Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

[cpwill]

You mean like choosing between a Lexus and a Toyota? :mrgreen:

No. Like choosing between two 2003 Toyota 4-Runners in equal condition, except that one is blue and costs $20,000 and the other is green and costs $10,000. Willing to pay an extra $10K for the same product that looks slightly different?

Yeah, most employers, neither.

 

[cpwill]

Inflation would be minimal, barely even noticeable.

Inflation of 100% in a single year is hardly minimal.

You and others are trying to make it sound as if goods would be out of price range for the ordinary American if minimum wage was raised

Er, no. While the increase in prices would occur, and would raise the cost of living for our lowest-income Americans, what I am pointing out here is that labor exists on a supply/demand curve, and that artificially increasing the price will thus reduce demand. So, if you were to hike the cost of the lowest-skilled/experienced workforce to $15 an hour, you would see a decrease in demand.

Unless (as is discussed in the OP) there is an out: you can get pretty much the same good (a low skill/experience worker) from another supplier (say, either an 18 year old, or an illegal alien) for dramatically less. Then all that happens is that the suppliers who are required to sell at the higher price get driven out of business by those who can provide at a lower price. Unemployment for those over 21 spikes while unemployment for those under 21 is reduced.


Don't believe me? Walk in to your work tomorrow and tell your boss to either double your pay, or you quit - and then stick to it. See if you still have a job by the end of the day.
Please do not actually do that. You're good people and shouldn't lose your job in order to have a point demonstrated.

but I just don't see prices rising all that much. I think you're exaggerating. I hope that you never find yourself in a situation where you need to take a job making minimum wage. Then maybe you'll have a little more compassion.

Fail. A) I have worked for minimum wage B) I have family members currently earning minimum wage and C) Disagreement over policy does not mean disagreement over intentions. I oppose the minimum wage because it hurts poor people. The minimum wage keeps our most vulnerable populaces from being able to find employment from which to build their experience and skill sets. It moves lowest rungs of lifes' ladder out of their reach.

 

[cpwill]

We can stop corporate flight with legislation prohibiting it, and with import tariffs that will keep them from making cellphones in a dollar-a-day 3rd world sweatshop and then re-importing them to the lucrative US consumer market at ridiculous profits. Also, we are not a pure capitalist system... not for a very long time now.

...Do you wish to trap third world nations in poverty?

 

[poweRob]

Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

1. Under age 21 -- $8.00 an hour.
2. Over age 21 -- $15.00 an hour.

I dunno... if I were to I'd change the age to over and under 18. That's more the age where you can get out of the house and feed yourself. Under that age you are most likely still at home and have your needs being met more or less.

 

[Captain Adverse]

...Do you wish to trap third world nations in poverty?

??? That's seems like a red herring if ever I saw one. Why can't "third world" nations develop their own resources? Native entrepreneurs can get loans and seek investors like anyone else. Why should they depend on American investment, are we really the ONLY ones with money? Seems like China has plenty...of ours.

 

[joG]

That idea is simply doing the same thing but transfering the costs from the employer to all workers. That is what allows Walmart (and others) to pay lower wages now. If you need X/month to live on then do you really care if 2/3 of it is from your "earnings" and the other 1/3 is from General Welfare? How about taking an even easier job that pays 1/3 of X and then getting 2/3 of X from General Welfare?

Oh, I did not say a negative tax would not have impacts. I said that my impression is that it would cause less damage. At the same time you would need much less bureaucracy for social requirements with all payments running via the IRS.

Of course there will be motivational problems. I do not think we really understand how they will work and will have to study it closely. There do seem to be ways to overcome die motivational problems, however. I have worked with many people that had enough money never to have started.

 

[Mr X]

Do you have any evidence it would do that? I don't.

Well, let's say that you have before you, two roughly equal cars. One of them has a price tag of $10,000. The other one has a price tag of $20,000. There is no actual difference between the cars, mind, you, except that the first owner cares less whether or not you buy, whereas the second owner really wants you to buy, but still demands that you pay him $20K.

Which one are you (as an employer) more likely to buy? Given that you will get roughly the same performance out of either vehicle?

I don't think your argument holds water. You're basically saying no companies would hire adults which is clearly ridiculous, as a) there aren't enough under 21 year olds to replace the entire adult workforce, and b) experience is a valued attribute for employers.

 

[Smeagol]

The economic security model has shifted. It's no longer about getting a good job but owning. Actually its probably always been that way but more pronounced today because of competition with overseas labor and compensation for employees going down including and probably especially benefits like health coverage and retirement packages no longer being offered. Social security needs to be overhauled to give average Americans investment portfolios in businesses.

 

[cpwill]

I don't think your argument holds water. You're basically saying no companies would hire adults which is clearly ridiculous, as a) there aren't enough under 21 year olds to replace the entire adult workforce, and b) experience is a valued attribute for employers.

You are creating a strawman. No one has suggested that no adults would be hired, only that fewer of those over 21 who are nonetheless minimum wage earners would be hired, in favor of those who are under 21. For those employers who find themselves limited by a supply of under-age; the response would be to invest more in labor-replacing capital. As for experience, if the experience of the over 21 year old is enough to make them more valuable, then they wouldn't be earning minimum wage - they would be able to command a higher income already.

You can already see this trend at work - take a gander at the unemployment rate for our low-education inner-city populace; and then take a look at how many low-education illegal aliens who face a language barrier have replaced them in jobs. Why? Because they are cheaper.

 

[cpwill]

??? That's seems like a red herring if ever I saw one. Why can't "third world" nations develop their own resources? Native entrepreneurs can get loans and seek investors like anyone else. Why should they depend on American investment, are we really the ONLY ones with money? Seems like China has plenty...of ours.

and you accuse me of a red herring? China has plenty.... of our debt instruments. As the old saw goes, if you owe the bank a hundred dollars you have a problem, if you owe them a hundred million.... the bank has a problem.

That being said, there is a reason that people line up for those "sweatshop" "dollar a day" jobs - because they are better than the jobs they would otherwise have. Goshin (rightly or wrongly) mischaracterizes them if he thinks that trade is anything but a net-net win for the U.S. and our trading partners - sure, you can develop your own national resources without trade. North Korea has been doing that for decades now.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You are creating a strawman. No one has suggested that no adults would be hired, only that fewer of those over 21 who are nonetheless minimum wage earners would be hired, in favor of those who are under 21. For those employers who find themselves limited by a supply of under-age; the response would be to invest more in labor-replacing capital. As for experience, if the experience of the over 21 year old is enough to make them more valuable, then they wouldn't be earning minimum wage - they would be able to command a higher income already.

You can already see this trend at work - take a gander at the unemployment rate for our low-education inner-city populace; and then take a look at how many low-education illegal aliens who face a language barrier have replaced them in jobs. Why? Because they are cheaper.

Correct. One need only look at the many supermarket, drugs store, and retail chains that have invested in automated checkout systems. Then reduced the number of live cashiers on duty at any one time. That's with wages as they are NOW. Imagine if the minimum wage were doubled for anyone, much less in a two-tiered system?

 

[cpwill]

Correct. One need only look at the many supermarket, drugs store, and retail chains that have invested in automated checkout systems. Then reduced the number of live cashiers on duty at any one time. That's with wages as they are NOW. Imagine if the minimum wage were doubled for anyone, much less in a two-tiered system?

That is precisely the example I have used several times. Thus far the response seems to be "well, I don't believe that" :roll: as though the laws of economics depended on you believing them in order to function.

 

[ChrisL]

Inflation of 100% in a single year is hardly minimal.

What are you talking about? Please post some proof of your allegations.

Er, no. While the increase in prices would occur, and would raise the cost of living for our lowest-income Americans, what I am pointing out here is that labor exists on a supply/demand curve, and that artificially increasing the price will thus reduce demand. So, if you were to hike the cost of the lowest-skilled/experienced workforce to $15 an hour, you would see a decrease in demand.

It's not "artificial." It's keeping up with inflation. As much as it pains you, it has to be done from time to time. Apparently you want people to remain poor, and businesses to keep gaining more and more profit while their employees remain stagnant at the bottom.

Unless (as is discussed in the OP) there is an out: you can get pretty much the same good (a low skill/experience worker) from another supplier (say, either an 18 year old, or an illegal alien) for dramatically less. Then all that happens is that the suppliers who are required to sell at the higher price get driven out of business by those who can provide at a lower price. Unemployment for those over 21 spikes while unemployment for those under 21 is reduced.

I already stated that I didn't agree with a 2-tiered system, but that minimum wage should be raised across the board to $10.00 an hour. You speculating that this is going to cause some kind of calamity is nothing but hyperbole. The inflation caused by this 2-dollar raise in minimum wage would be negligible. If you are going to disagree, you will have to post something to back it up. Otherwise, I think you're just talking about your butt.

Don't believe me? Walk in to your work tomorrow and tell your boss to either double your pay, or you quit - and then stick to it. See if you still have a job by the end of the day.

I am NOT a minimum wage earner, so your argument here makes no sense. Also, what I am suggesting is NOT doubling minimum wage. And I have asked for a raise and received it.

Please do not actually do that. You're good people and shouldn't lose your job in order to have a point demonstrated.

:roll: I am among the top 5 producers in my company, which is international. I'm not worried about it one bit, even if I did happen to ask for a raise. I would probably get it. I guess my employers aren't as greedy as you seem to think they are.

Fail. A) I have worked for minimum wage B) I have family members currently earning minimum wage and C) Disagreement over policy does not mean disagreement over intentions. I oppose the minimum wage because it hurts poor people. The minimum wage keeps our most vulnerable populaces from being able to find employment from which to build their experience and skill sets. It moves lowest rungs of lifes' ladder out of their reach.

I don't care. Minimum wage has been raised in the past and it never hurt anyone. Strawman.

 

[Captain Adverse]

and you accuse me of a red herring? China has plenty.... of our debt instruments. As the old saw goes, if you owe the bank a hundred dollars you have a problem, if you owe them a hundred million.... the bank has a problem.

That being said, there is a reason that people line up for those "sweatshop" "dollar a day" jobs - because they are better than the jobs they would otherwise have. Goshin (rightly or wrongly) mischaracterizes them if he thinks that trade is anything but a net-net win for the U.S. and our trading partners - sure, you can develop your own national resources without trade. North Korea has been doing that for decades now.

I don't think anyone is arguing against trade. Closed economies seldom work. The problem is that American corporations have no real loyalty to the American economy anymore. They cannot "maximize" profits for their investors by employing American workers. There are "too many" environmental, health, safety, wage and hour rules and they don't like taxation.

So, they move out to where they can build unsafe, polluting factories and pay $0.25 per hour for a 12 - 15 hour workday with no benefits or pension plans. Then they open retail outlets in the USA and hire workers at low-wages (for America) and make sure everyone (part-time, full-time, and temp) works as few paid hours as legally allowed to reduce labor costs and benefit requirements. They sell what they make or buy from overseas factories at 100%-300% profit while still underselling American competitors.

The rich still buy at the "high end" stores, the rest of us buy at Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, etc. The benefit is we get to stretch our low-wage dollars further. The detriment is we have fewer job opportunities and our money goes to the wealthy investors and overseas. More and more businesses follow this model reducing good-wage jobs each time and replacing them with low-wage sales and service jobs. The corporations don't care because while they drain us down they build new foreign markets up...they foresee BILLIONS of new customers in the nations they have invested in.

Well, I hate to be selfish (LOL) but I think there should be a little more loyalty to the USA where they built that corporate power up from in the first place. While I am not a socialist I am an "America First" advocate. So if it takes draconian methods to re-industrilize this nation then I am all for it.

 

[cpwill]

What are you talking about? Please post some proof of your allegations.

....$7.50 is one-half of $15. Ergo, an increase in the cost of employing someone from $7.50 to $15 equals a 100% increase in the 12 months between the time when the employee turns 20 to the time when he or she turns 21.

It's not "artificial."

If it has to be imposed then it is artificial. Otherwise it would occur and be called "natural".

As much as it pains you, it has to be done from time to time.

It doesn't pain me. At this point in my life I have developed a special set of skills and experience that will likely leave me able to command a higher wage as long as I seek to work. It pains them. It pains the people who don't get jobs, the people who are let go, the people who are never hired in the first place. It pains those who are among the most vulnerable in our populace.

Which was it's purpose. Those who originally set out the minimum wage knew full well what they wrought. racist bastards.

Apparently you want people to remain poor, and businesses to keep gaining more and more profit while their employees remain stagnant at the bottom.

Chris, you're going to get a lot more traction in this dicsussion if you don't run around accusing people of being meanies because they disagree with you. If you will take a look at my argument, you will note that what I am pointing out is that raising the minimum wage is bad for the poor because it makes it harder for them to get and keep jobs. Now, if I did want people to remain poor and I believed that labor existed on a supply/demand curve then I would be advocating for an increased minimum wage. Unless you would prefer that I simply point out that obviously you want poor people trapped in endless poverty and dependence (which would be me taking on your assumption that you must agree with my precepts and still oppose my policy), at which point this descends into a pointless bit of name-calling, you may want to reconsider the extent to which you are attempting to judge others' hearts, here.

I already stated that I didn't agree with a 2-tiered system, but that minimum wage should be raised across the board to $10.00 an hour. You speculating that this is going to cause some kind of calamity is nothing but hyperbole.

Can you cite me ever stating that raising the minimum wage would cause a calamity?

If not, then who, exactly, is engaging in hyperbole?

I am NOT a minimum wage earner, so your argument here makes no sense. Also, what I am suggesting is NOT doubling minimum wage. And I have asked for a raise and received it.

A doubling is what is under discussion here in this thread. But whether or not you are a minimum wage earner is imatterial to the discussion - your labor is probably not worth twice what you are currently paid, and it is unlikely to be worth 40% more, either. And so, if we were to go to ChrisL's employer tomorrow and say "sorry, but you have to increase ChrisL's income by a third plus pay the additional taxes on it, or else you'll have to find someone other than ChrisL".... well, frankly, you'd probably be let go. Now, we would never do that to you - we like you, and don't want to see you fired. We just also ask that you not do that to others.

:roll: I am among the top 5 producers in my company, which is international. I'm not worried about it one bit, even if I did happen to ask for a raise. I would probably get it. I guess my employers aren't as greedy as you seem to think they are.

:shrug: test me then. Walk in tomorrow and demand a 33% raise or you quit. And you are a difficult-to-replace-top-performer. Now think about the guy in the office who isn't a top performer. Think of the guy just skating by, doing the minimum necessary - most places have one. What would happen if he walked in and demanded a 33% raise or he quits?

I don't care. Minimum wage has been raised in the past and it never hurt anyone.

Sadly, that is not correct.

National Bureau of Economic Research

...A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few - if any - studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model predicts disemployment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups....

My sister in law is a young, unmarried, 17 year old black high school drop out with a 18 month old baby. The difference in those numbers between $5.15 and $7.25 represent people like her; our most vulnerable, most desperate for a path to improve their circumstances, forced out of the workplace, off of life's ladder, and into dependency by people who thought they were doing the right thing but were horribly, horribly wrong.


Ever noticed how we have excruciatingly high unemployment among our low-education english-speaking inner-city populations? Ever notice how somehow we also have huge numbers of low-educated spanish-speaking illegal immgrants who nontheless are able to find jobs? Now, given that the two populaces are equal in their skill set for non-agriculture work, and equal in their education, but that the first has the marked advantage of common language over the other, how is that possible?

It's because we make hiring Americans expensive - and so Americans don't get hired.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

1. Under age 21 -- $8.00 an hour.
2. Over age 21 -- $15.00 an hour.

You are concentrating the consequences of bad policy in a specific age group. All this will do is transfer unemployment from teens to adults. I am not sure that is a good idea. Separate, today's minimum wage is set in real terms slightly above average.

 

[ChrisL]

....$7.50 is one-half of $15. Ergo, an increase in the cost of employing someone from $7.50 to $15 equals a 100% increase in the 12 months between the time when the employee turns 20 to the time when he or she turns 21.

I said I believed it should be raised to $10.00 an hour across the board, and you know this. :roll:

If it has to be imposed then it is artificial. Otherwise it would occur and be called "natural".

A minimum wage is necessary. Minimum wage increases have been imposed before without the "doomsday" scenario that you're falsely playing out. It would have MINIMAL impact on our economy.

It doesn't pain me. At this point in my life I have developed a special set of skills and experience that will likely leave me able to command a higher wage as long as I seek to work. It pains them. It pains the people who don't get jobs, the people who are let go, the people who are never hired in the first place. It pains those who are among the most vulnerable in our populace.

It pains you apparently to give people more money per hour. I certainly hope that you are aware that some of our "minimum wage earners" are some of the HARDEST working people in this country. So they can't be a CEO or a doctor or whatever, they still work hard for their money too.

Which was it's purpose. Those who originally set out the minimum wage knew full well what they wrought. racist bastards.

That is a retarded comment. Minimum wage does not hurt anyone.

Chris, you're going to get a lot more traction in this dicsussion if you don't run around accusing people of being meanies because they disagree with you. If you will take a look at my argument, you will note that what I am pointing out is that raising the minimum wage is bad for the poor because it makes it harder for them to get and keep jobs. Now, if I did want people to remain poor and I believed that labor existed on a supply/demand curve then I would be advocating for an increased minimum wage. Unless you would prefer that I simply point out that obviously you want poor people trapped in endless poverty and dependence (which would be me taking on your assumption that you must agree with my precepts and still oppose my policy), at which point this descends into a pointless bit of name-calling, you may want to reconsider the extent to which you are attempting to judge others' hearts, here.

I entirely disagree with your premise. You have yet to provide any evidence that what you claim is the truth. Poor people are already trapped in poverty. Raising minimum wage does NOT hurt them. The same jobs will exist, just pay higher.

Can you cite me ever stating that raising the minimum wage would cause a calamity?
If not, then who, exactly, is engaging in hyperbole?

People can read between the lines. You are insinuating that it would devastate our economy or at least hurt it badly, and that is a lie. Minimum wage has been raised in the past, and no such things have happened as a result.

A doubling is what is under discussion here in this thread. But whether or not you are a minimum wage earner is imatterial to the discussion - your labor is probably not worth twice what you are currently paid, and it is unlikely to be worth 40% more, either. And so, if we were to go to ChrisL's employer tomorrow and say "sorry, but you have to increase ChrisL's income by a third plus pay the additional taxes on it, or else you'll have to find someone other than ChrisL".... well, frankly, you'd probably be let go. Now, we would never do that to you - we like you, and don't want to see you fired. We just also ask that you not do that to others.

I already stated MULTIPLE times that I disagree with doubling it. I think $10.00 an hour is good. Now if you are addressing me, that is what you are referring to. Otherwise, you would address Maggie or Goshin, since they are the ONLY two people who are okay with doubling minimum wage and having a 2-tier system. I already clearly stated that I disagreed with that, so perhaps you have been addressing me erroneously.

Also, you know nothing about my employment or my worth, so stop making assumptions.

:shrug: test me then. Walk in tomorrow and demand a 33% raise or you quit. And you are a difficult-to-replace-top-performer. Now think about the guy in the office who isn't a top performer. Think of the guy just skating by, doing the minimum necessary - most places have one. What would happen if he walked in and demanded a 33% raise or he quits?

Asking for a raise is completely different than making McDonald's pay their employees 2 dollars more per hour. Also, MOST employers pay more than minimum wage as it is right now anyways.

Sadly, that is not correct.

Your own article says "not statistically significant." And that is the TEEN unemployment numbers. Teens are hurting because of the bad economy and NOT because of any increase in minimum wage. That much should be obvious to a baby. You cannot just expect employees to accept this kind of pay when the profits of the company they are working for is 300% more. That is nothing but greed.

My sister in law is a young, unmarried, 17 year old black high school drop out with a 18 month old baby. The difference in those numbers between $5.15 and $7.25 represent people like her; our most vulnerable, most desperate for a path to improve their circumstances, forced out of the workplace, off of life's ladder, and into dependency by people who thought they were doing the right thing but were horribly, horribly wrong.

This doesn't even make any sense. Raising minimum wage isn't going to change who applies for these kinds of jobs.

Ever noticed how we have excruciatingly high unemployment among our low-education english-speaking inner-city populations? Ever notice how somehow we also have huge numbers of low-educated spanish-speaking illegal immgrants who nontheless are able to find jobs? Now, given that the two populaces are equal in their skill set for non-agriculture work, and equal in their education, but that the first has the marked advantage of common language over the other, how is that possible?

Because greedy companies want to hire people for as little money as possible. That is why we NEED a minimum wage. I can't even imagine the divide between rich and poor if there was no minimum wage requirement. It's really bad now and would be MUCH worse. Have you ever heard of robber barons? These are reasons why we have minimum wages and other conditions that must be met for workers.

In social criticism and economic literature, Robber barons became a derogatory term applied to wealthy and powerful 19th-century American businessmen that appeared in North American periodical literature as early as the August 1870 issue of The Atlantic Monthly[1] magazine. By the late 1800s, the term was typically applied to businessmen who used what were considered to be exploitative practices to amass their wealth.[2] These practices included exerting control over national resources, accruing high levels of government influence, paying extremely low wages, squashing competition by acquiring competitors in order to create monopolies and eventually raise prices, and schemes to sell stock at inflated prices[2] to unsuspecting investors in a manner which would eventually destroy the company for which the stock was issued and impoverish investors.[2] The term combines the sense of criminal ("robber") and illegitimate aristocracy (a baron is an illegitimate role in a republic).[3]

It's because we make hiring Americans expensive - and so Americans don't get hired.

No, it's because we don't crack down on companies who hire illegals so that they can get labor at the lowest wages possible. Those employers need to be punished.

 

[radcen]

My sister in law is a young, unmarried, 17 year old black high school drop out with a 18 month old baby. The difference in those numbers between $5.15 and $7.25 represent people like her; our most vulnerable, most desperate for a path to improve their circumstances, forced out of the workplace, off of life's ladder, and into dependency by people who thought they were doing the right thing but were horribly, horribly wrong.

Ever noticed how we have excruciatingly high unemployment among our low-education english-speaking inner-city populations? Ever notice how somehow we also have huge numbers of low-educated spanish-speaking illegal immgrants who nontheless are able to find jobs? Now, given that the two populaces are equal in their skill set for non-agriculture work, and equal in their education, but that the first has the marked advantage of common language over the other, how is that possible?

It's because we make hiring Americans expensive - and so Americans don't get hired.

There are other factors at work, as well. She (your SIL) contributed to her own situation simply by having a kid while still single and not completely educated. Daycare is expensive and people force themselves off the work rolls because they cannot afford to work and live and pay daycare, so they go on some form of public assistance and stay home and watch their own kids. It's less the wage she could make, and more the decisions she herself made and their ramifications.

Your SIL may have family willing to watch her kid, as some do, but the scenario I laid out still applies for many.

 

[ChrisL]

There are other factors at work, as well. She (your SIL) contributed to her own situation simply by having a kid while still single and not completely educated. Daycare is expensive and people force themselves off the work rolls because they cannot afford to work and live and pay daycare, so they go on some form of public assistance and stay home and watch their own kids. It's less the wage she could make, and more the decisions she herself made and their ramifications.

Your SIL may have family willing to watch her kid, as some do, but the scenario I laid out still applies for many.

Exactly, when the costs of things like daycare, food, gas, etc. are rising, how does anyone expect anyone to survive on a minimum wage that is equal to the cost of living 40 years ago? All of these people are going to have to collect public assistance to help them out.

I wonder if these people complain when there are COLA increases for social security? Sure, an increase in MW won't make them rich or even "comfortable." But it will help them to pay their bills at least. People are also not thinking about what happens in our economy when people are not making enough money to pay their bills. I would think that has a much more devastating impact on our economy than a small increase in minimum wage to match cost of living increases. I guess some people are perfectly fine with more people on the welfare rolls.

 

[Gipper]

I don't support minimum wage - period. I think it's rather obvious if I support this.

 

[Somerville]

Not bothering to read the entire thread but if this hasn't been posted, here is some data to contemplate

In Australia for "junior employees", the minimum rates are:
Under 16 years of age $5.87
At 16 years of age $7.55
At 17 years of age $9.22
At 18 years of age $10.90
At 19 years of age $13.17
At 20 years of age $15.59.

A multi-tier wage system in a country with an unemployment rate of 5.7% in July, 2013

 

[Mr X]

....$7.50 is one-half of $15. Ergo, an increase in the cost of employing someone from $7.50 to $15 equals a 100% increase in the 12 months between the time when the employee turns 20 to the time when he or she turns 21.



If it has to be imposed then it is artificial. Otherwise it would occur and be called "natural".



It doesn't pain me. At this point in my life I have developed a special set of skills and experience that will likely leave me able to command a higher wage as long as I seek to work. It pains them. It pains the people who don't get jobs, the people who are let go, the people who are never hired in the first place. It pains those who are among the most vulnerable in our populace.

Which was it's purpose. Those who originally set out the minimum wage knew full well what they wrought. racist bastards.



Chris, you're going to get a lot more traction in this dicsussion if you don't run around accusing people of being meanies because they disagree with you. If you will take a look at my argument, you will note that what I am pointing out is that raising the minimum wage is bad for the poor because it makes it harder for them to get and keep jobs. Now, if I did want people to remain poor and I believed that labor existed on a supply/demand curve then I would be advocating for an increased minimum wage. Unless you would prefer that I simply point out that obviously you want poor people trapped in endless poverty and dependence (which would be me taking on your assumption that you must agree with my precepts and still oppose my policy), at which point this descends into a pointless bit of name-calling, you may want to reconsider the extent to which you are attempting to judge others' hearts, here.



Can you cite me ever stating that raising the minimum wage would cause a calamity?

If not, then who, exactly, is engaging in hyperbole?



A doubling is what is under discussion here in this thread. But whether or not you are a minimum wage earner is imatterial to the discussion - your labor is probably not worth twice what you are currently paid, and it is unlikely to be worth 40% more, either. And so, if we were to go to ChrisL's employer tomorrow and say "sorry, but you have to increase ChrisL's income by a third plus pay the additional taxes on it, or else you'll have to find someone other than ChrisL".... well, frankly, you'd probably be let go. Now, we would never do that to you - we like you, and don't want to see you fired. We just also ask that you not do that to others.



:shrug: test me then. Walk in tomorrow and demand a 33% raise or you quit. And you are a difficult-to-replace-top-performer. Now think about the guy in the office who isn't a top performer. Think of the guy just skating by, doing the minimum necessary - most places have one. What would happen if he walked in and demanded a 33% raise or he quits?



Sadly, that is not correct.

What?? The rise in unemployment in that graph correlates with the economic crash in 2008. I'm skeptical about min wage increases being responsible for that unemployment increase. At the very least, the recession would skew the figures.

 

[Goshin]

...Do you wish to trap third world nations in poverty?

The 3rd world is welcome to lift itself out of poverty; my concern is keeping the US from falling into poverty, and in the long term that will be the net outcome of industrial and service outsourcing and illegal labor for a large percentage of American citizens, and probably the country as a whole.

We are not the world, we are America. Let us take care of America first, and worry about the rest of the world when WE are not on the verge of insolvency and economic collapse.

 

[Goshin]

I already stated MULTIPLE times that I disagree with doubling it. I think $10.00 an hour is good. Now if you are addressing me, that is what you are referring to. Otherwise, you would address Maggie or Goshin, since they are the ONLY two people who are okay with doubling minimum wage and having a 2-tier system. I already clearly stated that I disagreed with that, so perhaps you have been addressing me erroneously.

Actually I misread the poll, and for some reason at a glance thought it said $12/hr as the upper tier. I also noted in a post that if we were going to go this route, I'd favor a three-tiered system: 6/hr for under 18, 8/hr for 18-20, $10/hr for 21+. I also agree that 15/hr is unrealistic as a minimum wage figure at this time.

I certainly hope that you are aware that some of our "minimum wage earners" are some of the HARDEST working people in this country. So they can't be a CEO or a doctor or whatever, they still work hard for their money too.

Because greedy companies want to hire people for as little money as possible. That is why we NEED a minimum wage. I can't even imagine the divide between rich and poor if there was no minimum wage requirement. It's really bad now and would be MUCH worse. Have you ever heard of robber barons? These are reasons why we have minimum wages and other conditions that must be met for workers.

No, it's because we don't crack down on companies who hire illegals so that they can get labor at the lowest wages possible. Those employers need to be punished.

Preach it.

 

[ChrisL]

Not bothering to read the entire thread but if this hasn't been posted, here is some data to contemplate

In Australia for "junior employees", the minimum rates are:
Under 16 years of age $5.87
At 16 years of age $7.55
At 17 years of age $9.22
At 18 years of age $10.90
At 19 years of age $13.17
At 20 years of age $15.59.

A multi-tier wage system in a country with an unemployment rate of 5.7% in July, 2013

I wonder how they make it work. According to some here, that would be the downfall of our economy, that prices on goods would rise exponentially and that it would make the poor and struggling even more poor and struggling. Of course I don't agree with any of that. I think that a MW increase would have negligible effects on our economy as a whole.

Sounds like it works out pretty well for Australians. :shrug: