If you cannot afford to pay someone ten bucks an hour, you shouldn't be in business, or you shouldn't at the least be hiring for another position.
Posted by God Of War at May 9, 2006 08:02 AMIf you cannot afford to pay someone ten bucks an hour
Or you should hire an illegal immigrant at $3.00 an hour.
Now we get to hear all the tired republi-con lies. "Only kids make minimum." This would be true except for the millions of single mothers living on minimum wage. "It will make businesses less competitive." Which would be true, unless you look at profit margins. "Minimum was not designed to be a living wage." Which would be true, except it was thought of as the minimum necessary to live for a single person.
Historically, if you look at the purchasing power of the dollar, minimum needs to be close to $12.50 an hour to have the same purchasing power it had when I worked minimum wage jobs in the 70's. But we had Reagan gut the economy, and the idiot son of George Busch gut the economy, so who knows what it has to be to be reflective of "minimum" living standards.
The neo-cons will not be satisfied until America is as stratified as Brazil. Massive slums on one side, less massive wealth on the other. Their perfect society exists, and I hope they go visit.
Posted by phidipides at May 9, 2006 08:17 AMI own a liquor store that employs 7 people, which rotates frequently. I start my employees at $9 an hour and raise them to $11 after 90 days. If they stay with me for a year they are making $12 an hour or more.
The minimum wage is irrelevant to small business owners but it works great for the sleaze ball corporatists that deeer leeeder and the rethugs carry the water for. They need to stop using us for cover and Dems need to point this out.
Posted by realitythink at May 9, 2006 08:56 AMRaising the minimum wage stimulates the economy. FDR and every president after him until Reagan understood this. Demand side economics work.
Big f-ing deal. With the majority of the states paying less than $7.00 per hour ($5.15 for Missouri), it is a waste of time unless they raise it by at least $4.00 per hour. Of course, we know that isn't going to happen, so why bother.
Posted by Judith at May 9, 2006 12:33 PMMy lowest paid employee is paid $10.00/hour and I pay for her benefits. My part time employess are paid $18.00/hour.
I beleive that if you pay people a decent wage they are more likely to give you good service and good performance.
Posted by Mark at May 9, 2006 02:56 PMYeah, tax-breaks for the wealthy "stimulates the economy" but raising the minimum wage dosnt. These economic fascists are so full of shit and completely lacking in any sense of fair dealing and common decency (let "the market" determine right and wrong) it would be laughable if it weren't so fucking pathetic.
Posted by jondee at May 9, 2006 03:25 PMA good disaster will raise the minimum wage: in New Orleans fast food places have been paying $10 and hour with signing bonuses since October.
Posted by Brian Boru at May 9, 2006 08:57 PMIf this were really accurate, why aren't all those small businesses that believe in "welfare" simply raising the minimum wage on their own? Yes, employees are valuable and you pay them to keep them, but clearly there is some segment of the workforce that is simply not worth the minimum wage.
Posted by David at May 10, 2006 10:04 AMAmazing. So, basically, according to this poll, small business owners think that a raise is:
1. Good for their employees.
2. Does not cost them anything.
But they won't give them a raise. Instead, they want to be FORCED to give them a raise.
David is right - if it was me, and I thought I can do good at no cost to me - I would have done it right away. And, if I had the reason NOT to do it on my own, I would definitely not want to be forced to do it.
Something does not sound right here. Are they morons?
Also, about the comparison with tax cuts and why tax cut stimulate economy while minimum wage does not. Minimum wage does not mean that you get more goods. When we raise wage like that - we do not do it becuase more goods are produced. So, the amount of goods stays the same. As a result, supply is the same, demand grows and so do prices - and the prices grow until the demand lowers back to where it was. In the end, prices are up, wages are up, but we can buy the same things as before.
Imagine that you try to fight obesity this way. So, we pronounce that we introduce "new pounds" that will be twice heavier then "old pound". Now, if Joe used to weigh 300 old poinds, he now is tipping the scales at 150 new ones. Do you think it means Joe's body looks more athletic now?
As for the tax cuts, - imagine that you earn an extra dollar. Does it mean that your consumption goes up by a dollar? No, less then that. If we decrease the part of that extra dollar that someone who earned it, keeps and spends - we decrease the motivation to earn and to produce. If we increase it, if we take away LESS, if we do a tax cut - and thus allow producers to KEEP what they produce - we stimulate them. Easy, isn't it?
Posted by arbat at May 10, 2006 10:28 AMIf the going rate for an unskilled employe is allready higher than the minimum wage.
Why not dump the minimum wage as a policy all together?
Hello Basic Econimics...
Posted by j at May 10, 2006 10:31 AMIt certainly seems as if the poll responders are already HAVING (via market forces) to pay above the minimum wage to get employees who will do their jobs. So if a raise in the minimum wage won't effect their business, why would they be against it.
I say absolutely raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour and we'll all see how that works. Can we start the experiment in Calif first?
Posted by WJ at May 10, 2006 04:23 PM"Hello Basic Econimics..." - j
To this I say: "Hello, basic English!"
Posted by david at May 10, 2006 08:33 PM