Politics – Flexing their muscle, House Democrats powered toward passage Wednesday of a boost in the federal minimum wage that would increase paychecks for hundreds of thousands of janitors, fast food clerks and other workers at the bottom of the income scale.
It won't hurt the economy. It will go back into the economy. What hurts the economy is having to pay medical care for people who can't afford to go to the DR.
I agree that it won't hurt the economy. But that's the argument always given.
And yep, that's another reason for universal health care, eh?
You might have half a point about universal health care IF the US government were actually capable of doing something well besides TAKING PEOPLE'S MONEY AND WASTING MOST OF IT!!!!!
My Doctor is a Canadian by birth, training and experience, who immigrated to the US because of the horrific nature of the Canadian so-called universal health care system. If you could hear his stories, you might think twice about advocating such a system for the USA, eh?
vette - do you or do you NOT agree that its disgraceful that the richest, most medically advanced country on earth is the ONLY industrialized, or western country that does NOT have some kind of national healthcare?
do you or do you NOT agree thats its a disgrace that we have a higher percentage of uninsured citizens than ANY of those countries?
do you or do you NOT agree thats is national disgrace that a huge percentage of those uninsured citizens are children?
do you truly believe that NO system is better than an imperfect system when it comes to helping our fellow citizens?
"My Doctor is a Canadian by birth, training and experience, who immigrated to the US because of the horrific nature of the Canadian so-called universal health care system. If you could hear his stories, you might think twice about advocating such a system for the USA, eh?"
Your doctor is in the US not because he wants to help you, but because he can enhance his wealth. In Canada everyone has basic health care, some have additional perks through company benifits. Those that don't get this through other social programs. I perfer to help my fellow citizens through my tax dollars , than see them do without. Having healthcare for everyone is good for the country as well as the individual.
After watching those who live in Ivory towers dictate to the back bone of America what we should be earning is like the ice dictating to the Sun how hot it should be .It remains a fact that a product is sold on merit,even if a glut exists it will remain on the market even if at a lower $ ammt or even be a loss leader.Marketing power and strategies keep an honest company afloat and the more that is sold over time gives that company the ability to pay steady employees more !We need to keep the Govt. OUT of Business in America and let competetiveness make the balance.
There's a HUGE difference between giving that company "the ability," as you say, to pay steady employeees more and making that company pay steady employees more. Most companies won't do it on their own.
Don't even start with the free-market "competitiveness." If Congress hadn't started passing anti-trust legislation early in the 20th century, corporations would set both wages and prices however they wanted, and millions would starve. The welfare of the people would not be protected.
It's a good point to keep the government out of business. The only question that I have is, when do you think the government should butt in? Price gouging? Unfair labor practices? Monopoly or collusion? Defrauding stockholders?
Government should stay out of business decisions and only involve itself when those decisions are detrimental to society and to the country's defense.
Another point is that government should not take sides in management/labor negotiations or restrict employees or stockholders from excersing their rights to organize and express their grivances.
One of the best things that was passed in 2005 was the fact that small businesses where able to deduct their medical insurance costs, which allowed some to provide group health insurance to all employees.
The government should butt in in the case of every question you asked, loverman.
Don't management/labor negotiations sometimes have to do with unfair labor practices? And do strikes count as expressing their greivances?
But as long as you brought up health insurance, I've always wondered: why are businesses in the business (so to speak) of providing health insurance? I know many out here don't like the idea of government-run health insurance, but wouldn't this take much of the burden off of businesses? And wouldn't it make more sense than having your healthcare tied to your job?
I've always wondered: why are businesses in the business (so to speak) of providing health insurance? I know many out here don't like the idea of government-run health insurance, but wouldn't this take much of the burden off of businesses?>>>>>
Health benefits is good business. It draws good people in markets that are competitive. And, when you get insurance as a group, it's cheaper. The insurance can be counted as part of the pay package, whereas if you just gave a straight salary and the employee had to buy insurance on their own, they'd end up bringing home less.
As for having healthcare tied to your job, many states have laws that if you want to continue your health benefits when leaving a job, you can. Not sure if you'd have to pay the higher cost or not, but the insurance company can't drop you unless you don't start paying on your own. This is good for people who may be redlined, without the protection of group coverage.
Yes--providing health benefits can be helpful in attracting good employees. But I was asking whether it wouldn't make more sense for the government to take that over.
Businesses can always find more incentives, but in a national healthcare system, the employee would pay the same or less than he is now--due in part to the drastic reduction in eliminating advertising/marketing costs of private insurers, for a start.
COBRA laws cover ex-employees for 18 months--they cannot be dropped from their group program, but their employers are not required to pay for any part of their premiums. And, you're right, it's good for people who are redlined--to a point. Some workers have disabilities that keep employers from hiring them, but are not severe enough to receive Social Security disability payments. They're essentially unemployable, and can get no insurance.
the dems are at work. good job!! and this time the repubs didn't tie it to more tax breaks for the unneedy.
I think you missed the part where bush is for it as long as there are tax breaks included.
I saw that part and I thought that maybe it is time to see how many will really vote for this and lets see if we can get enough of the repubs to overide a veto on board.
let him veto it then. almost nothing would speak as loud for whose side the repubs are on as bush vetoing the min wage bill.
the Dems should pass everything they want now so that Dubya will veto it all .... then crucify the Reps with it in 2008... make King George show his true colors... make him veto min wags raise, nat'l healthcare, election reform, environmental reform, etc, etc... maybe then, the last non millionaire Dubya apologists will FINALLY realize that King George and his court dont care a d@mn about them, cept when they need their vote
Hmmmm so the companies that pay their employees minimum wage, with negligible raises or benefits should continue to get richer; while those same poor employees have to work 2 or 3 jobs just to get by?
I'm not talking about them working that many jobs to be able to afford a nice new car, or a vacation once a year, or high end clothes; I'm talking about just getting by. About being able to go to bed and know their house payment is made, that their electric isn't going to be shut off in the morning, and feeding their kids instead of telling them that there isn't anything to eat.
The minimum wage needs to be raised. It won't cure a whole lot, but it will help some. There should be some sort of cap on inflation. These companies that have CEO's retiring with billion dollar packages are ridiculous. There is really no one in my opinion worth that much.
Greed is the great evil. When is enough, enough?
Not a member? Sign-up today!
round-up
woodywood20
IdaTRange
roughtouch
foxtrotcrew
dr_martin
grisha5
NormanSWofford
followme
Alexey
uncogito
kate.moss
siropel
Varadinum
ironnick
carlife
ldstennisgeek
wonkydonkey
kriicket
MyWayOnNow
HektorofTroy
lasz17
ladykatharine
eternalsky
antmanbee
zaphod
Ciera Marie
jimstaro
samsara15
moortiez
331)
The statement is always made that increasing the minimum wage will hurt the economy. Why, at least, do we not adjust this for inflation? Since prices are going up anyway, doesn't that mean those getting revenue for higher priced goods are getting more $$$ (or at least, the same amount based on inflation) while those making the mininum get less every year based on inflation?
And it should not, stagflation 1973-1980 was the begining of the end for working people making a living wage. 3 or 4 yrs. ago the minimun wage adjusted for inflation, cost of living(haha), etc. should have been $14.75/hr.
The average rent one payed was proportional to one week's wages not two and one half or more.
Everything is skewed against the working class. Hence, the disparity between the have's and have not's. Greed for immorally high profit margins is the rule for today.
It wasn't always that way. But the days of employee loyalty are long gone because the companies broke the social contract- an honest day's wage for an honest day's work.
I firmly believe that the only immediate to the worsening economic conditions is to return to the fundamental union philosophy before corruption set in.
God bless Samuel Gompers!
How is this a logical end?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of 'logic' - you are confusing it with 'extreme.' They are not talking about raising wages ad infinitum, but adjusting them in line with inflation so in real terms 'an honest day's pay for an honest day's work' means that someone working a fulltime job can afford the increasing prices of rent, bills, goods and services.
But maybe you think that being poor is a moral issue - that somehow those who are financially less well-off are architects of their own fates and should therefore be punished in some way? That working two badly-paid jobs is in some way not having the 'drive' to get rich?
It's like swimming a current, let me tell you - expending all your energy just to stay in one place. And before you bring out the 'work smarter, not harder' mantra - how far do you trust the public educational system as it affects the working classes?
Nicely put Shev, but remember, his name is JustTROLLKing for a reason.
Don't feed the trolls. ;)
The public education system should not be trusted(I work in it). Historicaly, public education was a tool to relieve the under employment problem; by removing minors there was more room in the sweat shops for workers who as adults would'nt dare complain and then be accused of not caring enough for their own families.
So, where are we 100 yrs. later? Educational tracking, the logistics demand a work force that although able, may not rise to the top, for this would squeeze out postions of the previosly wealthy for their kiddies.
Middle/Jr. high schools are the vehicle for this atrocity. I've been victim to it. I've been a fierce advocate for my own child against it. Any parent who does not monitor their childs academic progress and allows the school to delude them into thinking all is well is condeming their child to a lower standard of life after school.
thats right, everyone who isnt rich is just lazy and lacking ambition... ppssttt, the REAL world is over there --->
At first glance the minimum wage laws sound like a good idea, but they are not. While it is true it raises the wages of some, farm workers and restaurant workers are exempt from being paid the minimum wage. Not only that but the MINIMUM WAGE only benefits large companies and even larger corporations. They can always afford to pay the minimum wage and feel no justification for raises since they simply need to replace their workers.
Not to misunderstand. I feel for the person who tries to survive on either the minimum wage or even below, but passing laws like this is not the solution. It is indexing, which means you will never break out of the cycle unless you figure out how to get away from a job that is defined and covered by the minium wage. Ask anyone on welfare. The system tries to and often makes you a slave to it. You're trapped.
We aren't talking about illegal immigrant workers or waitresses who get tips, we are talking about janitors and fast food workers.
I guess your answer is to just keep the poor as poor as possible, no chance of advancement. Someone has to be a janitor, someone has to be a fast food clerk, someone has to do the menial jobs that others are too qualified to do.
If we didn't have janitors, who would keep airport bathrooms clean, or empty the garbage on your job?
We have all been a slave to our jobs at some point regardless of the pay, so why not let these people make more money?
You have the Federal Reserve, IRS and the judicial system to thank for the "New American Slave Trade".
-V-
ronin: You must be speaking for yourself.
You certainly DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME!!!!!
I live in the United States of America, where (at least for now) those with initiative and only modest abilities can advance themselves, follow their passions, and ignore those with depressing, self-limiting and self-defeating attitudes.
hogwash!!! another "if youre poor its YOUR fault" elitist...
you do make ONE point that is correct... the one about advancing with only modest abilities... apparently in politics, even those with way less than modest abilities can advance, the current resident of the White House is living proof.
As long as you have a level playing field I agree with you. But if you are granted a scholarship, a position, or a job based solely because of your money, your sex, or your race, you've now no longer a level playing field. It doesn't matter which way you run that ball either.
I once saw a proposal from a State legislator about College tuition. If you received an A in the class you recieved 100% of your tuition back, a B you received 50%, C or below nothing. That levels the playing field between the rich and the poor. When I found out the military would pay for 2/3 of my tuition as long as I got a B or better in the classes, I didn't wait for the GI bill. I jumped on that like a Robin on a worm!
But if you are too far down on the social scale, what you say is nearly impossible any more. Twenty or thirty years ago you could, but even government student loans now are ridiculously high in percentage rates. My credit cards are cheaper than their rates.
The people who earn minimum wage do NOT save money. They spend it. Every increase in minimum wage is always followed by increased spending which, in a consumer driven economy, ALWAYS benefits the economy as a whole. For all you super rich people out there....don't worry....you'll still be able to have the $1 value menu at all the traditional fast food places.
You know why they don't save? Mostly they can't afford to. Minimum wage covers living costs, with precious little left over - and if someone wants to distract themselves from their life and the realisation that they are unlikely to be able to break out of this cycle by drinking or smoking the extra - who are you to judge that?
I cannot stand this right-wing view that wealth is somehow a moral issue - that those who are rich deserve every penny, and those who are poor are architects of their own fate and deserve punishment.
Hmmm could it be they spend it buying what they couldn't before? Like ummmm new underwear, food, clothes, a vehicle that runs without a wing and a prayer.........
The list goes on. I can't believe that everyone in here is sooooooo well off that you can't understand the hardships of those with less than you. I also can't believe that all of you in here grew up with so much that you can't understand. To be sure some of you grew up with nothing, and can remember what its like. If not, ask your parents. I'm sure they aren't too proud to tell you how it was or could be.
There are people out there that struggle everyday for their next meal, the gas to get to work, the ability to feed their kids a lil extra, and it seems you believe they are that way just because they squander their money. Grow up and open your eyes. Those circumstances really exist, and not always because they don't budget correctly.
See the world for what it is, not what you think it is.
not2needy: Please re-read LordyLordy's post--he's not at all saying what you say he says.
The answer to providing opportunities to those making low wages is to provide opportunities, not to coddle them in their present situation by making it more comfortable. Those who take advantage of the opportunities in front of them will find avenues leading to better-paying jobs.
The vast majority of those making minimum wage do so for only a portion of their lives--they are transitioning into the work force, to other, better jobs, or they make gobs of money via tips along with their "minimum wage."
The worst thing we can do for them is to lessen the incentive for self-improvement.
And please don't tell me I don't know that of which I am speaking--I have worked minimum-wage jobs as a college graduate in all three of the life-situations I listed above. I advanced while at the minimum-wage job, I re-prepared myself, and I moved on to better things!!!
You're a college graduate. That means that you have the economic wherewithal to go through the higher education system, which even in our relatively (to the USA, that is) egalitarian educational system in the UK, still excludes a massive amount of the population. Doing a minimum wage job doesn't qualify you to judge the huge numbers of people who have few options but to perform the tasks that you, as a college graduate, presumably feel to be below you. If everyone was to 'improve' themselves in the ways you suggest, we would still have someone working the same jobs - they'd just require more qualifications to do so.
I find this comment particularly offensive: " The worst thing we can do for them is to lessen the incentive for self-improvement." Maybe, just maybe, they don't feel they need 'improving.' Maybe 'they' (you know, the peasants who you so clearly distance yourself from with this word) just want a living wage, a fair wage for doing the jobs that society deems menial
I have to disagree. While I was in High School and College I worked several part-time jobs. I worked for Kroger, Taco Bell, Papa John's Pizza, and Donato's Pizza. At each of these jobs I made NO MORE than $6 per hour. However, during this time I also worked for several locally owned small businesses. I made no less than $7.25/hour and actually made $9/hour at one job. If you ask me, the larger corporations are the ones who will be hurt by this the most, as the small companies already pay their workers more than minimum wage because they are looking for more reliable employees, whereas the larger corporations would rather pay low wages and have a high turnover rate than give raises to keep good employees. At donato's and papa john's, a large portion of the manager's bonus check was based on how little they spent on labor costs, so by not giving raises, they are essentially making more for themselves.
Good post.
The purpose of the minimum wage is insure that a full time working man or woman does not live in abject povery by today's standards of poverty. It is inherent in the dignity of doing work that someone should be able to live, albiet not particularly comfortably working at minimum wage.
Since minimum wage has not changed since 1997, it's buying power has eroded terribly. This adjustment puts minimum wage back in line with it's 1997 buying power.
As for minimum wage rules harming the economy? I doubt it. When more money is given to those who have the least, they generally spend it immediately. Companies tend to hoard cash for aquisitions and so on.
The minimum wage increase will be a boon to our economy, have no doubt about that.
Adjusting for this inflation would just cause more inflation, and soon enough those who were making minimum wage before will be making, in effect, the same amount as they were before. As the minimum wage rises more and more people would fall into making minimum wage.
For those of you who are thinking that only those with minimum wages would be affected, think of this. Let's say there is a man who has been working at Wal*Mart for 5 years now and is making $8.00/hour (I stretched it a lot, but stick with me) and there's a new guy who makes $5.15 an hour. The minimum wage is risen and then the new guy has to make $8.00/hour by law. What happens to the senior employee's wages? Do they rise or stay the same
I always wondered why congress always resorts to temporary fixes to the issue by raising the minimum wage rather than a more permanent solution of indexing it to something (such as the cpi or inflation rate). But then again they are politicians, not problem solvers.
Good post maxdiputs2.
your suggestion is right on target... minimum wage should be tied to inflation, and should be subject to YEARLY COLAs (Cost Of Living Adjustments)