Democrats consider the minimum-wage increase a signature issue. So, consider what it says about them:
Most of the working poor earn more than the minimum wage, and most of the 0.6 percent (479,000 in 2005) of America's wage workers earning the minimum wage are not poor. Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum lives in families with earnings below the poverty line. Sixty percent work part time, and their average household income is well over $40,000. (The average and median household incomes are $63,344 and $46,326, respectively.)
Forty percent of American workers are salaried. Of the 75.6 million paid by the hour, 1.9 million earn the federal minimum or less, and of these, more than half are under 25 and more than a quarter are between ages 16 and 19. Many are students or other part-time workers. Sixty percent of those earning the federal minimum or less work in restaurants and bars and earn tips -- often untaxed, perhaps -- in addition to wages. Two-thirds of those earning the federal minimum today will, a year from now, have been promoted and be earning 10 percent more. Raising the minimum wage predictably makes work more attractive relative to school for some teenagers and raises the dropout rate. Two scholars report that in states that allow people to leave school before 18, a 10 percent increase in the state minimum wage caused teenage school enrollment to drop 2 percent.
But the minimum wage should be the same everywhere: $0. Labor is a commodity; governments make messes when they decree commodities' prices. Washington, which has its hands full delivering the mail and defending the shores, should let the market do well what Washington does poorly.
Posted by muckdog at January 26, 2007 08:00 PMMy kid working at Sonic doesn't even make the minimum wage anymore. He got a raise after just a few months. A part timer making 9.00 an hour, just spending money. My other kid working for Krogers didn't make the minimum wage six months after hire. Minimum wage was never to be a living wage. Who are you kidding, even 7.25 isn't a living wage. Minimum wage with benefits in LA is 9.33 without 10.33. States are passing their own rates.
The GOP two years ago wanted to increase the minimum wage and Dems wouldn't have it. Something about a clean bill deprived our impoverished citizens from getting a minimum increase two years ago. Would have been making more today were it not for the Dems. 46 GOP senators voted for the increase! Just needed a few of your friends in the senate...nope. Not what Harry Reid wanted. Dems MUST have the credit. It's their private legislation just like Social Security. If a Democrat doesn't fix it. It can't be fixed. No chance for a bi-partisan bill, MUST be Democrats. Well this bill, whenever it gets passed, will not be a clean bill. What's the difference. We settling now?
Just like Kennedy settled for the 'No Child Left Behind" bill several years ago. Many think that bill was a disaster, is a disaster. What's the difference, Democrats in charge now. Now we can settle for a 'dirty' bill. Any bill, just get it done and on the president's desk for signature. The uberparty wants it. "Mikey will like it...he likes everything."
Posted by peter at January 26, 2007 08:44 PMHello Steve,
Just thought I would drop in and take a look around.
You know, it occurred to me that you may just agree with what some of the regular Lefties are posting here at TLC.
If it is the case that you do: may I suggest therapy.
Good luck...and good night.
Posted by Bagley at January 26, 2007 09:32 PMThanks for checking in guys.
Posted by Steve Soto at January 26, 2007 10:09 PMYour welcome, Steve.
By the way, have we thanked you lately for the bandwidth?
Posted by Bagley at January 26, 2007 10:11 PMMinimum wage was never to be a living wage.
Wrong. In the early seventies, people could live on minimum wage, rent a decent place and even afford to attend junior college. Of course, it's okay that today families can sleep on the streets while working 2 jobs paying minimum wage because only losers would work for a job paying a minimum wage, right?
Posted by Mary at January 26, 2007 11:54 PMMy, my, my, the three stooges show up, and right on cue. Well don't ya know, we gotta keep people in poverty. It's the American way. Where else are we going to get our slave labor?
Let's see, the last time a raise in minimum wage was passed was 1997 to $5.15. How many raises has the Senate given themselves since then?
Children who grow up poor in the United States cost the economy $500 billion a year because they are less productive, earn less money, commit more crimes and have more health-related expenses, according to a new study by Harry Holzer, an economist at Georgetown University and the Urban Institute. You can pay a decent wage or you can continue to pay billion per year due to poverty, crime, health and other related expenses. Either way, we pay.
The Labour Govt introduced a minimum wage about 8 years ago - it's equivalent to about $10 an hour albeit on an excellent exchange rate!
Since then unemployment or prices haven't gone up and it's a success.
Sometimes Economic success is what you want it to mean!
Posted by John at January 27, 2007 04:17 AMMost of these dirtbag senators hail from anti-union, Right-to-Work states in the south.
TX, MS and GA are well represented.
Hagel makes an appearance too.
Posted by Christopher at January 27, 2007 04:26 AMMary, on 1.65 an hour! you've got to be kidding. There's no way I could have been out on my own in the 70's at the minimum wage. Sounds like Judith wants to keep people in poverty. Raise it to the 10.00 an hour as the English have per John. Go ahead Democrats, get it done. You've got the power. Let's have a liveable wage for once. My kids would love the extra spending money.
Posted by peter at January 27, 2007 07:40 AMThe trioka of Rightist Clowns clapping their flippers for the latest pronouncments of Mr Economics, George Will---get out the fish entrails, George.
And keep the flame alive for a return to the "conservative" economic regime of the late 19th century! Talk about brains living in the dustbin of history.....
Posted by euzoius at January 27, 2007 07:41 AM"Sounds like Judith wants to keep people in poverty."
No Peter, but you and others do.
I will tell you another dirty little secret about minimum wage workers. They are treated, many times, less than human. I guess if you work minimum wage, you do not deserve to be treated fairly or with respect, but that's another story.
Posted by Judith at January 27, 2007 08:19 AMEuzoius, the like of the three stooges are people who would have you work for nothing, if they could get by with it. Giving workers a fair livable wage would mean cutting into the profits of the Haves.
Posted by Judith at January 27, 2007 08:22 AMunlike you Judith, I would pay dishwashers $14.00 an hour if it were up to me. I would pay housekeepers $12.00 an hour. Garbage person's not unionized $20.00+ an hour. Whatever jobs you don't want to have to do. Pay them well, keep them happy. Try some other path Judith. This Republican is not buying it. Nor settling like Democrats seem to be now.
Come on Judith, your Party has the power. Get it done. Change the minimum wage to something liveable. $10.00 an hour looks like a good start. Get it done, you have the stomach for it? Do it. I tire at all your lowballing. Reach for the heights, make it happen. Fix poverty in our lifetime. Eliminate it in America. Come on Judith, burn those phone lines to your Congressman. Get it done. Your Parties in charge of everything. If you don't, your Party is a failure and then we all lose.
Posted by peter at January 27, 2007 09:26 AMIncreasing the minimum wage to $7.25 gives a wage increase to over 14 million Americans, 11% of the workforce. 80% of those who would benefit are over 20 years-old. 59% of those who would benefit are women, and minorities would benefit in dispropotionate numbers.
20 years ago corporate executives would make about 20 times the average employee salary in their industries. Now they make 400 times more. That's what Bagely, Peter and Muckdog want to protect.
But the minimum wage should be the same everywhere: $0.
You are getting your way. The minimum wage today is worth $3.95 in 97 dollars. You republi-cons keep running things the way you have been and it soon will be close to $0.00.
The GOP two years ago wanted to increase the minimum wage and Dems wouldn't have it.
You mean the 2006 bill that gave yet another massive tax cut to the wealthy?
My other kid working for Krogers didn't make the minimum wage six months after hire.
It's time to kick him out. Why can't that lazy fuck take care of his needs and just get a better job?
1,400,000 single working parents will receive an increase if minimum wage increases. And in the states where the legislated minimum wage is greater than the federal minimum job growth is the strongest. There are many positive economic effects on the bottom lines of all concerned when the minimum wage increases.
Mary, on 1.65 an hour! you've got to be kidding.
The average income in 1976 was $14,100.00, and minimum was $2.30 -or about $5000.00 per year. The average income in 2004 was $70,700, and minimum was $5.15 -or about $11,000.00 per year. You can draw your own connclusions about what could be purchased with the ratio to average income of the historic minimum wage.
Posted by phidipides at January 27, 2007 09:26 AMThe Democrats use the minimum wage as a political football year after year. It's an election year gimmick for the Democrats.
One of my friends owns several car washes in CA. Mostly teenagers and some college folks work at them on a part-time basis, making minimum wage plus tips. He just closed one and let go of 75 workers because of the hike in the minimum wage in CA. It was barely profitable, and the minimum wage hike pushed it in the red.
So you know, cookie.
Posted by muckdog at January 27, 2007 10:33 AMIt was barely profitable He just closed one and let go of 75
You are a lying sack of shit. Period. 75 employees would make it the largest car wash on the fucking planet. No wonder the dumb bastard had to close it. What the hell did they do, hand carry the cars through instead of using a conveyor system? There would have been headlines every fucking place. FOX would have been screaming "Barrack Osama and his proposed wage increases helped close the world's largest carwash!"
Mostly teenagers and some college folks
Well, peter tells us they didn't need the jobs anyway. They're just kids.
Posted by phidipides at January 27, 2007 10:47 AMPart-time workers, bone head.
Posted by muckdog at January 27, 2007 01:07 PMhagel, who sells shoes, voted against the raise for the minimum wage. the senate is a group that needs to be forced to change jobs for a year with someone more fortunate
Posted by oldtree at January 27, 2007 06:36 PMPart-time workers, bone head.
I think you're clueless about how many 75 is.
Posted by phidipides at January 27, 2007 08:27 PM"Come on Judith, your Party has the power. Get it done."
Peter dear, I have no doubt that we will "get it done." Then your "compassionate conservative" pResident, aka, The-Decider-in-Chief, will take out his veto pen, and 'decide' that there will be no minimum wage increase.
Posted by Judith at January 27, 2007 10:36 PMSo what is all this romanticism and infatuation with Chuck Hagel all about. What kind of great man votes to ELIMINATE THE MINIMUM WAGE.
As Democrats let's stop falling for the guy who's bad for you. In 2004 the blogs were all afire with adoration for that maverick, ethical John McCain, let's stop being fools for political infatuation.
Posted by debcoop at January 27, 2007 10:55 PMTeens and college kids working at a carwash in California? Name the city, I want to see that. If you can find me a carwash in California where English is the language spoken by the people with the rags and the spritzer bottles, I'll have you on a segment on the Lou Dobbs show by the end of next week.
Posted by jim 7 at January 28, 2007 12:42 AMTeens and college kids working at a carwash in California? Name the city, I want to see that. If you can find me a carwash in California where English is the language spoken by the people with the rags and the spritzer bottles, I'll have you on a segment on the Lou Dobbs show by the end of next week.
That was my next comment. I think his buddy sold to take a profit on the land, screwing-over any employees he might have had. You know republi-cons. When taking a profit, never go unsupported by a story of tragedy from progressive policy.
Posted by phidipides at January 28, 2007 07:27 AM