[ZASHAGALKA]

This was discussed in another thread off-topic. So, I decided to make it on-topic in its own thread:

This is an expanded version of what I wrote in THAT thread:

I'm completely against a minimum wage. The market will pay what it will bear. Minimum wage is a bracket creep that is inflationary and anti-little people. It just eliminates THEIR JOBS.

Great if you are in a union and the resultant 'bracket creep' gets you a raise. Horrible if the job that you would be working in 3 months doesn't exist and so, you remain jobless.

Besides, it's inflationary. Interest rates are going up and up to fend off inflationary pressures AS THINGS ARE NOW. This move, if passed, just ensures not only that those 'little people' absolutely cannot afford mortgage and car payments, but that those costs go up for you as well.

And that costs big business as well (so, anti-spending pressures on both business and consumers). I know, I know, big business is bad, even though it hires millions. But, as a result, and on the bright side for Dems, when we are back again in a recession in 2 yrs, y'all can blame it on Pres. Bush (unless he has the courage to veto this bill, which is what it deserves), just like the recession during his father's term was a direct result of caving into similar Dem pressures to raise taxes (and make no mistake, the gov't telling you how to spend your money IS A TAX. The cost, like every other tax, is simply passed on.)

Increasing minimum wage has NOTHING to do with helping the little guy. If such a law could really make a difference, why not set the minimum wage at 75 dollars an hour? Seriously? Why not? Because . . . the cost of living would go up to match new wages (the costs would be reflected in the price of EVERYTHING), and then some. Exactly. But, because YOU don't live at minimum wage, you don't notice that this is EXACTLY what happens when the min wage goes up. And, when business are forced to change their models of practice, they normally take the opportunity to add small increases in their profit margins along the way. Result: the 'little people' now have a buck more an hour at the cost of 1.20 an hour in increased cost of living.

The misconception at play is that 'minimum wage' is supposed to be a 'living wage'. Um, no. It's supposed to be an 'entry wage'. There is a difference. Every min wage primary breadwinner I know works at least 2 jobs. Like everything else in life, it's a choice to trade labor for opportunity to learn real trade/professional skills. When you reward such behavior, you only encourage it. The result: the creation of a 'minimum wage' class dependent on the gov't for its patronage. And that is the beneficiaries of minimum wage: politicians AT THE EXPENSE of the little guy (or more to the point, at the creation of ever more of them.)

And, the recessionary/inflationary pressure as a result of this increase can only create many many more minimum wage earners to vote for the idiots holding them back with their fiscal idiocy.

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

In the end, if a minimum wage increase passes, I won't lose sleep over it.

Just like I don't lose sleep over 3 buck/gallon gas. I make enough that it doesn't impact either my life or my decision making that much at all.

But, for minimum wage earners, the economic ripple effect is just as powerful an effect to their bottom line as 3 dollar gas.

See, this is such a perfectly misleading issue. Minimum wage earners think: great, more money! And they do so without realizing that the effects on both future prices and future potential jobs is a net negative.

Union workers absolutely LOVE minimum wage, and rightly so. The 'bracket creep' will give them a raise WITHOUT subjecting them so adversely to the real costs of that raise. The fact that they are ultimately taking food from the mouths of the poor to back this idea must just be a value-neutral concept.

More well off people like this idea because they can feel like they are 'helping the poor' without it seriously impacting them. In reality, it negatively impacts EVERYONE, the poor by less opportunities and higher prices, and all of us by the higher interest rates necessary to combat the resultant inflation. WE HELP PAY FOR THIS with the extra 50 dollars here and there in interest payments on everything from credit cards to mortgages to car loans.

See, big business would absolutely LOVE this concept if it could be confined to 'minimum wage'. They'd make out like bandits. Unfortunately for them, increasing minimum wage forces a 'bracket creep' that raises salaries everywhere - and THAT is the real goal of minimum wage. But, to pay for THAT, the prices go up not just enough to adjust for min wages, but to adjust for the across the board raises. It's what Democrats in every other fiscal aspect decry as a 'regressive' tax.

Minimum wage increases are regressive taxes.

It certainly isn't helping the poor. There are better ways to do that. Tax cuts and credits for the working poor could do JUST THAT. I'd be for phasing out all income (including SS and MC) taxes for anybody that makes under 35k. It might have the same ripple effects in inflation and fiscal management for ME, but at least, then we'd be doing something that might ACTUALLY HELP the working poor.

Minimum wage doesn't.

And, if I were the President, I'd one-trump the Dems with just such an idea as a tax-free income for under 35k earners in place of the sham that is 'minimum wage'.

~faith,
Timothy.

[sanctuary]

Wow, it is a good thing that you label your opinions just that. You are sooooo wrong about miminum wages. Oregon's minimum wages have been at $7.25 for a couple of years now and none of the horrible things you think would happen, happened. Oregon has had a minimum wage exceeding the Federal one for ... about 10 years. It works well, does not put the "little people" at a financial disadvantage, or increase the price of hamburgers at McD's. It just insures that people who are unable to climb the career ladder at this time, make a living wage. Young people can work their way through college, or move out on their own, or afford better clothes for their children. It has not affected the tax rates, or the price of butter. Just like our law that prohibits self serve gasoline does not increase our gas prices. It does insure that there are entry level jobs for those that need them. Actually, Oregon gas prices are lower than both Calif. and Wash., both states with self serve. Reganomics is dead. Reality killed it.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by sanctuary

Wow, it is a good thing that you label your opinions just that. You are sooooo wrong about miminum wages. Oregon's minimum wages have been at $7.25 for a couple of years now and none of the horrible things you think would happen, happened. Oregon has had a minimum wage exceeding the Federal one for ... about 10 years. It works well, does not put the "little people" at a financial disadvantage, or increase the price of hamburgers at McD's. It just insures that people who are unable to climb the career ladder at this time, make a living wage. Young people can work their way through college, or move out on their own, or afford better clothes for their children. It has not affected the tax rates, or the price of butter. Just like our law that prohibits self serve gasoline does not increase our gas prices. It does insure that there are entry level jobs for those that need them. Actually, Oregon gas prices are lower than both Calif. and Wash., both states with self serve. Reganomics is dead. Reality killed it.

2 issues at play:

1st - Just like the few that avoid immunizations don't greatly improve their chances of catching immunizeable diseases because the majority of the population DOES get immunized, one state is not going to seriously impact the prices of national commodities, such as mickey d's. That changes with national changes.

But it changes in another way as well. If the Feds increase to 7.15, Oregon will also increase Theirs. And for the local businessman, such increases can be crippling, not only stifling small business but reducing their employment options.

So, the local prices of things DO go up. (minimum wage laws are part of the reason wally world can and does drive small business out of business). As such, minimum wage doesn't 'insure' entry level jobs, it restricts them. And this is especially true of small business. Big business can afford to spread the cost over mulitiple products and venues. Small business simply cannot.

If the price of apples go up, people buy less apples. And, if the price of labor goes up, business buys less labor. It's simple supply and demand. Or rather, it's messing WITH supply and demand and creating quite un-necessary ripples.

Most people simply don't notice those ripples because they don't live at minimum wage and the ripples they SHOULD notice, like increased interest on their homes, cards, and cars: they don't put 2 and 2 together and realize that such increases are the direct result of the socialization of our economy.

Socialized economies simply don't work. The closer we model ours after one, the less well our system works.

Minimum wage DOES inflate the entire system by just enough to more than make the raise a wash. Because of this, it is no more than a regressive tax on the poor.

It DOES give the lower middle class a real advantage (they get raises also due to 'bracket creep'. It pads the entire pay scale). But, it is stealing from the mouth of the poor to do so.

I'm opposed to minimum wage BECAUSE it's an anti-poor, regressive tax that impacts them the greatest. I can deal w/ the fallout of tampering with our economy. It's those on the fringes that cannot.

~faith,
Timothy.

[VivaLasViejas]

Timothy, I'm intrigued by your argument against the minimum wage.

As a Libertarian, I'm for less government intrusion in ALL affairs, except of course for those functions it was designed to perform: essentially, keeping the trains running on time and defending the citizenry against its enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Frankly, I think SS and Medicare taxes are the most regressive taxes on the books, and they should be totally eliminated for families earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level. So should income taxes; after all, if we want poor people to work instead of receiving tax-free income from welfare, we should make it worth their while by allowing them to keep whatever income they've earned. As it stands now, some families on welfare are doing better than those who work for minimum wage, and that's not saying much.

However, I fear the consequences that would surely follow if we were to ditch the minimum wage entirely. I don't know about anyone else, but I think if businesses could get away with paying their employees $2 an hour or even less, they'd do it in a heartbeat.........and I'd bet the rent that they would NOT pass the savings on to the consumer. Folks go into business to make money, not give it away. But while I don't fault anyone for that, it would be tragic to wind up with an even more hungry and desperate underclass than we have now. What do you suppose THAT would cost us in terms of increased spending on public assistance, not to mention higher rates of crime, drug and alcohol dependence, and homelessness?

Now, I'm certainly no economic expert, but I think the phrase "paying what the market will bear" is a cop-out. Millions of people are struggling mightily to pay "what the market will bear" for gasoline; just because I'm not having to sacrifice food or medicine to fill my tank, does not negate the fact that many Americans ARE having to do so. I'm also afraid that cutting out the minimum wage would depress wages for EVERYONE, creating an unbridgeable gap between the wealthy and the rest of us. The middle class could disappear entirely; after all, what incentive would there be to pay us a living wage if there is no "bottom floor"?

IMHO, the federal government should continue with minimum wage laws in order to protect the new worker, the young worker, the marginal worker. However, I think the dollar amount should be decided by individual state governments, as they are more in touch with the economic conditions in their areas than the feds; I'm sure in some locales, even $5.15 per hour is too high. (Ideally, it would be used as a "training wage", and increases given by the employer as the worker grows more proficient and becomes worth what they are being paid.)

Of course, there are drawbacks to this system too; I live in Oregon, with its high minimum wage of $7.50/hr., and if I were in business I'd have a hard time paying a 16- or 17-year-old that kind of money. It's kind of frustrating to me as a parent, as well; neither of my sons has a job, mainly because no one around here wants to hire teenagers with no experience---for $7.50, they'd rather hire adults with no experience. And who can blame them?

There are no easy answers to all this; however, I don't think getting rid of the minimum wage is one of them.

Just my $.02 worth.

[pickledpepperRN]

Subsidies to oil and pharmaceutical companies with working peoples tax money is routine.

[ZASHAGALKA]

I don't think there would be any fallout at all if we completely ditched the minimum wage.

See, the prior wage increases are already 'factored' into our economy. Indeed, at least in my area of the state, very few non-tip earners receive minimum wage. (and those that earn tips plus 1/2 of minimum wage depend on the tips much more than the wage and most earn more that MW as a result).

In my area of Texas, the MW is the Fed MW: ~5.15/hr. But, go to mickey D's et.al for a job, and the actual recruiting wage is more like 6.50.

So, in a real way, increasing MW won't have dramatic effects. It's just a 'creeping' effect, since the economy has already factored in a wage quite close to the proposed MW.

I'm not in favor of ditching MW (I'm just in favor of stagnating its effects). As has been pointed out, our economy has outpaced the current MW and so it's effect is neglible. But, I see that as a good thing. Increasing the MW to re-align it to our current economy situation does little more than put this regressive tax back into play for those on the wage-earning fringes.

I think 3 dollar gas is enough. Leave the poor folks alone. This regressive tax, IN ADDITION TO THE GAS SITUATION, is mere election slight of hand. The only result is the creation of a poor class dependent on gov't and its politicians for their livelihood.

And that is its intent: bring the poor to their knees and then offer them the scraps from our rich table.

Space nurse, as I said previously, I support the notion of complete tax elimination (including SS and MC) for the poor. You can sign me up to aid people in becoming independent. After all, I'm Republican because Republican means caring.

You guys can be for a MW all you want. Just don't pretend it actually helps the poor. Regressive taxes, of which MW is one, never helps the poor.

It promotes the socialization of our economy, for sure: and just take a peek at Europe to see how well advanced social economies are faring: hint - our unemployment is around 5%; most of Europe hovers near 15%

Why? Because socializing the economy saps the economy's ability to CREATE jobs. Social devices, such as MW contribute to the denial of opportunity for precisely those that need it most.

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

Subsidies to oil and pharmaceutical companies with working peoples tax money is routine.

Ok, I agree, with reservations (for example, the gov't SHOULD subsidize the research into drugs for 'orphan diseases' that otherwise would not merit attn.)

I've long railed against the food stamp program. Why? It's a huge gov't subsidy to Coca-Cola and Frito Lay.

The program should be like WIC: specific and nutritional food only.

The gov't complains about how poorly we eat and then encourages it.

But, the biggest beneficiaries of the food stamp programs are big business.

~faith,
Timothy.

[VivaLasViejas]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

I've long railed against the food stamp program. Why? It's a huge gov't subsidy to Coca-Cola and Frito Lay.

The program should be like WIC: specific and nutritional food only.

~faith,
Timothy.

I like that idea!! The only problem is, nutritious foods are often more expensive than junk.........you can get so much more bang for the buck buying candy instead of fruit, chips instead of vegetables, hamburger instead of fish. WIC manages to get around that by specifying which foods may be purchased with the vouchers. Maybe the food stamp program should consider doing the same???

Of course, then you have the argument that Big Brother and the "food police" are discriminating against the poor by forcing them to buy certain foods and not others.

Back to the original topic for a moment: So, you don't believe businesses would pay the lowest wages possible if the MW were abolished? Why not? I'm listening.........

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by mjlrn97

I like that idea!! The only problem is, nutritious foods are often more expensive than junk.........you can get so much more bang for the buck buying candy instead of fruit, chips instead of vegetables, hamburger instead of fish. WIC manages to get around that by specifying which foods may be purchased with the vouchers. Maybe the food stamp program should consider doing the same???

Of course, then you have the argument that Big Brother and the "food police" are discriminating against the poor by forcing them to buy certain foods and not others.

Back to the original topic for a moment: So, you don't believe businesses would pay the lowest wages possible if the MW were abolished? Why not? I'm listening.........

I think employers WOULD pay the lowest wage possible, and rightly so. I think they would pay YOU a buck an hour to be a nurse . . . if they could get away with it. In fact, in either case - you or entry level jobs -, they cannot get away with it unless they hire illegal slave labor (affectionately known as 'undocumented workers').

You want to make entry level jobs 'living wages'? Eliminate undocumented workers (it could easily be done). There is no job Americans won't do . . . at the right price.

In part due to past MW increases, that lowest recruiting wage is now, in most places, MORE THAN THE CURRENT MW. If you eliminated MW entirely, my local Mickey D's would still be hanging a sign that says "6.50 to start".

Inflation is created by many factors. Salaries are one of those factors (as is energy prices). In part due to past MW increases (and the time since the last increase), our current economy has surpassed the current concept of MW (money isn't worth what it used to be).

It simply isn't necessary in all but the truly entry level h.s. jobs to impose the current MW.

If you INCREASE THAT WAGE so that it IS economically relevant, it is nothing short of a regressive tax that will be passed on.

See, there is this conflicting concept that those that support this kind of scheme hold in their heads. 1 - big business is evil, and 2. they will 'absorb' the costs the gov't requires of them. Those two thoughts just don't go hand in hand. The costs will be passed along. But it's not just the cost of raising this regressive tax from 5 to 7 bucks/hr, it's the cost of all the other raises needed to avoid the resultant 'bracket creep'. So, the ripple through the economy settles with the real cost of living worse off for MW earners AS A RESULT of the increase.

For you and me, that's an inconvenience, maybe even a barely noticeable inconvenience. For example, 3 buck a gallon gas for me is an inconvenience. I notice it, but not enough to change my driving behaviors.

If you live on the fringe, it's MORE than an inconvenience. Regressive tax schemes that devalue earnings place more and more people into the 'working poor' with every creep in devaluation. So advocate for the law and then forget about it. Those that get raises will thank you loudly over the 'event' of their raise and probably won't take notice of the 'process' of the net devaluation of their earnings as the economy ripples through the changes.

Look, we've spent 3 TRILLION dollars on programs to combat being poor in this country since the late '60s. Result: the number of Americans living at or below poverty are no better. NO BETTER! Personally, I want a refund.

I'm all for helping the poor. But, tinkering with the economy and throwing money away to no effect is NOT my idea of helping. There must be better ways than ideas like this; ideas proven to make the situation worse instead of better.

I'm not against MW because I'm heartless to the needs and concerns of those on our fringes. We are a RICH nation and the tide SHOULD raise all boats. NO. I'm against ideas like MW because these ideas prey on the poor for political gain. THAT is heartless.

~faith,
Timothy.