Hike in Minimum Wage Hurts Who?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, Jul 29, 2006.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16252

    Minimum-Wage Hike Would Hurt Low-Wage Workers
    by Mike Franc
    Posted Jul 28, 2006

    Thanks to a determined coalition of liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans, it is all but guaranteed that, shortly after its August recess, Congress will vote on Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D.-Mass.) proposal to boost the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour, an increase of 40%.

    An enduring urban legend about minimum-wage workers is that they are married adults struggling to raise children in Dickensian-style poverty. As Kennedy said in a recent Senate floor speech, “Minimum-wage workers are forced to make impossible choices between paying the rent and buying groceries, paying the heating bills or buying clothes.” Their families, he said, lack health care and adequate housing. Their “daily fear” is “poverty, hunger and homelessness.”

    The data, however, tell a very different story. While some minimum-wage workers are primary breadwinners raising young children, the overwhelming majority are either younger workers honing their skills in entry-level positions or part-time, mostly female workers from middle-class homes supplementing their spouse’s income.

    Only 1.9 million American workers (out of a total workforce of 127.4 million) earn the minimum wage. Most (63%) are women. More than half (53%) are between the ages of 16 and 24, and an even larger percentage (58%) work part-time.

    Upward mobility is the happy norm. Two out of three of today’s minimum-wage workers will earn 10% more within a year.

    Many are teenagers who live with their parents in middle-class homes. This explains why the average household income for minimum-wage earners is more than $40,000 a year and why only 19% (about 400,000 nationwide) fall below the poverty line.

    SNIP

    So what about that minimum-wage earner that Kennedy and his allies want to elevate above poverty?

    A family of four with an annual household income of $11,000 (equivalent to what a full-time minimum-wage job yields) could qualify for $33,000 in supplemental welfare benefits. Kennedy’s plan would, assuming no loss of employment, boost that family’s yearly paycheck to $15,000. But, due to the way benefits phase out as incomes rise, that family’s benefit package would decline to $7,000. Thus, total annual income—earned income plus welfare benefits—would actually fall by $3,000. Surely, reducing welfare assistance to half a million working poor families isn’t what the senator from Massachusetts had in mind.
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, if some people think that raising the minimum wage to only $7.25 per hour will help people, then why don't they try to really help people by raising it to $20.00 per hour?

    Also, once this goes into effect, the rest of us will, in effect, receive a $2.10 per hour cut in pay - unless one's wages automatically increase when this becomes law.
     
  3. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Keep in mind, minimum wage is primarily targeted at teens and non skilled positions like fast food, janitorial, etc... With education or even high school equivilancy one can exceed this pay scale. Raising minimum wage raises the price of a big mac and gives teens more money to do what teens do with money.

    As for immigrant workers trying to make a living at these jobs, I have different views...
     
  4. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    This bill will never become law in this session and anyone with a half of thought knows it.

    Almost anything bought up between now and the election that puts one party aginst the other is all for show. We ARE smart enough to know that right?


    This billl was rejected by the GOP and now it's miracleously back on the schedule?!?

    I think this snip sums it up the best. It's from an MSNBC article:

    The No. 2 Democrat in the House, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, said the move by GOP leaders — who actually oppose the minimum wage increase — was a cynical exercise to give political cover to GOP moderates while ensuring the wage increase does not become law.

    “They want on the one hand to appear to be doing something and on the other make sure that it doesn’t happen,” Hoyer said...."




    If the Democrats were in power, they would be doing the same thing to the Republicans.. It's a vicious circle that will continue to happen until WE the PEOPLE stand up and say STOP THIS NON-SENSE!

    Both parties are despicable!



    Jamie
     
  5. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmm... raising the minimum wage is bad, because it reduces the amount of government benefits a minimum wage worker gets?

    How is shifting the cost of a worker's labor from the government to the company employing the worker, a bad thing? Wal-Mart is notorious for cutting costs by letting the government pick up healthcare and welfare to subsidize their workers.
     
    #5 The Galatian, Jul 29, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2006
  6. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    hmm ... let me see if I got this. Walmart uses medicare and welfare to pay its employees?

    How did they do that? How many senators and congressmen did they have to buy to get that legislation? I want a list of names so that I can vote against them.
     
  7. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is not a minimum wage problem... The minimum is sufficient for a 16 year old.

    Why an employer would pay workers with families less than poverty level is why we have unions. Walmart employees clearly need to organize which I hate to say since I am a Wal-mart shopper.
     
  8. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    I don't believe there is really a need for a minimum wage at all. The market works just fine.

    Proof of that is that so few workers actually receive "minimim wage". Most of the ones that do are not worth more... as employees.
     
  9. genesis12

    genesis12
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    1
    To compensate, employers will raise prices. State governments will appropriate a larger piece of the taxpayer's pie to pay the higher wages to entry-level employees. Everyone from pet stores to Humvees will up their prices. Employees thus affected will ask for more pay. Employers will grant more pay, inflationary pressures will increase. There has to be a better way.

    I wonder if it is found in the Bible.......... hmmmmmm .......
     
  10. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    to compensate

    To compensate, employers will automate and/or send jobs off shore.
     
  11. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    You said it buddy.
     
  12. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    It doesn't reduce government benefits because the companies will either lay off more workers or raise the price of their products to make up the difference. If anything, it will have the effect of increasing government benefits which is exactly what Liberals everywhere want...gives them job security.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  13. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know any Liberals that want more unenployment. What good would that do for the nation?
     
  14. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    It makes more people dependent on handouts from the taxpayers, thus increasing the influence of socialistic programs in our country.
     
  15. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    But who wants to be dependent on handouts? I believe deep inside every man wants to earn his keep. I have several members on AFDC and section 8 because they have young babies and men that took off. They are not rich or even living to acceptable standards and if given a choice would accept another way of life.
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree with your assessment of man's fallen nature.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not good for the nation, but it is good for liberal politics during a Republican administration. It gives them a political tool.

    Ultimately the government should stay out of wages.

    Higher minimum wage will be covered by higher prices, which means that the higher minimum wage will not buy more. It may be compensated for by less hiring, so teenagers and other minimum wage workers will not be able to find jobs.
     
  18. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Liberalism isn't about what is good for the nation. It is about what is good for the government.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  19. genesis12

    genesis12
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    1
    There's a significant difference between the pubs and the dems, one part of which is this:

    The pubs want the federal & state governments to be the employer of last resort, in dire emergencies.

    The dems want the federal & state governments to be THE employer. Through lavish handouts, including the famous pork barrel, they bring in the votes, especially of minorities. A great example is Ted Kennedy's push for socialized everything. Since the so-called Great Society we have been throwing good money after bad. Now we borrow the good money.

    Precisely.
     
  20. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess this depends on how you define, "the nation". If the nation includes every law abiding citizen then you are wrong. If the nation includes only big business and those that have then you're 100% correct. Keep in mind Jesus had a habbit of liking the poor.
     

Share This Page

Loading...