DescentBB

Basic minimum wage is $7.25 an hour now.

My guess is, most people here would work a minimum wage job if they had to, rather than abuse the system.

yup, that's what I started at 8 years ago.. I'm now about twice that with semi reasonable benefits.

But given certain circumstances, I would. remember that folks that work in restuarants can be payed less as tips are considered wages and are figured in ... 5 something iirc.

Duper wrote:remember that folks that work in restuarants can be payed less as tips are considered wages and are figured in ... 5 something iirc.

It's actually still at $2.something for them. Waiter and waitress minimum wage has been excluded from minimum wage hikes since the 90s.

Foil, what state are you in? I'll check, but I think waiting tables here in Oregon goes for $5.30/hr. But I'll check on that.

....I hope it's not 2 buck every 60 minutes. bleh!

Back in 77-78 minimum was $2.35 an hour. hopefully after 30 years I have enough experience and skills to earn more than $7.00 an hour. but if it meant feeding my family!! you can bet I'd work for minimum

Duper wrote:Foil, what state are you in? I'll check, but I think waiting tables here in Oregon goes for $5.30/hr.

I'm in Colorado, but I was referring to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which says that the federal minimum for 'tipped employees' is $2.13 an hour.

Also, it looks like Oregon has higher-than-federal minimums.

I don't know how any human in the USA can work for that, so depressingly little

Okay, the dems complain that you can't raise a family on minimum wage.

Maybe that's true.

But if you flip burgers at Mcdondalds for minimum wage, then you have NO buisness trying to raise a family. Get a decent job, then raise a family. Minimum wage is for teenagers\\people just starting out. If your work is decent, then you'll get raises....

Stroodles wrote:But if you flip burgers at Mcdondalds for minimum wage, then you have NO buisness trying to raise a family. Get a decent job, then raise a family. Minimum wage is for teenagers\\people just starting out. If your work is decent, then you'll get raises....

Sounds great, good priciple. ...But for a number of people, it's not reality.

I personally know of at least two people supporting families who recently lost their careers, and are having to start over at minimum-wage jobs.

Also, the "work hard = better pay" often doesn't happen that way. For example: As much as I try to match my father's work ethic, I can't. He works harder than anyone I've ever known, to support a family of seven. Yet his pay has never even matched what I made eight years ago, as a newbie just out of school.

I agree with the principle about working hard to better oneself, but it can't be applied universally. A visit to any hard-working-but-still-poor family (I talked with one such woman just yesterday) will show that.

Exactly right Foil. About everything.

Now consider this. Can those hard-working-but-still-poor families pay the high costs of health insurance? Or, are they doing without.

Do you think they support Obama's health plan? Or, some unknown GOP plan?

Bee

The health plan is a different subject. I think it's a bit off-topic for this thread.

I was really just responding to Stroodles' post that \"Minimum wage is for teenagers\\people just starting out. If your work is decent, then you'll get raises....\" It's a common sentiment based on a good principle, but it doesn't always apply.

Sad of myself that I've allowed each job to progressively pay me less. $8.15 was first, $7.50 was second, $7.00 was third job...

Bet51987 wrote:..Do you think they support Obama's health plan? Or, some unknown GOP plan?

Bee

Is Obama's plan any more 'known' than a GOP plan?

From what I've read he has no plan, he wants to hurry up and pass his plan though even though it isn't written!
The House has one.... but he doesn't know what's in it (his own words not mine).
The Senate is planning to write one which Sen. Specter and all the other Democrat Senators say we need to hurry up and pass....not sure how you hurry up and pass something that isn't written...but since they don't read them once written I guess passing it before it is written is no big deal to them.... especially since it's OUR MONEY that will pay for it NOT THEIRS!!!

But you probably don't care about all that do you? You just 'know' that Obama's plan is better...right?

The cold hard truth of the matter is Obama wants you to rubber stamp his agenda, not his plan, and once they have your vote then they will put into action his agenda, regardless of what you might think of the result of making his agenda the law.

Change you can believe in...yea!

Foil wrote:The health plan is a different subject. I think it's a bit off-topic for this thread.

I'm aware I'm repeating myself. I simply think there's merit to talking about wage law without muddying the topic.

Every person “deserves” a living wage…the problem is…not everyone working is worth minimum wage.

The second problem is…some business just can’t afford high wages, should they just go away?

You know it's hard to live with Min wage but it can be done. I think every one would agree it's hard. That is why people group together via the room mates to help pay the bills and make it easier.

Edit:

Foil wrote:The health plan is a different subject. I think it's a bit off-topic for this thread.

I was really just responding to Stroodles' post that "Minimum wage is for teenagers\\people just starting out. If your work is decent, then you'll get raises...." It's a common sentiment based on a good principle, but it doesn't always apply.

Especially with unions a harder better worker will not get promoted over some with seniority That's a big no no.

Opppps doubled posted

SO we pay someone flipping burgers $20.00.
They should be able to support their families on that right????

That is until the cost of those same burgers that the guy is flipping inflate to $15.00 each, because they need to pay said guy flipping those burgers $20.00 an hour and cover their costs. Minimum wage is not meant to support a family. it designed to be STARTER income. the hope is you will aspire to something better in your life and earn more.

I remember reading somewhere that the majority of people earning minimum are living in families that earn over $40,000 per year, they are usually the third income in the household... teenagers working their first jobs and far from being a member of the poverty stricken.

Politicians fight to raise it when they think it will help them look like the champion of the poor.
It doesn't really help the economy it just cuts out a percentage of new jobs.

So now that they raised it up, in many places the existing staff will have to do double duty, busing tables AND washing dishes instead of hiring a 16 year old busboy to fill a new position down at the local Chili's restaurant because the restaurants budget for new hires is based on the profit and loss statement not a set number of new positions per year regardless of the cost.

For several months I had to because of lack of available office jobs in my area.

Will Robinson wrote:I remember reading somewhere that the majority of people earning minimum are living in families that earn over $40,000 per year, they are usually the third income in the household... teenagers working their first jobs and far from being a member of the poverty stricken.

Politicians fight to raise it when they think it will help them look like the champion of the poor.
It doesn't really help the economy it just cuts out a percentage of new jobs.

So now that they raised it up, in many places the existing staff will have to do double duty, busing tables AND washing dishes instead of hiring a 16 year old busboy to fill a new position down at the local Chili's restaurant because the restaurants budget for new hires is based on the profit and loss statement not a set number of new positions per year regardless of the cost.

Exactly.

If a person doesn't have skills to be worth the current minimum wage (and therefore can't keep a minimum wage job), do you support a law that says they aren't allowed to work for an amount more in line with their skills?

That's one of the things \"minimum wage\" laws accomplish -- they remove the least-skilled from the workforce. If someone is worth $6/hour to a company but the minimum wage is $7.50/hour, they won't get hired.

Minimum wage laws help those workers who are worth the full minimum wage but whose employers would otherwise not pay them that much... but they also hurt those who are not worth it.

To rephrase my original question: do you support a law that says someone who doesn't need a \"living wage\" and doesn't have the skills to support one isn't allowed to work?

Lothar wrote:To rephrase my original question: do you support a law that says someone who doesn't need a "living wage" and doesn't have the skills to support one isn't allowed to work?

very good question.

I have never been a proponent of the "raise minimum wage because people cannot support a family on it" group, but since you put it that way raising minimum wage will actually cause higher unemployment, and we know the president is all about solving and lying about unemployment. in his latest address he touts how the new statistics show unemployment has dropped to 9.4%, but many economists have stated that they have doctored the figures to make it seem that way and that if you figure it properly, unemployment is actually around 16.3%

How the unemployment stats are calculated has always baffled me. I here reports of new filings for unemployment all the time. What about the people already on UE? Or the ones that have used it all up? Are they being counted? How so if so?

No Vulcan, infact, I was going to post on this and you beat me to it. States calculate unemployment soley by how many people are actually filing for unemployment benefits. We all know there are a LOT of folks out there that are not filing for one reason or another.

So Lothar, with that, what minimum AGE would you asign to people to determine the \"need\" of a living wage and at what point would determine when they were ..er.. skilled ... If they never work the chance of them getting skills or experiance goes to ziltch (or close for the masses) Which is what I think your point is in all that. A rather ugly can of worms that goes even deeper than what I inquired to.

We're not a communist country. Not EVERYONE is \"deserving\" a living wage. (note quote makrs please) In a capitalist society like ours, there will always be the \"haves\", the \"have nots\", and the \"I have so much more than you it's obscene\". Always. For what ever reason. (there are many) conversly, in our society, not everyone has to stay in the \"have not\" catagory. ... There are all sorts of programs that allow you to move up a little bit into the \"have nearly enough to live one but not under a bridge anymore\". Again, there are circumstances in all our lives that will seem to want to keep us from getting there and that's where our tests as individuals comes. What are you willing to sacrifice? If all you like to do is play games all day long and not look for work, don't be surprised if the person you're mooching off of eventually kicks your butt out on the street. (just one example I live with) but I digress..

I think that woody outlined the problem will. Anytime there is a wholesale increase in the economies expense column; be it wages, gasoline prices or taxes, inflation gets a bit more fuel to the fire as it were.

Lothar wrote:Minimum wage laws help those workers who are worth the full minimum wage but whose employers would otherwise not pay them that much... but they also hurt those who are not worth it.

That's the crux of the matter to me, and I'm not sure there's a really good answer. Whatever level the minimum is set to, it's going to help some and hurt others.

Personally, I generally support a minimum wage; I've known too many people who work for below what they're worth.

What strikes me as odd is that it's a federal minimum which gets applied uniformly. For example, if I was still living back in Oklahoma City (where the cost of living is fairly low, compared to the national average), I would probably see $7.25 as a bit too high. Living in the Denver area now, it seems about right. Elsewhere, $7.25 might still be too little (as evidenced by some states where minimums are set higher). I think what I'd like to see is more state-level control.

Foil wrote:I think what I'd like to see is more state-level control.

As it should be with Virtualy EVERY, aspect of the federal government. thats the way the founding fathers set it up. but our power hungry politicians perverted that for the almighty dollar

Duper wrote:with that, what minimum AGE would you asign to people to determine the "need" of a living wage... Which is what I think your point is in all that.

My point is far simpler: when you set a "minimum wage" level that's intended to be anywhere close to a "living wage", you're going to exclude some people who really don't have the skills to earn a "living wage" working 40 hours a week. Trying to set age limits or whatever else only complicates the issue (for example, increasing unemployment among unskilled adults because they'd be replaced by teens who can be paid less for the same work.)

The right solution is to not treat minimum wage as a "living wage" at all. The minimum should be a value below which you'd be exploiting even unskilled high-schoolers. People who need a living wage either need raises above the minimum (if they have the skills) or they need to work more hours (if they don't).

Ahh ok then. agreed on all points.

I was thinking more on a legislative level.. heaven forbid we should start splitting hairs like that.

I wonder when \"minimum wage\" and \"living wage\" became synonymous? anyone recall? I'm sure it's been a gradual thing.

Duper wrote:We're not a communist country. Not EVERYONE is "deserving" a living wage.

Lol Mr. Thinking Man,

Communism is not about what people “deserve” communism is mostly about what people “DON’T” deserve…like private ownership and earning more than someone else…and then like always you ignore the qualifier.

JFTR it’s the humanistic side of me that thinks everyone “deserves” a living wage. (therefore it’s only a philosophy) Not a practical application. (see qualifier)

nice.


no, i understand what communism is. In fact, i work with one fresh out of China. It's \"supposed\" to be that everyone has the same thing (in theory)or amount. .. which is taught to be a livable wage.

She once asked us if we (the couple of us that worked for her)hated Bill Gates. I thought it humorous for \"obvious\" reasons being a geek, but I asked her why she wanted to know. It abbreviate a very long conversation, what she basically said was that He is rich and don't we hate him because of it. Upon further inquiry it came to this. In her mind, very communist mind, anyone that is rich like Bill has gone outside the system and is basically a suspect criminal from the average person's point of view. (discounting any favoritism from the government)which was not discussed.

Also, I work with a couple more that are from the former communist Soviet states. I know about communism. And Marxism and socialism.

OK socialism

Theodore H. White wrote:Socialism is the belief and the hope that by proper use of government power, men can be rescued from their helplessness in the wild cycling cruelty of depression and boom."

Isn't that what the past and current Admin and congress trying to do now?

“Democratic Socialism," defined as “a political and economic system with freedom and equality for all, so that people may develop to their fullest potential in harmony with others.” The party further states that it is “committed to full freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion, and to a multi-party system” and that the ownership and control of the production and distribution of goods “should be democratically controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups.” Other socialist groups include the Democratic Socialists of America, National Alliance, Young Democrat Socialist, and the Democratic Progressive Party.

Source=http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1669.html

Ok there are business that employ the fringes of society for very low wages. Most of the workers they employ are special needs Like this one http://www.vipindustries.com/heartland.htm they employ them and pay very low wages far below min wage. With benefits

http://www.vipindustries.com/arc.htm

Problem is they can only work so long or they will lose their Disability and Supplemental Security Income and Medicare. These type of people who are disabled and the truly disable are not a drain on the system.

Not to bring back up a point about wait staff or any other service employee that receives tips as a REGULAR part of their compensation, but I know quite a few waitpeople that make a damn good living as waitstaff. I'm talking about 1000-1200 dollars a week on a good week. That ain't chump change. Before someone says that doesn't happen all the time, I'm here to tell you, good weeks happen at least 35-40 weeks a year. Now these friends don't wait tables at the local dine and dash, but work at mid level bars and restaurants.

My personal opinion on living wage vs minimum wage is that they two completely different entities. In my home state of Massachusetts, the living wage was 19.50/hr according to a study done back in 2005. No way can minimum wage be that. As a small business owner, I'd be out of business if I had to pay that for someone to sweep the floor and stock shelves. Minimum wage laws were enacted to keep unscrupulous businesses from exploiting unskilled labor. Jobs that require little to no skill shouldn't be compensated the same as other skilled jobs.

Looks like the commies have decided that Golf is also something their people don’t deserve. LOL

“State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, a once-a-week golfer and proud defender of the sport, is teed off at Hugo Chavez after the Venezuelan president called golf a \"bourgeois sport,\" and vowed to close down several swanky Caracas courses.”

\"The government should take over that course in the urban area and make room for housing,\" Chavez said during a live broadcast of his Sunday television program.

\"Let's leave this clear, golf is a bourgeois sport,\" Chavez said. The president then proceeded to mock the practice of using golf carts, alleging that the sport allows for laziness.”

Chavez insisted that his government was not banning the game of golf. But the mayor of Caracas, the capital, in 2006 announced plans to expropriate three exclusive golf courses for public housing projects. The plan has not been carried out.

I can understand this…seeing how communism generates so many people in need of public housing.