S/O What wage would you set for min wage?

[Miss Marple]

How is it not "spreading the wealth" when they receive entitlements?

 

It is just a catch phrase that doesn't mean anything. How is it better that they receive entitlements than if they were paid more?

 

I am not suggesting legislation be enacted that they be forced to do so, I already voice my disagreement by taking my money elsewhere, I think more should do the same.

 

I don't see it as an either/or proposition. The only scenario I consider "better" is that at least the walmart employees are working rather than sitting home claiming the entitlements.

[goldberry]

Why not allow the market to boycott those businesses for practices the public finds abhorrent? What stake does the government have in my hiring practices?

 

One of the roles of government is to protect the minority, to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

 

The market or the majority is not always right or just. If you want to live in a just society, the government has to have a role.

 

In bible times, the defenseless were referred to as "widows and orphans" or "fatherless boys". There were laws in place to protect them.

[Renee in NC]

It's not. It's ours. We are subsidizing WalMart's poor business practices. But it's an example of how a company does what's best for its bottom line only and how this ends up hurting its employees. If WalMart could get away with paying people less than minimum wage and having them utilize even more public assistance, it would. It's not concerned about its workers. It's concerned about its shareholders.

 

Tara

 

Remember, though, that Walmart is publically traded - Walmart is accountable to its shareholders for profits. If the shareholders of companies were to object en masse, the polces would change.

[Murphy101]

I think it is horrid discrimination and simply wrong to pay someone less bc of their age. Why not pay old people less since they are no longer raising children?:glare:

 

I don't give a rats patootie what age they are, under or over 18, whether they live at home, go to school, have kids or not. None of your or the govts flipping business.

 

They do equal work, they should get equal pay.

 

Their private life situation or age is no one's business, much less an excuse to pay them less.

 

I'm appalled anyone would even suggest that is acceptable.

 

And it's just such opinions that make me think minimum wage is a right and good thing and wages do need some oversight because there will always be companies or citizens that would cheat workers of a just and fair wage.

[Margaret in GA]

You know what? I've just seen one die-hard liberal teacher at school switch to being a die-hard conservative (all financial - not talking social issues) because HE decided to open up a small business and has been having to go through the gov't hoops himself to try to stay in business and make a profit. When he was "just" an educator, the gov't seemed to be the best answer and he dutifully taught that at a public school. Since he's been in the business owner world his eyes opened up.

 

I've seen it happen to new business owners multiple times and switched myself too in years past, but it is rather interesting to hear it from another recent convert just as this thread is being hashed out. (Though actually, minimum wage isn't the biggest issue, so it's only partially related.) And we're not talking big business nor exploiting anyone - just a guy trying to work to make an "extra" living for himself by providing a product many people want (or need) and the hoops and the fees and the regulations, etc, etc, etc,. associated with it. This teacher now has very little good to say about gov't... and he's in the history dept - still teaching! There's hope. ;)

 

Good. Grief. I am a small business owner for more than 15 years and I'm not as afraid of our government as I am huge corporations hell-bent on exploiting loopholes and buying favors. But, I guess your "friend", is an expert now that he's been at it for... how long did you say?

 

Minimum wage needs to be raised. I'm not sure to where, probably needs to be adjusted to location as our cost of living here is not what it is in New Jersey. I myself, never paid anyone just minimum wage. I'm not saying my workers have always shown themselves worth every penny, but at least I'm not passing the problem along to the federal or local government.

 

Margaret

[Margaret in GA]

Remember, though, that Walmart is publically traded - Walmart is accountable to its shareholders for profits. If the shareholders of companies were to object en masse, the polces would change.

 

Yeah. We own I don't know how many itty bits of companies we own in this house. We get dozens of statements every month. My kids own part of Disney, Target... my parents love to give stocks. My husband and I have mutual funds and IRAs that invest in a multitude of corporations. So, they really aren't putting pressure on these companies to "do the right thing".

 

http://www.capital-flow-analysis.com/investment-tutorial/lesson_11.html

 

"By 2004, average Americans, investing in equities through 401(k) plans had no idea of what stocks they owned. Individual holdings were so reduced through diversification as to be almost irrelevant.

The SEC had loosened requirements for disclosure of fund portfolios. It was now possible that small investors would never see their portfolios."

Edited January 13, 2011 by Margaret in GA
found a related article

[Murphy101]

Oh and just so you know minimum wage does vary by state.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages

[Renee in NC]

Good. Grief. I am a small business owner for more than 15 years and I'm not as afraid of our government as I am huge corporations hell-bent on exploiting loopholes and buying favors. But, I guess your "friend", is an expert now that he's been at it for... how long did you say?

 

Minimum wage needs to be raised. I'm not sure to where, probably needs to be adjusted to location as our cost of living here is not what it is in New Jersey. I myself, never paid anyone just minimum wage. I'm not saying my workers have always shown themselves worth every penny, but at least I'm not passing the problem along to the federal or local government.

 

Margaret

 

:iagree:

 

My mother has been in business for herself for many years and she never once thought that her tax burden was "too much" nor did it keep her from expandng her business. She only paid temp workers minimum wage, and then only until they proved themselves. She was experienced enough to calculate marginal revenue and make her decisions based on actual financial analysis. Taxes are a part of life and she has a good accountant. And, FTR, she claims neither party but tends to vote liberal.;)

[Renee in NC]

Yeah. We own I don't know how many itty bits of companies we own in this house. We get dozens of statements every month. My kids own part of Disney, Target... my parents love to give stocks. My husband and I have mutual funds and IRAs that invest in a multitude of corporations. So, they really aren't putting pressure on these companies to "do the right thing".

 

http://www.capital-flow-analysis.com/investment-tutorial/lesson_11.html

 

"By 2004, average Americans, investing in equities through 401(k) plans had no idea of what stocks they owned. Individual holdings were so reduced through diversification as to be almost irrelevant.

The SEC had loosened requirements for disclosure of fund portfolios. It was now possible that small investors would never see their portfolios."

 

My point was that corporations in and of themselves do not make money for the corporations themselves, but for the shareholders. I know that many people own little bits and pieces and I wasn't arguing against regulation at all. I just hope people will stop and think about who the CEOs really answer to. If the profits at Walmart were to fall, the shareholders would stop buying stock. That is a *big* reason why the managements of corps. don't care about the workers - they don't answer to them.

 

ETA: With all the talk of personal responsibility, I think people should *know* where their money is invested. What good does it do to complain about the practices of a business if (general) you are benefiting from those practices?

Edited January 13, 2011 by Renee in FL

[Miss Marple]

you pay them for the work they are hired to do.

 

I agree with your whole post, but I think this is the best part :001_smile:

 

When surveying the other area employers (of the same type) we discovered that we pay our employees the highest in the community. We believe we employ the best. They like to work for us. It's a win/win situation.

[angela in ohio]

What I don't get is why Wal-Mart gets singled out for criticism when practically all the other big box retailers pay equally low wages & stingy benefits. Do you really think the cashiers at Target, K-Mart, TJ Maxx, Marshall's, Ross, CVS, Rite Aid, Best Buy, Staples, Home Depot, Michaels, Payless, etc. are any less likely to be on government assistance as the ones at Wal-Mart? :confused:

 

Now if you're someone who makes a point to only patronize small mom & pop boutique stores, then fine, I can see where you have the moral high ground to criticize. But most folks I know who wag their fingers at Wal-Mart are perfectly happy to shop at other big box retailers. Frankly, I think it's a snob thing.

 

Thank you. :hurray:

 

I feel the same way about people who can easily boycott McDonald's loudly because they still eat at Burger King, Wendy's, etc.

[Miss Marple]

The market or the majority is not always right or just. If you want to live in a just society, the government has to have a role.

 

And you believe government is always right and just :lol: A just society is not the result of government intervention - take a look around at the various governments in our world today! Especially those with high levels of government intervention (Venezuela?)

 

In bible times, the defenseless were referred to as "widows and orphans" or "fatherless boys". There were laws in place to protect them.

 

Um...let's see...those laws (I'm assuming you're referring to the Mosaic laws) were written with the authority of God. I, for one, would much prefer laws written by God or his representatives than those of man and man's representatives. But the protection of widows and orphans or the fatherless in scripture hardly has any bearing on whether there should be a minimum wage prescribed by the government. But the ideas of scripture should play a role in our individual handling of our business. A workman is worthy of his hire, do not muzzle the oxen, etc. are excellent standards for us. But these ideals are not LAWS.

[Mrs Mungo]

I am just on my phone, so I can't address everything. But, NO, not all retailers are equal. There is a lot of public information about how they treat their employees, whether they turn a blind eye to child labor, how they deal with their vendors, etc. Some are much, much better than others.

[TravelingChris]

AS a person with a bachelor's degree in economics from the University of Chicago, I would not set a minimum wage at all.

[Miss Marple]

Violent people will come and take what she has when all bets are off. She and her family will not be willing to harm enough innocent people to establish their dominance. They can't survive on their own. That's not what happens, there is plenty of proof of this in the world.

 

But to that I would say that artificially propping up the market is simply a bandaid approach to a problem that has nothing to do with minimum wage. Are people violent because they don't make enough money? I don't believe so. There is plenty of violence in our own country with a minimum wage. I would venture to say that violence has increased in our area since the minimum wage increased recently. So can I correlate the two unless one wants to argue that a higher minimum wage has left too many teens on the streets with nothing to do thereby getting themselves into trouble? I don't think so. There are violent, wicked people always. I know many people who are what the government considers "poor", yet I have not seen one of them resort to violence or theft. Not one has tried to take my "stuff" even though they know I have more than they have.

 

The heart of man isn't changed by government intervention.

[Plagefille]

I wouldn't mandate a minimum wage at all if I were "in charge" ;)

 

People can choose to work for a miser or not. Those who pay well and treat their employees well would reap the benefits of having LOTs of qualified applicants and satisfied employees. Misers would go out of business.

 

I do believe in workplace laws for safety, etc., but not the the degree that we now see in our country.

 

 

I agree. And anyway you should not be having a family if you only work for min. wage. If you start working for min wage when you finish high school, and do your job well, you will not be a min wage for long. Min wage is plenty for a single person. AND if 2 people were working for min wage you would be fine also. Maybe the real problem is that people cannot keep their pants on.

[Melinda in VT]

And though I agreed-I have to say, what price should we pay a cashier? I mean, should a cashier make a wage high enough to support a family? Or just augment a family's income?

 

<snipped for brevity>

 

I remember being on the cell with a GF who was getting a meal at Mc Ds. The girl got her order wrong four times. I was laughing SO HARD. But my GF, goddess of patience, asked me, "What do you expect from a person who works the window at McDs?" (GF was one of the first women computer engineers-she was no slouch.)

 

Which, was true. And in turn, what should they earn? Should they get full time with benefits?

 

<snipped for brevity>

 

You can't pay a person a high wage because they are a human, made in the image of God and therefore entitled to that wage, and you can't pay a person for what they are capable of, you pay them for the work they are hired to do.

 

This is something I wonder about. What do we do with the people who are capable of working McDonald's-level jobs and not much else? Doom them to a life of poverty? Use government programs to subsidize their income?

[Rosie_0801]

When surveying the other area employers (of the same type) we discovered that we pay our employees the highest in the community. We believe we employ the best. They like to work for us. It's a win/win situation.

 

Do you think your situation would be different if you were a public company, obliged to please shareholders?

 

Rosie- Asking not from snark but because she's not very good at economics.

[Rivka]

Originally Posted by Celia

our upper class standard of living should go down,

Why? If someone does the job to earn more, they shouldn't be able to buy the nice extras? That's socialism at it's best. And job losses for those who make/sell the luxury products.

 

Oh, no! You don't understand at all. See, if you pay CEOs more, that decreases the company's profits, and prices inevitably rise to make up for it. Or people lose their jobs because payroll only goes so far. So no one is any better off. It's simple economics, people.

 

If we dropped CEO compensation down to $15,000 a year, the market would respond, the prices of luxury goods and other things CEOs need to buy would drop accordingly, we'd all be able to go out and buy a yacht for $4995, and it would be a free market paradise! :lol:

 

Seriously, it's hilarious to me to see conservatives and libertarians fall all over themselves to explain that there is no possible benefit to the working poor and lower middle class of having an increase in the minimum wage, because low wages mean low prices. But apparently the sky's the limit when it comes to the desirability of wage increases for upper-income workers! Apparently executive salaries have nothing to do with prices!

 

And don't try to tell me that "the market" has determined that upper executives really are worth that much money. In the first place, these guys sit on each other's boards and vote each other compensation increases. In the second place, most of the companies which have been driven into the ground lately have been handing out big executive raises and bonuses right until the end. Even guys who ruin their companies are somehow "worth" tens of millions. Did the market decide that? In the third place, the gap between the lowest- and highest-paid workers in American corporations is steadily climbing, and yet no one can explain just what additional value executives are providing to justify greater and greater salaries.

 

I remember that Kevin Drum ran a contest a few years ago:

 

Supply and demand. Yes indeed. The labor market is a slave to supply and demand just like any other market, right?

 

Odd, then, that CEO pay rose 27% in 2003, isn't it? Did the supply of CEOs shrink last year? Did demand skyrocket?

 

What's more, compared to average workers, who remain stuck in the invisible grip of Adam Smith, CEO pay has increased about 3x since 1990 and about 7x since 1980.

 

Is this the free market at work? That's what I'm told. So I have a contest in mind: a prize for the least laughable explanation for why CEO pay has gone up 7x since 1980 based on supply and demand. At a minimum, winning entries should explain the following:

 

 

• Why the supply of CEOs has decreased.

• Why the demand for CEOs has increased.

• Why the elasticity of the CEO demand curve is apparently steeper than for any other commodity on the planet.

 

Please keep your entries under 100,000 words, and restrict your econometrics to fields no more complex than differential topology.

[Miss Marple]

Do you think your situation would be different if you were a public company, obliged to please shareholders?

 

Rosie- Asking not from snark but because she's not very good at economics.

 

No, because I hold to ethical standards that are not subject to change. They are part of my worldview. There are plenty of companies who could make more profits if they chose to ignore their consciences, but they don't and they are still successful. Success, IMO, isn't only a factor of profits. Success is being able to go to bed at night with a clear conscience. Large profits are the icing on the cake.:001_smile:

[Haiku]

Remember, though, that Walmart is publically traded - Walmart is accountable to its shareholders for profits. If the shareholders of companies were to object en masse, the polces would change.

 

But they don't, because most people invest to earn money. WalMart's shareholders want a high return on their investments, not a stroke to the ego for investing in a warm and fuzzy company. The people I know who care the most about WalMart's follies don't invest in WalMart because they don't want to support such follies.

 

Tara

[Rosie_0801]

No, because I hold to ethical standards that are not subject to change. They are part of my worldview. There are plenty of companies who could make more profits if they chose to ignore their consciences, but they don't and they are still successful. Success, IMO, isn't only a factor of profits. Success is being able to go to bed at night with a clear conscience. Large profits are the icing on the cake.:001_smile:

 

But that would mean that shares in your company wouldn't be worth much because few would want to buy them, yes. One of these days I really must read up on the stock market and try to understand what the point of it all is. I'm too concrete for this kind of stuff.

 

Some people don't define success the same way you do, I observe...

 

Rosie

[Slartibartfast]

I don't see it as an either/or proposition. The only scenario I consider "better" is that at least the walmart employees are working rather than sitting home claiming the entitlements.

 

But why is that better?

 

And why *isn't* it an either/or situation?

 

Why is it better that they get my tax dollars than walmart's money?

 

Why is one "spreading the wealth" and the other perfectly ok?

[secular_mom]

I have never thought of that. Very good idea. :thumbup:

I think it's an atrocious idea. If a person is willing to do the same amount of work, then they should get the same amount of pay with NO discrimination. Discrimination based on race/gender/age/etc. Is NOT a 'good idea'.

There are lots of young people who are trying to make their living with minimum wage/less jobs for many reasons. WTH should a 21yo be paid less than a 22yo doing the same amount of work? Work is work is work, labor is labor is labor and if an employer wants another person to do the labor then they should have to pay them a fair wage for it.

 

Would that really solve anything? People might/would start wanting to hire more 'young' people because their wages would be cheaper, and then older people desperately in need of a job to feed their family might/would have an even harder time finding a job than they do already.

[justamouse]

AS a person with a bachelor's degree in economics from the University of Chicago, I would not set a minimum wage at all.

 

that's a lightening rod statement. :001_smile: What would you do?

 

This is something I wonder about. What do we do with the people who are capable of working McDonald's-level jobs and not much else? Doom them to a life of poverty? Use government programs to subsidize their income?

 

Some will always need subsidies. Period. And they need to be there for those people.

 

Other than that, I have some ideas, but it's hard to say. There is section 8 housing. There are small apartments/houses that need to be rented, too. But what is a person entitled to? 2 cell phones, unlimited texting, 2 high def flat screens with 350 channels and a good computer?

 

This is another reason I believe in universal healthcare. When that is in place-there's a safety net there. You won't be on the streets because you have to choose between meds and rent. You won't lose everything if an accident happens. Schools need to be better, too so the next generation of the family is not doomed to poverty.

 

There will always be those that make less. There just will.

 

I could give everyone a million dollars and one person will make another million. one person will make it into a billion and another will lose it all.

Edited January 13, 2011 by justamouse

[Slartibartfast]

This is another reason I believe in universal healthcare. When that is in place-there's a safety net there. You won't be on the streets because you have to choose between meds and rent. You won't lose everything if an accident happens. Schools need to be better, too so the next generation of the family is not doomed to poverty.

 

There will always be those that make less. There just will.

 

I could give everyone a million dollars and one person will make another million. one person will make it into a billion and another will lose it all.

 

I agree, people will be more productive or even more brave in their career choices if they are not frozen in fear of losing their healthcare.

 

IMO anyone completely opposed to any sort of universal healthcare has never seen truly catastrophic medical bills.

[Mama Geek]

IMO anyone completely opposed to any sort of universal healthcare has never seen truly catastrophic medical bills.

 

A friends father passed away more than a year ago b/c he refused treatment for a second bout of cancer. He was a small business owner without insurance. He didn't want to leave his wife money to support herself and I still am opposed to universal healthcare. I realize that is not first hand experience it is only second had experience with medical bills. I believe he was close to 70 yo.

[creekland]

Good. Grief. I am a small business owner for more than 15 years and I'm not as afraid of our government as I am huge corporations hell-bent on exploiting loopholes and buying favors. But, I guess your "friend", is an expert now that he's been at it for... how long did you say?

 

Minimum wage needs to be raised. I'm not sure to where, probably needs to be adjusted to location as our cost of living here is not what it is in New Jersey. I myself, never paid anyone just minimum wage. I'm not saying my workers have always shown themselves worth every penny, but at least I'm not passing the problem along to the federal or local government.

 

Margaret

 

Personally, we (hubby and I) have owned our own business for 12 years now and we're not afraid of gov't - just frustrated with parts of it (and it's getting worse). The most recent conservative convert I mentioned is still working on going through the gov't hoops to expand an even smaller business he was previously running (I'm not certain how long). He's been at it for somewhere between 6 months and a year. The "hoops" were supposed to be finished by this coming Tuesday. He's still 4th in a queue for inspection. Three months ago he was 8th in the queue. He's spent thousands of dollars of his own money so far and would like to start recouping a little bit of it. The Jan 18th date was set last summer. He'd made plans based on it. "I" can certainly understand his frustration. The powers that be won't even return calls or e-mails to update him on his situation or a new date.

 

With regards to other aspects of business, my Aunt works in retail (not Wally-world) and has for years (more than 20). She regularly tells us stories of all these "fantastic" minimum wage earners and of others who apply so they can keep their benefits (looking for work), but if you hire them they suddenly become unavailable to work or often call in sick, etc. Neighbors we used to have had a head of the household (male) who would work just long enough to qualify for unemployment, then arrive late or not at all and get himself fired. Then he'd stay home until the benefits ran out. Within a week he'd have another job (low paying, but enough to qualify again). He had the timing down to the DAY. His kids never suffered materially. There were many organizations (public) that helped out and they went to oodles of "free gift" Christmas parties, etc. They ate out (McD's usually) more often than anyone I know. I suspect he worked somewhere for other cash - under the table - odd jobs, etc. He used to bring home truckfuls of other people's garbage and burn it in his backyard (we called to stop that, but it took a while).

 

Many people out there do prefer their benefits to working. It's a huge fallacy to call all minimum wage or benefits earners saints and all CEO's or business owners demons. I will fully agree that there are some saints and demons out there, but for many on here, I seriously wonder how much "real business world" experience they have or if they are getting all their info from sound bites on the news.

 

You might be interested in reading this regarding whether people turn liberal or conservative with college and life experience (copied from an older thread on conservative vs liberal on college confidential that I read recently):

 

________________(Start of copied part.)

Well, here's what one of the columnists at the Wall Street Journal has to say ... his name is Prof. Arthur Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs.

 

---------------------------------------

"The most recent evidence on this subject comes from the mid-1990s, in the University of Michigan's National Election Studies. These survey data uncover two facts. First, people who go to college are more likely to vote Republican than those who don't go to college. Adults 25 and under from Republican homes are, for example, 11 percentage points more likely to vote Republican if they attended college than if they didn't. And young adults from Democratic households are 11 percentage points less likely to vote Democrat if they've gone to college than if not.

 

Second, nearly everybody grows more likely to vote Republican as they age--but especially college graduates. It is no shock that the vast majority of people of all educational backgrounds from Republican homes vote Republican by age 40. It may come as more of a surprise that 40-year-olds with Democrat parents are far less likely to vote Democrat if they've gone to college than if they haven't. In fact, while three-quarters of the uneducated group still vote Democrat, the odds are only about 50-50 that the college graduates vote this way. And they've not all become skeptical political independents: Fully a third are registered Republicans.

 

Obviously, some kids turn left in college--but this appears to be the exception, not the rule. Does all this mean that our colleges and universities are actually breeding grounds for conservatism? Hardly. What the statistics really show is that higher education by itself doesn't affect political views very much. Rather, in addition to the strong influence of parents, it is higher incomes--which typically reward a college education in America--that push people to the right politically. In Republican families, the income effect reinforces parents' influence on their kids. In Democratic families, the two effects work against each other."

--------------------------------------------

 

CAVEAT : That was a study from the mid-1990's. I'm not sure if it applies today. So take it with caution as well.

 

_______________ (End of copied part.)

 

I'm one that was raised democrat from educationally employed parents. Once I got into the work world - the business world - and saw what I consider reality - I switched parties. I will certainly NOT say the Republicans have all the answers or always do everything right, but it's a myth to think the Democrats always do either. There is a lot of abuse of the "worker protection" systems including welfare, unions, and gov't control/regulations.

 

We can't get into politics without getting the thread deleted, but... just wanted to mention the above. It seems more educated people solely in education tend to be democrats (college profs, teachers) meaning the theory sounds great and makes sense. However, take those same demographics (went to college) and put them in the rest of the world and they tend to switch to be republican (when they see the theory not work in reality).

 

Then there are plenty of us in the middle (I think) who would like to reel in the abuses from the wealthy while also reeling in the abuses from the non-wealthy. For what it's worth, there are plenty of times where I vote a split ticket, but not lately.

[Mama Geek]

I am a capitalist, free market believer through and through. I do know that there is corruption in business and I know that there is corruption in government. I recognize that a lot of large companies have people on each others boards and that they often look out for each other at the expense of their employees and their shareholders. I also recognize that they have major political pull in government.

 

I don't think the government really wants to help the people of this country. The people in power will do whatever it takes to stay in power.

 

The truly wealthy and powerful in this country aren't the people paying taxes. They have lawyers and accountants and Washington lobbyist that make sure they keep their money.

 

I guess what I am trying to say is that the people in power in this country are running the show in Washington (both democrats and republicans) and in Wall Street. The things that the government is doing are usually in the best interest of those in power, not the rest of us. I really don't believe that min. wage is there to help the guy on the bottom of the totem pole. I am not sure what is really behind it other than making it harder on small businesses to compete.

[K in MI]

AS a person with a bachelor's degree in economics from the University of Chicago, I would not set a minimum wage at all.

 

I agree.

[Laura Corin]

I would set a separate minimum wage for those who are under 21 and working no more than 20 hours/week, so that young people don't get priced out of the labor market. Teenagers working for pocket money don't need a "living wage", KWIM?

 

Here.

 

Laura

[Quiver0f10]

I started a new thread instead of hijacking the other thread. If $8/hour isn't enough to work at Bass Pro (they were giving tax incentives to come into an area near me), then what is enough? Is $30 an hour enough? If employees made $30 and hour could everyone else afford to shop there? Would a T-shirt at Bass Pro then cost $100 just to cover the expenses?

 

When minimum wage goes up the cost to live goes up. There is more demand for things because those making more money start spending more. I just don't see how this helps anything. Am I the only one that sees it this way?

 

 

Minimum wage was not meant for people to live off. It was meant for the highschool student, or the college student as he/she went through school, or as a supplement to a job paying a living wage.

 

If the cashier at your food store was making $15 an hour the cost of the food would be astronomical.

 

I once owned a day care. I would have highschool students come in looking for work and they would ask for $10 an hour. I didn't make $10 an hour as the owner. It's insane.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Quiver0f10

[Margaret in GA]

Personally, we (hubby and I) have owned our own business for 12 years now and we're not afraid of gov't - just frustrated with parts of it (and it's getting worse). The most recent conservative convert I mentioned is still working on going through the gov't hoops to expand an even smaller business he was previously running (I'm not certain how long). He's been at it for somewhere between 6 months and a year. The "hoops" were supposed to be finished by this coming Tuesday. He's still 4th in a queue for inspection. Three months ago he was 8th in the queue. He's spent thousands of dollars of his own money so far and would like to start recouping a little bit of it. The Jan 18th date was set last summer. He'd made plans based on it. "I" can certainly understand his frustration. The powers that be won't even return calls or e-mails to update him on his situation or a new date.

 

With regards to other aspects of business, my Aunt works in retail (not Wally-world) and has for years (more than 20). She regularly tells us stories of all these "fantastic" minimum wage earners and of others who apply so they can keep their benefits (looking for work), but if you hire them they suddenly become unavailable to work or often call in sick, etc. Neighbors we used to have had a head of the household (male) who would work just long enough to qualify for unemployment, then arrive late or not at all and get himself fired. Then he'd stay home until the benefits ran out. Within a week he'd have another job (low paying, but enough to qualify again). He had the timing down to the DAY. His kids never suffered materially. There were many organizations (public) that helped out and they went to oodles of "free gift" Christmas parties, etc. They ate out (McD's usually) more often than anyone I know. I suspect he worked somewhere for other cash - under the table - odd jobs, etc. He used to bring home truckfuls of other people's garbage and burn it in his backyard (we called to stop that, but it took a while).

 

Many people out there do prefer their benefits to working. It's a huge fallacy to call all minimum wage or benefits earners saints and all CEO's or business owners demons. I will fully agree that there are some saints and demons out there, but for many on here, I seriously wonder how much "real business world" experience they have or if they are getting all their info from sound bites on the news.

 

You might be interested in reading this regarding whether people turn liberal or conservative with college and life experience (copied from an older thread on conservative vs liberal on college confidential that I read recently):

 

________________(Start of copied part.)

Well, here's what one of the columnists at the Wall Street Journal has to say ... his name is Prof. Arthur Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs.

 

---------------------------------------

"The most recent evidence on this subject comes from the mid-1990s, in the University of Michigan's National Election Studies. These survey data uncover two facts. First, people who go to college are more likely to vote Republican than those who don't go to college. Adults 25 and under from Republican homes are, for example, 11 percentage points more likely to vote Republican if they attended college than if they didn't. And young adults from Democratic households are 11 percentage points less likely to vote Democrat if they've gone to college than if not.

 

Second, nearly everybody grows more likely to vote Republican as they age--but especially college graduates. It is no shock that the vast majority of people of all educational backgrounds from Republican homes vote Republican by age 40. It may come as more of a surprise that 40-year-olds with Democrat parents are far less likely to vote Democrat if they've gone to college than if they haven't. In fact, while three-quarters of the uneducated group still vote Democrat, the odds are only about 50-50 that the college graduates vote this way. And they've not all become skeptical political independents: Fully a third are registered Republicans.

 

Obviously, some kids turn left in college--but this appears to be the exception, not the rule. Does all this mean that our colleges and universities are actually breeding grounds for conservatism? Hardly. What the statistics really show is that higher education by itself doesn't affect political views very much. Rather, in addition to the strong influence of parents, it is higher incomes--which typically reward a college education in America--that push people to the right politically. In Republican families, the income effect reinforces parents' influence on their kids. In Democratic families, the two effects work against each other."

--------------------------------------------

 

CAVEAT : That was a study from the mid-1990's. I'm not sure if it applies today. So take it with caution as well.

 

_______________ (End of copied part.)

 

I'm one that was raised democrat from educationally employed parents. Once I got into the work world - the business world - and saw what I consider reality - I switched parties. I will certainly NOT say the Republicans have all the answers or always do everything right, but it's a myth to think the Democrats always do either. There is a lot of abuse of the "worker protection" systems including welfare, unions, and gov't control/regulations.

 

We can't get into politics without getting the thread deleted, but... just wanted to mention the above. It seems more educated people solely in education tend to be democrats (college profs, teachers) meaning the theory sounds great and makes sense. However, take those same demographics (went to college) and put them in the rest of the world and they tend to switch to be republican (when they see the theory not work in reality).

 

Then there are plenty of us in the middle (I think) who would like to reel in the abuses from the wealthy while also reeling in the abuses from the non-wealthy. For what it's worth, there are plenty of times where I vote a split ticket, but not lately.

 

So, taking the bold part first, I will say that you are right. There have always been sorry people and hard working people in this world and to pretend that will change by raising the minimum wage is disingenuous. My entire view comes from this principle: our educational system in this country is so flawed (another discussion topic) that we are churning out graduates (not to mention the millions of drop outs) that cannot get a job other than minimum wage. What should we do about that? They aren't overnight going to stop having kids and wanting the same things out of life as you or I. Used to be, you could be a drop out and get a decent paying job in a factory, but those days are gone. Either we need to raise the minimum wage, or the government needs to start actively promoting the humming factories again. This is a world economy and the "free market" no longer applies when we are somehow supposed to compete with slave labor in India, China, Indonesia...

 

Now, for the second part. I am a college educated daughter of college educated parents who are the children of my college educated grandparents. My father was active in the Republican Party when I was a child and even a delegate in the the Republican National Convention in Kansas City in 1976-- we all (7 kids+ my mom) attended. He was a friend of Ronald Reagan's and very active in several Republican political events in Pennsylvania in the 70's. He also held office in a few local government positions. My parents are now both die-hard Democrats-- a reaction to what they call the dumbing down mentality of the new Republican party. (wars we cannot win, denial of global warming, etc) I have voted for nearly 100% Democratic candidates for the last 10 years myself.

 

So, I guess 5/7 of my siblings (2 are Republicans) and I are anomalies?

 

Margaret

Edited January 13, 2011 by Margaret in GA

[Mrs Mungo]

A friends father passed away more than a year ago b/c he refused treatment for a second bout of cancer. He was a small business owner without insurance. He didn't want to leave his wife money to support herself and I still am opposed to universal healthcare. I realize that is not first hand experience it is only second had experience with medical bills. I believe he was close to 70 yo.

 

My youngest sister was diagnosed with breast cancer at 29 and had a 7 year old dd. If she didn't have insurance she should choose to die as to not burden society with her problems? She's a nurse who works for the state, so the government is paying for it anyway. Should they not?

 

My son has a lung disease that he's been hospitalized for twice. He's been receiving treatments for 6 years now. If I didn't have insurance I should let him die so as not to incur pricey hospital bills? My dh is military, so the government is paying for those treatments and hospital bills, should they not?

 

Catastrophic illnesses happen to people who are not 70 years old.

 

Many people out there do prefer their benefits to working. It's a huge fallacy to call all minimum wage or benefits earners saints and all CEO's or business owners demons. I will fully agree that there are some saints and demons out there, but for many on here, I seriously wonder how much "real business world" experience they have or if they are getting all their info from sound bites on the news.

 

All of my grandparents were small business owners. My MIL was a small business owner for *years*. Nobody, NOBODY has said a word about small business owners. Small businesses fall under entirely different laws than large corporations. My dh worked for a small business that made millions for the brothers who owned it. They sold their product all over the world. They kept fewer than 20 employees so that they would continue to be a small business. When you lump small-business owners in with CEOs who rake in hundreds of millions of dollars in wages and stock options while trashing their companies and/or ransacking the employees' pension funds, you are guilty of an egregious leap in logic.

 

I'm one that was raised democrat from educationally employed parents. Once I got into the work world - the business world - and saw what I consider reality - I switched parties. I will certainly NOT say the Republicans have all the answers or always do everything right, but it's a myth to think the Democrats always do either. There is a lot of abuse of the "worker protection" systems including welfare, unions, and gov't control/regulations.

 

And there is a tremendous amount of abuse on the other side.

 

However, take those same demographics (went to college) and put them in the rest of the world and they tend to switch to be republican (when they see the theory not work in reality).

 

The problem with your quote is that you imply there is only one reality-your reality. That's not the case.

 

Minimum wage was not meant for people to live off. It was meant for the highschool student, or the college student as he/she went through school, or as a supplement to a job paying a living wage.

 

I agree. The problem we have in this country at the moment is that living wage jobs are evaporating.

 

So, taking the bold part first, I will say that you are right. There have always been sorry people and hard working people in this world and to pretend that will change by raising the minimum wage is disingenuous. My entire view comes from this principle: our educational system in this country is so flawed (another discussion topic) that we are churning out graduates (not to mention the millions of drop outs) that cannot get a job other than minimum wage. What should we do about that? They aren't overnight going to stop having kids and wanting the same things out of life as you or I. Used to be, you could be a drop out and get a decent paying job in a factory, but those days are gone. Either we need to raise the minimum wage, or the government needs to start actively promoting the humming factories again. This is a world economy and the "free market" no longer applies when we are somehow supposed to compete with slave labor in India, China, Indonesia...

 

Now, for the second part. I am a college educated daughter of college educated parents who are the children of my college educated grandparents. My father was active in the Republican Party when I was a child and even a delegate in the the Republican National Convention in Kansas City in 1976-- we all (7 kids+ my mom) attended. He was a friend of Ronald Reagan's and very active in several Republican political events in Pennsylvania in the 70's. He also held office in a few local government positions. My parents are now both die-hard Democrats-- a reaction to what they call the dumbing down mentality of the new Republican party. (wars we cannot win, denial of global warming, etc) I have voted for nearly 100% Democratic candidates for the last 10 years myself.

 

So, I guess 5/7 of my siblings (2 are Republicans) and I are anomalies?

 

Margaret

 

You aren't anomalies at all, ime.

[mcconnellboys]

Yes, and young people are now virtually locked out of the market for jobs - rendering them more useless even than in past. How can they begin to learn adult skills and work skills when they can't get a job?

 

I didn't comment about doing away with minimum wage in order to appear "elitist" or unfeeling toward those who have trouble making ends meet. I would do many, many other things, too, such as ending corporate taxes and issuing incentives to bring industry back to America, so that many more jobs would be available for people to choose from. I'd also like to see unions done away with that don't serve any good purpose any longer and let the market reset....

 

I don't say that any such thing will ever occur, because unless our economy completely crashes I don't think it will - I simply answered the OP about what sort of wage *I* would like to see set....

[creekland]

Well, in regards to stats (people changing parties), stats NEVER apply to the individual - just to groups. That goes for my data and that of others who post. I fully believe the study is plausible from what I've seen. Plus, the vast majority of voters I know who are also business owners vote on economics as their main issue. For those who have other main issues (war, social issues, etc), that can sway anyone any direction. People have to choose what is most important to them. I've switched from other things to economics in my "morphing." The study in the article didn't even address what those studied were using. I could see economics being plausible, but maybe not? Who knows. It would be really interesting if a group would do a more current study on it IMO.

 

And to update the guy (business owner/teacher) waiting... hubby got a call for him today! Instead of being done next Tuesday, the inspector is coming on the 24th, and then it will take 8 more weeks. So much for being able to get going soon. This process was all started back in March '10. At least it's moving now. That's one less headache for hubby.

 

I suppose I should be thankful. Hubby's getting more money due to the gov't being on super slow mode. I know a private business would have a tough time staying in business using the same standards - minimum wage or not.

[Mama Geek]

My youngest sister was diagnosed with breast cancer at 29 and had a 7 year old dd. If she didn't have insurance she should choose to die as to not burden society with her problems? She's a nurse who works for the state, so the government is paying for it anyway. Should they not?

 

My son has a lung disease that he's been hospitalized for twice. He's been receiving treatments for 6 years now. If I didn't have insurance I should let him die so as not to incur pricey hospital bills? My dh is military, so the government is paying for those treatments and hospital bills, should they not?

 

Catastrophic illnesses happen to people who are not 70 years old.

 

 

I was trying to show that I am still against Universal Health Care and I have had someone fairly close that had huge medical bills the first go round with cancer and decided not to do go through it again for the sake of his family. It had been implied that no one who had ever gone through that could be against universal health care.

[Mrs Mungo]

I was trying to show that I am still against Universal Health Care and I have had someone fairly close that had huge medical bills the first go round with cancer and decided not to do go through it again for the sake of his family. It had been implied that no one who had ever gone through that could be against universal health care.

 

In other words, you have *not* personally experienced a catastrophic medical condition in yourself or one of your children.

[Mama Geek]

In other words, you have *not* personally experienced a catastrophic medical condition in yourself or one of your children.

 

I did say that it was second hand experience not first hand, so no my immediate family has not had catastrophic health problems.

[Mrs Mungo]

I did say that it was second hand experience not first hand, so no my immediate family has not had catastrophic health problems.

 

If it was your child's life on the line, would you let them waste away with cancer or incur the catastrophic medical bills?

[Slartibartfast]

I was trying to show that I am still against Universal Health Care and I have had someone fairly close that had huge medical bills the first go round with cancer and decided not to do go through it again for the sake of his family. It had been implied that no one who had ever gone through that could be against universal health care.

 

No you knew someone that was reaching the end of their probable life expentancy due to their illness and they chose to forgo further treatement. You cetainly never had the reality of actually paying those bills.

 

There are millions of people who are young and have had catastrophic medical bills. The number one reason people go bankrupt is medical bills.

 

My son could still need a heart transplant at some point in his life, who do you think will pay for that if congress overturns the latest bill so he can never get insurance? Hmm??

 

He is two years old. If congress repeals the healthcare bill he won't be insurable.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Sis

[Murphy101]

If it was your child's life on the line, would you let them waste away with cancer or incur the catastrophic medical bills?

 

I honestly don't understand this question or attitude.

 

I don't think anyone loving would make that decision.

 

But if you can't afford the bill - you can't.:confused:

 

It's kind of like asking, "If your child's life depended on you coming up with a million dollars, would you do it?"

 

:confused: If I could come up with a million dollars, I wouldn't wait for a life or death situation to do so! But I can't. And making the situation that dire wouldn't suddenly change that fact.

 

What the question really comes down to is, "If your child's life were on the line, would you take the medical care now and lie through your teeth about paying the bill later, knowing there is no way in hell you will ever actually be able to do so?"

 

My answer? Yes. I wouldn't like it and I know it is wrong, but I would not stand back and watch my child die needlessly for the sake of my financial

integrity.

[Mama Geek]

High deductible catastrophic health insurance is available. It is something that I am researching and will likely use. I am not going to get into debating health care again and this isn't the right thread to do so.

[Slartibartfast]

High deductible catastrophic health insurance is available. It is something that I am researching and will likely use. I am not going to get into debating health care again and this isn't the right thread to do so.

 

 

High deductible catastrophic insurance doesn't work that way. It is for the unexpected not chronic illnesses. They wouldn't take my son (or me)

 

However, trying to minimize health care costs by buying a catastrophic plan could work against you. If you have monthly medical expenses, like prescription drugs or supplies for a chronic condition, this kind of plan won't be of much use to you. There are several conditions that might get you excluded from any health insurance policy, but the list of conditions that would make you ineligible for a catastrophic policy is much longer. In addition, many catastrophic policies contain a clause that suspends coverage for maternity care until after a year of membership.

 

http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/healthcare/insurance/catastrophic-insurance1.htm

[Mrs Mungo]

I honestly don't understand this question or attitude.

 

 

Because real life people DO make these decisions, every day. It is entirely possible to spend your life working hard, making good decisions and the world can still screw you over. Some people don't seem to want to believe that it's possible.

[Mrs Mungo]

High deductible catastrophic health insurance is available. It is something that I am researching and will likely use. I am not going to get into debating health care again and this isn't the right thread to do so.

 

That will help if you are diagnosed with breast cancer. It won't help if your baby is diagnosed with cystic fibrosis.

[Mama Geek]

I don't look at it as the world screwing me over when something bad happens. Life, death and illnesses are all a part of life.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't look at it as the world screwing me over when something bad happens. Life, death and illnesses are all a part of life.

 

I meant from a financial standpoint.

[Murphy101]

Because real life people DO make these decisions, every day. It is entirely possible to spend your life working hard, making good decisions and the world can still screw you over. Some people don't seem to want to believe that it's possible.

 

Well sure I believe it is possible.

 

I still don't understand the question.

 

Was it intended to be rhetorical?

[Murphy101]

Catastrophic insurance is a joke for most people.

I consider it a scam.

 

If I had $5000.00, plus 20% copayment for major medical - I'd use the money to buy a regular and better policy.

 

And if I don't have it, I'm still looking at more than enough debt to bankrupt a low income family. Goes double if the breadwinner is the one that needs the care.