Minimum Wage hike, you for it?

SVreX wrote: If we agree to adjust for inflation, the corrected 2013 minimum wage would be raised from $7.25 to $7.89. Inflation is currently no where near as high as people seem to think. $7.25 MW was adopted in July 2009. Actual Inflation rates: - 2010 1.5% - 2011 3.0% - 2012 1.7% - 2013 1.0% Cumulative 2009- 2013 is 8.9% What's up with $10 or $15 per hour?? It makes no sense. My wages have dropped by 16% in the same time period, not counting the lost benefits (worth 11% more). But OK, I have no problem giving a true cost of living increase to match the actual inflation amount. I suggest $7.89 per hour (and won't worry about the fact that I have lost 27%). ANY amount beyond that invalidates the inflation argument, and is nothing more than political grandstanding.

Don't the official gov't numbers EXCLUDE energy and food? Which for a lot of poorer families makes up a very large portion of their pay?

I could be wrong, but that doesn't seem as relevant in that context.

SVreX wrote: If we agree to adjust for inflation, the corrected 2013 minimum wage would be raised from $7.25 to $7.89. Inflation is currently no where near as high as people seem to think. $7.25 MW was adopted in July 2009. Actual Inflation rates: - 2010 1.5% - 2011 3.0% - 2012 1.7% - 2013 1.0% Cumulative 2009- 2013 is 8.9% What's up with $10 or $15 per hour?? It makes no sense. My wages have dropped by 16% in the same time period, not counting the lost benefits (worth 11% more). But OK, I have no problem giving a true cost of living increase to match the actual inflation amount. I suggest $7.89 per hour (and won't worry about the fact that I have lost 27%). ANY amount beyond that invalidates the inflation argument, and is nothing more than political grandstanding.

Yep. That is reasonable. Although keep in mind that it will take some time for a new minimum wage to go into effect, so something like an even $8.00/hour would probably be about on the mark by the time it actually happens.

Yep. There is a lot of political grandstanding here. $15/hour is absurd.

I believe the $10.10 is something like the amount of money to support a family of two at a certain amount above the poverty line, or to put a family of three right at the poverty line, or something like that. It has gotten thrown around by a couple policy institutes and the President. I suspect he may be using it as something that he knows is above what will happen but is not so absurd that it can be immediately dismissed. A starting point to bargain up to $8.50 instead of $7.75.

Duke wrote: Which goes back to the discussion I was having with Beer Baron: Should society provide minimum existence to everybody?

He's said it multiple times. A country as productive and wealthy as our SHOULD provide minimum existence to everyone.

I'd agree with him, but go one (or many) steps further and say that I think the government and/or private sector could be more productive by getting even the laziest of people off their butts and into the workforce. I just don't know how you do that. Is that giving them a carrot, or giving them the whip?

And you are probably in the "zero help" realm, correct?

To be honest (and I'm sure I'll be roasted for this) I'm much less concerned with the minimum wage than I am the grotesque growth of CEO pay in regards to their employees.

In reply to z31maniac:

That sounds like something I'd say a whole bunch of times in the same thread...

PHeller wrote:

Duke wrote: Which goes back to the discussion I was having with Beer Baron: Should society provide minimum existence to everybody?

He's said it multiple times. A country as productive and wealthy as our SHOULD provide minimum existence to everyone. I'd agree with him, but go one (or many) steps further and say that I think the government and/or private sector could be more productive by getting even the laziest of people off their butts and into the workforce. I just don't know how you do that. Is that giving them a carrot, or giving them the whip?

This is going to venture a bit off topic.

I think the answer is people already raised can't really be changed. What we need to do is accept that we've been screwing things up, suck it up, and work on raising the next generation better. That means, better education. Start with better funding to get universal preschool (it sounds trivial but apparently attending preschool has a MASSIVE effect on a child's future economic status and incarceration rates). Then add more funding of shop, home ec, art, and music programs in junior high and high school. Things that teach useful real world skills and motivate kids to want to go to class.

PHeller wrote: In reply to z31maniac: That sounds like something I'd say a whole bunch of times in the same thread...

Did you already? I admit I've only read the last few pages.

Yeah, sure. The CEO makes the decisions for the company, but without the guys producing the actual product, managing the guys that do, producing the manuals on how to operate and help limit liability (what I do)........without everyone else they wouldn't have their HUGE salaries.

All the while justifying screwing us on pay and bonuses while they continue to inflate theirs.

PHeller wrote: A country as productive and wealthy as our SHOULD provide minimum existence to everyone.

This is so much harder than you realize.

The problem is, that no one will EVER be able to define what a "minimum existence" is.

I used to work for Habitat for Humanity. Millard Fuller, the very charismatic founder, was once being interviewed on television. The interviewer asked, "What is Habitat's goal?". He responded, "To eliminate substandard housing worldwide".

We were shocked. We'd never heard that before.

So we got to work. Sumter County GA was designated as the trial location. It would be the first place in the world to eliminate substandard housing. In 1992 the Sumter County Initiative was born.

It didn't take long to figure out what a mess we'd gotten ourselves into.

The only thing it did was raise questions...

• What is substandard?

• What is standard? Why?

• Are mobile homes OK?

• What about homes that are occupied by tenants?

• Can you force someone to fix their house?

• What is someone doesn't want to move?

• Who will be responsible, and who will get the credit?

• What if you fix a house, and it falls into disrepair again?

• What about people on government assistance?

• Is a clean and functional outhouse or latrine above or below standard?

• Etc., etc., etc....

On Sept 15, 2000, victory was declared, with the dedication of the last home in a subdivision called Easter Morning.

I still live next to Sumter County. Trust me, there are plenty of substandard houses, and NO ONE would EVER say the goal was achieved. Most people saw NO DIFFERENCE (except people looking to pat themselves on the back). 25.1% of the population lives below the poverty line today, and their houses very much reflect that.

Oh, and the Easter Morning subdivision is a crime and drug infested E36 M3hole.

So, the moral is that failure to have a clear and attainable goal will will always achieve exactly what it targeted... nothing.

"Substandard housing" could not be defined.

"Minimum Existence" can not be defined either.

In reply to z31maniac:

I think the grotesque growth was explained a few pages back.....something to do with the part of their salary that was in stock options.

OK, now that I am home from work I can respond with a few small points.

In response to the "what if so and so can't get to the good paying job, because its too far?"

Bull-e36m3.

I grew up in the middle of nowhere. My first job was picking rocks, or baling hay, for the local farmers. My first paying job was at 9. I was paid $4/hr and had to walk to the farm after school. If I was lucky, I got a ride by a neighbor or my mom if they were going somewhere, and occasionally the farmers would give me a ride home at the end of the day. otherwise, I walked miles in each direction.

My second paying job was mowing lawns. At 14, I bought a lawn mower and found some lawns to mow. I would go three miles one way to mow some of the lawns. I saved enough to buy my first car, a plenty rusty '72 nova and upgraded my bike to a GT Tequesta mountain bike. I still picked rocks and baled hay for the local farmers.

There are odd jobs in every corner, crack, and crevice of this country that need to be done. I found a farmer and some local people to pay me for the work that they needed to be done.

In urban areas, there are more people that need more things done. In any urban area there are about 3 billion walls that need painted, someone has to do it. I am a city landlord now and would gladly pay the local kids to do many of the tasks on my to do list.

In response to the question about statistics on welfare abuse.

Open your eyes and look around you. I see it often at the grocery store. I drive up in my ford ranger, park next to Chrysler 300's, Escalades, Navigators, Expeditions etc. I watch people pay for grocery carts full of ridiculous food with their bridge card (MI food stamps) and load them up into their stupid cars. Bull-e36m3. If they need help, they need to change their lifestyle starting with their car. I have driven junkers for hundreds of thousands of miles, don't give me that "they need a reliable car crap". Reliable cars can be bought cheap.

Also, in response to the abuse of welfare.

Drive by any subsidized apartment building and look at the cars parked there. There are very nice cars parked there many of them worth, $10000+.

LOOK AROUND YOU, it happens everywhere.

People need the ability to fail. It will cause them to put on their "ManPants", and go make a living. I started with nothing, which is much less than any kid today, and have made a living for myself. So can anyone today. I've worked with blind people, deaf people, people who can't read or write. I've worked with people who are in wheelchairs and missing arms and legs. They all found a way to work, with me even.

Some of you that don't think it can be done should look at the rags to riches success stories out there. Look to people like Liz Murray "Homeless to Harvard" or Jeanette Walls "The Glass Castle" who have come from nothing and made it in life. My favorite is Lou Noto, former CEO of Mobil, started working at a gas station as a teenager and made it to top spot of Mobil oil.

It can be done, it has been done. It just takes some courage and hard work.

I apologize if I got a little extra preachy there, I can get a short fuse after a 12+ hour day of work.

I propose a MAXIMUM wage.

Manpants. I like that.

To bad more people don't have them.

The liberals will get it raised. The law of unintended consequences will rear it's ugly head. The smarter, harder working people will work around the stupid laws and continue to get rich. The rest will suffer until some liberal starts crying, "It's for the children." Then we can start this discussion all over again.

Whatever...Lucky for me, I'm one of the smarter ones. Even socialist countries have winners and losers.

Toyman01 wrote: Manpants. I like that. To bad more people don't have them. The liberals will get it raised. The law of unintended consequences will rear it's ugly head. The smarter, harder working people will work around the stupid laws and continue to get rich. The rest will suffer until some liberal starts crying, "It's for the children." Then we can start this discussion all over again. Whatever...Lucky for me, I'm one of the smarter ones. Even socialist countries have winners and losers.

Damn liberals! This country was doing great before they (he) took office...

Cone_Junkie wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: Manpants. I like that. To bad more people don't have them. The liberals will get it raised. The law of unintended consequences will rear it's ugly head. The smarter, harder working people will work around the stupid laws and continue to get rich. The rest will suffer until some liberal starts crying, "It's for the children." Then we can start this discussion all over again. Whatever...Lucky for me, I'm one of the smarter ones. Even socialist countries have winners and losers.

Damn liberals! This country was doing great before they (he) took office...

To listen to them, it seems to be going less great every year.

It's like a broke record.

That's OK though. Improvise, adapt and overcome.

yamaha wrote: In reply to z31maniac: I think the grotesque growth was explained a few pages back.....something to do with the part of their salary that was in stock options.

Which explains things like the banks(corporations) searching for maximum every quarter returns vs long-term sustainable growth.

Either way, it's not a good situation for the middle class.

I see that in my own company, we lay off a ton of people to boost our stock prices, but we've laid off so many people we are falling behind on deliveries, we can't meet demand, quality/safety suffer.............and the only peoples whose salary it affects is the below VP class.

I know many don't agree, but I see a problem with that.

waiting for the gofindanotherjob posts

z31maniac wrote: *waiting for the gofindanotherjob posts*

Great point. I wasn't happy with my low paying job at the parts counter, so I found a company that was willing to teach me a skill in manufacturing. If Daryl, Daryl and his other brother Daryl want more than minimum wage, a great place to start is by learning a skill.

Of course, you'd have to have a sense of personal responsibility to make that happen.

oldopelguy wrote: Two quick things to point out: -That out sized military is still the quickest way out of poverty, though I know that some people have moral objections to poor people going to war. As a training and career creating platform it beats any social program in every way. Really, with E-1 base pay available to almost anyone, why do we need a minimum wage for healthy adults? Any pay at any other job could be compared to military pay, and choosing not to sign up is accepting that you are willing to work for less than the one job equally available to almost everyone. -Those moral objections to poor people joining the military? It's as a result of those that survivability for front line soldiers has never been better any time in history. That survivability comes at a cost in real dollars. We send a million dollar drone or smart missle in instead of 200 guys with $250 worth of bullets to risk fewer lives. As a society we choose to value those lives and pay tax dollars for better equipment for them despite the costs. You may not always agree that the mission should be accomplished, but if you claim to value our soldiers and their lives then you need to make peace with what it costs. Arguments about targets and objectives are very different than discussions of costs in the same way that spitting on a vet is very different than voting in a new elected official. As to greedy corporations, you have to vote with your wallet. A company that can promise better returns to it's investors gets more and better access to investment cash. That makes the company stronger and also more profit driven. The only part in the whole system where conscience can still be injected is through the investors, and no one wants to invest their 401k in the less profitable option. We all vote profit when we vote with our wallets. (Sidebar: Wouldn't that make for an interesting business model, though, running a fund that did invest with a conscience? From the investor end with a big enough fund you could force companies to bring up pay and benefits in exchange for investment capital. Orchestrated right that kind of fund would probably never be anyone's sole retirement investment but it could easily be a feel good alternative for part of a well blended portfolio, particularly with the right promotion.)

Just for clarification, the military won't take every slacker that walks through the door right now. They are downsizing and the requirements to get in is much tougher.

Duke wrote: Why shouldn't I get a raise too? I work just as hard as I did in 2009. I sure as heck didn't work 25% less hard during 2011 when I had to take a 25% pay cut due to market conditions.

we all are feeling that. Yet, the cost of buying stuff has not decreased a similar amount

Flight Service wrote: Just for clarification, the military won't take every slacker that walks through the door right now. They are downsizing and the requirements to get in is much tougher.

Alternative, if you are Jewish you can head over to Israel and do their military thing. Birth right and all that. But you get paid much less than minimum wage, but food and shelter is taken care of.

gofastbobby wrote:

z31maniac wrote: *waiting for the gofindanotherjob posts*

Great point. I wasn't happy with my low paying job at the parts counter, so I found a company that was willing to teach me a skill in manufacturing. If Daryl, Daryl and his other brother Daryl want more than minimum wage, a great place to start is by learning a skill. Of course, you'd have to have a sense of personal responsibility to make that happen.

Easy there. Don't drag personal responsibility into this. We all know that everyone gets the same medal just for showing up no matter what their efforts.

It won't work as long as we continue to buy goods made in foreign sweat shops. If you want a standard of living, you have to be willing to pay for it.

mtn wrote: I alluded to this in my previous post, but I *really* fear that if they were to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, we would lose a LOT more manufacturing type jobs overseas to places that don't have such strict labor laws. I really have no problem paying somebody a living wage--but at some point I cannot do it, because it costs too much. So where does globalization come into this? Are we going to impose more taxes on imports from certain nations? Otherwise I do not see how this will lead to anything but fewer jobs in the US.

This is but one issue that needs addressed when discussing minimum wage hikes. IMO, there needs to be some sort of laws stating "if you fail to pay your workers living wage, your products are unwelcome in our country".

Same goes for environmental regs... "due to global pollution, if your factories burn dirty, your stuff is not coming into our country".

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: Lifes not fair.

There's a big difference between fair and giving people in the wealthiest nation at least a chance of a reasonable life. It's also about allowing people to stand on their own feet rather than being forced to rely on Government hand outs.

The wealthiest nation? Are you living in Hong Kong or Monaco? The US used to be a wealthy nation, but times have changed, and now the US is in debt to China.... and knowing on a personal basis, when you have more debt than worth, you are no longer wealthy.

Lesley wrote: It won't work as long as we continue to buy goods made in foreign sweat shops. If you want a standard of living, you have to be willing to pay for it.

What about domestic sweat shops staffed by undocumented workers that are exempt from a minimum wage standard? What about most of what you eat being harvested by undocumented workers earning lass than minimum wage?

Remember, the higher the minimum wage goes, the greater the incentive to hire foreign workers to circumvent that wage increase mandate.