Minimum Wage?

[nacktman]

[jon71]

Factoring in inflation the minimum wage is about the lowest it has ever been. Also I came across some wild info today. Full time at minimum wage is just over $10,000 a year. Since the last minimum wage increase congress has raised their own pay by $30,000. I will enjoy watching the right wing try and explain that away. If that bothers you please help us toss out some of the conservatives who don't want hard working Americans to receive an honest days pay for an honest days work while their own pay and indictment levels are at an all time high.

[Naturist Mark]

How about a law that limits Congressional pay to 7 times minimum wage?

How requiring Congresscritters to live in DC for one month on the minimum wage.

Sooner or later someone will hoist the canard that increasing the minimum wage will cause increased unemployment. This theoretical effect has not been observed in nature. A recent study suggests just the opposite:

quote:

High state minimum wages fail to correlate to poor labor market outcomes, let alone have a causal relationship. Similarly, the pattern in job growth by state shows little relation to whether a state has a minimum wage. As shown in Figure 5, five states with minimum wages above the federal rate have seen job growth while the nation is still in the hole. An additional two states, California and Vermont, have seen job loss, but less severely than the nation as a whole.

Employment and the Minimum Wage

-Mark

[nudeM]

Personally speaking, the government should not use it's authority to decide what the minimum wage should be. The government is already intrusive enough in our lives, we don't need them to dictate what employers have to pay, as far as minimum wages. The minimum wage should be handled by the states, not the federal government.

On the flip side, although the law is already written, it keeps the employers honest, in that it requires them to pay an employee 'x' amount per hour.

The problem is, when the employer is 'required' to raise the minimum wage, then they are inclined to raise the amount of their product, which in turn, is passed on to the consumer.

As far as congress voting to increase their pay, I agree to the fact, they are using the system to better themselves. There are some good congressmen/congresswomen who deserve a good pay for their work, but not as much as they are getting paid.

Sure, they are entitled to a higher rate of pay, but I believe the people should have a say as to what they should be paid, not them to vote themselves a rate hike. If I were in their shoes, sure, I would vote to raise my pay, but not on the backs of taxpayers.

[usmc1]

Here, some quick gleanings from today's headlines about waht is happening to our country while people are distracted by invasions and occupations of foreign nations, arguing about abortion, illegal aliens, whether we should be a Christian or secular nation, and-on-and-on, about meaningless merde.

You righties are gagging on gnats while swallowing camels.

By Blaine Harden

Updated: 3:44 a.m. CT June 22, 2006
INDIANAPOLIS - Middle-class neighborhoods, long regarded as incubators for the American dream, are losing ground in cities across the country, shrinking at more than twice the rate of the middle class itself.
In their place, poor and rich neighborhoods are both on the rise, as cities and suburbs have become increasingly segregated by income, according to a Brookings Institution study released today. It found that as a share of all urban and suburban neighborhoods, middle-income neighborhoods in the nation's 100 largest metro areas have declined from 58 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 2000.
By Jonathan Weisman

Updated: 12:10 a.m. CT June 22, 2006
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) made a $2 million profit last year on the sale of land 5 1/2 miles from a highway project that he helped to finance with targeted federal funds.
A Republican House member from California, meanwhile, received nearly double what he paid for a four-acre parcel near an Air Force base after securing $8 million for a planned freeway interchange 16 miles away. And another California GOP congressman obtained funding in last year's highway bill for street improvements near a planned residential and commercial development that he co-owns.


NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - By now most everyone knows that the old-style pension is in a heap of trouble.

Desperate companies like UAL have already dumped plans. Other basket cases such as Delphi and Delta are threatening to do the same.

But the most surprising news - and the most ominous for tomorrow's retirees - is what one healthy company did earlier this year: IBM (Charts) froze its traditional pension. That plan is fully funded, and IBM is strong. Yet as of Jan. 1, 2008, no one in the plan will accumulate any more benefits. The move was a landmark in the realm of employee benefits, where Big Blue has set standards for decades.
Yes, the decline of traditional pensions has been striking and much discussed, but IBM's action suggests a different perspective. In today's world, why do these things exist at all?
Consider: Today's low long-term interest rates, combined with a stock market that's no higher than it was six years ago, have made traditional defined-benefit plans a crushing financial burden to many firms - just as they're feeling the heat from foreign businesses that don't have plans. In addition, research shows that young employees increasingly don't care about traditional pensions, designed to pay off big after a lifetime of work with one company. And a raft of coming regulatory changes will make those plans even more burdensome to employers.

[Boreas]

Things sure are changing!

I can't comment on the US minimum wage, though if it is at a level that minimum wages are in Canada, it probably needs to be raised.

Canadian minimum wages are set by the provinces. That does create a bit of "competetiveness" in that folks in one province can cite that it has the lowest wage and should be raised, or the province will say doesn't need to raise it because it is the highest etc.

Of course we don't want total government interference in our lives. At the same time, the government could be an umbrella organization of sorts that makes sure its society is such that its citizens can lead healthy and fruitful lives.

[usmc1]

Idiot savants and autistic children have a better grasp of things than those of you on the right who constantly shriek and wail about government interference when the issue is for the good of the people.

You need to read, beyond a seventh grade level, for context and meaning, the preamble to the Constitution of the United States.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,[1] promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE OR INTRUSION--IT IS THE VERY REASON FOR GOVERNMENT!

[papanudist]

I've told friends for years the way our lawmakers work before you know it there will be NO middle class. There will be poverty class and rich people. I make more today than I ever have in my life but due to gas prices and health care I have FAR LESS take home pay. We have not been able to afford a vacation for 3yrs.

[Nude in the North]

I have always said.
If you don't like the government, Elect a new one.
It baffels me how so many people keep complaining about the government, "WE THE PEOPLE" But they keep electing the same people to it.
Here in the USA The people are the government. So do your job if you don't like the way it's going. Elect someone else. Run for office yourself. Contact your representatives. Do something besides complain.

Steve

[Bob S.]

Regarding Congressional pay raises, I say the populace gets to vote whether or not they deserve a raise.

Or they can't get a pay raise until the deficit is at zero--That would go for the pres as well.

Bob S.

[NakedTao]

I'm all for raising the minimum wage. To expect anyone to live on $5.15 an hour is unconscionable, in my opinion, especially, as jon pointed out, when you take into account inflation and the fact that Congress gets a large annual salary.

Sadly, they (Congress) might be violating the 27th Amendment of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

quote:

No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

[fred950]

Minimun schiminimun, if you would like to hear some real double talk, propose a MAXIMUN wage of, say, 100 times the poverty rate.
If we buy the buSINessmen's arguement that a higher minimun will hurt the 'competive' market for wages, then why doesn't the CEO's multi-million dollar wages do the same?

Benifits for the workers (who actually do the the services or make the goods) are something that must be stamped out to remain 'competive'. Executive 'perks' are a nessasary cost of doing buSINess.

I just don't buy it.

[Nude in the North]

Good point fred.

Minimum wage is supposed to be for people like High School kids and part time employees at small buisnesses. Not for Major Corporations like Wal Mart.

I don't see how anyone in a Metro area can live on even $10 an hour. The rent for even a small apartment takes almost all of that income.

I know I couldn't make it on that kind of pay.

Steve

[vintagecarguy]

I can't make it on my full time:46 hours a week:8.00 buck an hour job,thats why I have 3 more part time jobs.

Low minimum wages cause greater unemployment by forcing people to work multiple jobs.

I hate when some CEO gets a huge multi million dollar bonus for eliminating thousands of jobs,jobs that would cost less to pay for another year than the cost of their bonus.

and as for voting the politicians out...I vote against the scum every election,lot of good it does me but I keep doing it,gives me permission to complaign.

[herooftime8]

I had a full rant here, but my Internet crashed. The upshot is, h311 yes, raise the minimum wage.

If anything, government officials should deal with minimum wage themselves. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for their constituents.

BTW, I understand the idea of "if you don't like the government, vote." Sadly, I put in a vote for Kerry (in my opinion, lesser of two evils), but the polls showed Bush as the victor. If as many people are really as unhappy as they say they are, it is time to elect someone better.

Although, I must admit, really we don't have much insight into the choices we have as President; they're portrayed as one-dimensional so it's easier to like or hate them.