I think Sen.Warren has a point.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:43 am

discuss:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder ... s-Congress

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:02 am

I can understand the logic but raising it to $22 is ridiculous. What would you do with the pays that fall between 7.50 and 22/hr now? They would all have to go up accordingly. Also, why should someone with no education(generalizing here) working at a walmart cash register get paid $22/hr for pressing buttons?

I believe our min wage is 10.50/hr here. I do believe that the min wage should be good enough to survive at a minimum.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:11 am

I agree that it is impractical to raise it to $22, but Warren's logic is sound that it SHOULD have gone to that. I think the minimum ought to be raised to around $12 in the US, which should be enough to support a family on one full time worker.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:15 am

Min wage here is not enough to survive living alone with bills. Average rent for a 1 bedroom appt here is over $800/month. You can be lucky and get one that include heat/hydro. Then you have a phone bill $45, cable tv $60+ and internet $45+. Then a monthly buss pass is $96. Then you will have food and other expenses. It either cuts it close or you end up racking up a credit card amount.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:42 am

22$ and hour???

and you though gas was high now!!!! and welcome to 15$ McDonalds Hamburgers

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:00 am

CUDA wrote:22$ and hour???

and you though gas was high now!!!! and welcome to 15$ McDonalds Hamburgers

What I thought. Imagine even paying $10 for a coffee

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:05 am

I realize they are not suggesting that we actually raise it to $22/hour...

Article wrote:Neither Warren nor Dube was actually suggesting raising the minimum wage that high as a matter of public policy. Doing so in one go would crash companies and destroy jobs.

“Rather, the exercise demonstrates how different the growth rates have been for incomes going to those at the bottom of the labor market as compared to the economy as a whole and to those at the top end of the distribution,” Dube said.

...however, I'm skeptical as to exactly how the $22/hour rate was calculated. They claim to be "indexing it for workers' gains in productivity", which leaves me wondering: What exactly are we talking about here?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:15 am

What else has changed in the overall dynamic in the same time period? Are the same jobs and ratio of jobs still filled with the same ratio of minimum wage employees? I don't know the answer but for someone to suggest policy based on her 'findings' that question should be thoroughly explored because the answer could turn her implications completely upside down. The workplace and workforce has surely evolved since the '60's...computers, automation...etc.

So did she really illustrate something substantial, or is it just the typical shortsighted politician's use of a statistic. Standard politician method of operation, start with a premise and find a statistic that supports it in a vacuum without examining all the factors involved so you can lead an ignorant constituency to support bad policy.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:19 pm

Foil wrote:I realize they are not suggesting that we actually raise it to $22/hour...

Article wrote:Neither Warren nor Dube was actually suggesting raising the minimum wage that high as a matter of public policy. Doing so in one go would crash companies and destroy jobs.

“Rather, the exercise demonstrates how different the growth rates have been for incomes going to those at the bottom of the labor market as compared to the economy as a whole and to those at the top end of the distribution,” Dube said.
...however, I'm skeptical as to exactly how the $22/hour rate was calculated. They claim to be "indexing it for workers' gains in productivity", which leaves me wondering: What exactly are we talking about here?

over the past 30 years, worker productivity(output per worker) has risen by around 800%, largely due to automation. Thus, the pay per worker should have, according to Warren,risen by the same rate. However, as she states, the increase in production per person has fueled astronomical returns on investment and very high adminstrative(executive) salaries, while real wages have increased by only around 200%. Thus, the calculus. Now, no one expects a minimum of $22 to be enacted, nor even considered. However, a large raise in the minimum wage would not, by necessity, lead to massive inflation. It would lead to some inflation, no doubt, but largely would be used to restore what once was a robust middle class. Data has shown that past raises in the minimum lead to neither job cuts, nor hyperinflation, as nay-sayers suggest. CUDA uses the example of the price of gasoline. I suspect that a jump to a $10.50 minimum wouldn't impact gas pricing AT ALL. What you are paying now is largely excise taxes and speculation tack-ons. The core price of oil or gasoline isn't going to be driven up. What you WOULD see is more people buying houses, household goods and the like, and if the rise were coupled with a robust start up of American production, those workers could actually buy AMERICAN products. You know, sort of like we did in the 1950's and 60's??

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:21 pm

Will Robinson wrote:What else has changed in the overall dynamic in the same time period? Are the same jobs and ratio of jobs still filled with the same ratio of minimum wage employees? I don't know the answer but for someone to suggest policy based on her 'findings' that question should be thoroughly explored because the answer could turn her implications completely upside down. The workplace and workforce has surely evolved since the '60's...computers, automation...etc.

So did she really illustrate something substantial, or is it just the typical shortsighted politician's use of a statistic. Standard politician method of operation, start with a premise and find a statistic that supports it in a vacuum without examining all the factors involved so you can lead an ignorant constituency to support bad policy.

Warren may, indeed, be a Senator, but she is hardly a standard politician. She's a business economist, and as good as there is.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:28 pm

Callmesick, why would people buy more "american made" items if the min wage was 22$? I would assume that would drive up the value of all things made in the US and people would go even more to foreign countries for stuff.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:42 pm

CDN_Merlin wrote:Callmesick, why would people buy more "american made" items if the min wage was 22$? I would assume that would drive up the value of all things made in the US and people would go even more to foreign countries for stuff.

why? Because they could afford to pay a somewhat higher rate for American goods. It's the basic equation that worked for this nation for decades up to around the 1980's. We're since so used to cheap foreign goods, at the expense of the US workforce, and to the great profit of a relative few, that folks forget how things used to work. For decades, we had basic, low end service workers like Pullman Porters, waitresses, stock clerks and the like that managed to take care of their families. Luxuriously? No, but enough so that social services weren't strained, and the average worker could afford to buy American products, and also provide a stable home for their children to work at progressing up the economic ladder. We've lost that whole dynamic, in the US, and now we are just beginning to pay the price(societally) for the inequities of the past 3 decades. Now, if you WANT a society where maybe, if you are lucky, 10% of the public is really, really comfortable, and the other 90% toil until a miserable, early death, just keep doing things the way we've been doing. Otherwise, folks are going to have to wise up and start getting a bit more creative at looking into re-arranging the US economy.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:01 pm

callmeslick wrote:over the past 30 years, worker productivity(output per worker) has risen by around 800%, largely due to automation. Thus, the pay per worker should have, according to Warren,risen by the same rate.

I don't buy that premise, at least at face value. The value of a worker isn't determined solely by their production; it derives primarily from metrics like demand/profit/costs, which don't directly correspond to raw production.

[ With that said, I do personally support minimum wage increases, but not because of average production increases. There are other, better, reasons for it. ]

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:12 pm

foil, while your calculus is correct, in a real-world sense, what Warren is stating is that the 'profit' part of the equation has gotten far out of whack, at the expense of the wage/compensation end for production workers. One has to assume that demand, while it rises and falls for individual products, is a constantly rising metric with an increased population size.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:20 pm

callmeslick wrote:...Warren is stating is that the 'profit' part of the equation has gotten far out of whack, at the expense of the wage/compensation end for production workers.

I agree with that statement. However, that's not what Warren said. She is insisting that wages should (or should have, in the past) directly correspond to production, which is a flawed premise.

In my mind, using that (bad) argument to support minimum wage increases (good) is just political rhetoric, and only serves to harm the cause.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:27 pm

actually, she stated that the wages should have risen with productivity, which, if all other parts of the equation held, is EXACTLY what should have happened. Why not? If profit rose by that level, demand kept rising with population size, why shouldn't compensation for labor rise at the same rate as profit, if not MORE so than profit?

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:33 pm

callmeslick wrote:...if all other parts of the equation held...

Sure, if everything else stays the same, and production increases, then worker value increases linearly with it.

However, that's a massive assumption (and it's just not true).

-----

There are plenty of good reasons to raise minimum wages (and I think they should be raised), but this kind of manufactured correlation just isn't one of them.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:51 pm

I don't agree, Foil.....everything else did hold, except for profits.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:15 pm

Minimum wage is a minimum wage, it’s not supposed to be a living wage…want a living wage…get an education, and some skills.

Most people don’t even work for minimum wage, mostly the skill less and teenagers, which will take another huge hit in employment.

Speaking as an employer, like I have said in the past, things like minimum wage and the paperwork involved in hiring low skilled workers, simply leave that labor to others and myself instead of hiring.

You can make all of the claims from here to Tuesday, about the minimum wage having no affect on employment, but since most of my peers (businessman) disagree with that…

Minimum wage is a political tool, if you want people to earn more money at the workplace, try something else. I won’t say what else because I have already beaten that horse to death, with nothing to show for it, but scars.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:54 pm

Average U.S. Hourly Wage for a Factory Worker
1965: $19.61
2007: $19.71

Average U.S. Hourly Wage Equivalent for a CEO
1965: $490.31
2007: $5,419.97

Kind of puts a sour taste in your mouth, doesn't it?

As for the minimum wage, it's still lower than it should be, even with the proposed raise proposal now in Congress.

http://www.epi.org/publication/10-10-mi ... ys-growth/

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:17 pm

Spidey wrote:…want a living wage…get an education, and some skills.

In that same period of time, the cost of education went up over 2000%. And how exactly are you supposed to pay for an education when you can't even make a wage to live on? Oh right, drive yourself into debt in the hopes that there will be a job waiting for you, and if there isn't, just turn to the government for help. Sounds like a plan man.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:35 pm

Minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage? I think not. Minimum wage is for high school students living at home and not for someone trying to afford to be out on their own. Or they could do like I did and get a roommate or 2 to reduce costs. Minimum wage is for kids to establish a work history so they can go out and get a better paying job. Of course if all you want to do is flip burgers, make enough money to buy beer/pot and go home to your parents basement bedroom to get high...then they should not expect to make any real money.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:56 pm

What is the official benefit/purpose from/for having a minimum wage level set?

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:56 pm

woodchip wrote:Minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage? I think not. Minimum wage is for high school students living at home and not for someone trying to afford to be out on their own. Or they could do like I did and get a roommate or 2 to reduce costs. Minimum wage is for kids to establish a work history so they can go out and get a better paying job. Of course if all you want to do is flip burgers, make enough money to buy beer/pot and go home to your parents basement bedroom to get high...then they should not expect to make any real money.

But you do realize that a lot of the available work in the U.S nowadays is in the service sector, MacJobs as they're now called, so guess who's having to support a family with those usually minimum wage jobs? Breadwinners with families who need living wages.

Major employers like Walmart don't even pay benefits on top of the already below minimum wages of $6 to $7.50 an hour they pay, which is below the poverty line by the way. And that's for a 28 to 40 hour work week, not even full time.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:35 pm

vision wrote:
Spidey wrote:…want a living wage…get an education, and some skills.
In that same period of time, the cost of education went up over 2000%. And how exactly are you supposed to pay for an education when you can't even make a wage to live on? Oh right, drive yourself into debt in the hopes that there will be a job waiting for you, and if there isn't, just turn to the government for help. Sounds like a plan man.

Lol, I don’t know what period of time you are referring to, but let me say this…they could start with finishing the education that is provided free of cost to them, instead of dropping out, and then expecting to earn a “living wage”.

I doubt you know what it’s like to pay 56% of your property taxes in school taxes and have to sit back and watch people squander your hard earned money by dropping out, then knock on your business’s door, expecting to earn a living wage, all the while not even being able to fill out a job application.

There are tens of thousands of skilled jobs in this country that employers are unable to fill, maybe that would be a better place to start, than a political ploy like minimum wage.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:47 pm

tunnelcat wrote:But you do realize that a lot of the available work in the U.S nowadays is in the service sector, MacJobs as they're now called, so guess who's having to support a family with those usually minimum wage jobs? Breadwinners with families who need living wages.

Shame on them, shame on them, you see…you are supposed to get your education and plan your path thru life, then get married and raise a family…oh never mind I doubt most of these people even bother to get married, let alone plan their futures.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:57 pm

Spidey wrote:There are tens of thousands of skilled jobs in this country that employers are unable to fill, maybe that would be a better place to start, than a political ploy like minimum wage.

Oh wow, why didn't anyone think of that before? That would bring down the number of unemployed Americans from 23,793,000 to 23,703,000! I'm sure a couple of them probably managed to finish high school, since finding a living wage is only dependent on your level of education.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:31 pm

Spidey wrote:maybe that would be a better place to start

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:08 am

If there is a role for government to set a minimum wage why shouldn't they also set a medium and high wage limit?
Can some one give a good reason for it?

vision · Post by **vision** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:59 am

Will Robinson wrote:If there is a role for government to set a minimum wage why shouldn't they also set a medium and high wage limit?
Can some one give a good reason for it?

I'm all for medium and high wage limits to. Anything to remind the populace that all men are created equal. Wage slavery is the next thing that should be abolished.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:22 am

vision wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:If there is a role for government to set a minimum wage why shouldn't they also set a medium and high wage limit?
Can some one give a good reason for it?
I'm all for medium and high wage limits to. Anything to remind the populace that all men are created equal. Wage slavery is the next thing that should be abolished.

All men are clearly NOT equal in spite of the fairy tale rhetoric.
Our government doesn't have the authority to force them to be equal if they are not in fact equal in realityland!

If you are not motivated to achieve a level of compensation you desire or don't posses the talent, skills or intelligence level to achieve it you have no right to make those that do give up what they have to 'make you equal'.

I realize many politicians have fed you that line of bullcrap but it isn't allowed by law. They try to selectively administer bits and pieces of it, like pimps handing their whores back a percentage of their earnings but it isn't going to ever be equal.

So your "good reason" is only good for you and others who won't or can't get what they want on their own. Or, even worse, good for those who have enough if not for their envy feeding their spiteful nature for those who have achieved more.
You would need to find some kind of Utopian communistic governed society to live in if that is what you want.

But if you believe they should then why hasn't the government established the wage level for everyone? Why just a minimum if they are the legal arbiter of earnings in America?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:12 am

vision wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:If there is a role for government to set a minimum wage why shouldn't they also set a medium and high wage limit?
Can some one give a good reason for it?
I'm all for medium and high wage limits to. Anything to remind the populace that all men are created equal. Wage slavery is the next thing that should be abolished.

how is having a 3 tiered wage system equal???. if you are going to make it equal then everyone gets paid the same. politicians included that is equal. it's not fair but it is equal. with being "Fair" being the new Democratic buzz word. but unfortunately when I work my ass off for the $22 an hour and you sit around taking a 45 minute ★■◆● break and play on your cell phone all day, that's not quite fair is it. and as far as all me are created equal. they are equal in rights, not in their Abilities, Motivation, and Character.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:16 pm

CUDA wrote: how is having a 3 tiered wage system equal???. if you are going to make it equal then everyone gets paid the same. politicians included that is equal. it's not fair but it is equal. with being "Fair" being the new Democratic buzz word. but unfortunately when I work my ass off for the $22 an hour and you sit around taking a 45 minute ★■◆● break and play on your cell phone all day, that's not quite fair is it. and as far as all me are created equal. they are equal in rights, not in their Abilities, Motivation, and Character.

I agree. Sadly not everyone has the same work ethic as others and should not be paid the same.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:37 pm

Ah, this brings up another assumption:

"The harder you work, the better your pay. The lazier you are, the worse your pay.", or in other words, "If you want more $$, just work harder."

Sorry, but I don't buy that, either. It's a really weak correlation. In my experience, the factor that makes the most difference in earnings is by far, education.

Many of the hardest-working / longest-hours / most-dedicated people I've known were still earning below the poverty line, simply because they didn't have the education to go after better jobs. And, conversely, some of the laziest-ass people I've known are raking it in, simply because they have a degree or certification which is in demand.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:58 pm

Foil wrote:Ah, this brings up another assumption:

"The harder you work, the better your pay. The lazier you are, the worse your pay.", or in other words, "If you want more $$, just work harder."

Sorry, but I don't buy that, either. It's a really weak correlation. In my experience, the factor that makes the most difference in earnings is by far, education.

Many of the hardest-working / longest-hours / most-dedicated people I've known were still earning below the poverty line, simply because they didn't have the education to go after better jobs. And, conversely, some of the laziest-ass people I've known are raking it in, simply because they have a degree or certification which is in demand.

But isn't the work done to achieve the degree or certification done primarily to recieve the higher pay?
At least there is nothing 'parasitic' in that practice as opposed to class envy rational that everyone should share equally the fruits of their effort no matter how unequal the efforts were.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:47 pm

although Foil makes a valid point, the facts in America, circa 2013 are this:

1. The likelihood of becoming prosperous(not filthy rich) are close to abyssmal unless your parents are/were prosperous. We rank 35th or so in social mobility.
2. More wealth is transferred(and has been for the past 11 years or so) by INHERITANCE than by wages in the US.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:53 pm

As long as people aren't somehow unfairly propped up by some authority so that you can't compete, what's wrong with people just getting as much as they possibly can? Outside of some unwanted (government) influence, sooner or later the market will weed out those who aren't worth what they are receiving. Lazy people make room for motivated competition! It's a wonderful natural process. Worst-case scenario being that you have someone in a company taking up all of the profits and not treating their employees well... work for someone else, and if it's bad enough, protest! What other solutions do you need?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:02 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:As long as people aren't somehow unfairly propped up by some authority so that you can't compete, what's wrong with people just getting as much as they possibly can?

because greed and a money-fueled playing field will very quickly make it so that sheer assets alone unfairly prop them up. Happens all the time.

Outside of some unwanted (government) influence, sooner or later the market will weed out those who aren't worth what they are receiving.

see above, regarding inheritance income.

Lazy people make room for motivated competition! It's a wonderful natural process. Worst-case scenario being that you have someone in a company taking up all of the profits and not treating their employees well... work for someone else, and if it's bad enough, protest! What other solutions do you need?

too many to list here......but, a social safety net, regulations against monopoly and collusion, workers rights legislation come to mind really quickly.....

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:52 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...sooner or later the market will weed out those who aren't worth what they are receiving.

The market-trends-toward-efficient-usage-of-employees model makes sense, especially in a vacuum.

...but it just doesn't happen that way.

Slick's point about inherited money aside, working people who aren't worth their wages/salary often tend to find a way to stick around, and the people who are worth more often get overlooked. There are a number of reasons this happens (everything from nepotism to social biases to poor employee evaluation methods to plain deception).

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:24 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:As long as people aren't somehow unfairly propped up by some authority so that you can't compete, what's wrong with people just getting as much as they possibly can?
because greed and a money-fueled playing field will very quickly make it so that sheer assets alone unfairly prop them up. Happens all the time.....

In my opinion the premise of your comment about fairness is flawed, thus your whole point is moot. Fairness doesn't apply to the distribution, or lack, of inheritance outside of the family of the deceased in our system.

In a capitalist system it is proper for acquiring wealth to prop you up. You don't have to always be producing to deserve your wealth. If you produce until you are middle aged and acquire enough live off of your accumulated wealth you are not being "propped up" you are spending your own wealth.
Likewise, if you acquire so much you can prop up your children you are again using your wealth not using other people's wealth. The fact that your children are propped up is not governments concern nor a concern of anyone else because the wealth didn't come from government or other people's wealth. We produce as a means of survival, if we can stockpile the wealth we can spend our time living instead of merely providing for our survival.
People who stop trying to produce because they have produced enough to get their next bottle of wine don't have any special right to come looking for a "fair share" of some one else's means of survival when they later realize they should have looked farther ahead than the next bottle of wine.

Where in the world do all you people get the notion that fairness is a right? It is more of a luxury agreement that we sometimes afford ourselves to engage in. It requires all concerned to agree to the rule ahead of time. It isn't something you get to arbitrarily define according to your own personal opinion and then enforce upon your fellow man! Not in our system anyway.