quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
Here's the problem with raising the "minimum wage" to a "living wage":
Prices will rise in areas (poor areas) exponentially, and for those who can least afford it. In wealthier areas, it won't make a damn bit of difference. 2 - 4%, max. Not even a modest change in lifestyle for most.

quote:

Wealth doesn't occur by virtue of a mandate....it occurs because those who are poor choose no longer to be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
Here's the problem with raising the "minimum wage" to a "living wage":
Prices will rise in areas (poor areas) exponentially, and for those who can least afford it. In wealthier areas, it won't make a damn bit of difference. 2 - 4%, max. Not even a modest change in lifestyle for most.

Not only will those in the poor areas be hit harder by an increase in costs, there will likely be fewer of them working, as the lowest skill jobs end up requiring an even greater amount of skill in an employee, because of the increased cost. Fewer of the poor working, while increasing their costs. Just one of those consequences that happen beyond the first step after a change.

quote:

Wealth doesn't occur by virtue of a mandate....it occurs because those who are poor choose no longer to be.

Choice has to be followed up by action. And, I fully believe the majority of "the poor" are quite capable of acting after making th choice to no longer be poor. But, I am one of those people who thinks that it's not government's job to think for us, so...

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

LOLOLOL.

So, we are back to cant buy a pound of hamburger today, cant buy it tomorrow when the costs go up, so dont have the costs go up, so that they will be closer to buying it, even though they will still go hungry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

As an employee back in the day and living through a few increases in the min, wage, I've never seen or ever heard of a single layoff due to it.

The Davis-Bacon act ONLY applies to federal contracts and work on federally owned property, so those new parking lots for IBM and MS which are private and of which about 90% of that space is rented and does not increase private wages at all and thus renders the whole point moot, plus.....

(when I first transferred to DC for IBM, I was making less then the apprentice techs. building the metro subway system and my managers told us...tuff shit)

.....let us not forget, several million employees are unaffected and do not benefit from the federal min. wage as [it] ONLY applies to employees working for an employer that engages in interstate commerce. For example, by far, most waitresses are exempt and anybody who works on a 1099 (millions of temps) are also exempt.

The logic is inescapable, in that if raising the min. wage causes inflation and kills jobs then surely the lavish increases on wall street, for corporate executives, lawyers and doctor's incomes must also cause inflation and kill jobs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

CBO just released this.

Increasing the minimum wage would have two principal effects on low-wage workers. Most of them would receive higher pay that would increase their family’s income, and some of those families would see their income rise above the federal poverty threshold. But some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated, the income of most workers who became jobless would fall substantially, and the share of low-wage workers who were employed would probably fall slightly

Now that's worth a warm fuzzy [8D] Makes me tingle all over [8|]


Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on the Federal Budget

In addition to affecting employment and family income, increasing the federal minimum wage would affect the federal budget directly by increasing the wages that the federal government paid to a small number of hourly employees and indirectly by boosting the prices of some goods and services purchased by the government. Most of those costs would need to be covered by discretionary appropriations, which are capped through 2021 under current law.

Federal spending and taxes would also be indirectly affected by the increases in real income for some people and the reduction in real income for others. As a group, workers with increased earnings would pay more in taxes and receive less in federal benefits of certain types than they would have otherwise. However, people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, business owners, and consumers facing higher prices would see a reduction in real income and would collectively pay less in taxes and receive more in federal benefits than they would have otherwise. CBO concludes that the net effect on the federal budget of raising the minimum wage would probably be a small decrease in budget deficits for several years but a small increase in budget deficits thereafter. It is unclear whether the effect for the coming decade as a whole would be a small increase or a small decrease in budget deficits.


Okay, 20 bucks on increasing deficits for the WIN. 100 if I can play the Trifecta. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

LOLOLOL.

So, we are back to cant buy a pound of hamburger today, cant buy it tomorrow when the costs go up, so dont have the costs go up, so that they will be closer to buying it, even though they will still go hungry.

No.

Do something with your skill sets so that hamburger is an option.

Not a luxury.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

I consider myself a conservative and/or a republican, but:

People who work should make enough money to eat.
It's a simple concept.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

or shot

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

"Wealth doesn't occur by virtue of a mandate....it occurs because those who are poor choose no longer to be."

quote:

The logic is inescapable, in that if raising the min. wage causes inflation and kills jobs then surely the lavish increases on wall street, for corporate executives, lawyers and doctor's incomes must also cause inflation and kill jobs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

I don't need a survey to tell me what would happen with a nationwide "living wage".

Places like Seattle, San Francisco, San Jose, Chicago, NYC....rents would rise by about 3% at best and life would go on (of course, Nebraska, Wyoming, etc., they'd just laugh).

Every place else, like Eastern Washington, Iowa, most of the Midwest, all of Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico, most of Texas, rents would double because....landlords ain't stoooopit.

Costs would rise for bread, milk and agricultural goods by about 30 - 60% within 6 months. But, in all fairness, as to the rest of the world, our food is still cheap. The average cost to a family of four is, 22% of household income goes to food. With a "living wage" (since most food workers earn lower on the pay scale), food would go to about 30%....not all that big of a bite when compared to the rest of the world paying 70 - 90% of their earnings towards food.....we'd still have a problem here with weight gain, I'm certain.

There's a valid reason for a "living wage". But let's be clear, the "minimum wage" was never intended to be a living wage any more than SSI was intended to be a retirement account.

One of the S's in SSI of course, stands for "supplemental".

A "living wage" would be the equivalent of a "mini" union wage....a start above what would be barely survivable in many cities, enough to buy a decent home in some.

Union wages are, without debate, what brought wages up in the 40's and 50's (and earlier).

They're also the basis for the Davis Bacon act which as some may know, is the federal predicate for paying (more than) union wages on federally funded projects to protect unions.

Now, by itself, that's not so awful. It insures that on the whole, across the country, everyone gets payed a "fair" wage for comparable work, whether you're in NYC of Alabama.

But there's clauses in the Davis Bacon act that ensures that it's "never less than x of the minimum wage". Depending on the area (and state), that's 3 - 7 times the minimum wage for the lowest earners on a federally funded project (flaggers/shovel holders, etc.).

Paving crews that pave exceptionally good parking lots for IBM, Microsoft (millions of square feet) for 25 bucks an hour, are mandated by the Davis Bacon act (your taxes) to pay 50, 60 and even 125 bucks an hour....paving with the same equipment, same tonnage per hour, same risk, and same danger.

So, instead of paying 2 million bucks a mile, you're paying 5 million.....a mile....for the same exact amount of driving surface, rail, stop bar, stop light, crosswalk, stop sign and even.....road reflector and tree in the middle of the road that Microsoft, IBM, Vaughns, Fred Meyer, Target, WalMart and others pay.

Everyone above 40 has worked at some point in their lives for 2 - 7 bucks an hour knowing it sucked....honing our skill sets....hoping that someone, someday, may recognize our unique abilities, knowing that with time, knowledge, and bettering ourselves, we'd do......better.

And for those of us who have improved our skill sets...we have.

(Those that haven't improved their skill sets, haven't fared as well).

Here's the problem with raising the "minimum wage" to a "living wage":

Prices will rise in areas (poor areas) exponentially, and for those who can least afford it. In wealthier areas, it won't make a damn bit of difference. 2 - 4%, max. Not even a modest change in lifestyle for most.

Taxes will rise (nationwide) because that 5 million dollar a mile road will rise to 6.5 million. Why? Because....union wages are based on....you guessed it....base wages.

The higher the bottom is....by %, the higher the union (and therefore, federal Davis Bacon) wages are and will be.

And so, across the entire spectrum, taxes will rise, food costs will rise, rents will rise to accommodate the markets ability to afford same.....and, like someone once said.....

"Take all the wealth in the world, distribute it equally amongst every citizen of the planet and....within 5 years, 10 tops, those who are wealthy now, with just a few name changes, will be wealthy again....only this time....they'd be even wealthier still".

Wealth doesn't occur by virtue of a mandate....it occurs because those who are poor choose no longer to be.