If the minimum wage is raised, there will be more unemployment and less growth, but low level workers will be paid more.

From a moral standpoint, I don't think that anyone, even the State, should be allowed to force anyone to do anything, unless of course they have already forfieted their rights by breaking laws.

From a practical standpoint, I think that more employment would be better, at least everyone has something to put in their pockets. Besides, pay should reflect productivity, not the whim of some distant legislature.

The thing about minimum wage that one has to keep in mind is that it really isn't intended to be a wage to live off of. It's a starter wage. Something geared toward those who don't have marketable skills or experience.

although it is fitting to want people to earn a decent pay for a decent days work - the minimum wage does not achieve even that.

For starters - the mimum wage is not a livable wage anyway.

The argument that a mimimum wage increase helps poor people is false. History has shown that it simply results in more of them being unemployed. Only a small % of workers lie at the end of the scale where mimimum wage is an issue. For them carte blanche increases only results in employers laying off workers and or looking for more productive workers if they are forced to pay more than the market demands. Every single increase in minimum wage has dramatically resulted in layoffs for this group of workers, which comprise of highly unskilled untalented workers and teenagers.

Mimimum wage increases creates an increase of cost for zero return in productivity gain. It is the natural tendancy of all companies to pay more anyway as workers become more valuable and productive. That is the best way for any worker to be guaranteed a livable wage.

The federal government has no business setting wages in a free market economy.

This is a good example of the insane choices capitalism presents us: raise the terrible minimum wage to lift people out of poverty, but put many out of work, or create more low-paying jobs.

Joy!

Originally posted by Deepest Red
This is a good example of the insane choices capitalism presents us: raise the terrible minimum wage to lift people out of poverty, but put many out of work, or create more low-paying jobs.

Instead we should just pay everyone the same. Everyone will be happy!

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Instead we should just pay everyone the same. Everyone will be happy!

Not Johnny Workharder, while he gets paid the same as Bill Slackoff ;)

This is a good example of the insane choices capitalism presents us: raise the terrible minimum wage to lift people out of poverty, but put many out of work, or create more low-paying jobs.

When people on minimum wage can afford color televisions, cars, and apartments I do not classify it as "terrible".

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
The thing about minimum wage that one has to keep in mind is that it really isn't intended to be a wage to live off of. It's a starter wage. Something geared toward those who don't have marketable skills or experience. Great post. Minimum wage should be an incentive to employed people to work harder/get more education so that the words "minimum wage" are never in their professional vocabulary again.

MYTH # 1 concerning the minimum wage;

MYTH--- "Raising the minimum wage will hurt the very people it is intended to help by forcing layoffs and causing low-wage job losses."


FACTS; There is a consensus among contemporary economists that moderate increases in the minimum wage do not lead to job loss.

* Four Nobel prize-winning economists were joined by 558 other economists in signing a letter supporting an increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.00 per hour in 2004. Their letter states, "We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effects that critics have claimed."

* The Council of Economic Advisers stated in the 1999 Economic Report of the President that "the weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the minimum wage have had very little or no effect on employment."

* Following the most recent federal minimum wage increase in 1996 the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades. Noted labor economist Jared Bernstein argued before Congress that "the fact that employment and earnings opportunities of low-wage workers grew so quickly following that increase continues to pose a daunting challenge to those who still maintain that minimum wage increases hurt their intended beneficiaries.

MYTH # 2 concerning the minimum wage;

MYTH--- "Raising the minimum wage will hurt small business"


FACT: There is ample contemporary research that casts a long shadow of doubt over the contention that raising minimum wage will hurt small business. Jerold Waltman examined the relationship between business failures and minimum wage increases. He found that "there seems to be no discernible correlation between minimum wage increases and a rise in business failures, either in the year the increase occurred or in the following year. If anything, the evidence leans the other way." (page 221, Politics of the Minimum Wage, University of Illinois Press).
A 2004 study by the Fiscal Policy Institute examined the impact of minimum wage increases on small businesses. Their analysis focused on various outcomes for businesses with less than 50 employees, comparing outcomes in states with minimum wages higher than federal level to those with minimums at the federal level. They found that:

* Between 1998 and 2001, the number of small business establishments grew twice as quickly in states with higher minimum wages;

* Retail employment grew 1.5 times more quickly in high minimum wage states; and,

* Annual and average payroll growth was faster in higher minimum wage states.

Their analysis, like others, does not conclude that increasing the minimum wage will boost employment growth over what it otherwise would have been. Nonetheless, the report points out that "What does seem to be clear…is that it is hard to sustain the argument made by some observers that an increase in the minimum wage will result in adverse aggregate employment outcomes."

Certainly, there are some individual businesses that could be disadvantaged by increasing the minimum wage. But, in general, any negative impacts are likely to be so small that they would be undetectable at a macro level.

The thing that some of you are forgetting is that a person doing a job in Pee town might get payed more if he lived in a city. So it really isn't all about who is working harder. I know garbage men in my area that make 300-400 a week where if they where in a city they could easily double that and not have to work as hard.

Also if minimum wage is less then a living for a single person then how would companys like kmart sears etc... make their profit? Pay workers more and they will buy more it's a never ending situation. Now we also have the cost of life, with gas going up that means everything else goes up so in order to keep folks working their wages need to go up.

When people on minimum wage can afford color televisions, cars, and apartments I do not classify it as "terrible".

That's swell for you, but I make more than minimum wage and can't afford the first two at the moment.

However, I will start working a second job next week, and then I'll be able to afford a new vehicle . . . and to keep my girlfriend. ;)

Originally posted by Evakian
Not Johnny Workharder, while he gets paid the same as Bill Slackoff ;)

Yeah, let's keep that fear of homelessness and hunger on them at all times, or people will suddenly lose all interest in constructive activities and society will collapse.

People would surely not work as hard if they had guaranteed economic security. But that's not such a bad thing. . . there's nothing wrong with leisure time, time with your family, which many workers have no chance to have right now, especially in the USA.

And the problem with arguing as Evakian did, by analogy, is that everyone could do the same: pay everyone the same and soon people are lifted out of poverty and anti-social crime disappears.

Minimum wage goes up, cost of living goes up to pay it.
Where is the profit in this?

Minimum wage has been suspended for the Katrina clean-up so Halliburton can bring in cheap labor from you-know-where and make mega-profits.

This will be the new look for america -- no wage protection and if you don't like it, move aside and make room for someone that does.

Of course small changes in the minimum wage don't cause much economic harm - because it's pretty rare that people are making the minimum wage - few people will work for it. I don't have a problem with increasing the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, it's when the talk of increasing it to a living wage starts up that I get bent out of shape.

Yeah, let's keep that fear of homelessness and hunger on them at all times, or people will suddenly lose all interest in constructive activities and society will collapse.

The homeless are by and large mentally ill, which is definitely a problem, but homelessness is not a problem faced by anyone with the ability to fill out some forms at a government agency. And starvation of the type known in other countries is more or less gone from this country. But you're pretty much right about all productive endeavors ending.

People would surely not work as hard if they had guaranteed economic security. But that's not such a bad thing. . . there's nothing wrong with leisure time, time with your family, which many workers have no chance to have right now, especially in the USA.

Usually by their own choice - way too many people let their vacation go unused. But that's their choice.

And the problem with arguing as Evakian did, by analogy, is that everyone could do the same: pay everyone the same and soon people are lifted out of poverty and anti-social crime disappears.

If there's one common theme among all of the recent attempts at workers' paradises in the last 100 years it's that they all had standards of living that were vast amounts lower than similarly situated non-socialist/communist countries. Working conditions were ironically pretty crappy too.

The homeless are by and large mentally ill, which is definitely a problem, but homelessness is not a problem faced by anyone with the ability to fill out some forms at a government agency. And starvation of the type known in other countries is more or less gone from this country. But you're pretty much right about all productive endeavors ending.

Yes, they're 'mentally ill' as a result of living in terrible conditions, quite a tautology. I've done some work on the streets helping homeless, and most I met were 'insane' as a result of living downtrodden lives and or day laborers, black, american indian or vietnam veterans.

If there's one common theme among all of the recent attempts at workers' paradises in the last 100 years it's that they all had standards of living that were vast amounts lower than similarly situated non-socialist/communist countries. Working conditions were ironically pretty crappy too.

And another common theme is that all of the socialist countries were built in non-industrialized, former third-world colonies . . . and that these socialist regimes were vast improvements on the shit that preceeded them. That's simply beyond argument.

Nothing exists in a vacuum; the Bolsheviks cannot be blamed for existing in a fuedel society ruled by Czars.

And another common theme is that all of the socialist countries were built in non-industrialized, former third-world colonies . . . and that these socialist regimes were vast improvements on the shit that preceeded them. That's simply beyond argument.

That's nonsense. The Soviet Union was given a transnational railroad, a gigantic labor force, abundant natural rescorces, an industrial base built by the Czars, and some of the best farmland in the world and they STILL couldn't prevent famine, poverty, and misery.

India had an excellent rail and industrial system built by the British as well as an extensive education but little or no progress has been made, despite the billions of dollars that have flowed into the country.

North and South Korea were equal in their development at the time of seperation but today North Korea is still in extensive poverty while the very poorest of South Korea are far richer then the richest in North Korea.

Great Britian had the largest empire that the world had ever seen, but their "peaceful experiment in socialism" failed so miserably that they had to scrap it.

India had an excellent rail and industrial system built by the British as well as an extensive education but little or no progress has been made, despite the billions of dollars that have flowed into the country.

I agree that you're a 'nutjob'; anyone who could accept at face value that the British were ever 'peaceful' or attempting to build socialism must be. A bourgeois society run by a monarchy is 'socialism'. Oooookaay.

As far as India . . . the British gave them some wonderful things, such as the worst poverty and hunger the world's ever seen. Yes, truly wonderful, those fucking ungrateful wogs!

Back to Russia: I don't know what you've been reading, but according to all sources I've read the russian revolution destroyed the Czar and fudelism . . .setting the stage for industrialization.

Russia had only a few areas with industry, the modern working class was insignificant. The majority of the population were still illiterate serfs.

And yet the Russians accomplished in just a few generations what it took the west 200 or more years to accomplish. I don't uphold the Bolsheviks, nor do I consider their experiment to be truly socialist (more like USSR Inc).

And I have no idea what your reference to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is supposed to mean . . . they don't even claim to be Marxist. Their ideology is called Juche.

I agree that you're a 'nutjob'; anyone who could accept at face value that the British were ever 'peaceful' or attempting to build socialism must be. A bourgeois society run by a monarchy is 'socialism'. Oooookaay.

Actually, after the end of WW2 Britian began its "Peaceful Experiment in Socialism", during this time the Labor Party ruled the parliment. Health, Steel, Coal, Transit, Communications, Automotive, and other industries were nationalized. Social Security payments went through the roof as well as taxes. The British Government even tried to control what jobs people could hold, read up on the "brain drain" for more info.

As far as India . . . the British gave them some wonderful things, such as the worst poverty and hunger the world's ever seen. Yes, truly wonderful, those fucking ungrateful wogs!

Oh come now, I don't support Imperialism but the British did leave the sub-continent with a powerful economic base. Their transportation infastructure was built as well as several key export industries. India hardly had it tough after independence.

Back to Russia: I don't know what you've been reading, but according to all sources I've read the russian revolution destroyed the Czar and fudelism . . .setting the stage for industrialization.

Industrialization in Russia was begun by Alexander III who didn't want the Russian military falling behind the west in terms of strength. Every Czar up to Nicholas II continued this, in addition to creating a railroad spanning the country. Russia had a base in industry when the revolution occured.

Russia had only a few areas with industry, the modern working class was insignificant. The majority of the population were still illiterate serfs.

Serfdom was abolished by the later Czars, they were illiterate, but literacy was not needed for the industries of the time.

And yet the Russians accomplished in just a few generations what it took the west 200 or more years to accomplish. I don't uphold the Bolsheviks, nor do I consider their experiment to be truly socialist (more like USSR Inc).

The "West" was industrialized by the American Civil War, only half a century after the Industrial Revolution began. Russia still isn't industrialized to this day.

And I have no idea what your reference to the Democratic pople's Republic of Korea is supposed to mean . . . they don't even claim to be Marxist. Their ideology is called Juche.

Kim Sung Il got his ideas from the Russians, who were marxists.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Minimum wage goes up, cost of living goes up to pay it.
Where is the profit in this?

Dan I want to ask in which order does this happen? I think you could reverse your sentence, cost of living, then minimum wage. I'm sure most northern folks would agree the cost of life goes up at a regular pace. Our wonderfull oil folks{politicains included} are making sure of this. In order for Joe Minimum to keep living he either has to do or die. I live in a beautiful area, but the pay scale for people sucks. When I drove truck for______ company{back in the early 90's} I would have to travel to NY city. Same company driving and delivering the same thing but atleast a $10.00 per hr difference in pay. At the time I knew it cost more to live in the city but not $10.00 more per hr. I think if it weren't for the minimum wage we would turn back in time to slave labor.

It's interesting, I think, to look at what happend to the two Germanys after WWII. They were both largely destroyed, they were both industrialized before the war, and they both had skilled labor forces. One grew into an economic power producing advanced cars, airplanes, etc. The other one produced plastic bodied 30hp Trabants that didn't work most of the time but people waited years to get because they had no other choice. One country sprouted a Green party and the other one had a thick layer of pollution hanging over it.

Originally posted by mad dog
Dan I want to ask in which order does this happen?

When the minimum wage increases (significantly), inflation increases because there's an overall increase in the amount of available spending cash. More demand for goods causes higher prices.

It's interesting, I think, to look at what happend to the two Germanys after WWII. They were both largely destroyed, they were both industrialized before the war, and they both had skilled labor forces. One grew into an economic power producing advanced cars, airplanes, etc. The other one produced plastic bodied 30hp Trabants that didn't work most of the time but people waited years to get because they had no other choice. One country sprouted a Green party and the other one had a thick layer of pollution hanging over it.

There's a few reasons for that.

West Germany recieved a ton of investment from the USA, who had much more capital than the USSR, which was in bad shape after WWII (they lost something like 30 million people, and as president Kennedy described it, the equivelent of everything east of Chicago).

Another reason is that as the Red Army advanced, the Germans fled west . . .taking with them looted gold. They buried large deposits of gold and dug them up later, helping to finance their economic "miracle" recovery (Japan did the same thing with gold looted from Asia).

Also, right after the war, Stalin ordered all industrial machinery and resources to be systematically looted from Germany to help rebuild the USSR. The plan at the time was to deindustrialize the DDR, which was essentially later rebuilt (there's a good chapter about this in Beevor's book called Vae Victus).

And the final reason is that the US didn't spend as much time or energy hunting nazis . . . or rather, it absorbed a lot of nazi war criminals who were useful. Whereas the USSR eliminated 10% of the Nazi party, mostly the leadership, in post war hunting. The two states had different priorities. The USA wanted to create a consumer economy to upset the USSR, and the USSR was more concerned with eliminating fascism for good.

Actually, after the end of WW2 Britian began its "Peaceful Experiment in Socialism", during this time the Labor Party ruled the parliment. Health, Steel, Coal, Transit, Communications, Automotive, and other industries were nationalized. Social Security payments went through the roof as well as taxes. The British Government even tried to control what jobs people could hold, read up on the "brain drain" for more info.



I do know about this, but this isn't socialism. Socialism and nationalization aren't the same thing, nor is socialism possible to have under a monarchy or bourgeois parliament.

Industrialization in Russia was begun by Alexander III who didn't want the Russian military falling behind the west in terms of strength. Every Czar up to Nicholas II continued this, in addition to creating a railroad spanning the country. Russia had a base in industry when the revolution occured.



Russia still isn't industrialized to this day.

?

Originally posted by Deepest Red
There's a few reasons for that.

OK, that would explain why East Germany got off to a slow start, but doesn't explain why it never really got anywhere at all in 45 years.

Originally posted by Deepest Red
The USA wanted to create a consumer economy to upset the USSR, and the USSR was more concerned with eliminating fascism for good.

You say that as if the USSR's interest in getting rid of facism was altruistic instead of making sure that its firm grip on the government of East Germany was unchallenged.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
When the minimum wage increases (significantly), inflation increases because there's an overall increase in the amount of available spending cash. More demand for goods causes higher prices.

I see your point but the cost to live keeps climbing even when the minimum wage doesn't change. example the cost of fuel has gone nutz, it will cost folks in my area double{or more} for fuel oil this year. Most folks need heat and their main source is gas, oil electric etc... this cost went sky high without anything to do with minimum wage. Also everything we buy is effected by the price of fuel, fuel goes up the cost of living goes up which in turn makes minimum wage go up. If minimum wage is based on just getting by, buy only what one needs, then it will still have to go up just to keep up with the cost of staying alive. I've only used fuel as an example there are others insurance, taxes etc... Lets face it minimum wage is really a joke.

Does anyone know what the yearly earnings are for poverty, middle class, and rich {for a family of 4}?

Originally posted by mad dog
Lets face it minimum wage is really a joke.

As it is currently,........yes, it's a joke.

It has inno way kept an even pace with inflation.

It would have to be around 7 dollars just to be what it was in the 70,s, in constant dollars.

Originally posted by mad dog
Does anyone know what the yearly earnings are for poverty, middle class, and rich {for a family of 4}?


I believe the poverty level is 14,500 for a family of four.

There are no governmental distinctions that i'm aware of for what constitutes middle class and "rich".

Here are the 2004 HHS guidelines:

Poverty level (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/04poverty.shtml)

Originally posted by Deepest Red

The USA wanted to create a consumer economy to upset the USSR, and the USSR was more concerned with eliminating fascism for good.


LionelHutz:

You say that as if the USSR's interest in getting rid of facism was altruistic instead of making sure that its firm grip on the government of East Germany was unchallenged.

I don't argue with your line of reasoning, but the USSR was also motivated by clear revenge - they just lost tens of millions, remember? The USA was more interested in how nazi war criminals and scientists could be useful to building an empire.

West Germany recieved a ton of investment from the USA, who had much more capital than the USSR, which was in bad shape after WWII (they lost something like 30 million people, and as president Kennedy described it, the equivelent of everything east of Chicago).

Actually, the statistics show that Western countries effected by the Marshall Plan didn't start their recoveries until after the cash flow stopped, the Marshall Plan held Europe back.

Another reason is that as the Red Army advanced, the Germans fled west . . .taking with them looted gold. They buried large deposits of gold and dug them up later, helping to finance their economic "miracle" recovery (Japan did the same thing with gold looted from Asia).

Funny that people should flee from their selfless saviors...

Also, right after the war, Stalin ordered all industrial machinery and resources to be systematically looted from Germany to help rebuild the USSR. The plan at the time was to deindustrialize the DDR, which was essentially later rebuilt (there's a good chapter about this in Beevor's book called Vae Victus).

But the Russians still couldn't keep up with the West.

And the final reason is that the US didn't spend as much time or energy hunting nazis . . . or rather, it absorbed a lot of nazi war criminals who were useful. Whereas the USSR eliminated 10% of the Nazi party, mostly the leadership, in post war hunting. The two states had different priorities. The USA wanted to create a consumer economy to upset the USSR, and the USSR was more concerned with eliminating fascism for good.

Killing a few Nazis isn't going to destroy your economy.

I do know about this, but this isn't socialism. Socialism and nationalization aren't the same thing, nor is socialism possible to have under a monarchy or bourgeois parliament.

What does "bourgeois" mean anyway? As far as I can tell it is one of those worlds like "Common Good" or "Social Welfare" that has no meaning but sounds nice.

Besides, the Engish Monarchy is just there to keep the conservatives happy, they don't actually do anything, they're just celebrities. Sort of like if the US Government subsidized Hollywood. It's just a diversion.

Anyways, every "Socialist" platform that I have ever lain eyes on has advocated increased Nationalization or even outright abolition of private property.

Besides, if the "Bourgeois" really controlled the parliment then why were taxes on the rich around 90% with nearly all inheritance rights abolished?

As for the Russian thing, there really is no objective meaning to "industrialized", "industrialized" means that the country uses modern technological methods to produce goods and that the average joe has a certain ammount of material wealth. "Industrialized" changes with the times.