As 2006 dawned, thousands of workers in Washington state got a much-deserved raise. The state's new minimum wage is $7.63, up from $7.35 a year ago. Beginning in 2001, the rate has been adjusted on Jan. 1 annually for inflation by a calculation using the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers for the prior year. Workers who are 14 or 15 years old, may be paid at 85 percent of the wage, which is now $6.49. This is the highest minimum wage in the nation; Oregon, which passed a law similar to Washington's in 2002, now has a wage of $7.50.
While $7.63 may seem like pretty good money, according to the AFL-CIO, if the federal minimum wage established in 1968 had kept up with inflation, it would be about $7.60 today. So, Washington's is pretty close to that pace. When established 38 years ago, the federal minimum wage was $1.60. Today, shockingly, it is just $5.15 per hour, and the vast majority of states follow the federal minimum or have no mimimum, which means certain job classifications covered by the federal law must be paid at the federal rate.
What does the minimum wage buy today? Not much. In Michigan minimum of $5.15 will buy a couple gallons of gas for the many cars made there. In Nebraska the federal minimum of $5.15 will cover a standard fast-food combo meal made from beef grown nearby (in Idaho, where the potatoes for french fries are grown, the rate is $5.15, too). One hour's work won;t cover a bucket of chicken if you work in Kentucky, where the rate is $5.15. Want a drink during Mardi Gras in Louisiana -- a worker there would be able to buy a couple cheap drinks after working for an hour at the state's rate of $5.15 per hour. In Nevada, an hour's work at $5.15 would be one hand at most casinos' cheapest card table, and a day's wages could be lost pretty quickly.
Workers in some states fare just a bit better. Alaska, Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island and a few other states pay a minimum of between $6.50 and $7.50 per hour.
The federal wage is roughly two-thirds of what is considered poverty for a family of three people. When you calculate that a wage of $7.74 per hour for 40 hours a week for a year is necessary to be above the poverty line in America, it is amazing that more states don't set minimum wages that are at least closer to $7 than to $5.
Well, that state-by-state effort is the plan of the Democrats in 2006. Knowing that a federal minimum wage increase has been blocked since 1997, the Dems are planning to fire up the base and turn out the vote with a core issue. And, the wage is still $5.15 in several so-called "swing states" like Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire and Arizona in addition to those listed above.
The Republicans should be scared. The Democrats might just back them into a corner, and pass such wage increases either in individual states or by forcing Congress to act. A dollar increase in each of the next three years should have the federal minimum wage caught up with prices by the end of the decade. It's the fair thing to do for some of America's hardest workers and most vulnerable. If we expect people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps," we have to do more to give them a helping hand.
Do whatever you can to promote passage of fair labor laws and minimum wage increases across the nation this year.
-- Wenatchee, Wash.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
NOt true, Andrew. You rtheory assumes that all financial amounts are finite. First, everyone getting paid more means they have more to spend, and theoretically some others would spend at Company A, whose employees would also be paid more.
Second, perhaps other operating expenses could be increased (or profit reduced) to allow the increased wages. Revenue could also be increased by raising prices, although that is not always necessary.
Finally, if the Democrats stand for anything, they should stand for fairness for working people, a group that has traditionally found support from elected Democrats. It is fallacious logic to say that Dems should not support a wage increase because we want more jobs. The jobs are not worth having if they don't pay anything, or, more likely, people will just have more than one job.
We have to do something to eliminate the term "working poor" from our nation's vocabulary.
-- L.
Some things to think about:
My former yearbook editor was home for the holidays from college. Before she graduated, she was making $10 at her part-time job. Now, in Michigan, she has two jobs to replace the one she had here. Why? She only makes $5.15 an hour there--only slightly more than HALF of what she made at home in Washington.
Something to think about if you plan to go out of state to school--how many hours a week will you have to work for spending (or tuition) money, and how will that state's minimum wage affect your life?
And if it's affecting her--a single girl with a full-tuition scholarship who is working mainly for books and spending money--I can't imagine how it is affecting people with families to raise.
And, there was a story in yesterday's PI about child poverty rates. In Washington state, 13 percent of kids lived in poverty in 2003. The nationwide average for the same period was 18 percent. I'd like to think that having a high minimum wage was one of the reasons we were below the national average.
-Suz
The guy who made "Super Size Me" (I forget his name right now) did an episode of his show "30 Days" where he and his wife lived on minimum wage jobs for a month. Their health declined (extra jobs and poorer eating habits), their income barely met their basic needs (no extras like cable or money to fix the car or cash to pay medical bills), they began to sour on each other and life (constant fatigue and irritability), and they realized they were one incident (car accident, major illness, or injury) from being bankrupt. All this and they basically had three jobs between the two of them and no money for savings. WITH NO KIDS!
The minimum wage does need to increase.
His name is Morgan Spurlock.
-- L.
I'd like to see a study showing what kind of spending minimum wage workers are doing. Most guys I know spend it on CD's, video games, fast food, etc. Do these people really need more money for doing minimal work?
Adam, Adam, Adam, (Sigh)
Is it just possible that there are many, many people you don't know who work hard and struggle to get by? That there might be people you don't know who need the help to support their families on minimum wage earnings?
And how do you know these people do "minimal work"? That's quite presumptuous to even assume and reveals some underlying bias against those who hold low paying jobs.
Why would somebody try to raise a family on minimum wage? I sure as hell won't have kids until I have a steady career.
Minimum wage = minimal work. At $7.35 an hour (which is what it was at) you'd be bringing home over a thousand dollars a month working full time. Why should we have incentives to do minimal work? How is that supposed to help create better and higher paying jobs?
Andrew:
You make a good case for socialism or some other government control of prices or the marketplace. Of course, often when there is an increase in wage expenses, business owners pass along that expense to consumers rather than risk losing profits. This is not required, and it leads to inflation.
Adam:
I don;t get at all your wacky term "minimal work." Just because a job has a low wage -- perhaps because it does not require much skill, perhaps because the employer is just plain cheap.
Likely many of the people you know who are working for the minimum wage yet spending on what could be described as unnecessary purchases are people who are younger, do not have many bills (mortgage/rent, auto payment and insurance, health insurance or bills, food and support for dependants), or have other sources of income or support. Simply put, the state's minimum wage of $7.63 -- let alone the federal wage of $5.15 per hour -- is not enough to support an individual or family in the kind of lifestyle that most Americans would consider livable let alone comfortable.
And Adam, I know. I grew up in a family that scraped together every cent to survive on a mother's self-employment and a second minimum-wage job, a combined total of more than 60 hours of work in a week.
Maybe people who do "mimimum work" or just have a job for frivolous purchases should get out of the way so that people who truly need the job or who want to work harder can have them.
-- L.
Man, Adam,
I hear people (generally conservatives, like yourself) who berate those who need government assistance but can only get a minimum wage job. If those people are married and--oops--have an unplanned child, pro-lifers get mad if they want to have an abortion for a child the couple can't afford (besides, now they definitely need those social services so many want to eliminate). Of course, they can't afford the medical bills for regular check-ups, so what are they to do?
No social services, low or no skills, little to no insurance, possibly an unplanned child, and the feds begin to eliminate the services they need. Brutal, and no relief.
You seem to have a decent education, Adam, so why can't you get past your own small sphere of experience and realize people need help? I just don't get it. You seem to think anyone with a minimum wage job or on some sort of assistance is lazy, worthless, or underachieving. Maybe they just didn't have the opportunities you do.
I look at some of my students and wonder how they do it. For example, one is practically homeless, has an alcoholic father, struggles with a learning disability, will probably barely graduate with minimal skills, and is definitely not seeing college as an option. He's but one example of many, and you sound like you would have no sympathy for him.
We can afford to spend $231 billion on the Iraq War but won't increase health care services or the minimum wage (enough) for our own citizens. I just don't get it.
Plus, that elimination of the PEP in the tax code will create more tax breaks for those making over $100,000 a year but not for those who truly need a tax break. What is going on?
First of all Dr.Pezz, have you ever heard of the military? Yeah, it's the best option for anyone living in poverty to pull themselves out. I would suggest that to the kid you're talking about, but you probably despise the military.
Second, don't unzip your pants if you can't support a child. But lets say two people are married and they have a kid and the dad dies or something leaving a mother with only a minimum wage job. First of all, based on her age, I would say she could find a job that pays a little higher than our current minimum wage. Maybe an assistant manager at fast food? Well I know a lot of managers in that position that don't get paid more because minimum wage is so high they have to keep their wage cost down to keep profits reasonable. Take into consideration there are private charities that can help in these types of situations as well as family members and friends.
If the government keeps paying for more and more health services, it will only make the demand for them go up thus increasing the cost. Vicious cycle it is. Besides, having the government help everyone out and not the people through their good will and hard work devalues society's overall outlook on human life.
Adam,
You put the military as the first option for someone to join if they need to find a job. The military is not always feasible, especially in the middle of a war. Asking people to sacrifice their lives because they have no other option is elitist. Yes, the military is a great institution. Yes, the men and woman who choose to serve our nation deserve all of the respect they can get. However, our military is based on the idea that its members volunteer to be part of it. Basically forcing people into the military because they have no other option smacks of communism. During the Cold War Russia was able to claim a 0% unemployment rate because those who did not have jobs were forced into military service.
Also, you should not make the assumption that someone holding liberal views automatically makes them hate the military. I consider myself fairly (ok, quite) liberal, and I fully support anyone who chooses to make that sacrifice. It might even surpise you to know that drpezz comes from a family with a long military history and almost went into the military himself. As for me, I also briefly considered a career in the military as well, but ultimately decided against it.
As to the argument at hand, raising the minimum wage will not solve all of society's problems, but it may be able to help. So many of my students lack the skills necessary to do well in college or to even move into a job which pays more than minimum wage. In the Wenatchee Valley, rents are constantly increasing, and I honestly don't understand how those who work minimum wage jobs afford decent apartments.
The young woman used as an example in drpezz's post and your post would quickly find her wages eaten up by the costs of a babysitter. Private charities are all well and good, but until everyone in our society learns to think of others, I don't think we should count on them. Government programs are in place to enable those in our society who cannot help themselves live a decent life.
I am a product of several of those programs, and I can definitely say that a higher minimum wage would have dramatically improved my childhood. My mom, a single parent, worked over 60 hours a week at a low-paying job. My brother and I were both in daycare until rates went up so high that only my younger brother could attend. At the age of seven I became a "latch-key" kid. I learned early that the poor have much tougher choices to make than anyone else. Do we splurge and buy meat this week or save money and eat grilled cheese again? Do the kids go to the dentist or do we pay the rent? Does mom get a new coat when her old one falls apart or do we pay to get the car fixed?
These were all choices we had to make. A higher minimum wage wouldn't have solved everything, but it would have put us a little bit closer to making it.
To heck with the minimum wage! It's time for a livable wage. I'm still waiting to have a serviceman replace the motor on a garage door opener. The poor guy (literally) works two jobs in order to live in Wenatchee. No surprise that he took ill and can only work one of his jobs for a week or two. So the consumer waits because there is no one else who can install this motor. Looks to me like there are plenty of jobs available, but employers aren't willing to pay enough to make them worth taking.
I thought supply and demand was supposed to influence the cost of labor as well as the cost of a finished product. Maybe if we weren't keeping China and Walmart afloat with the purchase of cheap goods, we could pay more for American labor and afford the higher prices on necessary commodities like food, shelter, and energy. last time I checked the price of a CD or DVD would put several gallons of gas in my car or buy a great steak.
Adam,
You are the assumption king!
The only reason I decided against the military was the potential to continue playing sports in college (though an early knee injury eliminated those plans soon after enrolling). I love the military and wholeheartedly support the troops. I don't, though, have to agree with policies or support all of the actions.
My family has long been embedded in the military. I grew up on bases basically until I left the university (home was always back on the base). My affinity for the military doesn't lessen just because of a moronic war.
The military was getting pretty choosy about who was allowed in until a shortage in the ranks forced it to enlist low skilled soldiers (fodder). For quite a time, military recruiters did not seriously look at students who struggled in school because the jobs in the military more and more require critical thinking, technological sophisticiation, and vision.
Grow up and get your vision outside your own safety netted vision of the world. Just because your college buddies blow money from their minimum wage jobs doesn't mean others out there who are working for life in those jobs are as well. Charities can't solve everything. The government should care for its citizens. As I said, we can afford $231 billion for a war while we cut education funding and decrease taxation on the wealthy. Hell of a system!
The wealthy are wealthy for a reason. It's called hard work. Get over it and stop criminalizing those who want to keep a reasonable percentage of what they rightfully earn.
"The wealthy are wealthy because of hard work." I assume you also mean that the poor are poor becuase they don't work hard?
What crap.
When I had a minimum wage job, I busted my butt every day for that $3.65 an hour. I came home exhausted after every shift, with aching feet and a sore back from standing for eight straight hours. I earned every penny I made, as do most people with minimum wage jobs.
Most people who have minimum wage jobs DO work hard. It's just that we don't value the work they do enough to pay them according to how hard they really work. And we don't value THEM enough to demand living wages for every worker in America.
And, how does having a higher minimum wage contribute to people making more than minimum wage keeping less of what they earn? That's some sort of crazy logic I don't understand.
A sore back from standing for 8 hours? I'm sorry you don't stay in shape because I can easily work 10 hour shifts non-stop while refusing a break...and that's all in the kitchen.
This is really getting tough trying to argue against 4 different long posts and counter-arguing everything. Look, there are stories where minimum wage and government benefits DO help, but my philosiphies differ on the bigger picture. Without government aid, really high minimum wage, and pretty much any other sort of social service, the quality of life is higher. There is more incentive for people to help eachother more effectively and efficiently. When help is given through the government, people develop a sense of entitlement. When money is paid to the government to go toward some sort of social program, only a fraction of that dollar make it there after all the beaurocrats and those who monitor the program, etc get paid. Furthermore, There is more of an incentive to work harder and to plan financially when people don't have a sense of entitlement. Overall, I think it would benefit everyone in the long run.
I could argue this for days but I doubt I will ever see my philosophy in action at the rate our country is becoming socialized.
Ferg,
Is it a concidence that those with more education earn more money? I don't think so. Don't screw up early and you'll be fine later. Throw whatever crap you want back at that, but that's the bottom line. The vast majority of people in society's upper classes got there because they simply tried a lot harder than those below them. There are exceptions--some people get lucky, and some people inherit their wealth, but these cases are the exceptions, not the rule.
The thing about keeping a fair share of what one earns was in reference to pezz's comment about tax breaks for the wealthy, not the minimum wage.
Adam and Anon:
Thanks for questioning my physical fitness, instead of seeing the larger point. Of course I didn't get paid $3.65 an hour for STANDING. I stood while doing a number of physically-draining activities which tended to make me sore and tired. Frankly, I should have expected the snide comment, since it's clear that you think people who earn minimum wage are worthy of nothing but contempt and derision.
And of course education helps you get a better-paying job in the long run. But you have to be able to afford it first. And without a decent minimum wage, many people would have no hope of ever being able to afford an education that will help them (or their kids) break the cycle of poverty.
On a different topic, I have said it before and I'll say it again: work is work. You can't say just becuase a person gets paid more than someone else, he works harder or tries harder. His work is simply valued more in terms of financial rewards and status, especially by people like you.
I will say, having a minimum wage job was a life-changing event for me. It allowed me to see first-hand how those who truly have a sense of entitlement (and I'm not talking about people on welfare) treat those they feel are beneath them. I hated being treated like I was a mindless, lazy, worthless person by customers who didn't know anything about me other than I worked at a fast-food place. And I've always hated watching people treat low-wage employees like they are some sort of sub-human servant.
While I may have a lot more money now, my views haven't changed at all. It's really quite simple. All work--and workers--should be valued, we should make sure that all workers are protected and treated fairly, and ensure that every job in America provides a wage that can meet a person's basic needs.
So I guess I should thank you, Adam/Anon. You, and every other compasionless conservative who belittles those less fortunate than themselves, motivate me to work even harder to defeat those who would dismantle the protections for those living in poverty.
Hey Anonymous, we're "compassionless conservatives". Ever hear that one before?
Ferg, I didn't mean to imply that you were paid to stand, just that moving around and lifting stuff pretty much non-stop for 10 hours a day doesn't seem to take a physical toll on me. In fact it makes me stronger. So do you think fast-food workers getting paid over 7 dollars an hour are getting more respect because their pay is higher? Nah, just the opposite is true.
College would be a lot more affordable if there wasn't a thing called financial aid. All those things increase the demand of college thus increasing the cost of guys like myself who pay for it out of their own pocket or with help from their parents. I know some older folks who get ALL their college paid for even books and they can sell them back and pocket the cash. Therefore they make money going to college. Also, the college is paying those guys that just sit there in the write lab over 10 dollars hour to help students with errors on their english papers, but they rarely even do it. Yeah raising the minimum wage will help a little to pay for college, but does nothing to actually decrease the overall cost which is something that those who work to raise minimum wage don't work to do.
Adam and Anonymous,
What are you using as a source for your generalizations? What are you using (evidence) to back up your points?
I, the recent "compassionless conservative" anonymous poster, shall now be known as Calvin.
Here you go pezz:
Median annual earnings
$71,700...Professional degree
$62,400...Doctorate
$50,000...Master's degree
$40,100...Bachelor's degree
And so it continues in this pattern all the way down to "Less than a high school diploma."
Source: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/1999/Fall/oochart.pdf
I figured that the correlation between education and earnings was a commonly-known fact. I'm sorry, pezz--I wasn't aware of your ignorance.
Ironically, the personal anecdotes of loganite and cheergirl prove my point. Both grew up in states of porverty or near-poverty, yet both ultimately found success through hard work.
It may be difficult to escape poverty, but don't tell me it can't be done.
To ferg, cheer girl, and pezz:
I don't believe you. I think you're making your arguments up. I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. But I don't know that for a fact. I'm just spit-balling here.
You've now been "schooled," Letterman-style. Why did I even bother with that last post?
Dr.Pezz, explain where I would find a source to back up a philisophical belief.
Calvin,
That wasn't your only assertion and that one has to be the "no duh" example of the week. Everyone understands that more education generally equals higher pay.
What are "private charities" doing to satisfy the overall need of the impoverished?
Where is your evidence for "having the government help everyone out and not the people through their good will and hard work devalues society's overall outlook on human life"?
How are people being "criminalized" when they should just not have their tax burden lessened when those with very little are not given such liberties?
How can you back up "Don't screw up early and you'll be fine later" when it's not about screwing up. It's about having safety nets. Poor students don't have the second chances that the middle and upper classes do. How do you remedy this? The poor have to be perfect in the face of greater strife?
Why was financial aid created? Was it because college prices rose so much that people need aid? Was it because the demand for higher education has gone up while incomes have gone down (taking inflation into account)?
Thanks for labeling me a liar (even if it was a poor attempt at humor). Until you know the people we're talking about, doubt all you want but there is a significant portion of the population not being adequately served who have no safety nets. One mistake and they don't make it. I provided one example out of my classroom and I could have given you five different stories from each class I teach.
Adam:
Here's what I suggest to my sophomores who can't figure out where to come up with evidence to support their arguments when writing papers: Do some research and become educated on a topic. Challenge your assumptions. If you care about a topic to write a paper on it, learn everything you can about it. Read. Use legitimate Internet sites and scholarly periodicals. Read the newspaper. Seek out information from a variety of different sources. Learn what your opponents are saying, and find information to prove them wrong.
It's amazing what happens when kids become educated on a topic. Sometimes their opinions change; sometimes they are strengthened. But always, the person is able to thoughoughtfully--and facutally--defend thier opinion.
Does that mean I always agree with that opinion? No. But at least I have to respect that it is based in actual fact and logic, not just on generalizations and assumptions.
Adam, if you were in my sophomore class, your arguments would barely earn a "D" grade, and they would never pass the persuasive writing portion of the WASL. Why? You don't have any concrete details or evidence to back up your claims.
If you want to successfully persuade people that your "philosophical beliefs" are correct, you better have some evidence (statistics, examples, expert opinions) to back them up. Otherwise, everyone will just think you're talking out your ass.
Twice on this post, I've seen the comment "if fewer people would (go to college/go to the doctor), the cost would go down."
That logic works when you are talking about goods and products, but usually doesn't work when you are talking about services, because of the fixed costs involved in providing a service.
A professor costs the same amount of money whether there are 8 or 58 students in her class. A classroom costs the same to build and furninsh for one class a day as it does for 7 classes a day. An examining table costs the same amount to purchase, no matter how many patients a day sit on it. Rent for offices costs the same whether there are 4 or 40 appoinments a day.
If these costs are the same no matter how many students or patients there are, doesn't it make sense that the more patients or students, the less the cost per patient or student?
So it doesn't really hold that fewer people going to college or the doctor makes it more expensive. In fact, the exact opposite is often true.
"How are people being "criminalized" when they should just not have their tax burden lessened when those with very little are not given such liberties?"
The labels of "working class" and "less fortunate" contribute to the perception that the wealthy achieve their positions in life through luck or inheritance. The vast majority of wealthy people worked hard to earn what they earn, yet they're seen as "compassionless" when they're allowed to keep a little more of their hard-earned money. That makes no sense to me. The wealthy already pay significantly higher percentages of their incomes(they're called tax brackets).
"Poor students don't have the second chances that the middle and upper classes do."
I acknowledge that life's more difficult for some people than it is for others. No matter what you do, this will always be the case. Some people will always enjoy advantages that others won't. That's the nature of our or any other society. Nations have tried to level the playing field for everyone before and it doesn't work--ever heard of communism?
The unfortunate truth is that the poor do have to overcome more in order to be successful. However, as evidenced by loganite, cheergirl, and many others in our society, it is certainly possible, with or without "safety nets."
"Until you know the people we're talking about, doubt all you want but there is a significant portion of the population not being adequately served who have no safety nets."
And you call Adam the assumption king? I've read other debates on this blog before and it seems that every single time you get into a debate, you assume that you simply know more or have a superior world perspective. You know absolutely nothing about me--I could be 20, I could be 80. I could be a man, I could be a woman. I could be rich, I could be poor, or I could be somewhere in between. Perhaps I was spoiled as a child by my rich parents, perhaps I grew up on the streets with a single mom and struggled to survive. Despite your lack of knowledge of my background, you jump to the conclusion that I couldn't possible know anyone "less fortunate" than me. Well pezz, I can safely say that in this case, you are flat-out wrong. I do, in fact, know "the people we're talking about."
Perhaps people haven't called you on it enough before, but the "I'm better, smarter and more experienced than you" argument won't fly with me. Show me, don't just tell me.
I believe that I've answered all the points addressed to me in your last post (the rest related to Adam's posts, not mine). I think you'd be well-served to heed Adam's most recent post--philosophical beliefs (which have been presented by both sides) are based on one's own reasoning and values, not hard evidence and statistics.
Who called you a liar?
So ferg wants to talk evidence...this should be fun.
"I'd like to think that having a high minimum wage was one of the reasons we were below the national average."
Prove it.
"Most people who have minimum wage jobs DO work hard."
Prove it.
"And without a decent minimum wage, many people would have no hope of ever being able to afford an education that will help them (or their kids) break the cycle of poverty."
Prove it.
THe above statements make logical sense, ferg, whether or not everyone agrees with them. I wouldn't call you on the lack of evidence in this case because I don't really see the need for it, but you seem to want "evidence (statistics, examples, expert opinions)" from everyone else, so let's see some. Like Adam (and pezz, cheergirl, calvin, etc.)you "don't have any concrete details or evidence" to support any of these statements.
If you can't back these up, you'll be just as guilty of "talking out your ass" as Adam. Hypocrite.
Calvin,
Your "60%" reference is the humorous attempt to which I referred. You don't believe us, so is that not saying we are being dishonest?
Secondly, while I should have directed my comment about experience towards Adam, I disagree with you on other points. I have never said I was superior or "have a superior world perspective" than you. You are reading into my words. I simply pointed out to Adam that he does not broaden his view enough to understand all of the facets of an issue.
You'll also notice I don't have a complete solution to many of the issues discussed here, but I do know an ineffective idea or uniformed opinion when I see one. Admittedly, I'm not in a position to "solve" these problems, but simply reducing aid to those who need it most in the name of making others work harder is not a solution. Also, assuming someone who makes minimum wage is doing "minimal work" is not only faulty logic, it's insulting to those who do it.
You have heard two success stories here in a forum where people's education levels become readily evident. How many stories of people not making it because of poverty and personal hardships are not being told? Their absence does not negate their existence.
Your other assertion, "The wealthy already pay significantly higher percentages of their incomes(they're called tax brackets)" can be debated 'round and 'round as well. Tax loop holes, write offs, and other methods to escape paying taxes are much more readily available to the middle and upper classes which don't always apply to those of meager means. Thus, flat taxes (as one suggested method) are eagerly rejected.
Making things equal for everyone is not what I'm advocating. I'm for helping those who need it, not making life more difficult for them. I see people of means often not wanting to support programs for the people most in need, not always or even most of the time but often. Not raising the minimum wage hurts people. Eliminating financial aid opportunities hurts people. And so on.
On a side note, reveal to us who you are so we can better discuss with you or at least know you as something more than "Calvin." If you use that as a defense, at least tell us about you.
Anybody want to talk about the initial reason for the post: minimum wage?
Roy:
The sentences that you have selected are what many English teachers like to call "commentary"--conclusions drawn, or opinions formed, based on specific evidence.
There's nothing wrong with drawing conclusions, as long as they're based on some sort of evidence, which every one of these was. It's all there, in this thread (the poverty stats, my personal experience at my own minimum wage job, the experiences of my editor--and me--and how minimum wage jobs affected our ability to afford education). You can disagree with the conclusions, and you can even disagree with the examples I've given, but there was support given.
And, by the way, I'm not asking Adam to "prove his point," becuase there is no way to definitively prove many of our arguments. (How can you PROVE whether someone works hard? You can't. But you can still give specific examples that support your point.) I'm simply asking him to come up with some sort of supporting details for his argument.
Why? Because in this entire thread, Adam has only given two specific deatils (people he knows with minimum-wage jobs spend their money on CDs, and people on minimum wage take home over $1000 a month). All of his other posts are nothing but his opinion--with nothing to back it up.
We were attempting to have a lively debate about the minimum wage. It got bogged down becuase those arguing one side of the issue could not, or would not, provide specific evidence that supported their claims.
Wanna debate the minimum wage? Bring it on! But what you bring needs to be more than "all-commentary, all the time."
In order to base my opinions (that the minimum wage boosts economic growth and helps those most in need) I did a bit of reserach (which are cut and pasted from the Economic Policy Institute's findings- http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/
issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts):
- 5.8% of the workforce would benefit overall (over 7 million people)
- 6.5% of the workforce earning up to a dollar above the minimum would also be likely to benefit from an increase (8.2 million people)
- the average minimum wage worker brings home more than half (54%) of his or her family's weekly earnings [Scary thought in itself]
- Single mothers would benefit disproportionately from an increase
- 72% of workers whose wages would be raised by a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by June 2007 are adults (age 20 or older)
- Close to half (43.9%) of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase work full time
- 60.6% of workers who would benefit from an increase to $7.25 by 2007 are women
- African Americans represent 11.1% of the total workforce, but are 15.3% of workers affected by an increase. Similarly, 13.4% of the total workforce is Hispanic, but Hispanics are 19.7% of workers affected by an increase.
- Although households in the bottom 20% received only 5.1% of national income, 38.1% of the benefits of a minimum wage increase to $7.25 would go to these workers. The majority of the benefits (58.5%) of an increase would go to families with working, prime-aged adults in the bottom 40% of the income distribution.
- Between 1979 and 1989, the minimum wage lost 31% of its real value. By contrast, between 1989 and 1997 (the year of the most recent increase), the minimum wage was raised four times and recovered about one-third of the value it lost in the 1980s. Also, the minimum wage is 33% of the average hourly wage of American workers, the lowest level since 1949.
- The inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage is 26% lower in 2004 than it was in 1979. The effect of the last minimum wage increase in 1996-97 has been completely eroded by inflation.
- A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates). [Similar results were seen in a 1990-91 study.]
Overall, the evidence appears to suggest that minorities, women, and single parent households would greatly benefit from the increase in the federal minimum wage. Plus, little evidence exists to suggest that businesses are harmed by raising the minimum wage. In fact "employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale."
I looked at the EPI, and they are nonprofit and nonpartisan.
On a side note they are preparing another extensive look at the $860 billion of Bush's tax cuts, and the preliminary result is that the "excessive permanent deficits...have lowered our future standard of living."
Loganite, is this a new record for comments?
Yes, this is a new record, with 13 posts (more than one-third) coming just today, Jan. 8.
I have enjoyed the debate, but I would again emphasize that a good forum relies on discourse being genial and reasoned. Attacking people does not get your point accepted. Shouting it does not make it more believable. Repeating it does not make it more truthful.
Minimum wage comments welcome. Or, let's move on. Next topic?
-- L.
Ah, finally Andrew, the college freshman, comes with some data. Let me poke some holes in your argument, AC.
Point: An increase in wages means an increase in demand for product (the theory being that if people will have money to spend they will spend it).
Counterpoint: This does not account for the spending of money that does not affect the purchase of goods, such as saving or paying off debt.
Point: The increase of wage inxreases the variable costs and decreases the amount of goods a business can supply, both driving up costs.
Counterpoint: It is hard to measure this because the government simultaneously establishes the minimum wage and exempts certain groups from paying it. The wage does not cover all jobs, and the government typically has not applied it to small business with total employees under a certain number.
You say that the government cannot simultaneously fight inflation and improve worker wages. Admittedly, inflation is a mild result of a wage increase. However, inflation is also a natural part of a capitalist economy, which the government also tries to control through adjustments to interest rates. Also, to reduce the impact on businesses, the government can increase its spending by offering incentives such as job training, contracts or tax breaks to businesses. Finally, your argument that inflation affects all consumers, where unemployment affects a small percentage is a gross simplification. Unemployment affects all taxpayers because we are the ones who pay for social services for the unemployed or underemployed: unemployment insurance, health care benefits, food and housing assistance, job counseling and training.
The alternative to inflation, deflation, would be even more disastrous to the economy. Such a situation could occur if, for example, a business had "priced itself out of the market" because the customers were no longer able to afford the goods or services offered. Why would they be unable to afford these? Presumably because they were not being paid adequately.
Even from a fiscally conservative position, one can see how increasing the minimum wage would benefit the overall economy because workers would have more to spend. Even though prices may also increase, so would profit. Also, there would be less need for government assistance programs because workers would be more able to afford health care or food and housing for their families.
If I owned a business where employees were paid more than the minimum wage, I would be beating the drum hard to increase the minimum wage. The number of employees to become unemployed as a result of cost-cutting by a business would likely be offset by another business hiring because business is booming.
-- L.
Nicely done, Crollard.
But, how do you combat the study's findings that "higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale" can be fringe benefits of increasing employee wages? Is it possible that the raise in wages could actually be a boon for more people than not raising the minimum wage?
Plus, do we not pay for those unemployed because we (tax payers) essentially pay for the programs supporting the unemployed?
Just a couple thoughts to consider.
Dangit, Loganite!
You beat me on here with the unemployment point. Whiile I was typing, you were posting. I take solace in the fact that we're thinking alike.
Wow! We're getting Latin lessons. First, ad hominem. And now, ceteris paribus. I'm impressed.
Ok, I've finished my research for my classes and I'm signing off. Good night and good luck!
Should we really spend more money on taxes for programs to help the poor? Should we really push for a higher minimum wage because there is no other option for those living in poverty?
Here's some stats from the Census Bureau
— Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning.
— Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded.
— The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
— Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
— Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
— Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_20_51/ai_56220678
So we can now say that most people living in poverty make enough money to feed their family AND to pay for all of these things. Time for a little reform on minimum wage and government aid? For some reason, I doubt Dr.Pezz and count fergula will agree.
I usually am loathe to respond to Adam because it always seems to prompt allegations of attacks. However, I am puzzled. The household amenities seem pretty standard and not luxurious for the time. I mean, heck, what home doesn't have a microwave today? They cost maybe $100. A VCR or DVD player is $50 to $75. Cable costs about $15 per month for basic hookup. As for square footage, no one would rent the apartments or houses if they were the size of European living spaces, and air conditioning could just include a wall unit.
My point is that these are not luxuries.
Also, there is in America today what we call the working poor. These are people who just scrape to get by. Maybe they have a car, but it is unreliable or older or shared. Maybe that second car doesn't even work.
I don't think someone can assume that just because a person is classified as poor that he or she is receiving government assistance, and if so, is bilking the system.
-- L.
My point is that the vast majority of people living in poverty today are able to afford to feed their family (according to the website, only 3 percent of the poor say they often do not have enough to eat) and to buy things they don't need.
This is also interesting.
"...a recent medical study of low-income black and Hispanic students in Central Harlem found a full quarter to be 'obese,' and more than half of these to be 'super-obese.' "
More free lunch, please.
I find it interesting that when I googled some of Adam's statistics, Google suggested an article with all of the same stats on the Fox news Website. It's written by a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
To put some of these statistics into a larger context:
In 2004, 69.1 percent of households nationwide owned their on homes. Clearly, the poor are lagging behind the American average in home ownership.
Before talking about overcrowding, it is important to know that the Census Bureau defines housing as "overcroweded" if there is a person-to-room ratio of more than 1:1. So, that means I could have 7 people living in my 900-square foot condo and not be considred overcrowded. And the 300-square foot apartment I lived in in DC wouldn't have been overcrowded unless there were three (Three!) people living there.
As far as I'm concerned, it's shocking that 6 percent of the poor live in conditions the government considers overcrowded. I think most of us would agree that our own personal measure of overcrowding would be far lower.
As for your statistics about consumer goods: According to the US Commerce department, 98 percent of American homes have a television and 85 percent have a VCR. 95 percent of American homes have a microwave (www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/98/7.9.98/microwaves). The Consumer Electronics Association says 87 percent of homes have cable or sattelite tv.
As one might expect, the poor lag behind the rest of Americans when it comes to having these items in their homes.
Contrast Adam's statistics with these from Habitat from Humanity:
"5.1 million American families have "worst-case" housing needs, forced to pay more than half their income for housing, endure overcrowded conditions and/or live in houses with severe physical deficiencies. While the number of families in poverty is growing, the number of affordable rental units is shrinking, and most families who qualify for government housing assistance aren't receiving any aid."
and
"To afford the fair-market price of the average U.S. two-bedroom rental unit, renters working full-time need to earn at least $15.28 per hour. That's almost three times the current federal minimum wage."
and
"For the 14.8 million U.S. households that make $10,000 or less per year, a year's rent costs about 70 percent of their annual income."
That's why the minimum wage needs to be higher. If people can spend less of their income on housing, they will have more of it for other things, like health insurance, better quality food, and eudcation.
Adam,
Have you not attacked my sources, accusing me of using left leaners to back up points?
You used a conservative journal. I would expect you to use nonpartisan sources as I endeavored to do in order to eliminate any hint of impropriety, in this case using a source people could attack for its leanings. I think you may wish to find a neutral source as well.
I think Loganite and Fergula countered some the statistics you provided, though I think most (if not all) are accurate but may need some explanation regarding how they were derived.
Regardless, it's good to see more studies and articles to back up opinions.
So what if they were posted on a conservative journal? The statistics and findings are straight from the U.S. Census Beureau. Are they biased? What about Habitat from Humanity? Are most people who qualify for government aid not receiving it because there's a problem in the system or because they feel they don't need it and can get by?
And sure we can keep raising the minimum wage...but businesses aren't an endless supply of money and by all means need to maximize their profits in every (legal) way possible.
Adam thinks poor people are doing well.
That is awesome.
Please, Adam. Write more.
Post a Comment