January 18, 200719 yr Author I alos enjoy the argument that companies will simply "pass the cost along to the consumer." That is 1970's thinking, but the world is now flat. Goods and services are price-driven. Companies don't want to raise prices they want to cut costs, so they will simply fire the workforce and expect those left behind to work harder and do more. But, would you not agree that a widget is worth what ever a person is willing to pay for it? ie: houses appraise, for the most part, for what ever a person is willing to pay for said house. And that companies want to sell goods as close to the price as possible. I understand companies want to cut cost as opposed to raising prices and sell high quantities to increase profit margins, but this is not an absolute or we would never see products go up in price. At some point a business owner has to balance between cutting cost and raising prices, you only can cut cost until it is no longer practical.
January 18, 200719 yr Author Your confusing the middle class, 40K - 80k per family, which is middle class with the working poor, under 18k poverty level, but in rality 18-40K Who does it help, you ask? Anyone earning under the new minimum. How does it help? Allows them to pay a few more bills, maybe move from renter to owner status and possibly even continue their education. The Middle class is separated into three levels. The lower-middle class 18K - 40K, the middle-middle (which I stated I was talking about,and is the largest group of families in the US) 40K - 100K, and upper-middle class 100K - 150K. The working poor are under 18K. $100 per week 40 times $2.50 = $400 per month minus state taxes, federal taxes, possible local taxes will leave maybe $200 dollars. Buy a house, I doubt. My point is minimum wage is for students working part time, or for temporary employment. It is not for the working families. The Dems want people to say "look what we did for the working families of America", this bill is not for the working families.
January 18, 200719 yr Someone will have to help me with this one. I was hoping that someone would have mentioned it already. I have heard that the real reason that the minimum wage was increasing was that many union contracts were tied to such thing as amount over minimum. So if they rise the floor the ceiling will have to rise too. Has anyone heard this or know if it is true?
January 18, 200719 yr This should be an issue left up to the individual states. How can you possibly have a national minimum wage? The cost of living varies wildly from NYC to LA to Wyoming to Greater Cincinnati. $5, $6, $7 and hour may not be alot per hour, but it goes alot farther in Kentucky than it does in Chicago. I think it should be, and most states already do, set their own minimum wages.
January 18, 200719 yr An individual minimum wage worker may very well come out ahead by some small amount of money. It will not be enough, as DD suggests, to afford insurance, buy a house, or enroll in school. However, on a macro level, a business which employs hundreds of employees, many of whom are entry level wage earners, may see their costs rise to the point where they will lay those workers off rather than incur the cost. And it will be perfectly legal. You see the wage increase won't just effect those earners. If a minimum wage earner making $5.15 right now gets raised to $7.50, all workers from $5.16 to $7.49 are going to ask for proportionate raises as well. And all workers making at or about $7.50 are going to insist upon a raise themselves so that they are not being paid unequally for work, experience, etc. A wage increase increases the cost along the scale for the entire hourly labor force, not just a few entry level workers. Macro companies simply won't support it. They'll fire them. And it will be legal. I alos enjoy the argument that companies will simply "pass the cost along to the consumer." That is 1970's thinking, but the world is now flat. Goods and services are price-driven. Companies don't want to raise prices they want to cut costs, so they will simply fire the workforce and expect those left behind to work harder and do more. This is not new. It is entry-level macro-economics studied in any freshmen economics course at any college or university. Preach on, brother... :thumb: People just see "more money" in people's pockets and see it as a cut and dry issue. It really puts the hammer to middle class business owners, whether it be through cutting employees, losing money by paying higher wages, or increasing the cost of their product(s)... which, in turn, affects the economy. I saw a couple of economists on C-Span a few weeks ago discussing this topic. Their contention was that raising minimum wages actually has an inverse effect on the economy.
January 18, 200719 yr This increase could further the shift of low tech manufacturing jobs off shore. There are still some of those left in our country (although not near as many as there were just 10 years ago). By being forced to raise wages, some domestic low tech manufacturers will be forced to raise the prices on the products they sell. Which will make overseas manufacturers even more attractive. Some folks on here and in Congress and the media will then complain about big business outsourcing more of the products they buy overseas. Lesson to all high school students: stay in high school, go to college or an advanced community college and really get a skill. Don't plan on trying to raise a family on even the increased minimum wage. It won't get it done.
January 18, 200719 yr It helps my son pay a little more of his college tuition . :thumb: :thumb: It helps my son do the same, and most likely will help thousands, if not others as well.
January 18, 200719 yr I have no problem with the minimum wage bring increased, but here in our commonwealth there is a bill in the house that states that regular tipped employees (mainly servers and bartenders) are to be given this benefit as well. I personally feel this is a bad, bad thing. We will see some smaller restaurants close if this happens. Two other nightmares....increased menu prices, and a lack in service....I have been involved in the restaurant business for a million years, and even I am adamantly against this policy.
January 18, 200719 yr Personally, I would rather see congress give incentives to employers to pay for more health insurance and cover more people than raise the minimum wage.
January 18, 200719 yr ^ I love that idea....as a straight commissioned employee I have often found that health insurance is my number 1, point of contention.
January 18, 200719 yr It helps my son pay a little more of his college tuition . That son who's tuition will probably go up even more than it would have because the college now has to pay the working students more?
January 18, 200719 yr That son who's tuition will probably go up even more than it would have because the college now has to pay the working students more? No...it's the son who's college tuition has already gone up every year, as well as housing, books, food, and gas, while he still made $5.15/hr.
January 18, 200719 yr No...it's the son who's college tuition has already gone up every year, as well as housing, books, food, and gas, while he still made $5.15/hr. If you think minimum wage increases are going to keep up with tuition hikes, the minimum wage will be $100/hr in ten years. :lol:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.