by Jack
When he felt the time was ripe,
President Roosevelt asked
Secretary of Labor Perkins,
‘What happened to that
nice unconstitutional bill
you had tucked away?’
On Saturday, June 25, 1938, to avoid pocket vetoes 9 days after Congress had adjourned, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed 121 bills. Among these bills was a landmark law in the Nation’s social and economic development — Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). Against a history of judicial opposition, the depression-born FLSA had survived, not unscathed, more than a year of Congressional altercation. In its final form, the act applied to industries whose combined employment represented only about one-fifth of the labor force. In these industries, it banned oppressive child labor and set the minimum hourly wage at 25 cents, and the maximum workweek at 44 hours.
We are deal with two different concepts today, a livable wage and a minimum wage. You do recognize the difference between minimum wage and a livable wage, right? Sure, most of us over 30 with a little working experience understand the difference, but let me make it perfectly clear: Minimum wage was never meant to be a [livable] wage. However, a lot of liberals seem to be confused, because they don’t see any difference between the two.
Minimum wage was created to protect entry level job-seekers. These entry workers would typically by high-schoolers and other younger people starting in their first part-time job. This put a minimum [aka fair] price on the value of human labor for one hour of work.
A number of small startup companies became major businesses because they were able to use the minimum wage worker to great advantage, mostly by offering a low cost product that made them highly competitive. But, the real value to America was that it also allowed new workers a chance to gain work place skills and work ethics they couldn’t acquire anywhere else! The McDonald’s chain started out this way and the on-the-job education they provided to their workers far exceeded the value of that minimum wage. McDonalds and others like them, produced millions of successful people for our capitalist economy and that was a huge pay off for America!
Entry level workers learned a wide variety of things, like showing up on time, dressing and grooming appropriately, handling money, dealing courteously with customers, following directions and assuming a wide wage responsibilities, it was all part of that entry level education. However, another product of this entry level work was learning how to manage their own money. That proved to be incredibly important for many people in their later years. Thanks to this opportunity, youngsters were able earn, save and spend more wisely because now they could attach their labor to their money. In short, this was character building. It provided that important first leg up on the working class ladder and launched them into real career jobs.
The minimum wage in San Francisco is now $15 an hour and it’s $12.25 an hour across the bay in Oakland, but its still not enough and they are demanding higher wages. They call this an effort at making a livable wage, but as high as this wage may be I don’t know anyone who could live by themselves on $15 an hour in San Francisco! The cost of rent would eat up most of that.
For the businesses that depend on keeping a razor thin profit margin in order to survive, the higher wage has been a real challenge. The small independents were the first to fail because they couldn’t compete with the mega-chains purchasing power. Putting the small Mom and Pop businesses out of business and replacing them with large chain operations was exactly opposite of what the liberal community had in mind, but it could be no other way.
This is the trend in every city where the local government has forced higher-than-affordable wages on small businesses.
Creative entrepreneurs and job creating start-up companies are being smothered by too much government and forced overhead. Part of that overhead is high regulatory costs in blue state’s like California, also known as business unfriendly states. The job exodus in blue states has been unprecedented thanks to over-regulation and high employment costs. Things like forced health insurance, workers compensation and high minimum wage have made it all but impossible for small business to survive. Mega-chains are about the only businesses than can make it.
But, what about the loss of that valuable work training? The character building, work experience entry level job is being slowly denied to our teens and young adults. The long term effect of this can’t be good. We’re seeing signs of major trouble already in the form of higher welfare rates. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see where the current trajectory is going.
The liberal plan here is to take from the rich and give to the poor, in order that we may make wages and wealth more evenly distributed among the masses. For a long time the wages for a cab driver and a doctor were the same in Russia and China. This was called a workers paradise because everyone shared equally, but what they shared equally was basically poverty. Only the party bosses lived in luxury. The communists learned a lot from that grand social experiment. They learned about consolidation of power, about relying too much on government and all the corruption that followed with their new society. Now they’re moving as fast as they can towards capitalism, ironically just at a time when our liberals in America are abandoning the fundaments of capitalism and pushing us towards that old failed system.
Jack,
I agree with a lot of what you said about the success of McDonalds and the benefits to minimum wage workers in its early days.
But what your article ignores is that the time period when McDonalds saw its greatest growth–the 1960s and 70s–was also when the purchasing power of the minimum wage was at its highest.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_McDonald%27s#Phenomenal_growth_in_the_1960s_and_1970s
A high minimum wage did not seem to hurt McDonalds profits, it’s ability to hire, or the overall economy during that time period.
Minimum wage workers during that time were able to learn how to manage money because they were paid enough money to actually manage. Today, telling a minimum wage worker to start saving or investing is a joke; there is simply nothing left after spending on necessities! Due to changing demographics and culture more young workers are taking care of families, either their own children or sometimes even parents and other relatives. They’re also more likely to be attending college at the same time or to have already completed it. This rise in educational ability and experience among minimum wage workers has not equated to higher purchasing power. And this has led to more use of welfare and food stamps. It’s now fairly common to see young single workers, with no dependents, on food stamps. It’s not because they’re lazy or that they’re not working. It’s that their jobs don’t pay enough. My girlfriend has worked since she was 16, and at one point worked three jobs at once. She was getting a couple hundred in food stamps a month until recently when she got a promotion. And her previous job was even above the minimum wage, but she still didn’t make enough to get by without this program.
Everyone benefits when the purchasing power of the minimum wage is high, including corporations who will see a rise in demand. Obviously sharp increases might not be a great idea as it could lead to inflation, but gradual increases have not shown to have the same effect. $15 won’t work everywhere but as you point out SF is a very expensive city to live in, so $15 might not be that much there.
If we want to stimulate our economy, we need to gradually raise the minimum wage until it has the same purchasing power as it did at its height in 1968. When that happens, then it will be fair to hold today’s minimum wage workers to the same standards as their parents’ generation. The reason today’s minimum wage workers aren’t as successful as those in the 60s and 70s is not because they are lazy or immoral or don’t want to get educated. It’s because they’re not getting paid as much.
Re “Everyone benefits when the purchasing power of the minimum wage is high, including corporations who will see a rise in demand.” and other blather.
Nonsense economic hypothesis posing as reality from the English major.
Similar argument: One might as well say everyone benefits from the purchasing power of welfare.
Chris probably can’t quite conceive of the advantage in being one of the first fast food providers to successfully franchise across the country; he grew up with a different brand of fast food on every corner. The growth of the McDonalds company was the result of ENTERPRISE, RISK and INVESTMENT, not only by corporate heads and their investors but also by the individual franchisees who took a chance and opened a store. Corporate also launched a brilliant, massive ad campaign (expensive). The changing minimum wage, as a percentage of sales, wasn’t detrimental to the bottom line because demand/sales and growth were sufficient to pay those wages. (Google North Dakota during the recent fracking boom – small businesses were paying the help as much as $17.00 an hour because they were making money hand over fist and had to compete for good workers with other small business)
Then came the seventies. Chris obviously wasn’t an adult through the massive inflation of the seventies. But this changed the picture for franchise owners dramatically. Then, as now, food and energy costs were rising through the roof. Minimum wage rose from a low of $1.15 to $2.90. The impact of all of these extra costs alone made managing the budget of a franchise much more challenging. I don’t know that stores, particularly in more remote areas, were forced out of business but its certainly conceivable. It’s also quite conceivable that some minimum wage earners lost their jobs or hours during this period. You can’t squeeze blood from a turnip.
The happy talk about the rising minimum wage not “hurting” McDonalds is not based on the big picture or complete facts.
Corporate growth may have continued apace, those with investment cash can take the risk, but that is a very different story than the stories of individual franchise owners.
Through the inflationary seventies they saw the price for basics like energy, hamburger and bread rise like crazy. Inflation in 1979 was at 13.3% and unemployment was 6.1%. (In 1960 these figures were 1.4% and 5.5% and in 1965 they were 1.6 and 5.2)
Of course the rising cost of doing business in the seventies made it more difficult to make a profit and stay in business! Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply delusional. It very well may be that some of those franchise owners added to higher unemployment numbers by laying off some of their minimum wage workers…they certainly had no way to lower higher food and energy costs!
The problem with many academics on the left attempting to “prove” a point about minimum wage is they have no practical experience or basic business sense. They observe from a single narrow perspective, the need of the worker, missing the big picture entirely. They imagine that every store owner is “rich” and can “afford” to be more generous. They are not living in the real world. Their narrow perspective is built on entitlement thinking.
If you want the American people (including the poor) to have more purchasing power you need to create a stronger economy and stop using policy that devalues the dollar. Printing money, keeping inflation numbers artificially low, discouraging savings and investment, and creating more entitlement drains the economy and lowers buying power, especially for the middle and lower classes. Raising the minimum wage would not place a huge drain on the overall economy. It wouldn’t boost the economy either at 2% of the working population. But it will put a significant drain on individual store owner budgets.
Has anyone noticed the way franchise owners are handling the inflation and bad economy? The portions have shrunk and in some cases the quality of the meat is acceptable but not outstanding. Stores have come up with “value” meals. Even the packaging is less substantial.
I don’t care what proponents of higher minimum wage think, there is a point in every small business owners budget at which forcing higher minimum wage will become unsustainable or will greatly impact how he hires and the quality of his product…particularly in times like these where we’ve experienced higher costs for bread, meat, produce and energy and regulation changes that force a business owner to spend on compliance issues rather than his product, his customers, or employee satisfaction.
To give a better sense of the inflation in the seventies lets look at home and hamburger prices:
1965 – $21,500.00 cost of a home – hamburger 57.3 cents a pound wholesale
1970 – $26,600.00 cost of home – hamburger 67.3 cents a pound wholesale
1975 – $42,600.00 cost of home – hamburger 104.4 cents a pound wholesale
1979 – $71,800.00 cost of home – hamburger 145.1 cents a pound wholesale
But even that is not the end of the story regarding “buying power.” Since 1965 federal entitlement programs and state and local programs and have been added to the mix. The taxes and fees required to pay out and to manage (bureaucracy) these programs not only add to federal, state and local debt (the main drivers) but require more creative tax structures, higher tax rates, and greater cost to employers and individuals to manage their taxes each year. I wish I had a list of taxes paid in 1965 compared to all we pay today as well as the cost of compliance then and now. I can tell you the difference is staggering!
There’s the main cause of a decline in buying power. Rotten management at the federal and state levels, lousy oversight of the overall economy, entitlement mentality and massive debt! All of these make life miserable for everyone in one way or another…they hurt the poor more than others when the government isn’t making life comfortable for them at the expense of the middle and upper classes.
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS AND CAN ONLY MAKE DOING BUSINESS EASIER OR HARDER THROUGH POLICIES. THE LEFT BLUNTS BUSINESS, BLUNTS GROWTH, BLUNTS OPPORTUNITY, AND BUYING POWER.
In a vibrant economy there is plenty of opportunity for workers to move from minimum wage to a higher paying position. Most do so within a year. Those who don’t, those who remain stuck in a minimum wage job have learned to be dependent and/or lack ambition or prefer to remain a victim of society. (The left preaches victim-hood and entitlement…what a terrible thing to teach any child or young adult!)
Good article Jack! The importance of economic and financial education for our citizens can’t be stressed hard enough. Big government cost the Boomers big time but what it will do in the future is staggering if we don’t make reforms and quick! We can’t make reforms without the will of the people. Those who think like Chris have won the argument for too many years.
Freedom, individual effort, and a government that gets the heck out of the way of the entrepreneurial spirit, enterprise AND generosity of the people is the key to success for any American citizen in any class.
Tina: “The changing minimum wage, as a percentage of sales, wasn’t detrimental to the bottom line because demand/sales and growth were sufficient to pay those wages.”
How do you not see the connection? It’s a cycle, Tina. Demand/sales grew because people had more purchasing power. People had more purchasing power because the min. wage was higher.
You go on to speculate that raising the minimum wage in the seventies contributed to worsening economic conditions, but you provide no evidence of that. When you find some, let me know.
Chris: “Demand/sales grew because people had more purchasing power. People had more purchasing power because the min. wage was higher.
You are one dense dude!
People did not have more purchasing power! Inflation ate up the rise in minimum wage! When people have to pay more for milk, bread, meat, vegies, rent, gasoline, and heat they aren’t helped much by a rise in minimum wage…not enough to feed themselves much less the local McDonalds!
“You go on to speculate that raising the minimum wage in the seventies contributed to worsening economic condition”
No I did not! I wrote that the rise in minimum wage in addition to the other rising costs, made it hard for franchisee owners. I also wrote, “Raising the minimum wage would not place a huge drain on the overall economy. It wouldn’t boost the economy either at 2% of the working population.”
“When you find some, let me know.”
Please consider the above correction sufficient!
Jack and I went together to the first McDonald’s in Yuba City. It must have been about 1965, after high school but before I graduated from college and got drafted. I could not believe it. I think the basic hamburger cost about 25 cents, way less than we were used to. I doubt that they are much more than that now, but I don’t really know, since I am no longer a carnivore.
Actually I think they are a dollar now with .25 cents worth of hamburger. : )
Re #8 Soaps : On a marathon driving summer vacation my parents stopped here —
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/06/article-2213917-1560E812000005DC-768_965x650.jpg
In the early 70’s I lived in the last ghetto apartments in [redacted]. One of the rent sharers nailed a McDonald’s hamburger (with one bite out of it) in the wall next to the bathroom sink. There it stayed, with never a hint of decay or odor for over a year. It self mummified.
I think it was the “secret sauce.”
Does anyone remember amazingly FAT bean burrito’s at the new and growing franchise “Taco Bell” circa 1967? I was in San Jose at the time. The store there only sold two things, red or green burritos, when they opened but their menu quickly changed to include tacos and other Taco Bell specialties.
The history of Taco bell is pretty typical of American entrepreneurship:
Since we have a truly divided government, perhaps democrats would agree to a compromise: wage increases met with equal tax decreases? Get government off the backs of businesses and maybe they can afford to pay people more?
Sadly, our President’s recent pontifications indicate he has no will to compromise for the good of our country whatsoever.
I am confused what is the point?
McDonalds is no loner a privately held American Company nor are the economics of that period of time relevant to today?
Since it is the glory of the free markets to give tax breaks for moving jobs over seas and moving company headquarters overseas to avoid taxes the whole economic climate has changed.
The minimum wage paid to an adult at Mcdonalds compared to the CEO’s salary?
QUOTE:
McDonald’s Corp. more than tripled the pay packages last year for its new CEO Don Thompson and the man he replaced, Jim Skinner.
The pay increases came at a challenging time for the world’s biggest hamburger chain. McDonald’s is facing intensifying competition, a trend toward healthier eating and weak economic conditions in many countries where it operates.
McDonald’s, based in Oak Brook, Ill., gave Thompson a package worth $13.8 million, up from the $4.1 million he received in 2011, according to a regulatory filing made
I mean why do they even have to pay the workers? if we just made them slaves the CEO’s pay could be raised
Better yet maybe seniors need to be taught how to flip burgers so the tax payers do not have to fund their monthly checks. The lazy bums need to work like the rest of us
Time for the Tea Party Values to run the world!
No more government welfare for these lazy bums!
Steve it’s sad for the American people but this man has shown no indication that he will work with anyone in Congress that won’t simply rubber stamp his goals and agenda.
Ditto Steve #13
Tina: “People did not have more purchasing power!”
In 1968? Yes, they did. That is simply a fact.
“Inflation ate up the rise in minimum wage!”
Inflation grew much faster than the minimum wage. You know this. Had the min. Wage kept pace with inflation, our economy would be doing much better today.
“The problem with many academics on the left attempting to “prove” a point about minimum wage is they have no practical experience or basic business sense.”
This is a terrible argument, designed to appeal to the ignorant and anti-intellectual.
The business experience, or lack thereof, of those who have studied the impact of the minimum wage is completely irrelevant to the validity or lack thereof of their conclusions. A person does not have to have any personal experience running a business in order to study the impacts of the minimum wage on business. Your argument is equivalent to saying that a scientist shouldn’t study the mating patterns of tree frogs unless they have personal experience as a sexually active tree frog.
Anyone with a basic grasp of statistics can look at what happens after a minimum wage increase and determine whether or not the minimum wage had a negative effect on job growth and employment. Many studies have found no negative impact. These studies are not invalid unless you can find flaws in their methodology. But because you are unable to do this, you instead make irrelevant personal attacks on those who conducted the study simply because they haven’t personally run a business.
Ironically, you have defended the practice of touting studies published by actual white supremacist groups, and argued that this does not automatically make those studies invalid. But if a study comes from a group that you think is even slightly to the left, you think it is automatically invalid. That is nuts.
Once again: if you have evidence that raising the minimum wage hurts the economy, then present it. Lots of states just raised theirs; you have plenty of data sets to choose from. But so far in this conversation, it is clear that YOU are the one arguing from theory, and supporters of the min. wage are arguing from what has actually happened in the real world.
Jumping on the trip down memory lane wagon I too was in San Jose in the 1960 and can remember our first McDonalds opening up on Winchester Ave. close to my high school. A hamburger was 20 cents and a gallon of gas was 25 cents. I worked part-time at Olen Mills studio for a whopping 50 cents an hour. I also did the grocery shopping for three people on a budget of $50 dollars for everything including soap and toothpaste.
So, going to Micky D’s for a hamburger was a treat since I was spending half of my hourly wage for it.
On the other end of the spectrum was my cousin who lived in Alaska during the oil boom and laying the pipeline. According to him even McDs was paying outrageous salaries to workers, (sorry don’t remember how much) but on the other hand a salmon fishing trip for a group was a thousand dollars each person.
Chris has NO idea what he’s talking about since he’s relying on what other progressives are writing and never actually lived during those time.
It is so simple. When the cost of goods and services go up so will the service/product’s price. When wages increase so too will the price to the consumers. And the merry-go-round goes around and around.
We’ve been down this road many times on PS. Chris would like all menial jobs to be paid a “living” wage, but is he willing to pay $25 for a McD’s hamburger? I think not.
“Jumping on the trip down memory lane wagon I too was in San Jose in the 1960 and can remember our first McDonalds opening up on Winchester Ave. close to my high school. A hamburger was 20 cents and a gallon of gas was 25 cents. I worked part-time at Olen Mills studio for a whopping 50 cents an hour.”
You’re completely ignoring the fact that the inflation-adjusted value of your minimum wage was greater than it is today.
“It is so simple. When the cost of goods and services go up so will the service/product’s price. When wages increase so too will the price to the consumers. And the merry-go-round goes around and around.”
Yes, prices rise when the minimum wage goes up. But they do not rise in exact proportion to the wage increase. It is not a 1:1 ratio. When the wage is raised only slight price increases occur, so the rise in consumer purchasing power is worth the cost. This is a proven fact.
“We’ve been down this road many times on PS. Chris would like all menial jobs to be paid a “living” wage, but is he willing to pay $25 for a McD’s hamburger? I think not.”
Huh? The current cost of a plain hamburger is a dollar. None of their burgers go over $4. The current federal min. wage is $7.25. Even if prices rose at an equal or greater rate as a min. wage increase–which they don’t– the wage would have to be raised to $42 an hour, which absolutely no one is suggesting. What a ludicrous example.
TP-Dave: “I am confused…”
Yes, yes you are.
People don’t get paid for being an adult. They are paid according to their skills, education, training AND the value of the job they are doing.
An adult in a minimum wage job has either just entered the work force for the first time or or has no skills or both. If he’s been stuck in that min wage job it’s because he has no ambition or desire to get more skills or prove himself to move up. Most who begin in an entry level position at minimum wage move on to a better job within a year.
“McDonalds is no loner a privately held American Company…”
McDonalds Corporate is held by stockholders/investors. There’s nothing un-American or underhanded about that, as any union guy with a nice fat pension should know.
Most McDonalds Franchisees ARE privately owned small businesses. They operate separately from corporate as individual businesses and their profit margins are very small and very tight, especially when the economy has been kept sluggish and costs have pushed higher.
“…nor are the economics of that period of time relevant to today? ”
Ever hear about learning from history? You might try it some time. One thing that allowed that veteran to start his hot dog stand was more reasonable regulation and a much smaller government footprint.
“Since it is the glory of the free markets to give tax breaks for moving jobs over seas…”
That’s a lie. There are many reasons a company would “move jobs over seas.” One is that the demand in other countries for the product has grown to a point that it makes sense to build the product in those countries. Another is the greed and stupidity of union bosses who believe there is no point at which their demands could kill a company! The greed at GM is a great example.
“…and moving company headquarters overseas to avoid taxes…”
You would do the same were you the one in charge. To do anything else would be stupid and irresponsible. American tax policy is uncompetitive. If the workers want to get paid the company that has given them a job needs to keep the costs of doing business on par with the competition. The USA has the highest (or second highest) corporate tax rate in the world AND it is the only nation that taxes twice on sales made out of the country. The real crooks in this scenario are the greedy leftist redistribution artists that have no business experience. They think punishing a business with higher rates,complex compliance terms, and ridiculous regulation will cause more revenue to flow. Large companies hunker down, adjust as best they can and wait for a change in leadership. Even lefty owned companies are not so stupid as to stay in this country when the conditions are so hostile.
“McDonald’s Corp. more than tripled the pay packages last year for its new CEO Don Thompson and the man he replaced, Jim Skinner.”
And that has zero to do with the price of your burger or the wage that any individual store can pay…it’s a separate game and one that requires a lot more skills and smarts than most can muster. According to this, McDonalds (MCD) is big on dividends for stock holders. Those who invest share in the profits, 17.9% return. The new CEO is expected to improve McDonalds sales and image in the coming year. His job will depend on his performance. If your pension invests in MCD, which it probably does, its enjoyed a nice little return through dividends. Not bad for you considering you didn’t have to do a thing to get it.
Better yet maybe seniors need to be taught how to flip burgers so the tax payers do not have to fund their monthly checks.”
A. Seniors that could manage to work after retirement would perform better than some of the entitled punks that show up late or not at all, ignore the customers, do as little work as possible, and have a lousy attitude.
B. Seniors have paid their whole working lives into this program, conceived by progressive Democrats who imagined it could be sustained at 1% of $3000.00 per employee per year. Delusional and wrong!
C. Republicans have attempted to reform the SS system and been met with a resounding, “No,” from the same idiots who stand behind the plan and those who complain about paying for seniors. You can’t have it both ways; either work with us or shut up.
D. The Boomers retiring now have paid all their lives for the seniors that went before them because the plan, doomed from the start, is unsustainable…we understand (See “C” above).
We do have solutions to the problems you complain about. Some of the solutions have been tried by both republican and democrat presidents. What’s more important to you, fixing the problems or being a tool and mouthpiece for radical left failed policy?
Chris you go ahead and think whatever you want. You have already shown you have no interest in expanding your knowledge about how things work in the business world and you certainly have no compassion or empathy for the small business owner.
You worked a minimum wage job, Chris and now you have a much better job. How did you do that?
Why are you so arrogant as think that others shouldn’t be as smart and industrious if they want to improve their lot in life?
Need, envy, greed and political pandering are not the things that determine the value of work.
The path to higher wages is education, training, or enterprise. Minimum wage workers with a little ambition and a good work ethic often move up in stature and wages within a store or company.
“A person does not have to have any personal experience running a business in order to study the impacts of the minimum wage on business.”
Spoken with the arrogance and presumption that is your trade mark!
You can study all day long but if you don’t have all the variables your study will be a useless exercise. A study that does not consider the impact of rising prices or the wage ceiling that will allow a store to remain open does absolutely nothing to improve the bottom line for a person living in the real world facing real world increases in his costs. It also does absolutely nothing for the minimum wage earner. It might feed the Democrat Party machine that panders to the poor for votes but it does nothing to actually encourage people to improve their prospects and lives.
Teaching and instructing the poor and the poorly educated that others “owe” them a living is sick. It’s demeaning, disrespectful and un-American.
It is not the business owners responsibility to make life work for his workers. That is up to them. It is his resonsibility to sell a good product at a price people are willing to pay and manage his budget well. Government forced wage standards assume that every business is alike. Two McDonalds stores in different locations might not be the same at all, especially those in poorer neighborhoods!
Having a “basic grasp of statistics” makes you a man with an opinion; it does not make you a smart business owner. It certainly does not make you an expert on the impact that a forced rise in the minimum wage has on any given business or the economy!
There’s an expression, I’ve used it before, because it’s so apropos. Wikipedia, “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”:
You’re an inexperienced young man who likes to pretend he’s got all the answers, a common failing of the young. If you were really smart you’d drop the ego and determine to learn from those who’ve gone before you.
Democrats understand the adverse impact that forcing wage hikes can have on companies and those who count on those companies for jobs, they just don’t care. They are about politics and progressive redistribution all the time. They do and say what will buy them votes. Nancy Pelosi’s decision to exempt tuna companies from a minimum wage hike in 2007 serves as an example:
We should add the word hypocrisy to “lies, damned lies, and statistics, so often they go hand in hand.
Peggy: “We’ve been down this road many times on PS. Chris would like all menial jobs to be paid a “living” wage…”
And they can’t really define it because as soon as they try they realize their proposal is ludicrous, especially when they invoke CEO salaries to argue for forced wage increases.
Imagine an argument to “force” on the employee the experience, education, sacrifice and dedication required to earn a CEO position. That would be equally ludicrous.
Government has no business deciding what any company can pay for the work they offer. People either want the work or they don’t. They will either take advantage of the opportunity to move up or they won’t. they will either get that if they want more they will have to invest more of themselves to get it…or they won’t!
A job is a job. It is not a guarantee.
If you pay people not to work will they take advantage of the mini vacation extended unemployment offers. A study by three academics indicates they will:
This echoes what happened when North Carolina chose to end unemployment extensions. Their unemployment rate dropped faster than the national average.
I would think the same principle should apply with respect to government assistance for those who are capable of learning and working. The laws should incentivize people to learn a skill and move off assistance.
Tina: “An adult in a minimum wage job has either just entered the work force for the first time or or has no skills or both.”
Wow.
All I can say to this is that you need to get out more and meet more minimum wage workers.
“The USA has the highest (or second highest) corporate tax rate in the world”
Not even close when you consider all the deductions. The highest statutory rate is irrelevant when we have one of the lowest effective rates.
“You worked a minimum wage job, Chris and now you have a much better job. How did you do that?”
I worked very hard for it. But as I’ve told you in the past, I wouldn’t be where I am now without financial aid programs that you oppose. I also don’t see how I would have been better off if my bosses had been legally allowed to pay me below the minimum wage.
“Why are you so arrogant as think that others shouldn’t be as smart and industrious if they want to improve their lot in life?”
What a ridiculous nonsequiter. You are the one drawing a false dichotomy between hard work and government assistance. I am living proof that the two are not mutually exclusive.
My god, you make it sound like every single person who has ever benefitted from minimum wage laws is some kind of lazy moocher. You have said you worked for the minimum wage when you were younger. So has Peggy. That wage was higher than it is now. Did knowing that there was a minimum wage your boss had to pay you make you work any less hard? No? Then why would you suggest it would have that effect on anyone else?
“You can study all day long but if you don’t have all the variables your study will be a useless exercise. A study that does not consider the impact of rising prices or the wage ceiling that will allow a store to remain open does absolutely nothing to improve the bottom line for a person living in the real world facing real world increases in his costs.”
Tell me, exactly which studies are you referring to that neglect these factors? Who are the authors?
The studies I have read do take these factors into account.
I strongly suspect you haven’t read any studies on the subject and are simply assuming they don’t consider these variables because they found conclusions you don’t like.
“Government forced wage standards assume that every business is alike.”
This is like saying that laws requiring all cars to have seatbelts assume that every car is alike. It’s a MINIMUM standard, Tina. This isn’t early Soviet Russia, and no one is suggesting we pay doctors the same as cab drivers.
You are correct that statistics are often used wrongly; that’s why it’s important to determine which statistics are relevant and which are not. For instance, earlier you countered the Gallup poll showing that most people who have received coverage through the ACA are happy with their coverage with polls showing that a majority of people oppose Obamacare. Now, simple logic tells us that the first poll is a more valid measurement of whether or not the law is working properly. When you ask people specifically about Obamacare it influences people based on their political beliefs, whereas the question is more personal and less potentially biased when you just ask about their own healthcare. Heck, it’s been found that people give different answers just from changing the terms Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act. The way polls are structured matters.
If you are going to criticize the use of statistics you have to actually show what is wrong with a particular use of statistics. Just saying “statistics can prove anything” doesn’t, in fact, prove anything. It’s merely an appeal to ignorance.
“If you pay people not to work will they take advantage of the mini vacation extended unemployment offers. A study by three academics indicates they will:”
Who said anything about paying people not to work? I thought we were talking about the minimum wage.
And notice how all your skepticism over studies and academics fades away as soon as they tell you something you want to hear! Have the academics behind this study ever ran a business, Tina? Did you bother to find out? Of course not. It doesn’t matter, because they agree with you on something.
Tea Party Dave is not and has never been a member of the Tea Party or he would not hold views exactly like our old pal Dewey, right Dewey? Tina gave your a wonderful reply, did you even take the time to read it?
If you could only open your mind! Dewey, let go of your leftist ideology and try to think logically. Try to let facts determine your opinion, not the reverse.
Chris: “You have said you worked for the minimum wage when you were younger. So has Peggy.”
I never said I worked for minimum wage. I said, “I worked part-time at Olen Mills studio for a whopping 50 cents an hour.” I was grateful to have a part-time job when I was in high school.
Apparently, according to this chart my job wasn’t covered by minimum wage requirements from 1938 to 1967. (column on right)
History of Federal Minimum Wage Rates Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938 – 2009:
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
Chris: “Yes, prices rise when the minimum wage goes up. But they do not rise in exact proportion to the wage increase. It is not a 1:1 ratio. When the wage is raised only slight price increases occur, so the rise in consumer purchasing power is worth the cost. This is a proven fact.”
There you go again with, “This is a proven fact.” ridiculous statement again. You fail to take into account that the rise is wage has to be factored in to the cost beginning with the very first wage earner to the very last which will be passed on to the consumer. So you are right that the ratio is not 1:1 when let’s say 10 people were involved in the production, shipping, marketing and sale of the product.
You really need to learn what the real “cost of goods” means.
Here it is.
http://www.investorwords.com/1158/Cost_Of_Goods_Sold.html
Chris: “All I can say to this is that you need to get out more and meet more minimum wage workers.”
Chris that response doesn’t cut it. Please explain who works a minimum wage job that doesn’t do so by choice unless he has no skills or experience? Tell me about all of the people that have no other options over time with a little effort.
“The highest statutory rate is irrelevant when we have one of the lowest effective rates.”
That’s a slight of hand argument,Chris, typical of the deceptive lying left. One thing for sure the tax returns, including the lowered effective rate for some businesses some of the time, are a function of a complex tax code that allows deductions if you jump through certain hoops and discourages profits and jobs in America. Why not just cut out all the hoop jumping, it’s costly anyway, and lower the dang rate!
An article in FORBES takes a look at the corporate code and G.E.:
Progressives are really dumb. They think raising rates and making companies jump through hoops will bring in more revenue. Instead it raises the cost of doing business and encourages companies to look for legal ways to avoid paying the tax.
Conservatives would simplify the code, lower rates to make them competitive, and welcome companies, jobs, and revenues back to the US. The economic boom that would follow would be epic and our middle class would begin to expand and realize financial gains again.
“I wouldn’t be where I am now without financial aid programs that you oppose.”
I think more of you than you do.
How sad that you can see only one path, government assistance, as a way to realize your goals.
What I oppose is an open ended and ever growing system that rewards and encourages dependency more than it expects effort and personal responsibility. It’s a system that enables people in the same fashion that co-dependents enable addicts and drunks. That may not be your story but it is a story that’s true for too many of our citizens. The policies need reform.
“I also don’t see how I would have been better off if my bosses had been legally allowed to pay me below the minimum wage.”
Bosses do not purchase people. If a job doesn’t pay enough for you, look for another. If a boss is too stingy people won’t work for him and even if they do they soon move on. He’s stuck constantly training new people. It’s not good business to operate that way; most bosses know better and will try t pay at competitive rates.
“That wage was higher than it is now. Did knowing that there was a minimum wage your boss had to pay you make you work any less hard? No? Then why would you suggest it would have that effect on anyone else?”
The small business owner didn’t push the cost of living higher and that higher cost of living also affects him in his business. Progressive policies DO push the cost of living higher and then that same progressive government comes along and points to the “bad” business owner, makes him the bad guy, and forces him pay more. You know who operates like that? The mob!
“The studies I have read do take these factors into account.”
Oh yes? And do they begin with the conclusion they want and then grab the statistics that will prove it? You can’t say, so don’t even try. The point is, a study isn’t the real world, Chris. A wealthy restaurateur in San Francisco will have a much different experience with a raised minimum wage than a McDonalds franchisee in Stockton. I repeat, one size does not fit all.
Real world affect of raising minimum wage:
As a smart man one said, “Don’t help them!”
Here is a report about a university study on the effects of raising the minimum wage:
How very very! Sorry kid, I think the worker has a more authentic voice. “Higher worker productivity sometimes means fewer workers doing what more workers once did. Notice how this, and raised prices to consumers are dismissed as unimportant, almost inconsequential. That’s what comes of having no practical real world experience.
“This is like saying that laws requiring all cars to have seatbelts assume that every car is alike.”
No! It is not! And until you start using your noodle and figure it out there’s no point in explaining AGAIN!
“And notice how all your skepticism over studies and academics fades away as soon as they tell you something you want to hear!”
Or, I wasn’t skeptical, critical, or enthusiastic but simply pointing out that a study mirrored the real world and suggested we could learn something valuable from that.
“Of course not. It doesn’t matter, because they agree with you on something.”
And we’re back to Chris the bratty kid who doesn’t really care to learn something new ’cause he’s too busy proving he’s smart
The latest from the booming state of Texas where just one city added more jobs than did the entire state of California.
Believe it or Not, One State is Almost Entirely Responsible for All Net Job Growth Since 2007:
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/01/239402-believe-one-state-solely-responsible-net-job-growth-since-2007/
Texas’ minimum wage is the same as the Fed’s.
“Texas’s minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. This is the same as the Federal Minimum Wage.
The minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for most employees in Texas, with exceptions for tipped employees, some student workers, and other exempt occupations.[1]”
http://www.minimum-wage.org/states.asp?state=Texas
Calif’s. minimum wage is $9 per hour.
“California’s minimum wage is $9.00 per hour. This is greater than the Federal Minimum Wage. You are entitled to be paid the higher wage.
The minimum wage is $9.00 per hour for most employees in California, with exceptions for tipped employees, some student workers, and other exempt occupations.[1] ”
http://www.minimum-wage.org/states.asp?state=California
I rest my case. A higher minimum eliminates jobs, while a lower minimum wage helps to create entry-level jobs and a pathway to higher paying jobs.
“I rest my case. A higher minimum eliminates jobs, while a lower minimum wage helps to create entry-level jobs and a pathway to higher paying jobs.” Peggy
Absolutely! -Jack
Just to clarify, California minimum wage went up to $10.00 starting this month.
Peggy the real world is what it is, there’s no disputing it.
Studies, on the other hand, can be manipulated or skewed to fit any agenda. It’s not that studies are never useful but to pretend they represents “truth” is very naive.
The left likes to ignore that an entry level job is not a permanent job but a “pathway” to a better paying job. That’s what makes the slogan “living wage” so specious and deceptive.
My how they design and plot to fool the people!
So when minimum wage goes up my daughter needs to have her pay raised too to maintain her parity spread.
Wonder, how many people there are that are too old to work and living on social security that don’t even come close to making minimum wage? I would rather help those seniors first before we give a minimum wage hike. No senior should be forced to live on $300 a month.
It’s really hard on seniors with fixed incomes during inflationary times. Many try to plan ahead a little with a few investments that offer dividends. But lefties want to take a big chunk out of that income too.
It’s hard to tell how the left mind works. They think nothing of taking money from seniors on fixed incomes and yet are passionate about forcing a higher min wage for entry level workers, many of whom are young and capable with years left to improve their lives. They’ve decided all min wagers are needy and all seniors are rich.
God save us from the meddlers. If they would just stop people could plan without worrying that ten to fifteen years down the road the rules will change and you’ll be done in. The proposal to tax college savings is an example.
Stories in the news today mention the Congress stumbling.
The Washington Post just informed:
It’s good news for parents, grandparents, students and the right…but it wasn’t a stumble for O’Bumble.
Tina: “How sad that you can see only one path, government assistance, as a way to realize your goals.”
And you had the nerve to say that liberals lack of a sense of nuance and subtlety! I’ve already pointed out that you are drawing a false dichotomy and here you are doing it again!
Government assistance was NOT the “one path” to success. Government didn’t do my homework. Government didn’t drive me to school when I had no car. Government didn’t work from 7:30 to 3:30 student teaching and 4:30 to 11:30 at Wal-Mart. I did that.
But government gave me a helping hand so that I could do those things.
I am successful because if my hard work. AND I am successful because of government assistance. There is no contradiction.
You want to make that something degrading? You want me to be ashamed? Fine. I’m so sorry I didn’t quit school and take on another job so that your precious tax dollars didn’t go to helping me get an education. I’m a moocher parasite for taking so much financial aid since I live in a three person household. I could have lived on my own but then my mom couldn’t afford her rent and would have to go on section 8. And even though as a teacher I make more than enough to live on my own now I am still living with my mom and my niece to help my family afford rent. I guess I come from a long line of moochers, because I was taught that helping those around you makes you stronger.
Well, sorrynotsorry. I am not ashamed of getting the assistance I needed, and I won’t let you shame others for doing the same. Certainly not as long as you continue to support the biggest welfare queens in existence–corporations–while railing against the poor.
You. Are. Going. To. Lose.
Chris: “Government assistance was NOT the “one path” to success.”
And here I thought you didn’t build that!
Still, you have said more than once you couldn’t have survived without assistance…which I have always disputed.
“You want to make that something degrading? You want me to be ashamed? ”
NO NIMROD! I have already told you that I think that as long as the subsidy is in place people would be nuts not to take advantage and benefit…it’s the law.
That doesn’t mean the laws are smart policy or the best way to do things. I’d like you to think beyond your own self interest for a change.
Unfortunately you still think like a child:
You think you’re the only person in the world with problems?
“And even though as a teacher I make more than enough to live on my own now I am still living with my mom and my niece to help my family afford rent. I guess I come from a long line of moochers, because I was taught that helping those around you makes you stronger.”
Hey Jerko…that’s exactly the position I take. We would all be better off if we depended on family and community instead of the federal government! We would keep much more of the money we earn so there would be more incentive to depend on ourselves.
” I am not ashamed of getting the assistance I needed, and I won’t let you shame others for doing the same. Certainly not as long as you continue to support the biggest welfare queens in existence–corporations–while railing against the poor.”
Emotional, uninformed, and completely off point. Chris, you would have found a way. It might have taken a little longer but I have faith in you.
Whatever did Americans do before government assistance?
“You. Are. Going. To. Lose.”
Ha! You. Already. Have!
Tina: “I’d like you to think beyond your own self interest for a change.”
You have no sense of irony. You are irony-deficient.
“You think you’re the only person in the world with problems?”
You’re also functionally illiterate, or at least, you like to pretend to be whenever you can’t honestly refute someone else’s point. My ENTIRE argument is that many people are in the same boat I am, and that government assistance is necessary precisely because so many others need it. If I were as selfish as you, I would no longer support government aid for college, since I’ve already got mine. Kind of like how you support eliminating the minimum wage despite having benefitted from a higher minimum wage when you were my age.
“Whatever did Americans do before government assistance?”
Well, they were more likely to be poor, for one thing. Your mythical utopian fantasyland where churches and families helped each other stay out of poverty before the big bad government started keeping them on the welfare plantation never really existed. Poverty was cut dramatically with the implementation of the first welfare programs, and poverty has NEVER again reached the highs of the past you so ignorantly cling to.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/11/poverty-in-the-50-years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts/
Another business forced to close because of raise in minimum wage.
This Bookstore Is Closing Because of San Francisco’s Upcoming Minimum Wage Hike:
“After 18 years in business, San Francisco bookstore Borderlands Books announced it will close in March, despite having its “best year” in 2014.
Why? According to the bookstore, it’s because of San Francisco’s upcoming minimum wage hike.
Last year, San Francisco voters approved raising the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2018, a wage Borderlands can’t afford to pay.
“Although all of us at Borderlands support the concept of a living wage in [principle] and we believe that it’s possible that the new law will be good for San Francisco—Borderlands Books as it exists is not a financially viable business if subject to that minimum wage. Consequently we will be closing our doors no later than March 31,” reads the statement.
Borderlands Books owner Alan Beatts doesn’t see a reason to delay the inevitable.
Beatts writes that a $15 wage would result in a 39 percent increase in wages—an expense he would have to make up elsewhere.
But he can’t. Unlike other businesses that can raise the prices of their goods and services in the face of a higher wage, bookstores have to grapple with the fact that books have a fixed price.
“All that I’ll say about increasing our prices is that it’s already hard to get people to pay the publisher’s list price for a book. How often have I heard people say, ‘I’ll just get it cheaper on Amazon’? I don’t think that enough people to keep us in business would pay a 10 [percent] or 15 percent surcharge to buy books at Borderlands,” writes Beatts.”
http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/03/bookstore-closing-san-franciscos-upcoming-minimum-wage-hike/
Peggy
Book Stores are realizing a slow down in business due to online downloads such as kindle. For over a decade many bookstores have closed. I prefer actual paper books but many enjoy the kindle type devices.
Borderland books specialized in science fiction, fantasy, mystery and horror titles…. that is a very select specialized business. They also admitted online business has been a major problem.
As a book lover they did not sell anything I wanted! .. diversity was lacking in their selection
If that were my store I would have been aggressive in the online business from the store. I would have increased my business.
Rents in San Francisco have drastically gone up as well, should they not own the building.
Bottom line if one can not run a business at a profit they should not own a business.
Check out the cost of living in SF.
Statements from the store:
““The steady movement towards online shopping, mostly with Amazon, has taken a steady toll on bookstores throughout the world and Borderlands was no exception,” the store said in a statement on its website. The store also blamed the Great Recession of 2007-2009, which “hit us very hard,” especially since it had recently opened a cafe.”
http://blog.sfgate.com/bookmarks/2015/02/01/san-franciscos-borderlands-books-to-close/
I find it strange for a store to close blaming minimum wages that will go to $15.00 by 2018. That is an excuse it is only 2015. Books are a hard sell these days.
Curious how many here work for minimum wage?
I am familiar with the store, they over extended and there was a recession. They were not aggressive to embellish the business by online sales.