• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act of 2006 (Introduced in Senate)

Cassapolis

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act of 2006 (Introduced in Senate)

S 2725 IS


109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2725
To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage and to ensure that increases in the Federal minimum wage keep pace with any pay adjustments for Members of Congress.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 4, 2006
Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. HARKIN, and Mr. OBAMA) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage and to ensure that increases in the Federal minimum wage keep pace with any pay adjustments for Members of Congress.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act of 2006'.

SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE.

(a) In General- Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:

`(1)(A) except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than--

`(i) $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after the date of enactment of the Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act of 2006;

`(ii) $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day, adjusted for that year as provided for in subparagraph (B); and

`(iii) $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day, adjusted each year as provided for in subparagraph (B); and

`(B) the wage provided for under clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall be automatically increased for the year involved by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the annual rate of pay for Members of Congress increased for such year as provided for pursuant to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31).'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.2725:
 
Terrible idea. This will prevent people whose labor is not WORTH $7.25 per hour from finding a job at all. If all we had to do to raise the national income was to raise the minimum wage, why not set it at $500 per hour? Then we'd all be millionaires.
 
Kandahar said:
Terrible idea. This will prevent people whose labor is not WORTH $7.25 per hour from finding a job at all. If all we had to do to raise the national income was to raise the minimum wage, why not set it at $500 per hour? Then we'd all be millionaires.

the reason that minimum wage exists is that low skilled workers have absolutly no bargaining power. yes, unemployment will go up when the minimum wage is increased, but that doesnt mean that a reasonable balance cannot be reached.
 
The key part of this whole bill is this:

`(B) the wage provided for under clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall be automatically increased for the year involved by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the annual rate of pay for Members of Congress increased for such year as provided for pursuant to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31).'.
 
Kandahar said:
Terrible idea. This will prevent people whose labor is not WORTH $7.25 per hour from finding a job at all. If all we had to do to raise the national income was to raise the minimum wage, why not set it at $500 per hour? Then we'd all be millionaires.


The bill doesn't automatically raise the minimum wage to $7.25. You think that after you have been on a job for 26 months your labor is not worth $7.25/hr? What kind of heartless drone would oppose raising what lowest wage American's make? That's just disgusting that people like you still exist.
 
star2589 said:
the reason that minimum wage exists is that low skilled workers have absolutly no bargaining power. yes, unemployment will go up when the minimum wage is increased, but that doesnt mean that a reasonable balance cannot be reached.

No, the reason minimum wage exists is because social programs created a situation where an unskilled person would be better of not working.
 
star2589 said:
the reason that minimum wage exists is that low skilled workers have absolutly no bargaining power. yes, unemployment will go up when the minimum wage is increased, but that doesnt mean that a reasonable balance cannot be reached.

How much bargaining power do you have if you're unemployed?
 
Cassapolis said:
The bill doesn't automatically raise the minimum wage to $7.25. You think that after you have been on a job for 26 months your labor is not worth $7.25/hr?

If it is worth $7.25/hr after 26 months, I suggest you find a job that pays you $7.25/hr after 26 months. Why would you settle for less than your labor is worth?

Cassapolis said:
What kind of heartless drone would oppose raising what lowest wage American's make?

What kind of heartless drone would be in favor of kicking America's lowest-wage earners to the street, to earn $0/hr instead of $5.15/hr?

If raising the minimum wage was all that you had to do to "raise what lowest-wage American's make" (sic), why not set the minimum wage at $500/hr as I suggested?

Cassapolis said:
That's just disgusting that people like you still exist.

Actually it's disgusting that people like you think that anyone who disagrees with them about anything must be a heartless drone. Some of us just understand economics.
 
Kandahar said:
What kind of heartless drone would be in favor of kicking America's lowest-wage earners to the street, to earn $0/hr instead of $5.15/hr?

oregon has the second highest minimum wage in the nation, and we have no unusual homeless problems. most of the homeless here are alchoholcs and drug adicts just like everywhere else.
 
star2589 said:
oregon has the second highest minimum wage in the nation, and we have no unusual homeless problems. most of the homeless here are alchoholcs and drug adicts just like everywhere else.

That statement reflects a very poor understanding of homelessness.
 
Kandahar said:
Terrible idea. This will prevent people whose labor is not WORTH $7.25 per hour from finding a job at all. If all we had to do to raise the national income was to raise the minimum wage, why not set it at $500 per hour? Then we'd all be millionaires.

And how do you determine that they're not worth $7.25, if you haven't even hired them, haven't seen how productive they are or aren't?
 
RightatNYU said:
That statement reflects a very poor understanding of homelessness.

maybe it does. I forgot to meantion the runaway teens, and the mentally disabled.
 
star2589 said:
oregon has the second highest minimum wage in the nation, and we have no unusual homeless problems. most of the homeless here are alchoholcs and drug adicts just like everywhere else.

I meant "kicking them to the street" metaphorically.

The point is that people like Cassapolis can't even comprehend the idea that someone could disagree with them unless that person has a vendetta against the poor. Minimum wage INCREASES wealth disparity by increasing the number of people who are earning nothing.
 
Stace said:
And how do you determine that they're not worth $7.25, if you haven't even hired them, haven't seen how productive they are or aren't?

Labor (like everything else) is worth what the market is willing to pay for it. If your labor is worth $7.25 per hour, that means that there must be someone willing to pay you $7.25 per hour for your labor. If there is, great, you earn what your labor is worth without the government forcing anyone to do anything. If there isn't, then your labor isn't actually worth $7.25 per hour.
 
Kandahar said:
Labor (like everything else) is worth what the market is willing to pay for it. If your labor is worth $7.25 per hour, that means that there must be someone willing to pay you $7.25 per hour for your labor. If there is, great, you earn what your labor is worth without the government forcing anyone to do anything. If there isn't, then your labor isn't actually worth $7.25 per hour.

I disagree. There are too many businesses out there that aren't willing to pay more than they have to. That's WHY we have a minimum wage, otherwise, it wouldn't surprise me if there were folks who thought they could still get away with only paying someone three or four dollars an hour. Not like $5.15 is much better.
 
Stace said:
I disagree. There are too many businesses out there that aren't willing to pay more than they have to.

What determines how much they "have to pay" in the absence of government intrusion? The free market. Why don't we see hospitals paying doctors $5.15 per hour?

Stace said:
That's WHY we have a minimum wage, otherwise, it wouldn't surprise me if there were folks who thought they could still get away with only paying someone three or four dollars an hour.

If people are willing to work for $3 per hour, that's because they consider it a fair wage, and therefore it's what their labor is worth.

Stace said:
Not like $5.15 is much better.

It's a lot better than $0, which is what many of them would be earning if the minimum wage is raised.
 
Stace said:
I disagree. There are too many businesses out there that aren't willing to pay more than they have to. That's WHY we have a minimum wage, otherwise, it wouldn't surprise me if there were folks who thought they could still get away with only paying someone three or four dollars an hour. Not like $5.15 is much better.



Such as?


less than 1% of all laborers make minimum wage. Well over 2/3s of laborers make over 8 an hour. not bad..
 
Kandahar said:
What determines how much they "have to pay" in the absence of government intrusion? The free market. Why don't we see hospitals paying doctors $5.15 per hour?

Because no doctor would work for $5.15 an hour.



If people are willing to work for $3 per hour, that's because they consider it a fair wage, and therefore it's what their labor is worth.

No, it's because that would be the only job they could get. Why do you think folks are fighting to get the minimum wage raised? Because in today's market, $5.15 is no longer fair. However, until it is changed, many folks don't have a choice BUT to work for $5.15 an hour.



It's a lot better than $0, which is what many of them would be earning if the minimum wage is raised.

How do you figure that?
 
128shot said:
Such as?


less than 1% of all laborers make minimum wage. Well over 2/3s of laborers make over 8 an hour. not bad..

Tell that to the folks that haven't attended college for whatever reason, and therefore don't have a degree, and are therefore stuck in jobs like retail and fast food. Sure, eventually they can climb their way up those ladders, but it's a long process for most. And sure, there are other jobs you can get without a degree, but lots of people don't possess the skills necessary, or are physically restricted from jobs not requiring higher education. Why should they make crap money due to circumstances beyond their control? They've still got families to feed, too.
 
Stace said:
Because no doctor would work for $5.15 an hour.

Exactly. Everyone has their own "minimum wage" that they're willing to work for. We don't need government to interfere and tell people that they aren't allowed to work for less than $5.15 or $7.25 per hour, if they feel that their labor is worth less than that.

Stace said:
No, it's because that would be the only job they could get.

If they can't get a higher-paying job, then their labor is not worth as much as they believe.

Stace said:
Why do you think folks are fighting to get the minimum wage raised?

Mainly because they don't understand economics. Or in the case of some politicians, because they cynically want the votes of the aforementioned people.

Stace said:
Because in today's market, $5.15 is no longer fair.

What makes you think that the government can determine what is "fair" better than the free market can?

Stace said:
However, until it is changed, many folks don't have a choice BUT to work for $5.15 an hour.

Why do they work for such "unfair" wages? If they're truly unfair, surely they can hold out for a better job.

If someone was offering you 25 cents per hour when your labor was worth $20 per hour (meaning other employers were willing to pay you $20 per hour), would you take the job?

Stace said:
How do you figure that?

Because the minimum wage creates unemployment. If I run a business, I have a certain amount of money I can spend on labor. If I spend more than that, I'll lose money or, at the very least, not make much money.

So let's say that I have $35 per hour to spend on labor. And let's assume that the labor (before artificial prices set by the government) is worth $5 per hour. I can hire seven workers. But if the government tells me I have to pay them $7 per hour, I can only hire five workers.

And not only that, it's probably not five of the same workers I'd hire at $5 because I can get BETTER workers for $7. In other words, the unemployment rate increases by a net two workers, and the seven people who are worth $5 were unable to find a job at all.

In other words, the minimum wage screws those at the bottom of the totem pole, increases the number of people earning $0 per hour, and increases wealth disparity.
 
Kandahar said:
So let's say that I have $35 per hour to spend on labor. And let's assume that the labor (before artificial prices set by the government) is worth $5 per hour. I can hire seven workers. But if the government tells me I have to pay them $7 per hour, I can only hire five workers.

lets consider another situation...

again you have 35 dollars to spend on labor and turn over is 1 job per month. 8 people competing for the job.

at $5 per hour, the 1 person would be unemployed every month. one months earnings would be about 900 dollars. you can expect to be employed for 21 out of 24 months. in 2 years you'd earn 18,900 dollars

at 7 dollars an hour, 3 people will be unemployed every month. monthly earnings would be about 1260 dollars per hour. you can expect to be employed for 15 out of 24 months. in 2 years you'd earn 18,900 dollars.

in this over simplified example, it comes out to exactly the same in the end. here is the catch: the competitors must have exactly equal working skills, however, when speaking about minimum wage jobs the level of skills of the workers are roughly the same. all of them have very few. the people that would be hurt the most are those that dont speak english, and those that have poor people skills, and many employers would refuse to hire those people anyway even if it meant being short on labor.

the real problem isnt unemployment, sinse that seems to pay for itself. i'd be much more concerned about inflation.
 
star2589 said:
lets consider another situation...

again you have 35 dollars to spend on labor and turn over is 1 job per month. 8 people competing for the job.

at $5 per hour, the 1 person would be unemployed every month. one months earnings would be about 900 dollars. you can expect to be employed for 21 out of 24 months. in 2 years you'd earn 18,900 dollars

at 7 dollars an hour, 3 people will be unemployed every month. monthly earnings would be about 1260 dollars per hour. you can expect to be employed for 15 out of 24 months. in 2 years you'd earn 18,900 dollars.

in this over simplified example, it comes out to exactly the same in the end.

This model overlooks a couple of things: First of all, the job turnover would NOT be the same regardless of wage. People are more likely to stick with a job that pays them better, for obvious reasons. This is great for those who are lucky enough to land those better-paying jobs, but it means that those who are unemployed are unemployed for longer periods of time, since employees at OTHER jobs would similarly cling to their jobs if the government passed a minimum wage hike.

Furthermore, the people who get the $7 per hour jobs are not necessarily the same people who get the $5 per hour jobs. Employers paying $7 per hour can be more selective and get more reliable workers. If the government is forcing me to hire $7 instead of $5 workers regardless of my business model, I may as well hire people who are actually worth close to $7 per hour.

This makes things very difficult for the worker whose labor is really only worth $5. When the minimum wage increases, most employers will not be able to justify paying such a worker $7, and they won't get a job at all.

star2589 said:
here is the catch: the competitors must have exactly equal working skills, however, when speaking about minimum wage jobs the level of skills of the workers are roughly the same. all of them have very few.

There are other differences besides skill. It's not uncommon for $5 employees to be fired for stealing, incompetence, missing work, being rude to customers, drug addiction, etc. Those who are responsible and do their job well - even if it's something like fast food - often find themselves promoted and earning $9 or $10 per hour anyway.

star2589 said:
the people that would be hurt the most are those that dont speak english, and those that have poor people skills, and many employers would refuse to hire those people anyway even if it meant being short on labor.

Those people are much more likely to get a job if there was no minimum wage. They probably wouldn't earn as much as someone who did have those skills, but they'd at least be able to work.

star2589 said:
the real problem isnt unemployment, sinse that seems to pay for itself. i'd be much more concerned about inflation.

I definitely agree that the government needs to be more worried about inflation than unemployment, but there's no reason to artificially increase the unemployment rate (which is what a minimum wage does). The government has lots of methods of fighting inflation; I hardly think increasing the unemployment rate is the best strategy.
 
star2589 said:
the reason that minimum wage exists is that low skilled workers have absolutly no bargaining power. yes, unemployment will go up when the minimum wage is increased, but that doesnt mean that a reasonable balance cannot be reached.


Let the employer define "reasonable". If he can't find any dishwashers for a buck and hour, he'll have to raise his rates to a buck ten. If that won't work, he'll got to a buck and a quarter, and if he finds a dishwasher happy with that, what business it is of yours, or anyone's? None, is what.
 
Cassapolis said:
What kind of heartless drone would oppose raising what lowest wage American's make? That's just disgusting that people like you still exist.

People like me. Do us a favor, turn on your webcam when you vomit. We could use a laugh around here.
 
zymurgy said:
No, the reason minimum wage exists is because social programs created a situation where an unskilled person would be better of not working.


Does it take a genius then to say the best thing to do is end the stupid unconstitutional social programs?
 
Back
Top Bottom