Does anyone really think this is a good idea? Especially with the economy "recovering" the way it is?

I'm asking because I was reading the paper today and out of 3 letters on this topic, 2 were for the increase.

It should increase IMO.

For example, if I were making minimum wage, and still making the
drive into downtown Houston every day, my gas bill alone just going
back and forth to work would consume 32% of my total take home pay.

( GROSS pay, not net )

I can't imagine trying to eke out a life at that pay rate.

I can't say what the minimum SHOULD be, but I do believe it should
be adjusted for inflation every year.

I mean damn, $580 Gross every two weeks is really sad.

Honestly I am on the fence myself. Depends on how much it inflates, and harms the relative purchasing power of those in the $10/hr range.

ie will it make the working poor a little better off, or will it simply harm the relative purchasing power of those who were previously not wealthy, but at least above baseline while inflation kills any possible gains thereby effectively making more people even poorer?

I dont have a good model right now for this. I doubt it would be catastrophic. If it does not appreciably inflate, I am good with it.

If we somehow got really lucky, the GOP will agree to pass this in a quiet backroom deal where the Dems agree to stop assaulting our political and civil rights in return.

I think it's a mistake. A raise at work is good, minimum bump across the board isn't going to help. Employers will hire less and/or fire people they can't afford to retain. Costs of living will just go up because everyone takes home more so then people raise prices to match. I think it will hurt more then it helps.


A backroom deal like that does look attractive though.

Market forces are unable to regulate this partially due to captive markets effect in minimum wage employment. Working full time and still ending below poverty line is simply offloading employment costs on the government.

Why are taxpayers are in business of sponsoring Wallmart and the likes employment costs?

Do you have any evidence to support this?

Do you have any to contradict it? Its common sense to me. What's the minimum now? I'm not sure so for the sake of easy math im going with 7 an hour. If I employ 10 people all of whom work 40 hours a week. That is 2,800 a week before taxes. At 9 an hour each is 3600. I can't afford more then 2800 a week, so that's 2 employees gone. Or, I was planning on hiring 2 new people before but that money is now spent on the higher minimum.

I don't have evidence, im on a phone, I just have common sense.

You are one making assertion.

To be correct you should state: "According to Stub's common sense, minimum bump across the board isn't going to help. 9 out of 10 Stubs agree that employers will hire less and/or fire people".

So you employ 10 people in Texas at 7.25$/hour full time or $15080/year. According to HHS for a family of two (e.g. sing mother) this is below poverty line. This makes your workers eligible for all kinds of social benefits and programs. This means goverment pays them another $2-3K in benefits (conservative estimate).

Now explain to me why I, as a taxpayer, should be on the hook for you underpaying your workers? Why is government sponsoring your business with a $20-30K/year handout?

Well, many people think wages offered should be based on what a business is able and willing to pay. Not what a third party decides that an employee needs. If the taxpayers want to dole out money to people, then thats their problem.

That being said, overall minimum wage is a lot less arbitrary in implementation, and also typically a lot less damaging than the majority of govt interventionism.

IF the govt hadnt distorted the economy and inhibited growth and employment in the first place, a rising minimum wage would likely not be needed. In an unstable economy already hosed by mismanaged fiat money and financial protectionism , a rising minimum wage may be the only means to help the lower rung people pay for rising costs of basic necessities like food and gas that are inflated by our insane monetary and fiscal policies and conveniently left out of govt inflation indexes.

To wit: Other govt policies are likely the far larger culprit in terms of inflationary pressure. But telling people what they have to pay isnt all rainbows and roses either.

This isn't a trident commercial, its 10 out of 10 Stubs agree. I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

That aside, even raising the minimum wage isn't going to help much. I make more then minimum right now and it isn't enough to live on in NY, unless you live at home with your folks. So not only is the quality of life improvement marginal, it also hurts us as a whole.

As for why you should be responsible, well, you voted.for the TOOL we have in the white house now right? You approve of all his social programs right? What's different in this case?

"Honestly I am on the fence myself. Depends on how much it inflates,
and harms the relative purchasing power of those in the $10/hr range. "

Good point.

Let's say the wage increases. Now McCorporation has to decide
how much of a hit to profits they want to absorb and how much to
pass on to the end customer.

Shareholders will raise holy hell about anything eating into
their profits, but if they pass the entire cost onto the end
customer, few will be buying a McBurger that has doubled in
price whacking the profit margin anyway.

Hardest hit will be the very folks who would benefit from such
an increase to begin with. If they make slightly more, but the
costs increase slightly more, what have we really done here ?

Derid, have you ever consider that minimum wage could be influenced by something else other than market forces? That is, could you imagine a scenario where something, say a power differential or monopoly of some sorts, could create a situation where highly replaceable worker's wages are suppressed?

Another question, if a market dictates that a worker is paid below level where it is possible to survive (not the same as poverty level) is it society's imperative to intervene?

Last question, do you think that market forces should go beyond determining prosperity and dictate who survives, or stays healthy, or has kids? Lets ignore for a second that social programs exist.

Lets say 100% of minimum wages increase is passed onto consumers. Employment costs in the fast food industry are marginal, so you will never get "double the price" even if you double the minimum wage. Do you think 25c more per burger for paying 12$/hour (it is more like 2-3c per extra $/hour if cost-structure is similar to pizzas) is too much to pay living wage? In other words, are societal benefits of marginal price cuts justify social ills such cuts create?

I don't sometimes understand conservatives. Henry Ford had it right - you pay your workers enough so they can buy your product. Squeezing marginal profit increases out of suppressing minimal wages is social equivalent of toxic waste dumping - it creates a lot of problems downstream.

Let me put it another way that you could probably understand - it is more effective to pay more people who work, then to pay into welfare system that has people that don't work in it.

Considered? Sure. Observed? Nope. Note your own term "highly replaceable". That right there is an indicator that there is too much supply, not enough demand.

You have brought up this concept before, and I confess it is not a factor I can say I observe to a degree that its consideration outweighs other factors. You should probably link me the origin sometime so I can read it myself. I see how someone could come to such a theory, but as of right now I see it as a restatement of the simple too much supply/demand.

--

As to your other two questions, I would rather assert that the you are trying to solve the wrong problem. Focusing on side effects of the primary economic problems are temporary fixes.

If it was possible to enact an economic paradigm that would organically result in close to full employment, thereby raising thee value of labor and raising barriers to worker replacement driving wages up - would you say that this is a better or worse solution than stepping in and forcing businesses in a sick economy that they have to pay "x" now minimum per employee?

Its really not that I think people should be poor, or enjoy the poverty of others. I doubt that anyone here feels that way. I do worry that enacting measures that temporarily mask the fundamental problems, and allow society the temporary luxury of procrastinating in dealing with the core issues can be dangerous - even as I worry how effective the temporary measures will even be.

Living in a country with a higher minimum wage, I'm gonna tell from experience what it does: increase the non experienced people unemployment.

No entrepreneur in his right mind would pay a salary to someone who can't produce more than what he is costing. And guess who falls in this category? Young people and people who have to change their line of work due to some sector being rendered useless.
Unless you have a really good education system oriented as to facilitate people's employability, you get more unemployment.

And the more unemployment you get, the less people are willing to try getting a new job, they cling to their current situation. At the end, you get an economy which is slowing.
See the current state of the southern europe states: that's where you're heading if you stay on course for the next 50 years.