Given that fact that 99% of the economists in the United States feel that raising the minimum wage is bad for our economy, do you feel it is wise for our politicians to keep increasing the minimum wage?

Comments

• Stronghart, I am not making up those numbers. I got them out of the book "Ten Things You Can't Say in America" and will give you the references later when I have time. Now, I am not against the working poor at all. I grew up poor and know the perils of it. I also know that raising the minimum wage is not the way to fix anything because it actually hurts those it's supposed to help. And it is not I but politicians who have actually said that most Americans are too dumb to understand that the value of the dollar goes down too much when the minimum wage is raised... I learned first hand how awful increasing the min wage is when I had a business. I never started anyone off at min wage & gave raises often until the min wage was raised and my cost of doing business escalated to the point where I could no longer afford to pay any employees a penny above min wage (I made no wage). But beyond that, I learned the reason min wage was started: to screw the lower class.

  • Report
  

  by Sherilane on March 16th, 2007

• Also, I have no problem with most of you not agreeing with me because hasn't it always been that way. When you're average, you threaten no one!

  • Report
  

  by Sherilane on March 16th, 2007

• "The Ten Things You Cant Say in America" is a book written by Larry Elder, a libertarian shock jock radio commentator who has ideas that, well, are closer to hyperbole than ideas. If you took the trouble to read his book, would you also take the trouble to read another book, "Nickle and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich? She comes from the opposite side of the political spectrum, so perhaps between the two books you might find a balance point.
  
  In any event, even Larry Elder doesn't believe that 99% of economists oppose raising the minimum wage.

  • Report
  

  by centrator on March 16th, 2007

• I was skeptical of the 99% claim.  Aside from a few basic principles, economics is not a hard science; and as the old saying goes, “If you took all the economists in the world, and had each one stand on top of the previous one's shoulders, they still would be unable to reach a conclusion.”  It falls within the small hard-science part of economics to say that raising the minimum wage would unavoidably cause inflation.  There is no way around this, and this is not a point of controversy.  Higher wages mean higher prices, period.  Which means, in turn, that a given amount of money is worth less than before.  Certainly, anyone whose wages don't increase will suffer as a result.  What is controversial is the point — if any — at which an increase in one's wages will offset the resulting inflation.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on March 16th, 2007

• Yes, Larry Elder did write and say that 99% of economists oppose raising the minimum wage. If you read the book, why did you feel the need to lie? And Larry Elder, is NOT A SHOCK JOCK. Just because you don't believe in what he has to say, doesn't give you the moral right to call him names. But, again, as I've said many times before, that is what liberals do: they attack the person instead of dealing with the facts. And if you can stop and think logically for one second you would understand that YES, an artificial raise, or forced increase, across the board, does cause inflation. If fact, it was the single greatest cause of inflation: why, because, across the board, virtually every business owner increases the price of their goods to adjust for the forced increase. It is not difficult to understand. And, by the way, you ask me to take the time to read the liberal book "nickle and dimed" when you did not even take the time to read "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America."

  • Report
  

  by Sherilane on April 2nd, 2007

Comments

• double points for truth and humor. I love this guyl

  • Report
  

  by George Dufferin on March 16th, 2007

• and only 62% of the Democrats do

  • Report
  

  by Someguy on March 16th, 2007

• Oh my gosh, what a lie Branciforte! You made that number up but I am sure you feel that is ok because that IS what democrats, as a whole, do. They lie to prove their point but feel that their lie justifies the end, which is being the big brother to the world for after all, they know best!

  • Report
  

  by Sherilane on March 16th, 2007

• Just like you made up the 99%? Or can you cite a reliable source on that? I thought not. (BTW, I am not a Democrat.)
  
  

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on March 16th, 2007

• Sherilane? Where'd you go? Surely you are preparing a rhetorical counter-attack! After all, your profile says that you graduated from college "summa cum latte", which I assume means that you made the best coffee. Why do you tease us with your barbed taunts and then run away? :(
  

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on March 17th, 2007

Comments

• more money would be nice, that also means more money for schools and stuff...

  • Report
  

  by Knopper67 on March 15th, 2007

• Not an economist, but I can read, and do read - and this is one school of thought regarding income. :) Plus more earning = more tax = more money spent on things that tax pays for.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on March 15th, 2007

• Knowing who to trust is a question I could not even contemplate answering! Once people are in power they tend to be less trustworthy I think, but en masse people can make quite stupid choices, so who knows? Good question :)

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on March 15th, 2007

• Do you know that we all lose when the minimum wage is increased? Especially those who make minimum wage? It is true because those earning minimum wage actually make less. Yes:less. Less because the value of the dollar decreases exponentially to the increase of the minimum wage. Politicians often say that the average person is too dumb to understand this so they go ahead and increase it in order to "look caring." They think most Americans are too stupid to understand that an increase in the minimum wage will get a full-time worker, say an extra $2000 a year but the cost of living will increase to the point that it will now cost that full-time worker an additional $2036 to live. In the end, the increase in minimum wage will result in that person making $36 less a year. See, business owners merely increase the cost of everything and end up making the same profit and then some so that THEY can adjust for the inflation and the increase cost. Min wage is actually less today than 50 yrs ago.

  • Report
  

  by Sherilane on March 15th, 2007

• Money doesn't just come out of nowhere.  I am often amazed at how ignorant most people are of this simple fact.  If employers are forced to pay their workers more money, then they have to raise the price of their products and services in order to bring in that additional money.  This means that it now takes more money to buy the same goods and services than before, which means that the money itself is now worth less.  So in the end, the workers really don't gain anything.  They get more money, but but the resulting inflation means that their money doesn't actually buy any more than it did before.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on March 15th, 2007

• Fair points BB & sherilane - I can learn something new everyday. At least I answered this question! No one else seemed game enough to answer it... & at least you gave me a reason for your down-rate this time BB :) Cheers to you =)

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on March 15th, 2007

• BB - there is one problem. If we don't earn enough to pay our rent and utilities, then less goods are sold which also reduces the profits of retailers and distributors and manufacturers and importers. You ARE correct in pointing out the interrelatedness. The fundamental problem is the distribution of wealth. Compare the income disparity of the highest level of workers to that of the lowest workers within the same company and you will find that that gap is growing over time. I refuse to be forced to go on food stamps because some big-wig wants to pocket a few more dollars that he'll never need because he's worth more than he'll spend for the rest of his life anyways. I have nothing against people being successful; I jsut object to them doing so to the detriment of the populace as a whole.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on March 15th, 2007

• Did anyone take in effect that the only business this affects is the ones that pay minimum wage? So a cost of a McDonalds cheese burger might go up. I work for a company where the lowest paid job is $10.50 per hour. So minimum wage in Pa going up to $7.15 doesn't affect us one bit. Maybe small business owners. But inflation is inflation. It hurts some, but in the long run it's going to help the people that need it

  • Report
  

  by Kgsult on March 15th, 2007

• Sherilane might have a point if everyone's salary went up by x%, but that is not the case here. This is narrowing the gap in the distribution of wealth. A single worker has the right to demand a raise and it is a major function of the government to facilitate collective bargaining. The sad thing is that Sherilane has no idea how moronic she looks calling most Americans stupid while she herself is merely parroting the bad math of her corporate overlords. She is big on making up numbers and "hard facts", but can she cite some references for us? This woman has no shame.

  • Report
  

  by branciforte3241 on March 15th, 2007

Comments

Comments

• yes, but the minimum wage is meant only as a starter job, where 87% of Americans don't work for minimum wage: they make more and raising the minimum wage actually results in less dollars for everyone, especially those who make minimum wage anyway. Did you know that the only reason Roosevelt implemented a minimum wage was to screw over black coal miners. Yes, black workers were cutting the "white man's job" of coal mining by offering to work for less pay. Then they would do a superior job and, as a result, would end up making more than the white man due to raises... So, in steps the president to implement a minimum wage for coal miners only. This minimum wage was only supposed to be temporary, and only for coal miners but sense it did such a great job cutting out minorities, it spread to other fields.It also helped business owners cut out new competition because those without massive resources couldn't afford to start up a business because of min wage. We have the same problem today.

  • Report
  

  by Sherilane on March 15th, 2007

• This coal miner sounds fishy to me. who is your spin doctor?

  • Report
  

  by centrator on March 16th, 2007

• Actually, that is exactly why it was started. And it was only supposed to last for 8 years, but I am not sure about this number: I will check it. I got my facts out of the "Ten Things You Can't Say in America," by Larry Elder. And he got his information straight from the original records. Now, I think better than a minimum wage, we should have a maximum wage and any $$ over that has to go back evenly (?) to the workers. The maximum amount can be millions. But I know that there is NO WAY America would ever have a maximum wage. I just think it would do more to help America's workers than the minimum wage does. Truth be told, I don't believe we should have either. With no minimum wage, poor people could afford to start up a business. But with a minimum wage, businesses are only for the upper class and a lucky few.

  • Report
  

  by Sherilane on March 16th, 2007

• I just looked up info on the beginning of the minimum wage. You can find it too if you google "coal miners minimum wage." I got my information out of the book "Ten Things You Can't Say in America." But on the web site, it said that there was more than just the coal mining field that Roosevelt established minimum wage for. It was also established for a few other service jobs such as the rail road. But again, there was a lot of coal mining involved in laying the rr. And now, about your comment about no min wage not being beneficial for the poor to be able to start businesses. Please just think about it. Since payroll, on average, it the single greatest expense in business, it would make it easier for the poor to be successful in business. Many, and I mean many people start business everyday, but 95% fail by year one, with 99% failing by year five (statics taken from the book, "Street Smarts for Women Entrepreneurs).

  • Report
  

  by Sherilane on April 2nd, 2007

• I ran out of space. The book explained that the two greatest reasons for failure are as follows: 1) most fail to create a viable business plan, if any plan at all. 2) lack of cash flow. Now, lack of cash flow ties into payroll. To continue, did you know that there are several government programs that back small business loans for minorities and women? In fact right here on the left coast, in Southern Cal. As long as you are not a white mail, you can get backed 80% on a small business loan. In Northern California, as long as you are not a white man or woman, the government will back your loan by 80%. So you see, there are resources for the poor... Our tax dollars pay for this service, called The Small Business Development Center. The centers are located throughout the United States. They even help with writing businesses plan, have "free" legal services... While I did not use them to back my loan, they helped me in many other ways. I sold my store after 7 years: very successful.

  • Report
  

  by Sherilane on April 2nd, 2007

• And us white males get... NADA!!!

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on April 2nd, 2007

Comments

• Remember President Truman wishing he could find a one armed economist? He wanted one who couldn't take a position, and then say, "on the other hand..." I wish I could give you extra points...

  • Report
  

  by centrator on March 16th, 2007

• Excellent answer. A little common sense thrown into the sea of absolutism!

  • Report
  

  by Stableboy on March 17th, 2007

Comments

Comments

• I wouldn't call them "basic". Remember, the average American sucks at math and complex thinking. Maybe if we had funded "No child left behind" instead of no-bid contracts to Halliburton.....

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on March 15th, 2007

• Right, who cares if people can't afford to buy new clothes, feed their families properly, obtain medical care, pay rent for a decent place. That's their problem, not mine! Unfortunately many Americans have been brainwashed by Republicans and conservatives to think this way. Greed is Good! And many of the people refered to above are Christians! Could this be true?

  • Report
  

  by Stronghart on March 15th, 2007

• Stronghart, but raising the minimum wage only results in LESS MONEY for the worker who makes minimum wage. This is a cold hard fact: not subjective. So raising the minimum wage does nothing to allow workers to buy new clothes, feed their families... It only serves to take from them while giving them the illusion of making more you see but most people are to dumb to follow this logic, this fact.

  • Report
  

  by Sherilane on March 15th, 2007

• Sherilane: Re-read your arguements: note that you repeat the following authoritative words: "cold hard facts", "this fact". the "fact that 99%..." These are not "facts, Sherri, these are your opinions, that somehow you have decided are "facts." Just because you call something a "fact" doesn't make it so.
  
  There are some arguements against raising the minimum wage, but none that I have read (yet) has posited the idea that paying a higher wage results in less money for the wage earner.
  
  It may result in less money for the wage PAYER. Perhaps that's why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes raising the wage. --But they have no opposition to rasing the multi-million dollar salaries for CEOs and other executives. I suppose that giving these million dollar salaries also "results in LESS MONEY" for the executives.
  
  

  • Report
  

  by Stronghart on March 16th, 2007

Comments

• Most of the above arguments only go to prove what politicians know about the masses! I just read that 80% of minimum wage workers are teenagers http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-01-99.html. I find it amusing that people don't understand that the price of just about everything goes up when the minimum wage is increased. The biggest cost of doing business is payroll. And only about 10% of the work force even make minimum wage. I think that the average wage in the US is $26 per hour but I need to go check that. So you are so right: get a better job because there are plenty of them out there!

  • Report
  

  by Sherilane on March 17th, 2007

• Ooops, I was wrong, I just checked, the average hourly wage in the US is $18.09, but that was in 2004.

  • Report
  

  by Sherilane on March 17th, 2007

• It's not how much you make, it's how much you keep. In the previously referenced "good old days" when one salary supported a family the taxation demands of the federal, state and local governments were a small fraction of what they currently are.

  • Report
  

  by Mirage V2.0 AWOL on March 17th, 2007

Comments

• Why do you believe it is so complicated for the public to understand that when the minimum wage is increased, so is inflation? In fact, I did a major study/report on this, and found that minimum wage increase is the single greatest factor of inflation! Why can't the public understand that when we increase the min wage (mostly teenagers receive min wage), the rest of the workers get a decrease in their wage due to the fact that the price of just about EVERYTHING goes up? Politicians know this--meaning they have often been quoted saying that the masses can't understand this concept. As a result, politicians feel a need to increase it anyway so as to give an appearance that they "care" about the "working poor." Did you notice that when Clinton raised the min wage, he made it go into effect after he was OUT OF OFFICE? Why? So the next president would take the fall for the negative effects it was going to have on the economy! So, while Clinton may be immoral, he's not THAT stupid.

  • Report
  

  by Sherilane on April 1st, 2007

Comments

Comments

• Let's assume that McDonald's will be forced to raise prices in order to increase wages. (not necessarily so, but for the sake of argument, I grant you that.) Would you want their low wage workers to subsidize your lunch so that you won't have to pay more for a hamburger?

  • Report
  

  by centrator on March 16th, 2007

• The workers should not have to subsidize for anything. But if the price of the hamburgers goes up it is a gaurantee that I won't eat there anymore. I would rather go to a steak house and pay $6 for a burger rather than pay the same amount for a fast food burger.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymoose on March 19th, 2007

Comments

• I am familiar only wih one union contract. This particular one covers 125,000, employees. It does not have the provision you mention. It is true, however, that at contract time, the minimum wage is considered in caucus (privately) but it is considered a "no no" by both sides to mention it at the bargaining table.

  • Report
  

  by centrator on March 16th, 2007

• Ahh, how refreshing Someguy, you actually are smart and you are correct.

  • Report
  

  by Sherilane on March 17th, 2007

Comments

• Wages are only one of many costs incurred when running a business. Raising wages 10% does not raise total expenses by 10%. Total expenses are raised a fraction of the ten percent. For instance: if a business has only two expenses, say rent and wages, and rent is $1000 per month and wages are $1000 per month also, and the employees get a 10% wage increase to $1100 per month; then total expense would be $2100 per month, an increase of 5%, not 10%. But, as you know, there are far more expenses than wages and rent. Therefore the overall effect of raising wages would be even less. And, under most circumstances these days wage increases have been running less than 2% a year (except for highly paid execs--but that's another story.)

  • Report
  

  by centrator on March 16th, 2007

Comments

Comments

Comments