min wage in CA to be raised to $10/hr

[Fist 666]

I've never been at minimum wage in my life. Then again im just a white dude privileged enough to have a work ethic :rolleyes:

 

your work ethic has nothing to do with your privilege.

 

I've been drinking too much to give a serious response to this; but if you think you're above anyone that is working for minimum wage you're probably a fucking asshole.

[Realism]

I too have been drinking, and I think that's a fair and serious response.

 

Removing myself from Crossfire for the evening.

[Inappropriate_Responder]

I've never been at minimum wage in my life. Then again im just a white dude privileged enough to have a work ethic :rolleyes:

 

Cops have that same mentality

[Sleazeside Heights]

most minimum wage jobs suck anyway, people should get paid more to do them. $10 an hour can be spent real fast these days. If you think it's too high to pay these people, you clean toilets then get back to me.

[eviltrailer77]

Federal minimum wage in 1967: $1.60 (source)

 

Buying power of $1.60 in 1967 adjusted for inflation in to 2013 dollars: $11.17 (source)

 

The federal minimum wage is criminal, corporate profits have soared but wages have stagnated. The current rate is tantamount to indentured servitude, it's supposed to be the bottom rung of the ladder, but it's still on the ladder. As it stands now, it's a dead end with no way out.

[RIPS]

part time jobs for every body

[Mr. Incognito]

your work ethic has nothing to do with your privilege.

 

 

That was more of the sarcastic part of my post. I don't see "privilege" equating to being able to get up every day and go to work. I do what pretty much none of my other friends even want to do, get up every day at 5am and work a physical labor job. They'd rather work bullshit jobs knowing there isn't much money to ever be made, and continue complaining about having money problems. There comes a point where you need to just figure it the fuck out for yourself.

 

And i view minimum wage the same way. someone earlier said you're not supposed to be raising a family on minimum wage. I agree with that.

 

i gotta have someone explain to me on here how minimum wage increase will really help poor people rather than just get them fired, and employers being way more selective about who they will be hiring. Higher labor costs = less labor = more selective hiring. And if that's not the case, then why not just raise the cost of products to make up for higher cost of labor? If there were a drastic increase in minimum wage, do you guys actually think it will help in the long run?

[bugsex]

I think most economic articles I've read agree that a good minimum wage helps the economy overall. At the very least it should help the FUCKIN BAD wage gap we have in the US (for the largest economy in the world we really suck in that respect).

 

Personally I agree small businesses may have problems with a higher minimum wage but there are lots of low interest loans and subsidies available for small businesses as well. I really think minimum wage should be linked to a businesses gross profit or maybe upper management salary. Walmart has no fucking excuse not to pay it's people a living wage. Of course there could also be serious repercussions for that too. We also need to make it less advantageous to hire all your workers part time to avoid dishing out benefits.

 

Whenever you have arguments about this sort of thing people have a serious rift about who they think is affected but there are definitely tons of big companies trying to increase their bottom line by shitting on the workers. No rigid, objective scheme works for everybody but the one we have is pretty fucked right now.

[Mr. Incognito]

It's a weird concept of hating big business like Walmart because they don't pay their employees enough to do some of the most basic non skilled labor and suggesting increasing the minimum wage, yet by doing so you are hurting "non evil" small businesses that at some point have to make up the cost differences somewhere, either by raising costs of products (which people will just stop buying because they'll go to walmart where it will forever be cheaper) or laying off workers while being more selective over who will get hired.

 

so again, who does minimum wage increase ACTUALLY help in the long run? This is sort of the logic of clearing up debt by printing more money.

[sexcauldron]

This thread could benefit from Kabar's most recent post in the hobo thread.

[Mr. Incognito]

Nobody would agree with it except you me and probably boats, judging from the posts in here..

[theprotester]

http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-of-living/a-year-but-living-pay-cheque-to-pay-cheque/story-fnagkbpv-1226746813694

[Mr. Incognito]

"No one checks in on Facebook that they're sitting at home eating leftovers. You want to check-in and talk about the bars and clubs you went to and the best thing you did last night."

 

...and im supposed to feel bad for broke faggots like this.

[theprotester]

Yeah, I teared up a little.

[bugsex]

Incognito, I'm no economist but I think there is a significant difference between the buying power created by an increased minimum wage and the artificial dollar increase that happens with inflation - which also leads to decreased buying power of those at minimum wage as it does not change with inflation. There have been a number of economic papers published since 2009 that affirm that increasing minimum wage has no negative affect on unemployment.

 

What I suggested in my comment was that wages could be tiered like tax brackets - with companies that can absorb those costs being held firmly to the established minimum wage. And I don't discriminate by subjective bs like "non-evil" just income levels.

[~KRYLON2~]

It'll balance out eventually, the economy in theory is self correcting

[sexcauldron]

Prince George's + Montgomery County

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/prince-georges-county-council-set-to-vote-wednesday-on-minimum-wage-increase/2013/11/27/170d6fc2-56f0-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html

DC

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/metro-news/2013/dec/4/minimum-wage-washington-dc-has-been-raised/

[sexcauldron]

It's a weird concept of hating big business like Walmart because they don't pay their employees enough to do some of the most basic non skilled labor and suggesting increasing the minimum wage, yet by doing so you are hurting "non evil" small businesses that at some point have to make up the cost differences somewhere, either by raising costs of products (which people will just stop buying because they'll go to walmart where it will forever be cheaper) or laying off workers while being more selective over who will get hired.

 

I've always enjoyed this paradox. In reality, actual big business uses its power to control market competition in an attempt to not only keep itself on top but also to keep others from reaching its level. Despite the fact that Republicans are often touted as the champions of big business, the Democratic party is usually the engine by which such businesses control the market.

 

so again, who does minimum wage increase ACTUALLY help in the long run?

 

It's impossible to google anything w/ the phrase "minimum wage" w/o returning a thousand articles about how it would help the economy/workers/etc..., but a year or two ago some economics professor wrote an article about states raising their minimum wage in an effort to increase tax revenue. In general, I remember thinking it was a decent point: injecting more money into the working class while at the same time guaranteeing higher tax revenues. Can't find the article now though unfortunately.

[massgraff]

They're about to raise ours to 11 bucks.

[Fist 666]

Applicable.

[CALIgula]

they are trying to collect signatures to get $15 per hour min wage on the ballot in Davis, CA.

[CALIgula]

https://www.15now.org/15-now-establishes-ties-with-raise-the-wage-davis/

[theprotester]

Sure, but then won't it just become the most expensive place in the state?

[CALIgula]

it really depends on what businesses decide to do...they can pass the buck to the consumer, eat the cost, cut back on quality of products or a combination of all of the above...it will be interesting to see what happens especially since there are a lot of mom and pop shops in davis that might not be able to afford to pay employees that much.

 

then again, it is a huge college town and if most of the employees are part time uc davis students and they have extra spending money and keep that money in the local economy by eating out more and buying more products, it might just work.

[theprotester]

How long has it been in place in Seattle?

[sexcauldron]

Maryland just passed a law to gradually increase the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2018. I find it interesting that people reference Washington state when advocating for a higher minimum wage though. As you can see here: http://lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/Wages/Minimum/History/default.asp, Washington uses an algorithm based on cost of living research data to calculate their minimum wage on a yearly basis. I actually think that's a pretty great idea, and a better way to determine what the market will bear than a blanket increase in the minimum wage. Washington passed their minimum wage referendum in 1998, prior to that their minimum wage was $5.15, by '99 it was $5.70 and in '00 it was $6.50.

What does that mean? Well to me it means that Washington is not the be all end all example of why the country can bear a higher minimum wage, far from it in fact. I see a very gradual increase of roughly 20 cents per year on average, MD on the other hand will increase by roughly 75 cents each year until hitting $10.10. I know that seems like a trivial amount, 55 cents difference, but it's not. As you can see here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm, in 2012 3.6 million people employed in the US made minimum wage or below. Keep in mind that the footnote for that statistic states: "the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing federal minimum is undoubtedly understated." Point being, a blanket increase in the minimum wage would be a ridiculous cost to employers and it's disingenuous to point to Washington and say "see, higher minimum wages won't cripple the economy." Washington has built a system over a decade in the making, pointing to their end result as a justification for raising the federal minimum belies the process that made it effective in that state. Moreover, even a gradual cost increase should be done gently w/ an eye towards what specific states and geographic markets can actually bear. I'm cool w/ them tying all that in to cost of living, but it has to be at least state specific; ideally, I'd argue it should be more specific than that but that would turn into an argument for vesting minimum wage decisions w/ the states w/o involvement from the federal government.

[CILONE/SK]

What about people making more money, actually spend more money, which is great for the economy? This is not happening now, because all the gains in the economy have only gone to a few people.

[CILONE/SK]

BTW, the market can't bear an economy where people do not have enough money to buy things and all the capital is hoarded by the greedy 1% who are not taxed properly.

[sexcauldron]

What about people making more money, actually spend more money, which is great for the economy?

 

You know that's a two way street, for people to be making more money, employers have to be paying more money. If employers can't pay more money, people get laid off, hours get cut, etc... That's what I mean by what the market can bear, i.e. the amount the minimum wage can be raised before employers have to start laying off people. If the world worked the way your ideology suggests, we should just raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour because then everyone would have more money, right? When we're talking about raising the federal minimum wage it's a very delicate dollars and cents game, that was my point.

 

BTW, the market can't bear an economy where people do not have enough money to buy things

 

So you're suggesting that people making the minimum wage don't have enough money to buy things and that's bad for the market? Two initial purchasing distinctions I see: necessities and luxury goods. People making minimum wage may not be able to afford luxury goods but I'd like to think they can afford necessities, maybe not for their family of x kids but that's a separate issue. It doesn't really matter though because if you had read the Bureau of Labor and Statistics link I posted you'd know that only 4.7% of all hourly wage earners make at or below minimum wage. Now like the Bureau says, that's definitely an under-representation, but there is simply no denying that minimum wage earners contribute the least to the economy. Thus, what minimum wage earners can afford to purchase is all but irrelevant to the economy and what the market can bear.

 

all the capital is hoarded by the greedy 1% who are not taxed properly.

 

Using divisive rhetoric like the "greedy 1%" cheapens whatever argument or point you may be trying to push. I suggest you watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi8clPrg7kc. Moreover, where is the logic in your train of thought that suggests giving people more money means they'll spend more but if you give the "greedy 1%" more money they'll just hoard it? Not only does your statement suggest an unwarranted demonization of successful people, it also seems to suggest that successful people aren't the main contributors to the economy (both in terms of actual purchases and in terms of employment). So in your world, the big bad 1% just collect capital (through what means might I ask? surely illicit in your opinion or at least in some way undeserved) and hoard it to the detriment of everyone else while plotting ways to skirt the tax code. In the real world, successful people tend to put their earnings back into the economy via old-fashioned spending or employing other people while plotting ways to skirt the tax code. Of course there's a disconnect here because what you actually mean by the "greedy 1%" are people that you perceive to be part of a ruling class, likely tied to big business. Sure those people exist, but the specter of what they represent has been synthesized, distilled, and pre-packaged for your consumption. It comes neatly bundled w/ all economic issues so that the uneducated masses can recognize and relate to it in regards to an otherwise amorphous topic. Both sides do this, you've just chosen the liberal flavor which is designed to breed and foster division between the working class and the rich.

[CILONE/SK]

Nothing that you are saying is supported by anything other than other libertarians.

 

I have had this argument here before. Don't feel like having it again.

 

Like religion, libertarians have faith in nonsense. There is no changing someone's faith.

 

Since the repeal of the Glass Steagall act, we are the closest to a free market we have ever been. Look at how well that has done for us all, except the 1%. The numbers never support the libertarians, which is why their economic theories can't be tested and have never been shown to work, for anyone except for the rich.