House OKs Minimum Wage Increase

[Skip]

The Democratic-controlled House voted today to increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, bringing America's lowest-paid workers a crucial step closer to their first raise in a decade.

The vote was 315-116.

"You should not be relegated to poverty if you work hard and play by the rules," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. He said that passing the boost "is simply a matter of doing what's right, what's just, and what's fair."

The bill was the second measure passed since Democrats took control of the House, ending more than a decade of Republican rule.

The measure, which now goes to the Senate, would raise the federal wage floor by $2.10 from its current $5.15 an hour in three steps over 26 months.

At least the Democrats are doing something. The minimum wage has me torn - $7.25 is, well, liberal, but $5.15 is too low for anyone to be making for any type of paid labor.

House OKs minimum wage increase - baltimoresun.com

 

[Gibberish]

At least the Democrats are doing something. The minimum wage has me torn - $7.25 is, well, liberal, but $5.15 is too low for anyone to be making for any type of paid labor.

House OKs minimum wage increase - baltimoresun.com

Minimum wage is closer to $8.00 here in CA. I think it will be exactly $8.00 in January of 2008.

 

[The Wishmaster]

Minimum wage depends on age here. Where I work, I get $18.46 an hour, as do all over the age of 21.

The lowest wage is about $8.50 for those still in school, the 15 year olds. Every year, their wages increase by around a dollar.

 

[Gibberish]

Minimum wage depends on age here. Where I work, I get $18.46 an hour, as do all over the age of 21.

The lowest wage is about $8.50 for those still in school, the 15 year olds. Every year, their wages increase by around a dollar.

That's crazy that all person's over 21 must make at least 50k a year.

 

[Stinger]

The lowest wage is about $8.50 for those still in school, the 15 year olds. Every year, their wages increase by around a dollar.

What if their performance as a worker decreases?

 

[ModerateDem]

What if their performance as a worker decreases?

Perhaps you should focus more on your saying "the Democrats lied about Bi-partisanship!" the vote on this was 315-116, with more than 80 Republicans joining Democrats to pass it.

So what do you have to say about Bi-Partisanship now?

 

[Navy Pride]

Perhaps you should focus more on your saying "the Democrats lied about Bi-partisanship!" the vote on this was 315-116, with more than 80 Republicans joining Democrats to pass it.

So what do you have to say about Bi-Partisanship now?

Minimum wage was easy...Wait until Stem Cell Research comes up.............

 

[Stinger]

Perhaps you should focus more on your saying "the Democrats lied about Bi-partisanship!" the vote on this was 315-116, with more than 80 Republicans joining Democrats to pass it.

So what do you have to say about Bi-Partisanship now?

What on earth does that have to do with my question to Wishmaster about the minimum wage in Australia and how it is administered?

 

[Dezaad]

Minimum wage was easy...Wait until Stem Cell Research comes up.............

I have to say, I think you are absolutely right, NP.

I have already made up my mind about stem cell research, and I believe it should proceed. But, we need an honest, open discussion about this before it is permitted in the U.S. I hope the Democrats will lead the way (since they do have control) toward that discussion, and I hope Republicans will respond by engaging in a productive way.

But, you are right, the true test will be when the contentious issues are under consideration. I hope Liberals in this country will hold the Dems to the campaign promises concerning bipartisanship.

 

[Dezaad]

At least the Democrats are doing something. The minimum wage has me torn - $7.25 is, well, liberal, but $5.15 is too low for anyone to be making for any type of paid labor.

House OKs minimum wage increase - baltimoresun.com

I disagree that 7.25 is "Liberal". It gets the family out of poverty, supposedly, though I can't see how. I try to work out a budget on that amount, and I simply can't see how it can be done.

 

[Zyphlin]

I disagree that 7.25 is "Liberal". It gets the family out of poverty, supposedly, though I can't see how. I try to work out a budget on that amount, and I simply can't see how it can be done.

Except it doesn't. The majority of families do not live on "minimum" wage salaries. Actually, the majority of minimum wagers are generally 21 and younger students who are supporting themselves and themselves alone. The amount of people on the federal minimum wage in this country as compared to any other wage is staggering.

What this does do, is slowly increase EVERYONES wages, thus increasing the prices of everything to be able to pay out these wages, thus really not having much of a beneficial effect at all.

 

[Navy Pride]

I have to say, I think you are absolutely right, NP.

I have already made up my mind about stem cell research, and I believe it should proceed. But, we need an honest, open discussion about this before it is permitted in the U.S. I hope the Democrats will lead the way (since they do have control) toward that discussion, and I hope Republicans will respond by engaging in a productive way.

But, you are right, the true test will be when the contentious issues are under consideration. I hope Liberals in this country will hold the Democrats to the campaign promises concerning bipartisanship.

I personally think we should exhaust research on adult stem cells before we start killing potential babies but we are getting off topic.......

 

[The_Real_ElRoi]

That's crazy that all person's over 21 must make at least 50k a year.

Yeah! I mean why in the world would you want everyone over 21 in your society who works to be able to live like a real human?

 

[The_Real_ElRoi]

I disagree that 7.25 is "Liberal". It gets the family out of poverty, supposedly, though I can't see how. I try to work out a budget on that amount, and I simply can't see how it can be done.

But you see, the masses not living in poverty is counter productive to the maintenance of the hierarchical structure of our society.

 

[Iriemon]

I personally think we should exhaust research on adult stem cells before we start killing potential babies but we are getting off topic.......

No we're not. If stem cells cannot be researched because they are human beings, then the solution is they can be researched as long as they are paid the federally mandated minimum wage.

 

[Goobieman]

Perhaps you should focus more on your saying "the Democrats lied about Bi-partisanship!" the vote on this was 315-116, with more than 80 Republicans joining Democrats to pass it.

So what do you have to say about Bi-Partisanship now?

That the GOP is better at it than the Dems?

 

[Goobieman]

From the DNC website:

It is wrong to have millions of Americans working full-time and year-round and still living in poverty. At $5.15 an hour, a full-time minimum wage worker brings home $10,712 a year -nearly $6,000 below the poverty level for a family of three.

The Democratic Party

The above is based on rather convenient assumptions -- one person working 40hrs/week.

5.25x50hrs/wk = 288.75/wk = 15015/yr

Family of three?
2 working parents, one child?

Thats $30030/yr, which is more than $13,000 ABOVE the poverty rate for a family of 3.
Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dunno whats worse -- that the Dems lie to you people or that you people believe those lies.

 

[Iriemon]

From the DNC website:

The Democratic Party

The above is based on rather convenient assumptions -- one person working 40hrs/week.

5.25x50hrs/wk = 288.75/wk = 15015/yr

Family of three?
2 working parents, one child?

Thats $30030/yr, which is more than $13,000 ABOVE the poverty rate for a family of 3.
Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dunno whats worse -- that the Dems lie to you people or that you people believe those lies.

And therefore, a single parent with two kids making the min wage even working 50 hours a week is still well below the poverty level.

Pretty good point for bumping it up to me.

 

[The_Real_ElRoi]

From the DNC website:

The Democratic Party

The above is based on rather convenient assumptions -- one person working 40hrs/week.

5.25x50hrs/wk = 288.75/wk = 15015/yr

Family of three?
2 working parents, one child?

Thats $30030/yr, which is more than $13,000 ABOVE the poverty rate for a family of 3.
Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dunno whats worse -- that the Dems lie to you people or that you people believe those lies.

Or that you think that it's possible for a family of three to actual live on thirty grad a year, rather than to merely exist.

So if a family of three makes $17,500 a year they are not impoverish? Give me a break.

 

[Goobieman]

From the DNC website:

The Democratic Party

The above is based on rather convenient assumptions -- one person working 40hrs/week.

5.25x50hrs/wk = 288.75/wk = 15015/yr

Family of three?
2 working parents, one child?

Thats $30030/yr, which is more than $13,000 ABOVE the poverty rate for a family of 3.
Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dunno whats worse -- that the Dems lie to you people or that you people believe those lies.

Lets see what else...

A family of 4, with 2 working parents?
They're more than $10,000 over poverty level.

A family of 5 with 2 working parents?
They;re more than $6000 over poverty level.

A family of 7 with 2 working parents?
They're $150 below poverty level.

So, 2 working parents making min wage have to have -5- kids before they're at poverty level.

What about a single person @ 40hrs/week?
$5.25x40/hrs/week = $210/week = $10920/yr
Thats $1120 over the poverty level!
(Note too that the Bush tax cuts lowered this person's income taxes by 50%)

Clearly, the Dems have to put together fairly specific scenarios for their argument to have any meaning, rasing a legitimate question as to exactly how many people their argument applies to.

 

[Iriemon]

Lets see what else...

A family of 4, with 2 working parents?
They're more than $10,000 over poverty level.

A family of 5 with 2 working parents?
They;re more than $6000 over poverty level.

A family of 7 with 2 working parents?
They're $150 below poverty level.

So, 2 working parents making min wage have to have -5- kids before they're at poverty level.

What about a single person @ 40hrs/week?
$5.25x40/hrs/week = $210/week = $10920/yr
Thats $1120 over the poverty level!
(Note too that the Bush tax cuts lowered this person's income taxes by 50%)

Clearly, the Democrats have to put together fairly specific scenarios for their argument to have any meaning, rasing a legitimate question as to exactly how many people their argument applies to.

So your argument its OK that kids with a single parent making the minimum wage live in poverty and therefore we don't need to raise the min wage for that group?

 

[Goobieman]

Lets see what else...

A family of 4, with 2 working parents?
They're more than $10,000 over poverty level.

A family of 5 with 2 working parents?
They;re more than $6000 over poverty level.

A family of 7 with 2 working parents?
They're $150 below poverty level.

So, 2 working parents making min wage have to have -5- kids before they're at poverty level.

What about a single person @ 40hrs/week?
$5.25x40/hrs/week = $210/week = $10920/yr
Thats $1120 over the poverty level!
(Note too that the Bush tax cuts lowered this person's income taxes by 50%)

Clearly, the Democrats have to put together fairly specific scenarios for their argument to have any meaning, rasing a legitimate question as to exactly how many people their argument applies to.

So - liberals/Dems -

What do you think of the DNC argument (noted above) for the "need" to raise minimum wage?

 

[Zyphlin]

So your argument its OK that kids with a single parent making the minimum wage live in poverty and therefore we don't need to raise the min wage for that group?

And thus why there are a large number of federal programs already in place to ease the difficulty of said single parents life.

However, if there is a single parent with two kids, there is either 1) A father that is paying child support, thus increasing the amount of revenue that that single parent is getting; 2) The single parents chooses to care more about pride then the outcome of her family, decides she wants not help from the husband, and thus needs to make due on her own as its not the governments responsibility to assure she leads a comfortable life; 3) she was unmarried, and has no actual contact with the father, of both kids, thus she is having to suffer from her own foolish mistakes.

Is it sad that the kids will not live a life of comfort? Sure. That's what private organizations and funds are for. Its not the job of the government to take care of every person.

On top of that, by raising the minimum wage, you may end up driving this woman into unemployment, thus giving her no income, because the job she was at couldn't afford to keep her on staff.

Nevermind the fact that most working people in the U.S. already don't earn the minimum wage. Only 0.6% of wage earners in this country ACTUALLY earn the minimum wage. A quarter of that 0.6% are people 16-19, typically not those "supporting a family". 60% of the ones that are earning the minimum wage or less are doing so in bars and restaurants where they gain tips, that are generally untaxed, that in reality generally raises them above the minimum.

By going with the "One parent making minimum wage with two children" route, you're simply taking an extreme circumstance that is NOT the common thing happening out there, and trying to use that to justify something that would be harmful and detrimental to the majority of the rest of Americans.


Soure

 

[Iriemon]

So - liberals/Democrats -

What do you think of the DNC argument (noted above) for the "need" to raise minimum wage?

Single parent raising kids on min wage is now well below poverty.

I think it's great they're getting a boost.

 

[Iriemon]

And thus why there are a large number of federal programs already in place to ease the difficulty of said single parents life.

However, if there is a single parent with two kids, there is either 1) A father that is paying child support, thus increasing the amount of revenue that that single parent is getting; 2) The single parents chooses to care more about pride then the outcome of her family, decides she wants not help from the husband, and thus needs to make due on her own as its not the governments responsibility to assure she leads a comfortable life; 3) she was unmarried, and has no actual contact with the father, of both kids, thus she is having to suffer from her own foolish mistakes.

Can't you think of any more? I can think of a few you left off:

4) Dad died 5) Dad ran away 6) Dad is a deadbeat and doesn't or can't pay support.

Is it sad that the kids will not live a life of comfort? Sure. That's what private organizations and funds are for. Its not the job of the government to take care of every person.

But it is the role of the Govt to mitigate the effects of laizzes-faire capitalism upon the most vulnerable in society, IMO.

On top of that, by raising the minimum wage, you may end up driving this woman into unemployment, thus giving her no income, because the job she was at couldn't afford to keep her on staff.

This has been discussed repeatedly. I agree that raising the min wage can have that effect. But given the current economic environment of low unemployment I don't see the danger of rising unemployment to be a significant concern.

Nevermind the fact that most working people in the U.S. already don't earn the minimum wage. Only 0.6% of wage earners in this country ACTUALLY earn the minimum wage. A quarter of that 0.6% are people 16-19, typically not those "supporting a family". 60% of the ones that are earning the minimum wage or less are doing so in bars and restaurants where they gain tips, that are generally untaxed, that in reality generally raises them above the minimum.

If it will have so little impact what is the fuss about passing it?

By going with the "One parent making minimum wage with two children" route, you're simply taking an extreme circumstance that is NOT the common thing happening out there, and trying to use that to justify something that would be harmful and detrimental to the majority of the rest of Americans.

A single working mom with kids is not by any means an unusual or "extreme" situation in this country. It is single moms who are the highest percentage in poverty and need the most help.

Sorry, I just don't share your "well they deserve it" attitude. Hell, I'm thrilled they are out their working instead of living on welfare, and if the min wage helps single moms and their kids live at least a poverty level existence, then I think it's great.