Minimum Wage increase?

[HoughMade]

Like most things, it has advantages and disadvantages. I doubt many modern folks truly want to go back to labor conditions as they existed in the WWI and Depression Era. They'll loudly bemoan the disadvantages but happily suck up the advantages without thinking twice, and apparently not even realizing the advantages they enjoy in many cases.

No one is talking about going back to those labor practices. This is about the minimum wage only. There need not be one.

 

[Bfish]

Seeing what minimum wage has done to other countries inflation rate alone makes it a bad idea... As long as we can see this happen on small levels and fail and not on a national one we might be ok. It sucks the way things are going with people!

MCgrease... Good thread, sadly it seems to be the norm now. I have met a few my age that can't tell time on a regular clock, can't use a tape measure, and the list goes on!

 

[MisterChester]

If minimum wage was pegged to purchasing power instead of some arbitrary number, it would work a lot better.

 

[gentlemen]

Clearly, a very terrible argument.

There is a difference between raising minimum wage up to the level it was in 1981 (it's currently about 20% lower adjusted for inflation) and 15 dollars per hour.

If you can't afford to pay your dishwasher 9.50 an hour without killing your profit, you have a poor business model to blame. Not "socialism."

 

[HoughMade]

If minimum wage was pegged to purchasing power instead of some arbitrary number, it would work a lot better.

Clearly, a very terrible argument.

There is a difference between raising minimum wage up to the level it was in 1981 (it's currently about 20% lower adjusted for inflation) and 15 dollars per hour.

If you can't afford to pay your dishwasher 9.50 an hour without killing your profit, you have a poor business model to blame. Not "socialism."

What business is it of yours or the government's if an employer and worker agree upon a wage?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What business is it of yours or the government's if an employer and worker agree upon a wage?

What business is it of yours if I send my 11 year old to work at a factory?

 

[HoughMade]

What business is it of yours if I send my 11 year old to work at a factory?

Are you equating adults making a bargain between them to child labor?

 

[Thor]

If minimum wage was pegged to purchasing power instead of some arbitrary number, it would work a lot better.

It is. Get smarter, work harder and you can buy more. See how that works?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Are you equating adults making a bargain between them to child labor?

I'm asking what business is it of yours?

 

[gentlemen]

What business is it of yours or the government's if an employer and worker agree upon a wage?

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." “By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level. I mean the wages of decent living.”

Roosevelt

In brief, social contract, etc.

 

[1775usmarine]

 

[Thor]

Roosevelt

In brief, socialist contract, etc.

FIFY

 

[ModernGunner]

Well, if some owner of a $700,000 restaurant is only making $28,000 annually for him / herself, WHY hasn't he, before NOW, laid off all those 'expensive' workers and wait on those patrons him / her self? BTW, according to that article, 36% of the $700,000, that's $252,000, goes to the employees. Hmmm, since the tipped employee in Indiana only makes $2.13 / hour ($4260 / yr. @ 2000 hrs. per year) that would mean the average $700,000 restaurant in Indiana has, on average, over 59 employees. Don't remember seeing any restaurant at that income level with that many employees.

And it should be noted that, typically, the majority of the waitress / waiter's income doesn't come from wages paid by the restauranteur or bar owner. The majority of the income is derived from tips left by the customers, which is at NO cost to the owner, whatsoever.

Nor have I ever, ever, seen the owner of a moderately successful restaurant living a lifestyle that would indicate the owner is only taking home $28 grand a year.

Of course, the State of Washington pays their employees a higher tipped-employee wage, $9.47 / hr. BUT, most waitresses / waiters, don't typically work 40 hrs. / week, 50 weeks a year.

For decades now, restaurant and bar owners, and others who employ tipped employees have been getting away with paying their employees WELL under the minimum wage, because of this their claim that "employees make a good living earning tips". That has never been 'right', but owners of such businesses pushed for a lower minimum wage, and got it (in Indiana and many other States)

And as should be obvious to anyone, as the public tightened their respective belts, less people went out to dinner, etc. and those that did left less for a tip, on average.

As almost anyone who works as an employee knows, for years now business owners (of all types) have continually cut the number of employees, expecting and demanding the remaining employees 'take up the slack'. Where did THOSE extra profits (wages not paid to the cut employees) go? And, this was well AHEAD of the current push for a higher minimum wage.

Regardless of all the rhetoric and hyperbole, employers can only cut so many employees before there's NO employees to wait on customers. Employers have ALREADY cut employee ranks 'to the bone', UNLESS that employer intends to service those customers him / her self, of course.

But even IF that was done, ONE customer service rep (the owner) can only wait on so many customers in a business day. Is that what the business owner intends to do? Reduce the size (in the example) of his business from $700,000 / yr. to, say $70,000 by waiting on the customers them self? So what would his income be, then? Well, by that example, $2,800! Gimme a break.

OR, is the owner just going to shut the business down? THEN where is he / she going to derive income to feed and house THEIR family? Go to work for another business operating in the same way? Nope, because they're not hiring, LOL! Or MAYBE work for a competitor that managed to hold out a bit longer, and work for that same lousy minimum wage the he / she was formerly paying out?

If his 'lowly income' of '$28,000' / year was 'so terrible', HOW did he / she manage to obtain that brand-spanking new Cadillac, Mercedes, or BMW they drive? How do they manage to live in a nice, say $250,000 (a modest sum nowadays, to be sure!) home and send their kids to school? Why aren't THEY on food stamps and low income subsidies?

'Nice' article, lots of 'figures' to 'prove' their agenda. But it's a case, not of 'figures lyin', but of 'liars figurin'.

Let them eat cake, then!

 

[actaeon277]

Well, if some owner of a $700,000 restaurant is only making $28,000 annually for him / herself, WHY hasn't he, before NOW, laid off all those 'expensive' workers and wait on those patrons him / her self? BTW, according to that article, 36% of the $700,000, that's $252,000, goes to the employees. Hmmm, since the tipped employee in Indiana only makes $2.13 / hour ($4260 / yr. @ 2000 hrs. per year) that would mean the average $700,000 restaurant in Indiana has, on average, over 59 employees. Don't remember seeing any restaurant at that income level with that many employees.

And it should be noted that, typically, the majority of the waitress / waiter's income doesn't come from wages paid by the restauranteur or bar owner. The majority of the income is derived from tips left by the customers, which is at NO cost to the owner, whatsoever.

Nor have I ever, ever, seen the owner of a moderately successful restaurant living a lifestyle that would indicate the owner is only taking home $28 grand a year.

Of course, the State of Washington pays their employees a higher tipped-employee wage, $9.47 / hr. BUT, most waitresses / waiters, don't typically work 40 hrs. / week, 50 weeks a year.

For decades now, restaurant and bar owners, and others who employ tipped employees have been getting away with paying their employees WELL under the minimum wage, because of this their claim that "employees make a good living earning tips". That has never been 'right', but owners of such businesses pushed for a lower minimum wage, and got it (in Indiana and many other States)

And as should be obvious to anyone, as the public tightened their respective belts, less people went out to dinner, etc. and those that did left less for a tip, on average.

As almost anyone who works as an employee knows, for years now business owners (of all types) have continually cut the number of employees, expecting and demanding the remaining employees 'take up the slack'. Where did THOSE extra profits (wages not paid to the cut employees) go? And, this was well AHEAD of the current push for a higher minimum wage.

Regardless of all the rhetoric and hyperbole, employers can only cut so many employees before there's NO employees to wait on customers. Employers have ALREADY cut employee ranks 'to the bone', UNLESS that employer intends to service those customers him / her self, of course.

But even IF that was done, ONE customer service rep (the owner) can only wait on so many customers in a business day. Is that what the business owner intends to do? Reduce the size (in the example) of his business from $700,000 / yr. to, say $70,000 by waiting on the customers them self? So what would his income be, then? Well, by that example, $2,800! Gimme a break.

OR, is the owner just going to shut the business down? THEN where is he / she going to derive income to feed and house THEIR family? Go to work for another business operating in the same way? Nope, because they're not hiring, LOL! Or MAYBE work for a competitor that managed to hold out a bit longer, and work for that same lousy minimum wage the he / she was formerly paying out?

If his 'lowly income' of '$28,000' / year was 'so terrible', HOW did he / she manage to obtain that brand-spanking new Cadillac, Mercedes, or BMW they drive? How do they manage to live in a nice, say $250,000 (a modest sum nowadays, to be sure!) home and send their kids to school? Why aren't THEY on food stamps and low income subsidies?

'Nice' article, lots of 'figures' to 'prove' their agenda. But it's a case, not of 'figures lyin', but of 'liars figurin'.

Let them eat cake, then!

2.13 minimum.
Doesn't mean ALL of them make that.
Maybe, some pay $8 per hour, plus tips. Maybe more. Maybe less.
What business is it of anyone to determine what the wage should be except the employee, the employer, and in a way.... the customer.

 

[MisterChester]

What business is it of yours or the government's if an employer and worker agree upon a wage?

It's not my business, but the government makes it it's business. Primarily because if employers were allowed to pay sweatshop wages their tax receipts would significantly be reduced.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Progressive era thinking is deeply engrained in many of us. What is the enumerated power that allows congress to establish a minimum wage?

I would doubt many people would want their kids working in sweat shops...I doubt many, back in the day, relished the idea either. But if we're ever going to restore the constitution back to its rightful place and put government back in its place, we must question the rationale for these sorts of laws.

 

[Twangbanger]

What business is it of yours if I send my 11 year old to work at a factory?

It's our business for pretty much the same reason one of your fellow officers would arrest you if you were having sex with your 11 year old - because adults can enter voluntarily into certain things that children cannot.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It's our business for pretty much the same reason one of your fellow officers would arrest you if you were having sex with your 11 year old - because adults can enter voluntarily into certain things that children cannot.

Yes, but sex and labor aren't the same thing. I can make my own child work for me for free. Ask any kid who grew up on a farm. I can't send my child to work for someone else for a wage, though, in most circumstances. Child labor laws didn't go into effect strictly to protect children, although that is one aspect. Child labor laws also went into effect to protect adult workers. A child can obviously work for less money because the child is likely not the head of the household. The child is bringing in supplemental income for the family. However if a child is allowed to do an adults job, that's one less job for adults and the whole deal drives everyone's wages down. Wages are driven down, more children HAVE to work, fewer get educations, they spiral into poverty, there's little to no chance for economic mobility. THAT's why its your business. Similarly a minimum wage set at a living wage allows for expanded opportunities for those at the low end of the economic ladder. It's not a free lunch, and there are certainly downsides to it as well.

The fairy tale being told is that the employer and the employee are on equal footing to negotiate the contract. One simply has to look at history, or modern day nations with no labor protection laws, to see that's simply not a viewpoint that's compatible with reality. If you want American to look like, say, India, where people leave the country for the opportunity to make $100/month doing semi-skilled labor, then by all means emulate them. If you want a middle class, which is widely viewed as the backbone of America, than a certain amount of protectionism and regulation supports that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes, but sex and labor aren't the same thing. I can make my own child work for me for free. Ask any kid who grew up on a farm. I can't send my child to work for someone else for a wage, though, in most circumstances. Child labor laws didn't go into effect strictly to protect children, although that is one aspect. Child labor laws also went into effect to protect adult workers. A child can obviously work for less money because the child is likely not the head of the household. The child is bringing in supplemental income for the family. However if a child is allowed to do an adults job, that's one less job for adults and the whole deal drives everyone's wages down. Wages are driven down, more children HAVE to work, fewer get educations, they spiral into poverty, there's little to no chance for economic mobility. THAT's why its your business. Similarly a minimum wage set at a living wage allows for expanded opportunities for those at the low end of the economic ladder. It's not a free lunch, and there are certainly downsides to it as well.

The fairy tale being told is that the employer and the employee are on equal footing to negotiate the contract. One simply has to look at history, or modern day nations with no labor protection laws, to see that's simply not a viewpoint that's compatible with reality. If you want American to look like, say, India, where people leave the country for the opportunity to make $100/month doing semi-skilled labor, then by all means emulate them. If you want a middle class, which is widely viewed as the backbone of America, than a certain amount of protectionism and regulation supports that.

What is the constitutional authority that allows the federal government to prescribe minimum wages? If it is so beneficial to the country, why don't we enact an amendment and establish it as a protected right?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't minimum wage put in place for teenagers working part-time jobs? It was never intended for those working 40 hours per week and trying to make a living. It was for kids to be able to take their girls out on dates and pay their first car payment.

I believe you are wrong, but I can't find the cites at the moment. It was put into place in in 1933 under FDR which was struck down by SCOTUS, after his reelection and threatened court packing plan it was reintroduced and deemed Constitutional. FDR was all for an "American version" of socialism which included paying everyone a living wage, chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, or however you want to put it.

Clearly, a very terrible argument.

There is a difference between raising minimum wage up to the level it was in 1981 (it's currently about 20% lower adjusted for inflation) and 15 dollars per hour.

If you can't afford to pay your dishwasher 9.50 an hour without killing your profit, you have a poor business model to blame. Not "socialism."

How about putting it at the level as adjusted by inflation of where it was when introduced? Sound good to you?

What business is it of yours if I send my 11 year old to work at a factory?

I would say age of consent along with normal household duties, I can work my son/daughters ass off in my garden and even sell the produce if I so choose to and just pay her room and board. But can I hire her to the local farmer for the same?

BTW, according to that article, 36% of the $700,000, that's $252,000, goes to the employees. Hmmm, since the tipped employee in Indiana only makes $2.13 / hour ($4260 / yr. @ 2000 hrs. per year) that would mean the average $700,000 restaurant in Indiana has, on average, over 59 employees. Don't remember seeing any restaurant at that income level with that many employees.

You do realize that not all the costs of labor are hourly wages right? I'm going to guess no. Here are just a few incidental costs of labor that aren't listed on the employees check. Unemployment insurance, workman comp insurance, SS/Medicaid taxes (You do know that the employer pays just as much as the employee on that right?), the employer portion of health insurance if offered. I can list a few more if you would like.....

And it should be noted that, typically, the majority of the waitress / waiter's income doesn't come from wages paid by the restauranteur or bar owner. The majority of the income is derived from tips left by the customers, which is at NO cost to the owner, whatsoever.

Nope it does come at a cost to the employer SS/Medicaid taxes are based on actual earnings, of which the employer is liable for the same amount as the employee, unemployment/workman comp also goes up as wages increase.

Nor have I ever, ever, seen the owner of a moderately successful restaurant living a lifestyle that would indicate the owner is only taking home $28 grand a year.

Dang I've rarely seen a factory worker living a lifestyle that would indicate what their actual earnings are either.... Although I just did work at a moderately successful restaurant owner's house. Him and his wife put in I'm just guessing 70 hrs a week. And yep their lifestyle depicts 56k a year, at least that I've seen.

For decades now, restaurant and bar owners, and others who employ tipped employees have been getting away with paying their employees WELL under the minimum wage, because of this their claim that "employees make a good living earning tips". That has never been 'right', but owners of such businesses pushed for a lower minimum wage, and got it (in Indiana and many other States)

And as should be obvious to anyone, as the public tightened their respective belts, less people went out to dinner, etc. and those that did left less for a tip, on average.

As almost anyone who works as an employee knows, for years now business owners (of all types) have continually cut the number of employees, expecting and demanding the remaining employees 'take up the slack'. Where did THOSE extra profits (wages not paid to the cut employees) go? And, this was well AHEAD of the current push for a higher minimum wage.

Regardless of all the rhetoric and hyperbole, employers can only cut so many employees before there's NO employees to wait on customers. Employers have ALREADY cut employee ranks 'to the bone', UNLESS that employer intends to service those customers him / her self, of course.

But even IF that was done, ONE customer service rep (the owner) can only wait on so many customers in a business day. Is that what the business owner intends to do? Reduce the size (in the example) of his business from $700,000 / yr. to, say $70,000 by waiting on the customers them self? So what would his income be, then? Well, by that example, $2,800! Gimme a break.

OR, is the owner just going to shut the business down? THEN where is he / she going to derive income to feed and house THEIR family? Go to work for another business operating in the same way? Nope, because they're not hiring, LOL! Or MAYBE work for a competitor that managed to hold out a bit longer, and work for that same lousy minimum wage the he / she was formerly paying out?

If his 'lowly income' of '$28,000' / year was 'so terrible', HOW did he / she manage to obtain that brand-spanking new Cadillac, Mercedes, or BMW they drive? How do they manage to live in a nice, say $250,000 (a modest sum nowadays, to be sure!) home and send their kids to school? Why aren't THEY on food stamps and low income subsidies?

(alsmost)Any employer is required to pay the federal minimum wage of $7.25, employers of tipped employees are allowed to deduct tips from that, down to an employer provided wage of 2.13. The are still required to pay all insurance/taxes/fees/whatever as if their employees are making at least minimum wage.

2.13 minimum.
Doesn't mean ALL of them make that.
Maybe, some pay $8 per hour, plus tips. Maybe more. Maybe less.
What business is it of anyone to determine what the wage should be except the employee, the employer, and in a way.... the customer.

Then add in everything else and ....

It's not my business, but the government makes it it's business. Primarily because if employers were allowed to pay sweatshop wages their tax receipts would significantly be reduced.

How about tell your congress critters to get out of your business?