At McDonald's in Falmouth, they start at $5.25. Not much higher than minimum wage, but is higher.

Raising the minimum wage slightly (

 

However, raising the minimum wage significantly would be counter productive since it would fuel inflation. A significant increase would affect most bussinesses and a business will always attempt to pass on their costs to the consumer. Too often when people contemplate raising the minimum wage they think statically when the economy is dynamic. People who believe raising the minimum wage from $5/hour to $10/hour would help the working poor ignore the fact that $10 would then only be worth about what $5 is today. Making more money doesn't help if the cost of living goes up a commensurate amount.

Go even further and say that minimum wage goes against basic economic principles. The only way that it is effective is if you raise it over the wage set by the market, then you will in turn be raising inflation. Otherwise, it is an empty action that is nothing more than a burocratic move to initiate support from the uneducated that don't understand economic principle. Otherwise, a political ploy.

I will say that a distinct raise in minimum wage would end up raising wages for most of the lower paid jobs (under let's say $11 per hour). If it raises to $8.00. Then jobs that were being paid a $1.00 or $2.00 over minimum wage will need to adjust and end up being paid $9 or $10 to keep the same quality of employee that you had before.

 

Same way with the $10 and $11 jobs.

 

In essence, it is a Democratic TRICKLE UP theory.

I will say that a distinct raise in minimum wage would end up raising wages for most of the lower paid jobs (under let's say $11 per hour). If it raises to $8.00. Then jobs that were being paid a $1.00 or $2.00 over minimum wage will need to adjust and end up being paid $9 or $10 to keep the same quality of employee that you had before.

 

Same way with the $10 and $11 jobs.

 

In essence, it is a Democratic TRICKLE UP theory.

 

Not sure that will happen but if it did wouldn't that result in greatly increased inflaton? I mean, where would it stop? What about the $12 and $13 jobs?

Not sure that will happen but if it did wouldn't that result in greatly increased inflaton? I mean, where would it stop? What about the $12 and $13 jobs?

That could be a realistic possibility. Or devaluing of jobs. Meaning what was seen as a job that was valued at $2 or 3 over minimum wage is not viewed as that anymore.

 

Or wages across the board go up, meaning labor costs go up, meaning either prices go up or profits go down.

 

A lot of people don't grasp that we don't live in an economic vacuum. You make an economic decision and it will have a ripple effect. Just you want the ripples to stay ripples and not waves.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061109/BIZ01/611090368/1076

 

It won't be long before visitors to Ohio restaurants see higher prices after voters approved Tuesday a constitutional amendment to increase the state's minimum wage, one restaurant chain executive said Wednesday.

 

Starting next year, the minimum wage for servers, who rely on tips for most of their pay, will increase to $3.43 per hour from $2.13 per hour. Craig Maier, president and chief executive officer of Frisch's Restaurants Inc., said the measure would cost his company about $3 million a year and will mean increased prices early in 2007.

 

"The guest will have to pay it," Maier said

 

The minimum-wage amendment would raise the rate in Ohio by nearly a third from $5.15 an hour to $6.85, effective Jan. 1.

 

It also will peg future automatic increases to the cost of living.

 

The change would directly affect about 300,000 workers.

 

But some experts said workers who are paid more than the new minimum might also ask for raises to maintain the premium they're earning now over lower-paid workers.

If a person was earning minimum wage at Wendy's in 1999 and is still at Wendy's earning minimum wage 7 years later, I am going out on a limb here and assume that they have some other problems in their lives.

 

A legitimate point, LBBC. However, if there are so few people in this category (as many like to point out), then even if raising the minimum wage only helps a handful of people that are struggling, why not pass it?

 

 

Frances

What tax break did oil companies get that other corporations, small or big, did not?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63958-2005Apr18.html

 

I'd call a $6.7 BILLION dollar tax break for energy both a SIGNIFICANT break (especially considering that they are raking in quarterly profits in the $10 Billion dollar range), as well as being directed to big oil.

 

Perhaps there is another way to interpret a $6.7 BILLION dollar tax break for energy, but whatever it is, it escapes me.

 

 

Frances

A legitimate point, LBBC. However, if there are so few people in this category (as many like to point out), then even if raising the minimum wage only helps a handful of people that are struggling, why not pass it?

 

 

Frances

I think his point is that if a person can do no better than minimum wage, than perhaps they aren't much of an employee.

Exxon pays roughly three times as much in taxes as it makes in profits. Who do liberals think pay for tax increases on companies? Gas prices will jump if Pelosi gets her way.

 

Wow. My math must be a little fuzzy:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1321.html

 

The article is speaking of , Exxon, Conoco, and Chevron oil giants. According to the article: "During 2005, these three companies paid a combined corporate income tax burden of $44.3 billion on their reported gross earnings".

 

The three largest oil producers in the world generated nearly $23 Billion dollars in profits IN THE SECOND QUARTER alone.

 

I'm too old to have benefited from the "new math" that was taught in school, but I'm pretty sure that the statement that these guys are paying three times their profit in taxes is somewhere out in left field. Or it might be more accurate to say that it's not even in the ballpark.

 

To be honest, I can't believe ANYONE could try to defend the obscene profits that these companies are raking in - much less argue that they are deserving of a tax break.

 

 

Frances

I think his point is that if a person can do no better than minimum wage, than perhaps they aren't much of an employee.

I understand his point. My point is that within this particular demographic, there are also (almost certainly) bound to be people that are employeed that may suffer from some level of disabilities, and these types of jobs are probably the absolute ceiling of what their future employment holds. At any rate, I would also venture that not everyone in this demographic is not worthy of helping - especially in light of the fact (as it has been argued in this thread) that there simply aren't very many people in this group in the first place.

 

 

Frances

I think its amazing that the people who are making $160,000 a year don't want to raise the wages of people making $5.00 something an hour. That's the new America for ya, get what ya can and don't look back.

I think its amazing that the people who are making $160,000 a year don't want to raise the wages of people making $5.00 something an hour. That's the new America for ya, get what ya can and don't look back.

My point, SA, is that this is more of a political banner to wave than it is an actual benefit to the economy.

 

The best thing for those making $5.00 an hour to do is to get an education and training that makes you a more attractive employee. But when you have sat in a classroom in HS thinking that it is all stupid and you won't need any of this because you are going to be a professional skateboarder (have had that debate with several of my students) or something along that lines, you have made your own bed and now want someone else to build you a nice new one.

 

NOT ALL, but a good percent of the time, a person making minimum wage is there because they are not an attractive employee for an employer offering a higher wage.

I understand his point. My point is that within this particular demographic, there are also (almost certainly) bound to be people that are employeed that may suffer from some level of disabilities, and these types of jobs are probably the absolute ceiling of what their future employment holds. At any rate, I would also venture that not everyone in this demographic is not worthy of helping - especially in light of the fact (as it has been argued in this thread) that there simply aren't very many people in this group in the first place.

 

 

Frances

I would have no problem with adding a minimum living wage to such employees. I would also give the businesses any and full tax break for the labor costs of such employees.

 

My issue is the students that I have or their parents that I went to school with who professed that school was stoopid and they didn't need it. They have done nothing to improve themselves and make themselves more employable and don't have enough $$. Yet, they have a pack of smokes in their front shirt pocket, a 12-pack of Budweiser consistently in their fridge, and a satellitte dish on the side of their house and complain that they don't get paid enough.

Don't be silly, LBBC. If you put the smokes in your back pocket, you'd crush them when you sit down ...

 

 

Frances