Rise of Minimum wage?

[PLAYER57832]

Today, the biggest problem is a combination of a generally downtrodden economy (which is partially caused by low wages, by-the-way!) and the fact that so many younger people just don't look for work (short of it falling into their laps). Seriously... they hire a LOT of teens where I work, for after school shifts, and its amazing how many show up and basically say "oh, you mean you actually want me to WORK!"..and then leave.

Funny that you're a big contributor to this problem of entitlement. You keep demanding that the government provide everything for people, and then complain that young people feel entitled to not have to work to provide for themselves. You really need to stop the double standard.

Would be nice if you actually READ WHAT I WRITE INSTEAD OF SOME STANDARD "THIS IS WHAT LIBERALS ALWAYS SAY" script!!!

I am NOT, as you claim, demanding that the government support everyone (and when I do, I refer to "other people", not some remote and esoteric "government" as you do). I am demanding that EMPLOYERS pay a real wage, so people do not have to depend on other people to live. You don't like taxes? Then why allow a system where people can work, HARD, for 40 or more hours and still not be able to afford reasonable housing, food and cloting for reasonably-sized families.

The "entitlement" mentality is the idea that just because someone has a few bucks or runs a business suddenly they get to control the world around them -- control their personal lives, control whether they get to eat without government support, control their education.

In fact, most of my arguments are about people and businesses being responsible for the damage, impacts they cause, though I do see the government as the most efficient agency to do that in many cases.

And, despite what you like to claim.. the kids to whom I refer are from families that really don't need the income, so blaming "entitlements" is pretty far off base.

But.. if you want to take on that topic, go ahead. I can gaurantee it is something I know a LOT more about than you! Only.. in another thread.

[PLAYER57832]

BUT... given that he has over 30 years as a volunteer firefighter and that I have volunteered in floods, hurricanes and teaching first aid/CPR for free, I don't consider that a horrible taking of other people's money. I and my husband EACH contribute far more to this country than most people. (and that is without getting into numerous other things we do.. such as my husband spending many, many hours coaching and being an unofficial social worker to many young men in this community)

So let me get this straight.....because you and your husband have supposedly chosen to volunteer SOOOOO much, you now claim the right to demand through the government that other people give you money to support you? I thought volunteering meant that you gave up of your time and/or money, not something that gives you a blank check for future payments.

See, some people understand that society only works when people work together.

I mentioned the fire bit becuase you keep claiming that we are somehow "demanding" so much from other taxpayers. We give back far more than we get.

And, yes, at some point my and my husband's volunteering DOES entitle us to ask for needed assistance. I realize that is a strange concept to you.. that nothing really comes for free, even volunteer work, but that is how it is. See, all that volunteering doesn't pay medical bills, doesn't pay utility or food bills. And, yes, I do feel it puts us a bit ahead of the folks who just sit in their living rooms smoking or watching TV, unless those people are pretty disabled.

[Night Strike]

I am NOT, as you claim, demanding that the government support everyone (and when I do, I refer to "other people", not some remote and esoteric "government" as you do). I am demanding that EMPLOYERS pay a real wage, so people do not have to depend on other people to live. You don't like taxes? Then why allow a system where people can work, HARD, for 40 or more hours and still not be able to afford reasonable housing, food and cloting for reasonably-sized families.

Because not all jobs are worth $20 an hour. It's a plain and simple fact. Working hard doesn't automatically entitle people to a pay rate that is worth more than their contributions.

The "entitlement" mentality is the idea that just because someone has a few bucks or runs a business suddenly they get to control the world around them -- control their personal lives, control whether they get to eat without government support, control their education.

Again, you're completely incorrect. If an employer is offering a job, of course they get to dictate what tasks are performed while on that job. Of course the employer doesn't get demand what people do in their personal off-time (except for morality clauses in contracts), which has never been debated. But in exchange, you also don't get the right to demand that employers pay for the personal choices of their employees.

And, despite what you like to claim.. the kids to whom I refer are from families that really don't need the income, so blaming "entitlements" is pretty far off base.

Actually, that's the exact mentality that I AM blaming: the mentality that 16-26 year olds can start a job and expect to be the top dog on day 1 without doing the bottom-feeder grunt work required to move up.

[tzor]

Prove that minimum wage laws are really causing youth unemployment.

How about Forbes? The Effect of the Minimum Wage on Youth Unemployment

Which cites When the minimum wage bites

So basically, under the argument presented in the above articles you have to consider the minimum wage in terms of a percentage of average wage for a particular group. Ignoring the minimum wage, young people don't get paid as much as older people. So as a group the minimum wage is a much higher percentage of the average wage for that group and thus changes to the minimum wage have a far greater impact on that group than they do older people whose average pay is much higher.

NOTE: THE UK has a sliding scale and even they have problems making it all balance. In the US you are basically making the youth compete with older people for the same minimum age so the effect is even more dramatic.

Followup Forbes article: The Minimum Wage is Too High: Youth Unemployment Proves It

The important part here is not what the minimum wage actually is, but what is it as a percentage of average wage? Which brings us to this research. The minimum wage bites, begins to have serious effects upon employment rates, when it is more than 45-50% of the average wage. Below 40%, maybe as high as 45%, it has very little effect essentially because very few people ever get paid less than that 40 ish percent of the average wage.

Which brings us to the one great exception in these charts. Germany has not seen spiralling youth unemployment. It’s also true that Germany does not have a minimum wage:

[tzor]

Using the above article, let's Google the numbers and do the math: First let's get the baseline - data is all from 2011.

source: The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. If a minimum wage worker is employed full-time (forty hours per week for 52 weeks), thatworker would earn $15,080 annually.

U.S. Median Household Incomes by Age Bracket



Now let's do the math:

15-24 ... 49%
25-34 ... 29%
35-44 ... 24%
45-54 ... 23%
55-64 ... 27%
65-xx ... 45%

Q.E.D.

[tzor]

Actually, that's the exact mentality that I AM blaming: the mentality that 16-26 year olds can start a job and expect to be the top dog on day 1 without doing the bottom-feeder grunt work required to move up.

I'm not sure that is the "entitlement" mentality but rather the "Food network" effect. Many children these days see shows like the ones one the food network where top chefs seem to have this exciting life in the kitchen. These shows generally forget to inform these children that the same people who have such wonderful jobs now started out cleaning ugly pots and pans, spending years as short order chefs and finally working their asses off in insane hours per day in order to get the reputation that allowed them to be able to work at their current level. Most young adults tend to quit when they realize what is expected of them.

[Symmetry]

Actually, that's the exact mentality that I AM blaming: the mentality that 16-26 year olds can start a job and expect to be the top dog on day 1 without doing the bottom-feeder grunt work required to move up.

I'm not sure that is the "entitlement" mentality but rather the "Food network" effect. Many children these days see shows like the ones one the food network where top chefs seem to have this exciting life in the kitchen. These shows generally forget to inform these children that the same people who have such wonderful jobs now started out cleaning ugly pots and pans, spending years as short order chefs and finally working their asses off in insane hours per day in order to get the reputation that allowed them to be able to work at their current level. Most young adults tend to quit when they realize what is expected of them.

Yeah dude, that's what the world needs- more celebrity chefs.

[PLAYER57832]

I am NOT, as you claim, demanding that the government support everyone (and when I do, I refer to "other people", not some remote and esoteric "government" as you do). I am demanding that EMPLOYERS pay a real wage, so people do not have to depend on other people to live. You don't like taxes? Then why allow a system where people can work, HARD, for 40 or more hours and still not be able to afford reasonable housing, food and cloting for reasonably-sized families.

Because not all jobs are worth $20 an hour. It's a plain and simple fact.

Which is why I am not even close to suggesting a minimum of $20 an hour.. as I did say several times before.

Working hard doesn't automatically entitle people to a pay rate that is worth more than their contributions.

Actually, it can.. which is why slavery is illegal. See the assessment of "what people are worth" lies not with all employers. Some employers are plain scum and need the government to say they have to pay a basic, minimum wage.

Others may not be entirely scum, but are quite happy to save a buck when they can.. in this case, the main reason they "can" is that the rest of us wind up subsidizing so many low wage workers.

The "entitlement" mentality is the idea that just because someone has a few bucks or runs a business suddenly they get to control the world around them -- control their personal lives, control whether they get to eat without government support, control their education.

Again, you're completely incorrect. If an employer is offering a job, of course they get to dictate what tasks are performed while on that job. Of course the employer doesn't get demand what people do in their personal off-time (except for morality clauses in contracts), which has never been debated. But in exchange, you also don't get the right to demand that employers pay for the personal choices of their employees.

No, not incorrect. Your employment doesn't give you the right to dictate my healthcare, nor does it give you the right to decide to pay me a wage I cannot live upon. I realize you think both are OK. I utterly disagree.

The only strange part is how you keep pretending that government subsidies are absent from this equation.

And, despite what you like to claim.. the kids to whom I refer are from families that really don't need the income, so blaming "entitlements" is pretty far off base.

Actually, that's the exact mentality that I AM blaming: the mentality that 16-26 year olds can start a job and expect to be the top dog on day 1 without doing the bottom-feeder grunt work required to move up.

That has nothing at all to do with welfare. Sorry to disabuse you, but those kids never dream they will EVER wind up on government assistance, they are "too good" for that...

[AndyDufresne]

Because not all jobs are worth $20 an hour. It's a plain and simple fact. Working hard doesn't automatically entitle people to a pay rate that is worth more than their contributions.

--Andy

[Night Strike]

I am NOT, as you claim, demanding that the government support everyone (and when I do, I refer to "other people", not some remote and esoteric "government" as you do). I am demanding that EMPLOYERS pay a real wage, so people do not have to depend on other people to live. You don't like taxes? Then why allow a system where people can work, HARD, for 40 or more hours and still not be able to afford reasonable housing, food and cloting for reasonably-sized families.

Because not all jobs are worth $20 an hour. It's a plain and simple fact.

Which is why I am not even close to suggesting a minimum of $20 an hour.. as I did say several times before.

Then why aren't you suggesting it? If raising it to $9 won't have any negative effects, then why not raise it even higher? Raising it to $9 doesn't even get a full time worker out of poverty (since you're crying about so many people not making a living wage), so why do this thing half-assed? Besides, we're going to get there eventually since no one wants to actually address the real problem of inflation.

Working hard doesn't automatically entitle people to a pay rate that is worth more than their contributions.

Actually, it can.. which is why slavery is illegal. See the assessment of "what people are worth" lies not with all employers. Some employers are plain scum and need the government to say they have to pay a basic, minimum wage.

Please look up the definition of slavery again. Slavery means that you are in servitude against your will.

Others may not be entirely scum, but are quite happy to save a buck when they can.. in this case, the main reason they "can" is that the rest of us wind up subsidizing so many low wage workers.

Stop the subsidies and people will either demand more pay or look for different/more work. It's called a free market.

No, not incorrect. Your employment doesn't give you the right to dictate my healthcare, nor does it give you the right to decide to pay me a wage I cannot live upon. I realize you think both are OK. I utterly disagree.

Actually, I believe that health insurance should be based on the individual instead of the employer, that way everybody can pay for what they want/need.

And since you STILL fail to understand.....jobs aren't charities. An employer's role is to pay you want you're worth to the company. If that worth doesn't match up to the lifestyle you want to live, then you must find an extra job or a different job.

[rdsrds2120]

I am NOT, as you claim, demanding that the government support everyone (and when I do, I refer to "other people", not some remote and esoteric "government" as you do). I am demanding that EMPLOYERS pay a real wage, so people do not have to depend on other people to live. You don't like taxes? Then why allow a system where people can work, HARD, for 40 or more hours and still not be able to afford reasonable housing, food and cloting for reasonably-sized families.

Because not all jobs are worth $20 an hour. It's a plain and simple fact.

Which is why I am not even close to suggesting a minimum of $20 an hour.. as I did say several times before.

Then why aren't you suggesting it? If raising it to $9 won't have any negative effects, then why not raise it even higher? Raising it to $9 doesn't even get a full time worker out of poverty (since you're crying about so many people not making a living wage), so why do this thing half-assed? Besides, we're going to get there eventually since no one wants to actually address the real problem of inflation.

Inflation is better than both deflation and stagflation, as most economists tend to agree. The problem is with inflation that occurs too quickly. You're suggestion that PLAYER should be equally happy with a raise to a $20 minimum because we'll get there, anyway, is outlandish, since the effects of upping to $9/hr isn't even comparable to the effects of upping to $20. You don't you buy all of your non-perishable food goods 5 or 10 years in advance simply since you know you'll use them eventually -- that's crazy! If everything else inflates at the same rate, why shouldn't pay rates? If they don't, you sentence those who work at minimum wage to be fiscally behind everyone else more than they are.

BMO

[AndyDufresne]

If everything else inflates at the same rate, why shouldn't pay rates? If they don't, you sentence those who work at minimum wage to be fiscally behind everyone else more than they are.

BMO

Bro, because we got to keep the man down, man.


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

I am NOT, as you claim, demanding that the government support everyone (and when I do, I refer to "other people", not some remote and esoteric "government" as you do). I am demanding that EMPLOYERS pay a real wage, so people do not have to depend on other people to live. You don't like taxes? Then why allow a system where people can work, HARD, for 40 or more hours and still not be able to afford reasonable housing, food and cloting for reasonably-sized families.

Because not all jobs are worth $20 an hour. It's a plain and simple fact.

Which is why I am not even close to suggesting a minimum of $20 an hour.. as I did say several times before.

Then why aren't you suggesting it? If raising it to $9 won't have any negative effects, then why not raise it even higher Raising it to $9 doesn't even get a full time worker out of poverty (since you're crying about so many people not making a living wage), so why do this thing half-assed? Besides, we're going to get there eventually since no one wants to actually address the real problem of inflation.

Oh please.... for the same reason its not truly OK for a CEO to make 20 million, though 1-2 million is sometimes reasonable.

The minimum wage is just that. A minimum.
Per the "not out of poverty" bit.. partly that line is too high, based on an average instead of a minimum standard and skewed by places like San Francisco and New York that need different approaches, besides a national minimum wage. Partly, it is because most families are supported by more than one member, which is reasonable.. that is also why I set MY definition as "able to support oneself and maybe one child", not "a family of four" or any other measure.

Working hard doesn't automatically entitle people to a pay rate that is worth more than their contributions.

Actually, it can.. which is why slavery is illegal. See the assessment of "what people are worth" lies not with all employers. Some employers are plain scum and need the government to say they have to pay a basic, minimum wage.

Please look up the definition of slavery again. Slavery means that you are in servitude against your will.[/quote]
Not entirely, see some slaves really did voluntarily stay with their masters. It is still illegal. Some people voluntarily went to go work in very dangerous conditions.. or as young children. Again, these things are illegal. The minimum wage is the bare minimum, not a ticket to luxury, but a basis that says "if you are working, you get to stay above the poverty line".

Others may not be entirely scum, but are quite happy to save a buck when they can.. in this case, the main reason they "can" is that the rest of us wind up subsidizing so many low wage workers.

Stop the subsidies and people will either demand more pay or look for different/more work. It's called a free market.

Oh bull.

The free market is not the universal panacea you pretend and certainly does not operate for the bottom of the labor market.

You pretend to talk a lot about the free market, but also ignore several things that have to be in place for that to operate. First and foremost is the ability to choose. People at the bottom don't get to choose, not really. Some women can "choose" to not work and stay on welfare becuase they won't get subsidized as much if they work. Sorry, but that is not a real choice. Many others "choose" not to go to school because they are making just enough to prevent them from obtaining any kind of aid.... because aid is based on what you are working now, so someone working 40 hours is expected to continue to do that AND go to school. A deadbeat, to contrast gets put to the front of the line under the theory that they will somehow be able to get off welfare if they get a better education. That last is somewhat true, but most of your "analysis" ignores the first category... large numbers of people, including teenagers who have to support themselves and who therefore are not eligible for educational assistance. Ironically, have a kid.. and they get assistance.

Fixing the minimum wage IS the best way to begin to fix that, not cutting off all support. We got the system we have because poverty hurts people, hurts society. When families don't have any support, kids go hungry and don't grow up well. When people don't have housing or food they often wind up being detriments to society instead of helps...and wind up spending most of their time just surviving so that it becomes even harder to maintain what employment IS available.

Your ideas of how the world work just don't match reality. Your ignorance of subsidies and how they work, versus how wages actually work is evident time and again... every time you get into this topic, but you also make it plain you would rather get your information from whatever conservative ideological source you consult than look at on the ground facts and realities.

No, not incorrect. Your employment doesn't give you the right to dictate my healthcare, nor does it give you the right to decide to pay me a wage I cannot live upon. I realize you think both are OK. I utterly disagree.

Actually, I believe that health insurance should be based on the individual instead of the employer, that way everybody can pay for what they want/need.

False choice, though I agree with individual payment. The problem is that people are not able to correctly assess and interpret what their healthcare needs will be. That is why we have insurance.

And since you STILL fail to understand.....jobs aren't charities. An employer's role is to pay you want you're worth to the company. If that worth doesn't match up to the lifestyle you want to live, then you must find an extra job or a different job.

Oh bull... its "charity" when a CEO makes multi millions for a failing company, not when someone putting in 40 hours a week or more, working hard (and yes, most low wage workers DO work hard, despite your illusions to the contrary!) wants enough to live upon in return.

its "charity" when someone plopping down money they either inherited or gained from other investments expects a gauranteed 15020% return and complains if they don't get it.. without putting in any real effort for their return. THAT is "charity", not someone working, either skilled or unskilled and expected a proportional compensation in return.

Its "charity" when a CEO gets to take millions... but will only pay its research team less than 100K, despite the fact that its really the research team that is holding up the company. Its ALSO charity when companies get to take research, information, even real products like photographs produced with taxpayer funds and make a hefty profit on it without returning more than their basic income taxes in return.

Its charity when so many people get to enjoy living in a safe, healthy country, benefitting from a wide ranging educational and trasportation system as well as a healthy functioning set of ecosystems, but expects to get by with only paying taxes for what he/she thinks are their direct needs.

Its charity when firefighters and volunteer police officers all over the country do the work that in other areas is paid for by taxpayers, but in those areas isn't, mostly just because there is a tradition of volunteerism in those communities.

Those things are charity.. not a worker expecting a reasonable wage for a day's work.

[Juan_Bottom]

Who is it, and please be as specific as you can, you see treating the poor as less than human? I've traveled extensively and I'm here to tell you that those in "poverty" in the US live under conditions better than the middle class in most of the world, well, Europe and Asia specifically. So please don't cry for our poor - they've got it pretty good in the grand scheme.

I just want to point out (although I don't have the link offhand and I don't have the time at this moment to look it up) that from a world perspective most of the people considered "in poverty" would be considered exceptionally well off and a significant percentage of our population would be considered in that so called evil "1%" of the world's richest. The whole notion that anyone in the United States is being fiscally abused is absurd.

There are two links that exist somewhere in this forum that show how absurd the hand-wringing is over the impoverished in the United States.

^^^This^^^

Who cares about that argument when the Middle Class is continuously shrinking, and the top 1% of America owns 50% of America's wealth and earns more than 11% of it's GDP? I'm not out to compare these blessed United States to China, because I'm not the emperor of the world, I'm just a patriotic American. I find it pathetically sad when someone says to the poor "well you deserve this and you can deal with it, because the Chinese and the Africans do too." How shameful and greedy. Over 60% of low wage workers are between the ages of 25 and 64*, and over half of our country falls into this category. OVER HALF. Nobody can afford to buy shit, unless they go into debt to acquire. How the hell do you expect the economy to grow when you feel that the American poor (50% of the country) are better off than the Polish, so they don't deserve anymore than they have?

Workers rights are human rights. Not human privileges.

*Center for Economic and Policy Research "Low-Wage Workers are older and better educated than ever" April 2012

Who is it, and please be as specific as you can, you see treating the poor as less than human?

I have known and do know many "poor people".

So, specifically you.
"Some of my best friends are demographics."

"Our poor have it pretty good in the grand scheme."
&
"There are people who would like to work for $4 an hour."
&
"People get what they deserve."

My grandmother was a Native American, and thanks to that I have friends who are Native Americans who actually do earn $4 an hour legally. Your assertion that some people would like to work for $4 an hour is total sh*t. These people live in absolute poverty. We should be protecting our neighbors, not throwing them under the bus with $4 wages so that you can take a bigger share for yourselves. That's scumbag capitalism, and shows exactly why our system doesn't work. Personally I don't care what mistakes a person has made throughout their life, that's not damn excuse to take advantage of them or their labor, as you seem to think that it is. The Issue is so obviously not as simple as "they chose this for themselves." 50% of America's total wealth is controlled by the smallest percentile, and they love people who argue against their own best interests to protect their money for them.

You actually remind me of an Onion News Piece on Paul Ryan:

[Juan_Bottom]

PLAYER

Do you agree or disagree that raising the minimum wage to match inflation, or to raise it higher, would benefit those with a college education as much as those who don't have one?

That's a minimum wage of $10.55 or higher

[Lil_SlimShady]

To match inflaton, yes, just so the standard of living does not fall in terms of real wages. The adjustment for inflation is done by unions and companies in general on an annual (or contactually specified) basis, so why shouldn`t the minimum wage rise with it.
It makes no sense to raise it above the inflation rate because the positive effect will be very short term (until the prices adjust) and the inflation rate will rise substanially with it which will begin a downward spiral towards hyper inflation.

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER

Do you agree or disagree that raising the minimum wage to match inflation, or to raise it higher, would benefit those with a college education as much as those who don't have one?

That's a minimum wage of $10.55 or higher

I agree that it would benefit everyone, absolutely.

I am not necessarily in agreement that the minimum should be $10.55. I am willing to listen to that argument, but I am not yet convinced it should be that high nationally.

[Lil_SlimShady]

PLAYER

Do you agree or disagree that raising the minimum wage to match inflation, or to raise it higher, would benefit those with a college education as much as those who don't have one?

That's a minimum wage of $10.55 or higher

I agree that it would benefit everyone, absolutely.

I am not necessarily in agreement that the minimum should be $10.55. I am willing to listen to that argument, but I am not yet convinced it should be that high nationally.

The minimum wage in British Columbia has been raised to $10.25/hour (from 8$/hour a few years back) about a year ago due to a new premier being elected. It was one of her main points that helped her win the election. For a while there, the Canadian and American currencies were at par with the Canadian dollar taking a dive throughout the last month. The move to raise the minimum wage was to counteract the high taxes rate that was implemented after the Vancouver Olympics ( it used to be a 7% GST and a 5% PST tax that got combined into one 12%HST past 2010). This seemed to have helped the province (whose main source of income is sale of lumber) to stay afloat midst horrible fiscal decline that was partially a consequence of poor policies elected by the previous administration. HOWEVER, this is just an example within one province. Raising the minimum wages nationally could be counter-intuitive. Also, you guys got 5 times more states than we do provinces/territories.

[BigBallinStalin]

I wonder which groups were exempt from that minimum wage...

[thegreekdog]

I wonder which groups were exempt from that minimum wage...

http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/facshts ... 202011.pdf

[BigBallinStalin]

Good start. Did some more digging:


Interpretation Guidelines Manual
British Columbia Employment Standards Act and Regulations

Employment Standards Regulation - Part 7 - Variances and Exclusions

32. (1) The Act does not apply to any of the following:

(a) a student who is employed, by a board as defined in the School Act or an authority as defined in the Independent School Act, to work at the secondary school where he or she is enrolled;

(b) a student enrolled at a secondary school under the supervision of a board as defined in the School Act or an authority as defined in the Independent School Act in a work study, work experience or occupational study class;

(c) sitter;

(d) repealed. [BC Reg. 396/95, s.32(2).];

(e) repealed. [BC Reg.356/97, s.(a)];

(f) a person receiving benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act (Canada) as a result of working on a job creation project under section 25 of that Act;

(g) a person participating in Youth Community Action while working for financial credit towards post-secondary tuition fees under that program.

(2) Spent.

(3) The Act does not apply to a person receiving

(a) income assistance or benefits under the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act,

(b) a youth allowance or benefits under the BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act;

(c) a disability allowance or benefits under the Disability Benefits Program Act,

while the person is participating in a time-limited government program that provides on-site training or work experience and is operated under an act referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).

Surprise, surprise! The government exempts itself--specifically its own businesses (e.g. schools, state-owned/managed construction companies, presumably private companies which work on government "jobs creation" projects, etc.).

Section 3 of the Employment Standards Act establishes that the Act applies to all employees other than those excluded by regulation, as is the case for certain employees and persons identified in this section.

Specifically, under this section of the Regulation, the Act does not apply to persons who:

perform the work activities specifically described; or
are receiving certain types of income assistance, allowances or benefits.

which is funny because the imagined goals of helping the poor would not occur with this minimum wage law.

http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/igm/esr ... sr-s32.htm


So, why would a politician do this?
(to get votes because people don't understand minimum wage)

Private companies and workers in the private sector which are not involved in "government projects" are not exempt--except for (baby)sitters and perhaps a few others. So doesn't the minimum wage law help these people--who also do not receive any government assistance?

Well, aside from the glaring problem with the government exempting workers which essentially receive welfare, the minimum wage law will help some--but will raise the costs of business, which in turn will be placed onto consumers and/or on the workers themselves (i.e. real income per labor-hour can be reduced by offering less health benefits and all that jazz). Or, employers can simply opt for substitutes instead of paying more for the same performance from low-skilled workers (e.g. hire less humans, invest more in capital, or more in higher skilled workers).

People perceive that imposing a higher minimum wage may raise their own income, but they generally are not aware of the unintended consequences. Politicians might also be aware of this problem; however, since voters are generally uninformed, and since minimum wage laws usually increase one's votes, then politicians will maximize their chances of election by promising such policies.

[stahrgazer]

To match inflaton, yes, just so the standard of living does not fall in terms of real wages. The adjustment for inflation is done by unions and companies in general on an annual (or contactually specified) basis, so why shouldn`t the minimum wage rise with it.
It makes no sense to raise it above the inflation rate because the positive effect will be very short term (until the prices adjust) and the inflation rate will rise substanially with it which will begin a downward spiral towards hyper inflation.

This would only work if there were both a minimum wage above the poverty level AND a nationally required COLA for all employees based on inflation.

Otherwise, raising the minimum wage just equalizes the bottom two levels (because those nearest the bottom have to spend so much of their wages on "necessities" that are typically produced by those nearest the bottom. Milk, bread, produce, might be "owned" by rich conglomerates but the real work to get those things to market is done by lower income workers; so when their wages increase so do the costs of milk, bread, produce so those on the next-highest income rung who didn't get a wage increase are now part of the lowest rung folks again, rather than 1 rung up.)

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER

Do you agree or disagree that raising the minimum wage to match inflation, or to raise it higher, would benefit those with a college education as much as those who don't have one?

That's a minimum wage of $10.55 or higher

I agree that it would benefit everyone, absolutely.

I am not necessarily in agreement that the minimum should be $10.55. I am willing to listen to that argument, but I am not yet convinced it should be that high nationally.

The minimum wage in British Columbia has been raised to $10.25/hour (from 8$/hour a few years back) about a year ago due to a new premier being elected. It was one of her main points that helped her win the election. For a while there, the Canadian and American currencies were at par with the Canadian dollar taking a dive throughout the last month. The move to raise the minimum wage was to counteract the high taxes rate that was implemented after the Vancouver Olympics ( it used to be a 7% GST and a 5% PST tax that got combined into one 12%HST past 2010). This seemed to have helped the province (whose main source of income is sale of lumber) to stay afloat midst horrible fiscal decline that was partially a consequence of poor policies elected by the previous administration. HOWEVER, this is just an example within one province. Raising the minimum wages nationally could be counter-intuitive. Also, you guys got 5 times more states than we do provinces/territories.

If you remember my comment, I said that any impacts are gone in 2 years. This is not my personal analysis, it is what the evidence shows.

There is no gaurantee that anyone in business will succeed. For all this talk of the "free market" by NS, etc, that part seems to get missed. It is not the government's obligation to ensure businesses make a profit, it is the government's job to protect the people at the very bottom who lack the power to protect themselves against those more than willing to take advantage.

When someone has to depend upon government support just to pay rent, eat... AND they are working full time, or 2-3 part-time jobs, then it hurts everyone. Any profit the businesses are taking comes at the expense of taxpayers putting forward pieces of their wages so the business can pay such a low wage. When you figure in the lesser need for subsidies AND the slight increase in taxes paid.. you wind up with a significant chunk of money. When you further add in that those people getting more wages will almost certainly turn around and buy "stuff" (because they need it), there is another increase. That last is somewhat tempered by the fact that those people are actually "buying stuff" right now, just with OUR tax dollars, rather than their wages. Even so, there is a net gain. Not all subsidies come in the form of payments to someone else.

[Night Strike]

There is no gaurantee that anyone in business will succeed. For all this talk of the "free market" by NS, etc, that part seems to get missed. It is not the government's obligation to ensure businesses make a profit, it is the government's job to protect the people at the very bottom who lack the power to protect themselves against those more than willing to take advantage.

But it's bad for the government when they're actively working against businesses being successful and profitable because if businesses aren't profitable, the government doesn't get as much money (although they do enact junk fees and registrations on every action). And the government's role of protecting people means they get to keep businesses from harming/killing their workers or violating contracts, it doesn't say that the government gets to dictate the terms of those contracts.

[PLAYER57832]

There is no gaurantee that anyone in business will succeed. For all this talk of the "free market" by NS, etc, that part seems to get missed. It is not the government's obligation to ensure businesses make a profit, it is the government's job to protect the people at the very bottom who lack the power to protect themselves against those more than willing to take advantage.

But it's bad for the government when they're actively working against businesses being successful and profitable because if businesses aren't profitable, the government doesn't get as much money (although they do enact junk fees and registrations on every action). And the government's role of protecting people means they get to keep businesses from harming/killing their workers or violating contracts, it doesn't say that the government gets to dictate the terms of those contracts.

Again, a government's job is to protect the bottom, the weak. If you see that as "impeding business", then you have a pretty sad sense of morality. Ensuring that people get food on their tables when they work a fulltime wage, without depending upon other taxpayers is a pretty basic standard. Any business that cannot meet that standard does not deserve to stay in business.

Per the rest.. that is entirely off topic. I will discuss it in another thread, not here.