
Excellent "My View" piece from a business owner. The only thing that
would be better than paying employees a living wage would be to give them a
share of the ownership, since they certainly have earned it. That would put even
more money in the hands of those who make the economy go: consumers.
LDS Liberal,I, too, am a small business owner. Back in 1978, I paid
my employees $18.00 an hour. They did technical work. They were expected to
know what they were doing. They had to be well qualified. By the way, if you
don't remember, back then a very good wage was $4.50 an hour. I know that
because that is the wage that I left when I started my own business. At $18 an
hour, they had real buying power. Because of the efficiencies that the computer
equipment that I designed and programmed, I also made a good living. I would not
hire anyone who was not fully qualified to do the job required. I would not
hire anyone who didn't show up every day on time and put in a full
day's work for a full day's pay. They expected the same from me.Those who were willing to work for "minimum wage" were not
qualified. They were satisfied with doing the minimum. I didn't need them.
I think we should lower the minimum wage to $5 for a couple months.
Then, as those workers can't pay rent, don't buy cloths, don't
buy food and other things we;ll see the same business community crying for a
raise in the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
Mike,You asked "Just what does $10 per hour buy the
breadwinner"? I will help you, 25% more than $7.25 and hour buys them. No
it may not get them to the American dream, but I am pretty sure the owner of the
Ace Hardware stores who wrote this article doesn't leave her employees at
$10.10 and hour for their entire career. She understands happy employees who
feel respected by the boss are better employees and more productive which is
especially important to her in the customer service business. A
country that has a small wealthy elite class and a large poor class will not
survive. The tax policies of the federal government of the last almost 40 years
have benefited the rich and created a society with a disproportionate amount of
wealth is held by a small group. If this continues, this country will not
survive, plain and simple. You can blame, rationalize and make all the excuses
you want, but history tells us that we will be in a civil war at some point,
because those on the bottom have nothing more to lose.
I almost forgot... the real solution doesn't work in America anymore.Because if Americans refuse to do these jobs (because they don't
pay enough)... there are 11 million people in this country to do the "jobs
American's won't do"... just waiting in line for those jobs.Maybe we do need the government mandate. Because we KNOW the
government aint going to do anything about the 11 million people here making the
real solution impossible.===Now that I think about it...
Some employers aren't going to pay above the minimum unless they have to.
And they don't have to... as long as they have a long line of people
willing to do the job for the minimum (or less).
Two questions. If the minimum wage is raised to 10.25 what will you then pay
your workers? If you pay them 13.00 an hour so they are not working for minimum
wage, were will you get the extra moneys to cover the wage increase?
per Mike Richards"Minimum wage was not meant to be a living
wage. It allows unskilled workers to get in the job market without bankrupting
good-hearted employers."You might get employees who were more
diligent with better wages, but, concur with Mike. Most people IMO earning
minimum wage are people entering the job market and/or kids working their thru
Being from Baltimore... I can see why they would assume the solution must be a
government mandated minimum wage. But from the letter... I can tell they know
the REAL solution.They CHOSE to pay their employees more than the
minimum wage. They didn't wait for the government to mandate it. THAT
is the solution.====VERY few jobs deserve the
"minimum" wage. Only jobs a trained monkey could do. People running your hardware store, and dealing with your customers deserve
more than minimum wage. IMO they deserve more than $10.00/hour. And you can
give them more than $10.00/hour... without a government mandate. You
don't have to pay your employees the "Minimum" wage!====More employers should do as they did... pay your employees
more than the "minimum" wage! Pay them what they are worth to you!
You would have only one small store, run just by you, without them!====The "minimum" wage doesn't drive the economy.No job requiring skills and hard work should be paid the
"minimum" wage.===The solution is...Don't work for people who only pay the minimum... they will fail and be
replaced with businesses that do...
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahDid you read the article?This was not me.This was written by a small business owner,
who completely disagrees with your opinion -- and has given good solid
evidence to the contrary.I know the America you want, and we
don't want to live in Somalia.
"Americans understand that some people will earn more money than others, and
we don't resent those who, by virtue of their efforts, achieve incredible
success. That's what America's all about." President Barack
ObamaStill a lot of resentment going on, despite the words of our
Just what does $10 per hour buy the breadwinner? If the worker got to take home
100% of his wage (which is impossible), he would earn $20,000 a year, or $1,666
per month. If the worker wants to own a home could he afford $1,000 a month for
a very modest home (including property taxes and insurance)? Is he going to
walk to work? If not, can he afford to buy a car, even for $150 a month, buy
two tanks of gas for $100 a month, pay $250 a month minimum for electricity,
heating and local-area-only telephone? If he did, Can he feed his family and buy
their clothes for $166 a month? If he pays tithing, he's $40 in the hole
before he feeds his family and buys clothing. What about medical? Does his
employer pay 100% of all medical bills? Does his employer even provide
insurance? Where is he going to find even the co-pay?Minimum wage
was not meant to be a living wage. It allows unskilled workers to get in the
job market without bankrupting good-hearted employers.
A REAL world business story [as opposed to AM radio Midway Parrots], supporting a wage increase.The Rich do not spend, they don't
need to - they already have everything they need, want.They horde and
squirrel away -- which stiffles the economy.
But of course this is impossible, according to the pathologically greedy
employers among us.
Cause: Bush tax cuts. Effect: 'Study: Rich get a
lot richer, outpace middle class' - By Andrew Taylor - AP - Reported by the
Deseret News - 10/26/11 'The study comes from the
Congressional Budget Office and is based on IRS and Census Bureau data. It
finds that after-tax income for the top 1 percent of U.S. households almost
TRIPLED, up 275 percent, from 1979 to 2007. For people in the middle
of the economic scale, after-tax income grew by JUST 40 percent.'