Could You Live on Minimum Wage?

[lordscarlet]

The thread was "Could you Live on Minimum Wage?". Not "Would your life suck?" or "Would it be comfortable?". That if you were given a minimum wage now and told your life depended on living off of it, could you find a way to do it? Do you honestly feel there is no way in hell you could possibly do it?

No. Your original statement was that it would be "easy" and that people are "whining" that life is hard on minimum wage.

[CU Tiger]

I'm talking about living as a part of society.

Are you telling me that people who don't have air conditioning are not able to work? That there is this overwhelming pandemic of people calling in to work and telling their bosses they can't make it in because their air conditioner went out? That you can't maintain basic hygiene without central air pumping through your home all day?


I can honestly tell you that in the 7+ years I have had my guys go into people's homes everyday, (figure on 15-20 houses per day) I have ran into 1 home that did not have AC.

We no longer service that customer, because of the condition of his house, and by the way he had no job...

I am sure there are others around here that dont have AC, Ive jut never ran into them. And in South Carolina Electric utilities have been sued and lost in court for negligent homicide for disconnecting people's power and them dieing of heat stroke.

I would give up every other electric appliance in my home (including my refrig) before my AC.

heat on the other hand is entirely optional. (Fireplaces, kerosene heaters etc.)

[sterlingice]

I wanted to separate this from my other post (forthcoming) as I think we're losing this distinction with so many of the arguments being made. What is the definition of "can you live"?

*Is it- can you physically live, because then you could physically live on a bench in the street and eating out of garbage cans but I'm pretty sure that would severely impact your life expectancy.

*Heck, you can live in jail and have 3 crappy square meals a day provided for you but do you really provide any value to society that way?

*Speaking of value to society, how about we just put all poor people in communal living near their menial, low paying jobs? That way they're the lowest drain on society as we are gaining economy of scale, and yet they still provide the measure of cheap labor we need.

*That seems a tad barbaric so how about everyone is allowed their own domicile or at least a couple sharing one. However, the standard of living is pretty poor due to excesses higher up the ladder. You can subsist but not for a long period of time and much of your energies are focused on trying to escape, which is exceedingly difficult. There is no way you could live like this permanently.

*I think the previous is where we are now. But, what if unskilled laborer is all someone can do (Judge Smails: "Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too")? We can talk all we want about people who want to better themselves and get an eduction but what if it's not the best fit for someone? What if the best thing for society, as a whole, is that a person is solely manual labor or some other "unskilled" task such as a call center where one just answers what is on the screen in front of them but it's what they're good at.

So, some people just can't "move up" in the world as they aren't as good at the skills that are more handsomely paid. They didn't make a choice and that's just how it is and they can't do anything about it. We set a baseline as a society for how our poorest live- so what's an acceptable level? Does said worker not deserve, say, cable tv because their best skills lie in manual labor instead of engineering? If so, then what "maximum" level of lifestyle do they deserve? If not, what necessities should we "allow" them as a society?

Again, how do we, as a society, want our poor to live? As stated above, I think we do set the level of living for people either indirectly through what we ask for as a society for our more expensive skilled workers or by what our social contract (i.e. government) mandates. I think it's pretty evident that, if left unchecked, companies will opt for the cheapest possible cost with no regard for societal concerns- farming jobs overseas which in the long run damages their customer base or even breaking laws and hiring workers who are here illegally. So, at the end of the day, we are the ones determining the poor's existence not some invisible hand which is actually working against said poor not for them.

I get the impression that a lot of people would be mostly ok with the communal living camp if it meant they themselves got a higher standard of living. Frankly, it makes me a bit sad for our society and our future. I'm pretty sure when historians look back at this time, they're going to wonder what people living now were thinking.

SI

[molson]

I wanted to separate this from my other post (forthcoming) as I think we're losing this distinction with so many of the arguments being made. What is the definition of "can you live"?

*Is it- can you physically live, because then you could physically live on a bench in the street and eating out of garbage cans but I'm pretty sure that would severely impact your life expectancy.

*Heck, you can live in jail and have 3 crappy square meals a day provided for you but do you really provide any value to society that way?

*Speaking of value to society, how about we just put all poor people in communal living near their menial, low paying jobs? That way they're the lowest drain on society as we are gaining economy of scale, and yet they still provide the measure of cheap labor we need.

*That seems a tad barbaric so how about everyone is allowed their own domicile or at least a couple sharing one. However, the standard of living is pretty poor due to excesses higher up the ladder. You can subsist but not for a long period of time and much of your energies are focused on trying to escape, which is exceedingly difficult. There is no way you could live like this permanently.

*I think the previous is where we are now. But, what if unskilled laborer is all someone can do (Judge Smails: "Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too")? We can talk all we want about people who want to better themselves and get an eduction but what if it's not the best fit for someone? What if the best thing for society, as a whole, is that a person is solely manual labor or some other "unskilled" task such as a call center where one just answers what is on the screen in front of them but it's what they're good at.

So, some people just can't "move up" in the world as they aren't as good at the skills that are more handsomely paid. They didn't make a choice and that's just how it is and they can't do anything about it. We set a baseline as a society for how our poorest live- so what's an acceptable level? Does said worker not deserve, say, cable tv because their best skills lie in manual labor instead of engineering? If so, then what "maximum" level of lifestyle do they deserve? If not, what necessities should we "allow" them as a society?

Again, how do we, as a society, want our poor to live? As stated above, I think we do set the level of living for people either indirectly through what we ask for as a society for our more expensive skilled workers or by what our social contract (i.e. government) mandates. I think it's pretty evident that, if left unchecked, companies will opt for the cheapest possible cost with no regard for societal concerns- farming jobs overseas which in the long run damages their customer base or even breaking laws and hiring workers who are here illegally. So, at the end of the day, we are the ones determining the poor's existence not some invisible hand which is actually working against said poor not for them.

I get the impression that a lot of people would be mostly ok with the communal living camp if it meant they themselves got a higher standard of living. Frankly, it makes me a bit sad for our society and our future. I'm pretty sure when historians look back at this time, they're going to wonder what people living now were thinking.

SI

So I'll ask again then, what exactly do you think the federal minimum wage should be that would keep you from feeling "sad for our society and future"?

The issue is not how we want our poor to live. That's not what minimum wage is about. That might be what welfare programs are about. But when you're talking about employment, it's a balancing act between acceptable amounts of unemployment, how much of a sepration between the economic classes is desirable, and trying not to negatively impact businesses and economic growth to the extent of a weakened economy for everyone.

Being in favor of a lower or higher minimum wage isn't a statement that one is either against for people with lowering paying jobs. It just represents different opinions about the realities of our economy. We could make the minimum wage $600 billion/hour, but that wouldn't work out well.

[molson]

As a threadjack, I can't believe anyone would want to live in a place where you die of heat stroke if your AC goes out, or I guess, if you leave your house. Not that everyone has a choice, but apparently some people do choose it.

Ya, other parts of the country are cold, but how many times more people die from heat than from cold?

[RainMaker]

No. Your original statement was that it would be "easy" and that people are "whining" that life is hard on minimum wage.
Well I think I could do it and have. And the whining is a seperate issue.

[sterlingice]

So I'll ask again then, what exactly do you think the federal minimum wage should be that would keep you from feeling "sad for our society and future"?

The issue is not how we want our poor to live. That's not what minimum wage is about. That might be what welfare programs are about. But when you're talking about employment, it's a balancing act between acceptable amounts of unemployment, how much of a sepration between the economic classes is desirable, and trying not to negatively impact businesses and economic growth to the extent of a weakened economy for everyone.

Being in favor of a lower or higher minimum wage isn't a statement that one is either against for people with lowering paying jobs. It just represents different opinions about the realities of our economy. We could make the minimum wage $600 billion/hour, but that wouldn't work out well.

Two different issues but intertwined. How is the minimum wage *not* about how we want our poor to live? How exactly are the poor to lobby for more wages which lead to a better lifestyle as they have no power or influence.

The aside about us as a society, while having to do with this, doesn't necessarily have to do with a minimum wage but how people view it and how much they care about the rest of people as a whole.

SI

[gstelmack]

Two different issues but intertwined. How is the minimum wage *not* about how we want our poor to live? How exactly are the poor to lobby for more wages which lead to a better lifestyle as they have no power or influence.

Well, first off minimum wage also applies to a high schooler looking to earn some extra cash. The problem is there are jobs that should be able to support a family and jobs where someone just wants to get some extra cash and they all get intertwined.

Secondly, the poor have plenty of power and influence, how do you think the Democrats keep getting elected :D

[RainMaker]

Two different issues but intertwined. How is the minimum wage *not* about how we want our poor to live? How exactly are the poor to lobby for more wages which lead to a better lifestyle as they have no power or influence.

The aside about us as a society, while having to do with this, doesn't necessarily have to do with a minimum wage but how people view it and how much they care about the rest of people as a whole.

SI
Just because you don't want minimum wage raised doesn't mean you don't care about people.

Giving handouts doesn't seem to fix any problems. It de-motivates people who are getting the handouts. Why push yourself to work harder and gain more skills if you'll just be bailed out as it is? Shouldn't luxuries like having cable TV be things that people strive for? I'm just against a system that seems to treat the unskilled and unmotivated better than those who worked hard and got skills.

And the poor having no influence is BS. The poor get a lot of social programs and don't pay a dime in income taxes for it. A small percent of the country is paying for most of everything.

[JPhillips]

And the poor having no influence is BS. The poor get a lot of social programs and don't pay a dime in income taxes for it. A small percent of the country is paying for most of everything.

Only 38% or so of filers don't pay income taxes, but even that doesn't really tell the story. Since the FICA "fix" under Reagan over 2.2 trillion dollars of FICA taxes have been diverted to the general fund in essence making that money an income tax. In 2007 nearly 200 billion in FICA taxes went into the general fund.

[sterlingice]

And the poor having no influence is BS. The poor get a lot of social programs and don't pay a dime in income taxes for it. A small percent of the country is paying for most of everything.

You honestly believe that? A small percent pay for almost everything?

Let's say 5% is a small percent, right? Well, my wife and I certainly aren't in the wealthiest 5% of earners in the US. So how about all of us who aren't in the top 5% stop paying taxes for the next 3 years and see how things go for the rich. I hope you like your private police force because it's the only thing that will be keeping the torch and pitchfork wielding mob at bay.

And we haven't even scratched the surface. How about corporations who screw their workers and pay very little taxes compared to their respective incomes due to loopholes? No, no, it's the fault of the poor.

SI

[molson]

Let's say 5% is a small percent, right? Well, my wife and I certainly aren't in the wealthiest 5% of earners in the US. So how about all of us who aren't in the top 5% stop paying taxes for the next 3 years and see how things go for the rich. I hope you like your private police force because it's the only thing that will be keeping the torch and pitchfork wielding mob at bay.



There's a lot of stats out there about that.

Here's one source, from '06 (presuambly things will be even more skewed under Obama):

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html)

-The top 5% of earners in the US pay 60% of the federal income taxes
-The top 10% of earners pay 70% of taxes
-The top 25% pay 86%
-The top 50% pay 97%

So you're basically a leech if you're in the bottom 50%, you're getting more in services than you're putting in. Which is fine, everybody is OK with that to some degree, but the jelousy and bitterness and complaints about the rich are a little odd when you look at that breakdown. And I can certainly understand the resentment can flow the other direction, towards the bottom half, when they're perceived as trying to game the system, or when they complain about the taxes on the rich not being high enough.

The rich are important, even though people love to hate them. You have no social programs without them. If you tax them too much you keep them from making more money to be able to tax.

[thesloppy]

So you're basically a leech if you're in the bottom 50%, you're getting more in services than you're putting in.

That's a truly wonderful sentiment and all, but it seems to assume that ALL of those government services and benefits are going exclusively to the poor, which is ridiculous. How many poor people need $250,000 of FDIC coverage? How are those leeches living high-on the hog thanks to endless sessions deciding what industries to regulate/de-regulate? The government does plenty of work dedicated towards satisfying only the very rich as well, or that only applies to those in the highest earning bracket, and lord knows it hands out billions of dollars in corporation assistance that is the equivalent of paying assistance to the very wealthy. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous AND insulting to the half of the country you just labeled leeches.

[molson]

That's a truly wonderful sentiment and all, but it seems to assume that ALL of those government services and benefits are going exclusively to the poor, which is ridiculous. How many poor people need $250,000 of FDIC coverage? How are those leeches living high-on the hog thanks to endless sessions deciding what industries to regulate/de-regulate? The government does plenty of work dedicated towards satisfying only the very rich as well, or that only applies to those in the highest earning bracket, and lord knows it hands out billions of dollars in corporation assistance that is the equivalent of paying assistance to the very wealthy. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous AND insulting to the half of the country you just labeled leeches.

Geez, who knew leeches had such bad reputations.

I've been a leech myself for most of my adult life, I might still be.

Of course, with the current state of federal budget we're all leeches these days, sucking imaginary money, hoping it somehow turns real someday.

Yes, rich people use services too....but they pay a hugely disproportionate amount for them (as they should, that's kind of the point). I just don't get how they're the villains, or people we need to bring down a peg.

[thesloppy]

Yes, rich people use services too....but they pay a hugely disproportionate amount for them (as they should, that's kind of the point). I just don't get how they're the villains, or people we need to bring down a peg.

I'm not going to necessarily disagree with that statement, but then again I haven't heard anybody suggesting that you should either. The sentiment I'm getting from this thread that continues to rile me up, is that poor people should be prepared to roll with the economic punches and suck up the brunt of any collective belt tightening that needs to be done, because they pay relatively few taxes, and since rich people pay most of the taxes, those that don't should take the brunt so that the standard of living of those in the upper classes can remain relatively unchanged and unaffected by the state of the economy. I don't agree with that. As to the specifics of how that applies to the current minimum wage, admittedly I don't really have any idea.

[molson]

The sentiment I'm getting from this thread that continues to rile me up, is that poor people should be prepared to roll with the economic punches and suck up the brunt of any collective belt tightening that needs to be done, because they pay relatively few taxes, and since rich people pay most of the taxes, those that don't should take the brunt so that the standard of living of those in the upper classes can remain relatively unchanged and unaffected by the state of the economy. I don't agree with that.

I don't think anybody would agree with that. Everbody's standard of living is decreasing in this country, not just the poor. Have you seen home foreclosure rates lately?

I would look at it the opposite way - why should the poor not expect their standard of living to go down like everyone else's is? Should we try prop the poor up at the expense of the middle class who will soon join them? Or to the expense of the rich who are their meal ticket? Don't we need the rich to fix the economy? The poor aren't gonna do it.

Nobody would be against the poor being better off, if that was all there was to it. Too often though, that's where the analysis ends, and anyone who takes it further than that hates the poor, or are in favor of the rich or whatever.

But we should find out the answers to a lot of the what-ifs of this stuff over the next 8 years. Because if anyone's going to try to prop up the poor and bring down the rich, it'll be the current administration (as long as one doesn't include corporations in the category of "rich", as it appears they'll be well taken care of). On the other hand, I've been glad to see that he's turned out to be a lot more moderate than I feared he would be during his campaign. He's not the guy who ran for office, but he's a better president for it.

[Dutch]

The government does plenty of work dedicated towards satisfying only the very rich as well, or that only applies to those in the highest earning bracket, and lord knows it hands out billions of dollars in corporation assistance that is the equivalent of paying assistance to the very wealthy.

Are these strictly luxury payouts or is the intent to stimulate growth?

[thesloppy]

Are these strictly luxury payouts or is the intent to stimulate growth?

Hell if I know. With the government, by the time the money's given out, it seems everybody's usually forgotten what the intent was, and surely raising the minimum wage could also be argued to fall under the umbrella of 'intent to stimulate growth'.

[thesloppy]

I would look at it the opposite way - why should the poor not expect their standard of living to go down like everyone else's is?

This remains a sticking point for me, because I'm not convinced that the poor are constantly voicing their resistance to such an idea, and that does appear to be the main point of contention in this thread. Are poor people 'whining' about being poor? I don't hear them personally, but admittedly I'm not listening all that hard. If you ask a poor person how he likes being poor, he'll likely answer "not much", but it's not like I've ever had to wade through a picket-line of A/C-demanding poor folk to get to work. Surely dudes like Rev. Al Sharpton are a dime a dozen, who will jump at the chance to tell you sob stories about his many destitute constituents, but I think you are doing a disservice to the collective poor if you assume that folks like that are speaking for anyone but their own benefit. People who have positioned themselves as 'advocates for the poor', aren't necessarily speaking in the best interest of those folks.

[Autumn]

Given that:

"Americans have the highest income inequality in the rich world and over the past 20–30 years Americans have also experienced the greatest increase in income inequality among rich nations. The more detailed the data we can use to observe this change, the more skewed the change appears to be... the majority of large gains are indeed at the top of the distribution."

I'm fine with the top of the income curve paying most of the taxes. As of 2004 the top 20% wealthiest Americans owned 84.6% of the wealth in the country. I certainly hope they would be paying the large majority of the taxes also. The system is certainly not hurting the rich. The fact that income has become more and more concentrated in the top of our society is part of the cause for the welfare the poor need, it's not something that's completely disconnected from it. So, yes, they're subsidizing programs for the poor. Maybe if they were willing to make a less obscene amount off the backs of their workers they wouldn't need to.

The rich can cry boo hoo about welfare, but it exists largely because companies have stopped caring for their own workers by paying them decent wages and benefits. When they stop paying their CEOs obscene paychecks they can start complaining too.

[molson]

Maybe if they were willing to make a less obscene amount off the backs of their workers they wouldn't need to.


So are you talking about rich people, or corporation? Or both? I think there's a big difference.

I don't know a whole lot of corporations that are making "obscene" amounts of money these days.

And rich people pay a shitload of taxes and give to charities. No matter how much though, there will always be this jelous resentment of them, and people will want them to give more, and more, and more - I guess until they're not rich anymore. Which would suck for all of us.

How much do you want to take from them? What tax rate would be fair? How much money do you think they need to hand over so that you're not mad at them, and so that you don't blame them for the plight of the poor? Or is it just a generic "more", no matter what the number is?

There will always be people with more money than others. That's life. That's how civilization advances - the successes of people who are motivated by improving themselves. We wouldn't even have air conditioning, or garbage disposals, or cars, or solar panels unless people achieved great things, rich people had the ability to invest in products and develop them and bring them to the masses, etc. The people who don't have the skill or the aptitude or the work ethic to achieve and contribute to civilization shouldn't suffer, they should be protected by the state to some degree, but for civilization as a whole, they're not the place to invest, because there's no return for our standard of living as a whole.

[CamEdwards]

I'm not going to necessarily disagree with that statement, but then again I haven't heard anybody suggesting that you should either. The sentiment I'm getting from this thread that continues to rile me up, is that poor people should be prepared to roll with the economic punches and suck up the brunt of any collective belt tightening that needs to be done, because they pay relatively few taxes, and since rich people pay most of the taxes, those that don't should take the brunt so that the standard of living of those in the upper classes can remain relatively unchanged and unaffected by the state of the economy. I don't agree with that. As to the specifics of how that applies to the current minimum wage, admittedly I don't really have any idea.

Poor people should be able to roll with the punches because that's what poor people have always had to do. Even with gov't assistance, until the poor are no longer poor, they're going to be at a disadvantage.

Does this really boil down to some utopian idea that this country will ever be a place where poverty doesn't exist, where bad things never happen to good people, and everybody has a happy ending? Because I'm starting to get that vibe from a couple of people in the thread.

It seems to me that before we start talking about whether everybody has air conditioning or cable television, we should make sure we've got the basics covered first. Let's eliminate child hunger before we start the "Free Cable TV!" movement.

[molson]

On-topic article in the Boston Globe

Minimum-wage folly - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/08/minimum_wage_folly/)
to work."

[molson]

Does this really boil down to some utopian idea that this country will ever be a place where poverty doesn't exist, where bad things never happen to good people, and everybody has a happy ending? Because I'm starting to get that vibe from a couple of people in the thread.



Poverty by definition has to always exist.

I'm sure poor people in the 1760s would think the poor have it pretty sweet today.

[larrymcg421]

I don't think the argument is that poverty shouldn't exist, moreso that it shouldn't exist for someone that works 40 hours a week.

[CamEdwards]

I don't think the argument is that poverty shouldn't exist, moreso that it shouldn't exist for someone that works 40 hours a week.

Please point to a country today, or a period of time in human history, where that has been the reality for a large number of people.

[molson]

Please point to a country today, or a period of time in human history, where that has been the reality for a large number of people.

Well, if it's a family of 1 or 2, the United States, if you go by the poverty level guidelines. And if you're making that little you shouldn't have kids. Maybe we should offer tax credits (or just a wad of cash) for voluntary sterilization.

Of course, the higher the minimum wage, the harder it is to get 40 hours a week.

[larrymcg421]

Please point to a country today, or a period of time in human history, where that has been the reality for a large number of people.

I don't think we should limit our goals to things that happen elsewhere or have happened in the past.

[thesloppy]

Does this really boil down to some utopian idea that this country will ever be a place where poverty doesn't exist, where bad things never happen to good people, and everybody has a happy ending? Because I'm starting to get that vibe from a couple of people in the thread.

Yeah, I think that is what the concept of a minimum living wage boils down to, I'm not saying that's realistic (and I'm not saying everybody should be payed a living wage), but I do think that is pretty close to the ideals behind the concept. Although I think you've positioned yourself nicely to imply that makes me an idiot, I'd like you to explain with a straight face how those kind of ridiculous ideals can be applied towards obtuse government causes like the war on drugs, the war on terror, child illiteracy, teen pregnancy, and a massive list of social problems that goes on and on, but somehow can't extend towards the standard of living of our poorest residents.

It seems to me that before we start talking about whether everybody has air conditioning or cable television, we should make sure we've got the basics covered first. Let's eliminate child hunger before we start the "Free Cable TV!" movement.

...and that is just plain ridiculous. It's not even clear who you're trying to take to task, and it hardly applies to the question at hand. You can hit me with that gotcha just as soon as I start a thread insisting the poor should stop whining about feeding their children.

[DaddyTorgo]

this is just a test...

[molson]

Yeah, I think that is what the concept of a minimum living wage boils down to, and although I think you've positioned yourself nicely to imply that makes me an idiot, I'd like you to explain with a straight face how those kind of ridiculous ideals can be applied towards obtuse causes like the war on drugs, the war on terror, child illiteracy, teen pregnancy, and a massive list of social problems that goes on and on, but somehow don't extend towards the standard of living of our poorest residents.


What's the grand plan then for improving the standard of living of the poor?

Nobody's against the poor having more, if someone can think of a way to do with without damaging the economy, bringing others down into poverty, or increasing unemployment.

[CamEdwards]

I don't think we should limit our goals to things that happen elsewhere or have happened in the past.

When you consider the breadth and depth of the human experience, I think it can provide us with a fairly good idea of what humanity is capable of (both for good and for bad). Disregarding the fact that what you want has never taken place in human history doesn't make you more noble or idealistic... it just makes you naive.

[larrymcg421]

On-topic article in the Boston Globe

Minimum-wage folly - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/08/minimum_wage_folly/)
to work."

What a stupid article, full of lots of assertions but little in the way of evidence, conveniently ignoring the fact that unemployment went DOWN after Clinton raised the minimum wage in the mid-90s. And of course the author knows that the minimum wage actually goes down every year it is not adjusted for inflation.

Example: When adjusted for inflation, the $7.25 people make today is barely above the level Clinton brought it to in 1996 ($5.33-$5.15), or the level Bush brought it to in 1991 ($4.64-$4.25).

[miked]

When you consider the breadth and depth of the human experience, I think it can provide us with a fairly good idea of what humanity is capable of (both for good and for bad). Disregarding the fact that what you want has never taken place in human history doesn't make you more noble or idealistic... it just makes you naive.

This is silly. Civilizations and societies move forward by trying to do better than the past. Otherwise, we'd still the Earth was flat, is the center of the universe, and be walking everywhere. Things like cars, spaceships, theories, etc, are dreamed up by people trying to make the next leap. It's not naive, it's called progress. Reach for something that's never happened.

[thesloppy]

What's the grand plan then for improving the standard of living of the poor?

Nobody's against the poor having more, if someone can think of a way to do with without damaging the economy, bringing others down into poverty, or increasing unemployment.

Like your repeated calls for an acceptable minimum wage figure, that's a red herring if ever there was one. I've never said I had the plan, in fact, you may notice I've gone out of my way to say that I'm not even sure I advocate a minimum wage rise. Obviously even if I wanted to, I don't think that I have the qualifications to come up with a plan for improving the standard of living of the poor, off the cuff, at this very moment....coincidentally, I'm also pretty sure that you, or anybody here, doesn't have the qualifications to verify my in-depth socio-economic plan, even if I were able to somehow magically pull it out of the dark corners of my ass. Lastly, since you've already been pretty adamant, several times, that you think the minimum wage and the poor are just fine the way they are, it would be pretty foolish to think that I'm going to produce a couple paragraphs of financial clap-trap off the top of my head, and you're going to say "Oh yeah, that sounds reasonable." You've already made it clear that you don't think there's any solution necessary in the first place, so why would anyone go out of their way to lay one out, at your request, so you can pick it apart?

[CamEdwards]

Yeah, I think that is what the concept of a minimum living wage boils down to, I'm not saying that's realistic (and I'm not saying everybody should be payed a living wage), but I do think that is pretty close to the ideals behind the concept. Although I think you've positioned yourself nicely to imply that makes me an idiot, I'd like you to explain with a straight face how those kind of ridiculous ideals can be applied towards obtuse government causes like the war on drugs, the war on terror, child illiteracy, teen pregnancy, and a massive list of social problems that goes on and on, but somehow can't extend towards the standard of living of our poorest residents.


Saying "we have all these ridiculous programs, so what's the harm of one more?" isn't much of an argument. I'd be happy with getting rid of most of the programs you just listed, and completely reworking the others, with the exclusion of the "War on Terror", which I don't consider to be a social program.

[CamEdwards]

You've already made it clear that you don't think there's any solution necessary in the first place, so why would anyone go out of their way to lay one out, at your request, so you can pick it apart?

Because you should be able to rebut someone's critique if your idea is really good enough?

[Autumn]

So are you talking about rich people, or corporation? Or both? I think there's a big difference.

I don't know a whole lot of corporations that are making "obscene" amounts of money these days.

And rich people pay a shitload of taxes and give to charities. No matter how much though, there will always be this jelous resentment of them, and people will want them to give more, and more, and more - I guess until they're not rich anymore. Which would suck for all of us.

How much do you want to take from them? What tax rate would be fair? How much money do you think they need to hand over so that you're not mad at them, and so that you don't blame them for the plight of the poor? Or is it just a generic "more", no matter what the number is?

There will always be people with more money than others. That's life. That's how civilization advances - the successes of people who are motivated by improving themselves. We wouldn't even have air conditioning, or garbage disposals, or cars, or solar panels unless people achieved great things, rich people had the ability to invest in products and develop them and bring them to the masses, etc. The people who don't have the skill or the aptitude or the work ethic to achieve and contribute to civilization shouldn't suffer, they should be protected by the state to some degree, but for civilization as a whole, they're not the place to invest, because there's no return for our standard of living as a whole.

First of all I'm talking about rich people, in that post specifically about the top 1% and then the top 20% of the country who now posses over 80% of the wealth. Those rich people are heads of corporations, among other things. Their companies made them money.

As I asserted the concentration of wealth at the top of the pyramid has increased more and more over the last 30 years. So, I'm not going to feel bad about calling out the ultra rich. Society has given them more and more and more over the last 30 years, and it has been taken from the work of everyone, not just themselves. Yes, there will always be people that make more. But that doesn't excuse the blatant shift of money from the society as a whole to those who are ultrawealthy over the past 30 years. That is an anomaly, not what is normal.

So how much do I want to take from them? Well, that's a loaded question. But how about we start with however much they've managed to take over those past 30 years while the minimum wage has stayed stagnant yet CEOs and the rich have somehow become richer and richer. This isn't resentment, this is anger at a system that has become rigged in the favor of the rich.

[molson]

You've already made it clear that you don't think there's any solution necessary in the first place, so why would anyone go out of their way to lay one out, at your request, so you can pick it apart?

If someone's complaining about something, it's nice to hear what their alternative plan is. All you're saying is "the poor having more would be good", which everyone in world agrees with, so I'm not sure what your point even is.

[molson]

.

As I asserted the concentration of wealth at the top of the pyramid has increased more and more over the last 30 years. So, I'm not going to feel bad about calling out the ultra rich. Society has given them more and more and more over the last 30 years, and it has been taken from the work of everyone, not just themselves. Yes, there will always be people that make more. But that doesn't excuse the blatant shift of money from the society as a whole to those who are ultrawealthy over the past 30 years. That is an anomaly, not what is normal.

So how much do I want to take from them? Well, that's a loaded question. But how about we start with however much they've managed to take over those past 30 years while the minimum wage has stayed stagnant yet CEOs and the rich have somehow become richer and richer. This isn't resentment, this is anger at a system that has become rigged in the favor of the rich.

Are you sure things are so much different in the last 30 years? Poor people weren't down on the luck decades ago? We didn't have super-rich back then? How much exactly have successful people "taken" over the past 30 years?

And it's definitely resentment, IMO (in general, this sentiment, I have no idea about you). Of course the system is "rigged" in favor of the rich. It's rigged in the way that if people are successful (or if their parents and grandparents were successful), they get rich. That's how it's supposed to work. They're the ones that advance us to the point where people can actually make the argument, with a straight face, that air conditioning is a necessity.

[thesloppy]

Saying "we have all these ridiculous programs, so what's the harm of one more?" isn't much of an argument. I'd be happy with getting rid of most of the programs you just listed, and completely reworking the others, with the exclusion of the "War on Terror", which I don't consider to be a social program.

Well, as long as were playing obscure the issue with semantics, I don't consider minimum wage a social program either, how much of your tax dollars are going towards paying the minimum wage? You can knock down the examples I prop up all day long, and think you're winning the argument, but for a political talk show host to suggest that it's ludicrous for ideals to drive the government, it's going to be a pretty hard sell, no matter how stupid you may consider my argument to be.

[thesloppy]

If someone's complaining about something, it's nice to hear what their alternative plan is. All you're saying is "the poor having more would be good", which everyone in world agrees with, so I'm not sure what your point even is.

My point has been people shouldn't be so quick to judge the poor, that's about it. I'm sorry if I haven't been more clear about that. The action plan is pretty simple.

[JonInMiddleGA]

this is anger at a system that places higher values on rarer skill & ability sets than common ones

Why not just call it what it is: blatant envy. Calling it anything else is pure bullshit afaic.

There might not be many people in this country who have a lower collective opinion of the intellectual, judgmental, or overall decision making capacity of than generic corporate decision makers than I do. There aren't many days that go by that I don't literally shake my head in amazement at some of the incredibly stupid things I see done by people who should, at least ostensibly, know better.

At the same time however, they had whatever combination of abilities needed to put themselves in the situation to make those decisions and those sets are rarer than the ability to push buttons on a cash register. Relative scarcity does much to determine the value of many things, due compensation for work/services is one of them. And damned if I see any problem with that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't consider minimum wage a social program either

Would you deny that it is a social engineering program (or at least an attempt at one)?

[Autumn]

Are you sure things are so much different in the last 30 years? Poor people weren't down on the luck decades ago? We didn't have super-rich back then? How much exactly have successful people "taken" over the past 30 years?

And it's definitely resentment, IMO (in general, this sentiment, I have no idea about you). Of course the system is rigged in favor of the rich. They're the ones that advance us to the point where people can actually make the argument, with a straight face, that air conditioning is a necessity.

Yes, I'm absolutely sure things are different. It's a matter of record and statistics. A quick web search will show you that wealth has become increasingly concentrated, that the gap between CEO salaries and workers has expanded vastly, that the minimum wage has not expanded in real dollars for decades while the income of the upper crust has gone up by hundreds of percent.

So, don't tell me it's resentment if you don't even have the facts. This is not "the way things always were." This is new. The system was not always so rigged to the rich, not when our parents were around certainly. And no, I don't idolize the rich for "advancing us." The people of this country also advance us with their productivity. Without them there would be no rich. And at least half of the rich have not contributed anything more than shifting money around to our society. Yes, some of them are necessary to driving our economy, but let's not saint them just yet. Many of them are partly responsible for playing so fast and loose with their money that other people are losing their jobs.

[CamEdwards]

This is silly. Civilizations and societies move forward by trying to do better than the past. Otherwise, we'd still the Earth was flat, is the center of the universe, and be walking everywhere. Things like cars, spaceships, theories, etc, are dreamed up by people trying to make the next leap. It's not naive, it's called progress. Reach for something that's never happened.

You're trying to compare scientific discoveries and technological advances with wholesale changes in human behavior, and my post is being called silly?

Yes, at one time most people thought the Earth was flat. But before that, the ancient Greeks were well aware it was round. People don't always progress, despite what you might believe.

Civilizations and societies can also move backwards, even by trying to do better than the past. The history of the 20th Century is a textbook example, or do you think that Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, and the gamut of communists were trying to do worse than their predecesors?

Reaching for something that's never happened can lead to real progress. It can also lead to unintended consequences that can be dire to large sections of society... including the ones you're trying to help. Just look at the effect the Great Society had on black families.

[thesloppy]

Would you deny that it is a social engineering program (or at least an attempt at one)?

I suppose I have to concede that one. My point was more to the fact that there's not much government money going in and out of that program. I suppose a better analogy to minimum wage might be the speed limit. It's not much of a 'program' per se (although it's probably become a money maker), but the ideals behind the program probably far outreach the results.

[JonInMiddleGA]

that the gap between CEO salaries and workers has expanded vastly, that the minimum wage has not expanded in real dollars for decades while the income of the upper crust has gone up by hundreds of percent.

As has the gap between the abilities of the upper and lower ends of society.

that other people are losing their jobs.

Jobs that they have nothing resembling any sort of claim to having beyond the willingness of the employer to grant them. There is no divine right for someone else to pay you if they deem your services not worth the cost or for any other reason.

[JPhillips]

Why not just call it what it is: blatant envy. Calling it anything else is pure bullshit afaic.

There might not be many people in this country who have a lower collective opinion of the intellectual, judgmental, or overall decision making capacity of than generic corporate decision makers than I do. There aren't many days that go by that I don't literally shake my head in amazement at some of the incredibly stupid things I see done by people who should, at least ostensibly, know better.

At the same time however, they had whatever combination of abilities needed to put themselves in the situation to make those decisions and those sets are rarer than the ability to push buttons on a cash register. Relative scarcity does much to determine the value of many things, due compensation for work/services is one of them. And damned if I see any problem with that.

I reviewed documents on a high profile executive compensation lawsuit. Trust me, there is very little concern for performance when dealing with executive compensation. The boards of most corporations are all tied together through business and social connections and the consultant firms are paid by those receiving compensation. There is very little evidence that performance has had anything to do with the incredible rise in executive compensation over the past thirty years.

[Grammaticus]

What a stupid article, full of lots of assertions but little in the way of evidence, conveniently ignoring the fact that unemployment went DOWN after Clinton raised the minimum wage in the mid-90s. And of course the author knows that the minimum wage actually goes down every year it is not adjusted for inflation.

Example: When adjusted for inflation, the $7.25 people make today is barely above the level Clinton brought it to in 1996 ($5.33-$5.15), or the level Bush brought it to in 1991 ($4.64-$4.25).

The federal minimum wage for all covered non-exempt employees was raised from $3.35 to $4.25 in 1991. Although some people qualified for $3.80 in 1990. It then changed in 1996 to $4.75. Then in 1997 to $5.15, although it still allowed a wage of $4.25 for employees under 20 in their first 90 days of employment. It went to $5.85 in 2007. Then to $6.55 in 2008 and will go to $7.25 on July 24th.

Also, non of the presidents that you mentioned brought the minimum wage anywhere. The U.S. Congress makes laws such as Federal minimum wage.

[CamEdwards]

Well, as long as were playing obscure the issue with semantics, I don't consider minimum wage a social program either, how much of your tax dollars are going towards paying the minimum wage? You can knock down the examples I prop up all day long, and think you're winning the argument, but for a political talk show host to suggest that it's ludicrous for ideals to drive the government, it's going to be a pretty hard sell, no matter how stupid you may consider my argument to be.

I don't think either one of us is going to "win" the argument, but I am enjoying knocking down the examples you provide. :)

I also never said it's ludicrous for ideals to drive the government, just that I wouldn't have a problem with most of the programs that you mentioned going away or undergoing enormous reforms.

[thesloppy]

I don't think either one of us is going to "win" the argument, but I am enjoying knocking down the examples you provide. :)

I also never said it's ludicrous for ideals to drive the government, just that I wouldn't have a problem with most of the programs that you mentioned going away or undergoing enormous reforms.

Well, when we're talking about how realistic the ideals behind those programs have to be, I think we're splitting hairs, more than anything else. I don't want to argue too much, because I agree with you that the ideals of some of those programs are twisted, and I agree with you that eliminating poverty entirely is a pipe dream, but I think it's unfair to say that the ideals behind the minimum wage program aren't somehow aimed at eliminating as much as possible. Whether that is a 'healthy' ideal for the government, in general, or in particular, I don't think I'm really equipped to say...but it seems like it certainly could be worse.

[lynchjm24]

13,624

as one person? Sure, you could do it. Would it be fun? Not really. With a family of 3 and say, one person not able to work? No way.

If both wage earners were making that? It'd still be far less than a picnic. But it's easier to say you could do it, when the reality is you'll likely never have to.

Jesus I wouldn't even want to make that a month, nevermind a year.

[thesloppy]

The federal minimum wage for all covered non-exempt employees was raised from $3.35.

I just want to mention that I remember making $3.35/hr. Good times.

[Grammaticus]

I just want to mention that I remember making $3.35/hr. Good times.

Me too and I only made it for one job. It is a starting point and part of attaining marketable skills. That is pretty much the norm. Very few people stay in the bottom fifth of the wage range.

[RainMaker]

I don't think the argument is that poverty shouldn't exist, moreso that it shouldn't exist for someone that works 40 hours a week.
So the only criteria we have is you show up to work for 40 hours a week? It doesn't matter if you have any skills or talents. If you work hard when you get there. As long as you are there for 40 hours it's everyone else's responsibility to make sure they live nicely? What happened to the concept of bettering yourself?

There is a huge gap in rich and poor, but I also think that huge gap is often justified. Spend an evening with a head of a multi-national company and then spend one with a guy who can only get minimum wage jobs. Those people are night and day apart. It's not like all these rich people just happened to catch a lucky break one day that set them apart. It's completely different lifestyles, motivations, and actions they have taken.

That isn't to say that there aren't issues in society. I do think we have a problem with heads of companies extorting money. There should be rules in place to stop someone from getting hundreds of millions in compensation when their public company is losing billions.

[RainMaker]

Well, as long as were playing obscure the issue with semantics, I don't consider minimum wage a social program either, how much of your tax dollars are going towards paying the minimum wage? You can knock down the examples I prop up all day long, and think you're winning the argument, but for a political talk show host to suggest that it's ludicrous for ideals to drive the government, it's going to be a pretty hard sell, no matter how stupid you may consider my argument to be.

Tax dollars may not go directly into it, but it is still a social program. You pay for it with higher prices as a consumer and lower wages and less benefits if you are skilled. When you force a company to overpay an unskilled worker, the cost needs to be made up somewhere else.

[larrymcg421]

Tax dollars may not go directly into it, but it is still a social program. You pay for it with higher prices as a consumer and lower wages and less benefits if you are skilled. When you force a company to overpay an unskilled worker, the cost needs to be made up somewhere else.

As I noted several times in this thread, this cost you keep talking about didn't seem to be such a burden in the mid-90s when minimum wage was raised, unemployment went down and the economy was booming. And you also ignore the potential benefit to said companies: more money being spent on their products.

[Autumn]

Jobs that they have nothing resembling any sort of claim to having beyond the willingness of the employer to grant them. There is no divine right for someone else to pay you if they deem your services not worth the cost or for any other reason.

My point is about the people in the corporoate sector who have helped run our markets and corporations into the ground. I see the rich being painted with some "hero" brush for keeping our economy thriving. Just as many of them are doing a piss poor job and making things harder for the rest of us. Most of those are making filthy amounts of money for doing a piss poor job.

I am not advocating that CEOs should make as much as a cashier. I am suggesting that there is more at play in modern America than simple "relative scarcity". There's a reason why the rich are getting richer and others are not.

And no, it is not envy. I have no interest in being rich. I'm not poor and I make enough and figure I can find a way to continue doing so. If someone puts all their effort into making their way up the ladder and making money, I'm all for it. Not all of us want to. But I am against a system which is rigged to help get those people more and more money at the expense of a worker's pension account or workplace safety or healthcare.

[larrymcg421]

So the only criteria we have is you show up to work for 40 hours a week? It doesn't matter if you have any skills or talents. If you work hard when you get there. As long as you are there for 40 hours it's everyone else's responsibility to make sure they live nicely? What happened to the concept of bettering yourself?

There's a big difference between living in poverty and living nicely. And there's still a concept in bettering yourself. What's the point of anyone showing up to work if they could live a better life through government assistance? We're going to be paying for it either way.

There is a huge gap in rich and poor, but I also think that huge gap is often justified. Spend an evening with a head of a multi-national company and then spend one with a guy who can only get minimum wage jobs. Those people are night and day apart. It's not like all these rich people just happened to catch a lucky break one day that set them apart. It's completely different lifestyles, motivations, and actions they have taken.

Not sure where this came from. I don't think anyone is arguing that all poor people should be made rich. This isn't Trading Places.

[RainMaker]

As I noted several times in this thread, this cost you keep talking about didn't seem to be such a burden in the mid-90s when minimum wage was raised, unemployment went down and the economy was booming. And you also ignore the potential benefit to said companies: more money being spent on their products.

We also had massive welfare reform in the 90's that could have accounted for that as well. The Earned Income Credit forced more people into working. Whlie the Federal Minimum Wage was raised, many states already had higher minimum wages in effect. And the economy was booming because it was a massive bubble that eventually burst. I would say that cheap oil prices, the strong dollar, and some funky accounting helped our economy boom much more than raising the minimum wage.

Nonetheless, the point is what is fair to people? Do we want a society where our unskilled workers are overpaid? Is there not some moral dilemnia in that?

[RainMaker]

There's a big difference between living in poverty and living nicely. And there's still a concept in bettering yourself. What's the point of anyone showing up to work if they could live a better life through government assistance? We're going to be paying for it either way.

Not sure where this came from. I don't think anyone is arguing that all poor people should be made rich. This isn't Trading Places.

You aren't arguing that poor people should be made rich, but you are arguing that unskilled workers should be overpaid.

And where is that motivation to better yourself if the government is going to make sure you're taken care of either way?

[sterlingice]

Nonetheless, the point is what is fair to people? Do we want a society where our unskilled workers are overpaid? Is there not some moral dilemnia in that?

Are we near that point where we consider "unskilled" workers overpaid?

SI

[RainMaker]

Are we near that point where we consider "unskilled" workers overpaid?

SI
Someone is worth what they can get on the open market. When you force a company to pay more for the lowest skilled workers, they can be deemed overpaid.

[Grammaticus]

Are we near that point where we consider "unskilled" workers overpaid?

SI

It depends on how you define that. Pretty much every other country in the world's unskilled workers are obtaining a lower average wage. That probably means that ours are over paid and is pretty much why a lot of the unskilled jobs are going away in our markets.

Of course that is a real world answer and does not factor in what we want versus what is realistic.

The funny thing about the minimum wage is, it was put in place originally around the turn of the 20th century to cause minimum wage workers to lose jobs. I believe, the first federal minimum wage only applied to women, children and minorities. The theory behind it by the power structure at the time was that these were undesirable workers and by forcing the cost of their services up, employers would hire cheaper labor i.e. not the undesirable workers.

I don't think it really ever shifted into a virtual social program until FDR.

[JPhillips]

Tax dollars may not go directly into it, but it is still a social program. You pay for it with higher prices as a consumer and lower wages and less benefits if you are skilled. When you force a company to overpay an unskilled worker, the cost needs to be made up somewhere else.

But there are lots of ways that cost can be overcome that don't include taking money from the middle class. Profits could be cut. Efficiency could be increased. Sales could be increased. New tax benefits could be found. The higher wage could even motivate the employee to work harder thereby paying for themselves in added efficiency.

Why do you assume that any help to the poor means you're getting the shaft?

[molson]

The people of this country also advance us with their productivity. Without them there would be no rich.

Not the unkilled workers. Anyone can do those jobs.

And the evolution of wealth distribution is a lot more complicated than just the "rich are evil and screw everyone" theme you're trying to portray.

The Inequality Myth - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120511125873823431.html)

I don't quite understand the point that the rich "need" the poor....I mean, if all the poor in the US died tomorrow for some reason, there's a lot of collateral issues there beyond how the standard of living of the rich is impacted. But no matter the situation, in a capitalist economy, the rich tend to the be the more successfull, intelligent, driven people, and they'll tend to succeed (and their children). I know you're focussed on the random bad CEO that makes too much, but that's a small, small cross-section of the "rich" (and most of those CEOs, if you read any of their bios, rose their way through the ranks from limited means, and then ran into a buzzsaw of a bad economic situation).

[molson]

But there are lots of ways that cost can be overcome that don't include taking money from the middle class. Profits could be cut. Efficiency could be increased. Sales could be increased. New tax benefits could be found. The higher wage could even motivate the employee to work harder thereby paying for themselves in added efficiency.

Why do you assume that any help to the poor means you're getting the shaft?

The best thing about the Obama years will be that we can get answers to all these hypotheticals, this idea that it's simple to help the poor without harming the middle class, etc. It's all been in hypotheticals that couldn't be proven wrong, which has given this idealistic view a lot of bravado. But now, it's time to put up or shut up. If Obama and a Democratic Congress don't pull off these ideals, then they couldn't be accomplished without a greater harm.

[larrymcg421]

No one said it's simple. You're the ones saying it's simple, that minimum wage increase automatically harms the economy, and dismiss any evidence to the contrary.

And I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that there shouldn't be a minimum wage, so it sounds like everyone wants unskilled workers to be "overpaid", just that we disagree on the amount.

Hell, I'd probably accept the $7.25 if it was set to be adjusted for inflation, but I know the value of that wage is going to significantly decrease over time.

Before the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 in 2006, the inflation value of that wage was at the lowest in 54 years. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html)

[JPhillips]

Not the unkilled workers. Anyone can do those jobs.

And the evolution of wealth distribution is a lot more complicated than just the "rich are evil and screw everyone" theme you're trying to portray.

The Inequality Myth - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120511125873823431.html)

I don't quite understand the point that the rich "need" the poor....I mean, if all the poor in the US died tomorrow for some reason, there's a lot of collateral issues there beyond how the standard of living of the rich is impacted. But no matter the situation, in a capitalist economy, the rich tend to the be the more successfull, intelligent, driven people, and they'll tend to succeed (and their children). I know you're focussed on the random bad CEO that makes too much, but that's a small, small cross-section of the "rich" (and most of those CEOs, if you read any of their bios, rose their way through the ranks from limited means, and then ran into a buzzsaw of a bad economic situation).

The rich can't make everything themselves nor can they provide a large enough demand for goods. There needs to be a balance for a capitalist economy to function well.

[molson]

conveniently ignoring the fact that unemployment went DOWN after Clinton raised the minimum wage in the mid-90s.

That was a good time to raise minimum wage, in a booming economy (or if slightly before the booming economy, a time that had very low unemployment). But I'm completely illogical to contend that raising the cost of labor increases the demand for the labor. The unemployment rate would have been even lower without the increases, but since the rate was acceptable and declining no matter what happened, it was a good time to do it.

Minimum wage has pretty much kept up with inflation, which is more than you can say for middle and lower middle class salaries over much of the same time period. Why should the unskilled, who contribute the least, gain on the lower middle class and middle class?

[JPhillips]

That was a good time to raise minimum wage, in a booming economy (or if slightly before the booming economy, a time that had very low unemployment). But I'm completely illogical to contend that raising the cost of labor increases the demand for the labor. The unemployment rate would have been even lower without the increases, but since the rate was acceptable and declining no matter what happened, it was a good time to do it.

Minimum wage has pretty much kept up with inflation, which is more than you can say for middle and lower middle class salaries over much of the same time period. Why should the unskilled, who contribute the least, gain on the lower middle class and middle class?

It may be illogical, but in some circumstances it may be true.

First, it is a well known fact that in a model with monopsony in factor markets, a wage floor like a minimum wage, can increase employment (the result is shown by Stigler (American Economic Review, 1946). The analogy that might be more familiar to readers is that of a price ceiling on a monopoly; that induces lower prices and greater production.

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/12/the_economic_de.html

[molson]

It may be illogical, but in some circumstances it may be true.

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/12/the_economic_de.html

That's intersting, obviously there's a happy middle ground that's optimal....If you increase minimum wage too high, too quickly, you'll have massive unemployment and hurt businesses and the middle class, and if minimum wage drags too low, you create little incentive to take those jobs for some people, the poor's labor is exploited, ect. But small, strategic increases can definitely be beneficial to the economy as a whole.

I think it's basically at the right level, and should be adjusted for inflation. It times of high unemployment though, I think any increases are damaging. I GUESS others think it needs to increase more rapidly, to bring the poor to a level closer to the lower middle class and middle class.

[larrymcg421]

That was a good time to raise minimum wage, in a booming economy (or if slightly before the booming economy, a time that had very low unemployment). But I'm completely illogical to contend that raising the cost of labor increases the demand for the labor. The unemployment rate would have been even lower without the increases, but since the rate was acceptable and declining no matter what happened, it was a good time to do it.

Minimum wage has pretty much kept up with inflation, which is more than you can say for middle and lower middle class salaries over much of the same time period. Why should the unskilled, who contribute the least, gain on the lower middle class and middle class?

Except I show that it hasn't kept up with inflation, considering it went a full decade without being increased, and when the evil socialist Dems finally forced an increase in 2006, it was at the lowest level in over a half century.

And your point on middle and lower middle class salaries doesn't match my experience. The entry level salaries at my current job almost match what I'm getting now after 5 years of annual wage increases.

[JonInMiddleGA]

the inflation value of that wage was at the lowest in 54 years.

And as we moved away from a manufacturing based economy, so was the value of those workers.

[molson]

Except I show that it hasn't kept up with inflation, considering it went a full decade without being increased, and when the evil socialist Dems finally forced an increase in 2006, it was at the lowest level in over a half century.

And your point on middle and lower middle class salaries doesn't match my experience. The entry level salaries at my current job almost match what I'm getting now after 5 years of annual wage increases.

Middle class salaries (relative to inflation) have also been stagnant, at best, over that decade. That's a tough thing to measure, but it's just consistent with what I've read over the years. I haven't seen numbers to contradict that.

[larrymcg421]

And it's not just some evil socialist sympathy plan to help the poor out. I think the economy functions better when people at the bottom have more money, as they have more money to put into the economy. If income disparities between the top and bottom continue to grow, I think it not only hurts the people at the bottom, but the people at the top will wonder where did all of their customers go.

[Young Drachma]

Ancedotes and too much Thomas Sowell in this thread.