Eliminating minimum wage would help the very poor!

[nobody's_hero]

Poverty is always relative and will always exist. It can't be eliminated because it is a moving target.

That's why I said, reduce poverty, rather than eliminate it. The poverty line is increasing and it is due to inflation.

If we decriminalized working - what I propose - we would have fewer people unemployed and our money would go further. Having to fight the Fed first, while admirable, is unnecessary (to improve this particular aspect). Fight the Fed (!) but don't cockblock the people fighting other abuses of government.

How would the money go further if it is continuing to decline in value due to inflation? You have to stop printing money into oblivion first. Eliminating the minimum wage would just put us back to 1938 where the people were frustrated that their money wasn't buying as much, which means they'll want minimum wage reinstated.

That same thing is repeated thousands of times about million-dollar and billion-dollar government expenditures and the result is trillions of debt.

Actually, it's what Ron Paul says when he talks about treating the disease, and not just the symptoms. The minimum wage was essentially a symptom of the Fed's disease (inflation). Cure the disease. End the fed.

We don't need a minimum wage period and the Fed does nothing to improve the situation. They both suck. Even when we still had some degree of a gold standard, the minimum wage was devastating. I can't say which is worse (I include the drug war as a 'minimum wage' like issue) but the sooner one or the other or preferably both is gone, the better.

Agreed that the Fed and the minimum wage both suck.

But of course the minimum wage is devastating on a gold standard—gold doesn't magically reproduce like paper does (which is why I like gold*). If gold could just be run through a copy-machine and reproduced, I promise that we'd get a minimum wage for gold currency. They would drive the value of gold down by diluting the supply until people demanded an increase in the minimum gold wage to make up for what they've lost—just as they have done with paper money.

Why do so many people defend statism by putting up barriers to freedom? Why consent to the thought that we "need" a minimum wage? We don't and never did! I hear this all the time, "we used to need these child labor laws but today they are antiquated". Wrong! They were bad when enacted and they are still bad today.

I'm not defending statism. I think you misunderstood my tone.

I'm not arguing that the minimum wage is justified. I'm arguing simply that it was a cause-and -effect relationship to the Federal Reserve's policy of printing money endlessly. We should determine the cause and eliminate the cause (Federal Reserve Act of 1913), because if you just eliminate the effect (Minimum Wage Act of 1938), you're going to crush people between lower wages and a plummetting dollar value. (EDIT: it wouldn't personally be your fault, I mean, after all, you didn't print all that money, but that's what would happen—people would be paid less while the dollar continues to lose about 5% of its value annually)

[psi2941]

i hope u guys know if a employee is getting paid 7/hr then its prob costing the employer around 9 dollars an hour. if u include all the employer contributions, employer unemployment insurance extortion, fees to hire an accountant or a payroll company to deal with all the $#@!en government forms and payroll tax just to $#@!in pay a couple of employees instead of just writing a check. On top of that, general insurance to cover in case the employee sues you or gets hurt.


Obama 2012! Unless rp got an ace up his sleeve then Ron Paul 2012

[csu1987]

Obama 2012! Unless rp got an ace up his sleeve then Ron Paul 2012

Eh NO, just NO.

Only Ron Paul and sure as $#@! not obama. I'd vote for romney before i'd vote the loser in the white house all over again.

[csu1987]

Eliminating the minimum wage would not be very helpful in reducing poverty unless you could find a way to stop inflation dead in its tracks.

Think about it:

The reason we have a minimum wage is because of inflation. The Fed and Congress realized that if we did not have a minimum wage, people would quickly realize that their quality of life is decreasing as the purchasing power of their dollar decreases. It's no coincidence that before the Federal Reserve act, there was no federal minimum wage (around that time, some states had enacted minimum wages for women to try to bring about equality, but it wasn't a consquence of a central bank mismanaging the money supply).

So if you cut out the minimum wage now, you'd have more people getting paid less by their employers, as all the while everyone (the workers and the employers, and even the remaining unemployed) struggles to stay afloat in a sea of inflation. It would hardly put a dent in the problem.

I say cut the head off the snake first before you try to cut off the rattle. End the Fed and then we won't need a minimum wage.

Hire more people at 12 an hour but working less long shifts. Have more people trade off shifts and work less hours, perfect.

So 5.5 hours = 66 dollars. Less burnout.

Where as $8 an hour for 8 hours = 64 dollars.


Work 4 days a week and you've got 1000 at the end of the month, after taxes. You've also got 3 days a week with family or whatever.

That beats any 600 dollar unemployment check. Pays the rent, etc

It seems like someone in high school or out of high school could do this for 2-3 years, save that money(if they put it away) then down payment on a house, rent it out while you join the military and would be gold once they got out. Don't get married.

[kezt777]

Eliminating the minimum wage would not be very helpful in reducing poverty unless you could find a way to stop inflation dead in its tracks.

Do you think though that a minimum wage, especially increases in min wage, also lead to a form of inflation? As I posted from my own experience in Alberta where minimum wage has increased at least 3 times in as many years, when it goes up - so do prices. I never seem to get anywhere. I make above min wage but close enough that each time it increases, my employer increases my wage to keep me the same distance away from the minimum so it doesnt look like she is paying me peanuts after so many years working there. However, it has yet to help me purchase more product because inevitably, with each increase, product and services prices increase as well. So I might get a 'raise', but I cannot purchase more. We had a reduction in the federal income tax on goods and services in the middle of Alberta increasing it's minimum wage, yet products were costing more so it didn't make a difference for us. Even at my own workplace, each time min wage went up, we had to increase the fees parents paid for childcare by $20/month (or one time we cut the hot lunch Fridays service instead of a fee hike) in order to be able to afford to pay staff the new wages. So, parents have had to pay more 3 times in the last 3 years - and most of them are minimum or near-minimum wage workers. So their 60 cent/hour raise disappeared just like that with subtle increases in products and services they use. It seems to me like a vicious circle. I am making more than double what I made a decade ago and I am no better off financially at all.

[nobody's_hero]

It seems like someone in high school or out of high school could do this for 2-3 years, save that money(if they put it away) then down payment on a house, rent it out while you join the military and would be gold once they got out. Don't get married.

If you save it, you'll get robbed, lol.

No one in his right mind (or at least, paying attentiong to the dollar's declining purchasing power) is going to work for $1000/mo and hold on to it for 3 years, given the rate of inflation. That down payment is going to increase by the time they are ready to buy a home. The military might be a good bet from an economic standpoint, since you will be taken care of (somewhat) so long as you are in the service. I have no doubt, though, that this is by design. We still have a draft, as people have no alternative but to join the service for economic reasons. Ron Paul has mentioned this numerous times. (but I suppose that is a separate debate).

Do you think though that a minimum wage, especially increases in min wage, also lead to a form of inflation? As I posted from my own experience in Alberta where minimum wage has increased at least 3 times in as many years, when it goes up - so do prices. I never seem to get anywhere. I make above min wage but close enough that each time it increases, my employer increases my wage to keep me the same distance away from the minimum so it doesnt look like she is paying me peanuts after so many years working there. However, it has yet to help me purchase more product because inevitably, with each increase, product and services prices increase as well. So I might get a 'raise', but I cannot purchase more. We had a reduction in the federal income tax on goods and services in the middle of Alberta increasing it's minimum wage, yet products were costing more so it didn't make a difference for us. Even at my own workplace, each time min wage went up, we had to increase the fees parents paid for childcare by $20/month (or one time we cut the hot lunch Fridays service instead of a fee hike) in order to be able to afford to pay staff the new wages. So, parents have had to pay more 3 times in the last 3 years - and most of them are minimum or near-minimum wage workers. So their 60 cent/hour raise disappeared just like that with subtle increases in products and services they use. It seems to me like a vicious circle. I am making more than double what I made a decade ago and I am no better off financially at all.

I don't see why it wouldn't.

The purpose of the minimum wage being enacted was not to help people get ahead, it was to allow them, at best, to break-even. If they had not passed the minimum wage act, you would see riots in the street, because it would be impossible to live on the min. wage of the 1990s, today. Although, riots might not be the end-of-the-world, if it gets people to turn their attention to central banking. However, I fear that the unrest would only pit those who want to repeal the minimum wage versus those who want to increase the minimum wage, while the Federal Reserve quietly slips out the back door.

Price inflation could very well be perpetual, as you suggest, but . . .

We would still have monetary inflation, even if the minimum wage was still $5.25/hr. That's the point I'm trying to make. If min. wage is repealed and you're paid $4/hr, and toilet paper one day costs $10/roll anyway, we're going to have a literal sh*t-storm on our hands, lol. In some ways, we already have that happening. They cannot increase the minimum wage fast enough to keep up with all the money that has been printed since 2008. The Fed is engaged in a massive transfer of wealth.

End the fed. Stop printing money and let the market decide what the minimum wage should be, without some guy at the Federal Reserve constantly tinkering with the money supply. Employers and employees can't make good estimates of what an honest wage should be, if someone in power keeps clouding their vision.

[kezt777]

If you save it, you'll get robbed, lol.

No one in his right mind (or at least, paying attentiong to the dollar's declining purchasing power) is going to work for $1000/mo and hold on to it for 3 years, given the rate of inflation. That down payment is going to increase by the time they are ready to buy a home. The military might be a good bet from an economic standpoint, since you will be taken care of (somewhat) so long as you are in the service. I have no doubt, though, that this is by design. We still have a draft, as people have no alternative but to join the service for economic reasons. Ron Paul has mentioned this numerous times. (but I suppose that is a separate debate).



I don't see why it wouldn't.

The purpose of the minimum wage being enacted was not to help people get ahead, it was to allow them, at best, to break-even. If they had not passed the minimum wage act, you would see riots in the street, because it would be impossible to live on the min. wage of the 1990s, today. Of course, riots may be what we need, if it gets people to turn their attention to central banking. However, I fear that the unrest would only pit those who want to repeal the minimum wage versus those who want to increase the minimum wage, while the Federal Reserve quietly slips out the back door.

It could very well be perpetual, as you suggest, but . . .

We would still have monetary inflation, even if the minimum wage was still $5.25/hr. That's the point I'm trying to make. If min. wage is repealed and you're paid $4/hr, and toilet paper one day costs $10/roll anyway, we're going to have a literal sh*t-storm on our hands, lol. In some ways, we already have that happening. They cannot increase the minimum wage fast enough to keep up with all the money that has been printed since 2008. The Fed is engaged in a massive transfer of wealth.

End the fed. Stop printing money and let the market decide what the minimum wage should be without some guy at the Federal Reserve constantly tinkering with the money supply.

It is definately a big mess but I guess having my minmium wage increase from $6/hr in 1998 to $9.10/hr in 2010 (or 11? I have lost track), and a big jug of milk was just over a third of that hourly wage in 1998 but is now over half of the hourly wage (from the same store), I don't know how it has helped and worry that it has actually hindered. Not just for the consumer/worker but for small businesses. When my son started daycare in 1998, the monthly fee was $425 and it had risen incredibly slowly before that... but shortly afteward there were so many changes and increases to minimum wage (the most common reason for us to raise fees), we are now sitting at $640/month and will need to raise it again due to other govt involvement needing staff to work longer hours to do their paperwork papertrails. Anyway my point is, the vicious circle goes like this ..... people are struggling to purchase basic needs, so minimum wage goes up, businesses that employ lower wage workers increase their product/service fees in order to pay their staff, people who were struggling before are still struggling so minimum wage goes up again, and the same businesses increase their prices to make up for it, and yet again the people are STILL struggling and again minimum wage increases - and it never ever stops. Next thing we know in Alberta, people will be earning $10/hour minimum wage and still struggle. Where exactly does it end? When my kids are adults, is the minimum wage going to be $25/hour?? Who knows. Add that fact alone to all of the other reasons prices go up, and it is endless. But the basics of raising min wage to meet deficiencies in lowest wage earners being able to afford stuff does not work at all when in response, the products they are trying to buy increase in price. I don't see how they can get out of this cycle. Once it started, people immediately relied on it and had no way out.

[Brett85]

The minimum wage should be repealed, along with the 40 hour work week and all the other unconstitutional federal labor laws. The entire department of Labor has no basis in the Constitution and should be abolished. It's strange to see some "libertarians" arguing in favor of the minimum wage.

[furface]

At the very least it would cause the unemployment rate to drop.

Anybody here looking for a minimum wage job and can't find one?

[Massachusetts]

Anybody here looking for a minimum wage job and can't find one?

You want to know why this is the case? Because some jobs quite simply aren't worth the current minimum wage, so why would an employer add more jobs when the minimum wage is paying the employee more than the production of that employee is bringing in? The idea of business is to make a profit. In some industries, paying an employee the current minimum wage doesn't put companies in a good position to even break even just like any regulations cause unemployment to skyrocket.

[FrancisMarion]

In my point of view there is a bigger issue that it is directly pertinent to this thread:

It seems that a large portion of the population does not understand the direct relationship between business success and the consequential potential of increased pay and advancement due to that success. The ones that constantly perceive their employers as adversaries are the ones that are likely to NOT see raises and advancement. If you understand that doing a good job creates profits for the company which affords the company the capital to pay you more, you get it.

Individuals work ethics and abilities should drive wages.

On a different thought: I wonder what % of min wage earners would see decreases in pay if there was no min wage. If it was a high percentage, what would happen to prices for goods and services. If prices for goods is set by supply and demand and the concept of price elasticity is true, would not prices have to decrease if a large portion of the economy saw there earnings decrease?

[nobody's_hero]

You want to know why this is the case? Because some jobs quite simply aren't worth the current minimum wage, so why would an employer add more jobs when the minimum wage is paying the employee more than the production of that employee is bringing in? The idea of business is to make a profit. In some industries, paying an employee the current minimum wage doesn't put companies in a good position to even break even just like any regulations cause unemployment to skyrocket.

And why are employers themselves finding it harder to make a profit?

Inflation.

Just as employees are finding it harder to and harder to stretch a dollar, so too are their employers. Soon the only companies that will be in business are the ones who are massive enough to survive the fallout, but even they are affected by the declining purchasing power of the dollar, just not enough to utterly ruin them . . . yet.

End the Fed and the minimum wage will sort itself out.

[RabbitMan]

The worst states are in this order:
Santa Fe, NM $10.29
San Fran, CA $10.24
1. WA $9.04 (increases yearly)
2. OR $8.80 (increases yearly)
3. VT $8.46 (increases yearly)
4. CT $8.25 now, $9 in July 2012, $9.75 in 2013
IL/DC/NV $8.25
7. CA/MA $8
8. AK $7.75
9. OH $7.70 (increased yearly)
10. FL $7.67
11. AZ $7.65 (increases yearly)
MT $7.65
13. CO $7.64 (increases yearly)
and so on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages

As a citizen of Washington Sate, I want to point out something about our minimum wage law, because the quote is misleading. It says our Minimum Wage increases yearly. Do you know why? Washington State actually had a minimum wage at the Federal level until 2000. That year a law went into effect tying the minimum wage to inflation. Our minimum wage is merely inflation adjusted. Technically nothing has changed and the State has been responsible by trying to adhere to the entire point of a minimum wage. It's just everyone else in the country who is getting screwed.

[nobody's_hero]

On a different thought: I wonder what % of min wage earners would see decreases in pay if there was no min wage. If it was a high percentage, what would happen to prices for goods and services. If prices for goods is set by supply and demand and the concept of price elasticity is true, would not prices have to decrease if a large portion of the economy saw there earnings decrease?

If minimum wage is abolished and employers hire more workers, and yet those employers still have to endure the pain of inflation (just like everyone else) when managing their business, I don't see how it would make things any better. If that employer goes out of business due to centrally-managed inflationary pressure, then the workers will have no jobs anyway, regardless of whether the minimum wage is $0.50/hr or $50.00/hr.

The problem is not that there is deflationary pressure and therefore there's not 'physically enough money to pay everyone $7.25/hr' (which would quickly happen if there was a decrease in the money supply, which, I'm not aware of ever happening since the Fed was established), the problem is that all that money rests in the hands of those who received it first (bailout recipients), and they've printed waaaay too much money. So the dollar's value is dropping, not increasing. If the value were increasing and you gave someone a pay cut, they'd be breaking even (though most people would think they're getting a bad deal, just looking at the numbers rather than the value). The dollar is dropping in value and repealing the minimum wage would be like kicking people when they're down.

Just as an experiment, if you don't have a minimum wage job, try living for a year on what the minimum wage is. Take whatever extra money remains in your paycheck and put it in a safe spot, but don't use it! A year from now, find out whether that money you put away (which represents what your employer kept, for the purpose of this experiment), is worth more or less than it was when you started this experiment. My bet is that the money will be worth a bit less—which means that if your employer keeps whatever excess he/she didn't pay you with (so to hire more workers, perhaps), then he/she will not be able to buy as much with it a year from now, either.

Monetary inflation hurts everyone. Minimum wage hurts employers.

Which one would you go after most-intensely if you were looking to fix the problem at its roots, so that everyone might benefit?

[Keith and stuff]

As a citizen of Washington Sate, I want to point out something about our minimum wage law, because the quote is misleading. It says our Minimum Wage increases yearly. Do you know why? Washington State actually had a minimum wage at the Federal level until 2000. That year a law went into effect tying the minimum wage to inflation. Our minimum wage is merely inflation adjusted. Technically nothing has changed and the State has been responsible by trying to adhere to the entire point of a minimum wage. It's just everyone else in the country who is getting screwed.

The higher the state minimum wage is, the more the people of that state are getting screwed. A minimum wage that increases yearly is especially an insidious law. You are looking at it the 100% wrong way. Of course, perhaps you are just joking, perhaps that's why you smiled In that case, I agree with you

Don't worry. Yes, WA is the worst state in this regard. Don't worry though, in 2013, there is a good chance CT will be the worst state.

[LibertyEagle]

Ok, your so wrong... do you live in a dream world?

I watched as my ex boss fired and replaced 15 people on my crew with $5/hour illegal immigrant laborers.
He gave everyone a choice, paycut or pink slip...

If they banned minimum wage tomorrow, your boss would walk into the office and tell everyone that they are taking pay cuts or layoffs as the work force is now to be replaced with $5/hr workers...

If we let employers pay $5/hr then every full time employee would be eligible for food stamps and welfare!
That would get us right back on track... :/

Also, what incentive would there to be to get off unemployment if your making $250/week minimum on that, and jobs would be paying $200 a week for 40 hours before taxes, so after taxes you take home only $156 a week...

They entire system of welfare, food stamps, and unemployment would have to be banned long before we can eliminate a minimum wage.

Even if all that was banned, the employers would still fire you to replace you with the cheapest body would do the work at the lowest price.
Lower labor costs mean more profits. Companies exist to make profit. YOU being a good employee is NOT worth the extra money to keep you.

Au contraire. In most cases, better employees mean higher quality work and thus more profits. It is competition for the best workers in the marketplace that determines wages. It is not the government.

[The Free Hornet]

The purpose of the minimum wage being enacted was not to help people get ahead, it was to allow them, at best, to break-even.

Do you have a citation for this? I posted a link alleging a racist origin (e.g., white workers didn't like minorities working for less pay). Here are more regarding union and racist backing for the minimum wage.

Union Members, Not Minimum-Wage Earners, Benefit When the Minimum Wage Rises

Why Racists and Unions Support Minimum Wages

End the fed. Stop printing money and let the market decide what the minimum wage should be, without some guy at the Federal Reserve constantly tinkering with the money supply. Employers and employees can't make good estimates of what an honest wage should be, if someone in power keeps clouding their vision.

You know how you let the market determine the minimum wage? You end the minimum wage! This obsession with the Fed is over the top. Ending the Fed does not end the minimum wage laws even if you think that the Fed is a motivation for the laws. It is a seperate issue. The minimum wage is a progressive canard not unique to the United States or the Fed.

Monetary inflation hurts everyone. Minimum wage hurts employers.

Which one would you go after most-intensely if you were looking to fix the problem at its roots, so that everyone might benefit?

I would stick to the issue at hand, the minimum wage. The Fed is the root of many problems but the roots of the minimum wage are racism and rent seeking. It is like professional licensing but leveled at a different income level. By way of example, just because the military wastes hundreds of billions of dollars, doesn't mean I am going to not focus on PBS/NPR wasting hundreds of millions of dollars. PBS/NPR doesn't deserve a pass until every other larger budget issue is addressed. I would argue that if you can't or won't address the PBS-sized budget issues, you will be toothless in the face of the military-industrial complex. One may be more the root of the problem, but both must be addressed and I wouldn't quibble about the order.

Monetary inflation hurts everyone. Minimum wage hurts employers.

Minimum wage hurts employees too especially the ones who can't work at full capacity because there is less demand for their work or they are being dragged down by less productive coworkers.

From one of my links above:

Low-Income Families Lose

Unfortunately, the opposite is true for unskilled non-union workers who earn the minimum wage. The researchers found that raising the minimum wage actually reduces these workers' earned income. Wages go up, but only for those workers who keep their jobs. In response to the higher minimum wage, employers reduce both the number of minimum-wage workers they hire and the hours of the minimum-wage workers they do employ. The lost hours and jobs mean that, after the minimum wage rises, the average minimum-wage worker earns less.[9] Union members who earn more than the minimum wage benefit at the expense of minimum-wage workers.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...mum-wage-rises

An employer at least has options to adapt and the business experience to adjust prices, management style, import, relocate, build a robot, etc. The typical unskilled, unexperienced worker is less able to adjust in a world where "nobody's hiring". Wendy's can raise the price of a burger to compensate. Unemployed Ernie cannot lower his price, cannot add to his job references without a job, cannot gain more employed experience, and cannot climb a ladder with the initial rungs cut off.

It's a human rights issue and textbook economy mismanagement.

[Brett85]

It seems strange to read two threads where a large number of members here are arguing in favor of FDA regulations and increasing the minimum wage. Doesn't everyone realize that Ron is opposed to the minimum wage and the FDA? I'm not even a libertarian, but I'm still more libertarian than most of the people who post on this forum.

[rockerrockstar]

The truth is that minimum wage has not been keeping up with inflation. I feel sorry for the minimum wage workers. I don't know how they can afford to drive to work. They must live right next to work because paying for gas at these high prices would not be economical to drive to work. Probably ride the bus otherwise.

Facts

$10.39
How much the federal minimum wage would be if it had kept up with inflation over the past 40 years. Instead, it’s $7.25. Learn More

$15,080
The annual income for a full-time employee working the entire year at the federal minimum wage.

0
The number of states where a minimum wage worker can afford a two-bedroom apartment working a 40-hour week. Learn More

3
The number of times Congress passed legislation to increase the minimum wage in the last 30 years.

19
The number of states (including the District of Columbia) which have raised their minimum wage above the federal level of $7.25.

10
The number of states that annually increase their state minimum to keep up with the rising cost of living.

67
The percentage of Americans that support gradually raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to at least $10.00 an hour, according to an October 2010 poll.

62
The percentage of self-identified Tea Partiers that support raising the minimum wage to $10 in Maryland, according to a December 2010 poll.

76
The percentage of Missouri voters that voted to increase and index the Misourri minimum wage in the 2006 ballot initiative.

$2.13
The federal minimum wage for tipped employees, such as waiters and waitresses, nail salon workers, or parking attendants.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/facts/

Minimum Wage what it buys you 1950s to now. Here is another interesting site see link below.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/...w.aspx?index=7

Those that complain about limitless unemployment don't know what they are talking about. The 99 weeks never is really 99 weeks. Matter of fact they recently changed the number of weeks. The the truth is you only qualify for a sum of money for each tier. Your state must have high enough unemployment rate. You only qualify for a certain sum of money for each tier and once it is gone it is over no matter if you have weeks left to collect or not. Then you go to the next tier if you qualify for it. Anyways, I have found that amount of time unemployment last is about half the amount that the weeks they say you can get. Just saying quit saying bad things about unemployed people. You may need the help when you get laid off from the bad decisions of politicians and business in the future.

I can understand people being upset that people that are unemployed and made close to minimum wage will not take a minimum wage job do to unemployment. They don't have incentive to. But consider that there are many unemployed people that are educated and are used to making a good living. Why should you force higher earners to not have unemployment? We need it to give us a chance to find another good job. You will destroy the tax base if you destroy the earnings of all the high earners by forcing them to take minimum wage jobs. By giving them a chance to find a good fit and reasonable job that is similar or near their standard of living it will help the tax base.

I think instead of getting upset about unemployment benefits and trying to cut them we should be instead raising revenue for them. Obviously the premiums for the unemployment benefits were not high enough to cover the expenses caused by this down turn. Maybe both the companies and employees should contribute more to the system. This would help get the system ready in case of more down turns in the economy. Anyways, I also think that their should be an option for people to purchase more unemployment benefits if we want to protect our incomes more.

Anyways, nothing is easy but it is worth thinking about. Put your self in the shoes of an unemployed person that probably ran out of their savings and needs the funds to eat and buy gas. They want work but want something decent to provide a reasonable living near what they are used to. I don't think that is too crazy. Unless their entire industry is gone and has moved to another country.

One thing that would have helped me is if my state had an alternative base period calculation. They did not count my last quarter of earnings. So I could not get benefits for three months so they would count that quarter later. Anyways, waiting three months drained all my savings. If they had the alternative method of calculating the base period I would have qualified. I earned enough money just did not have enough quarters of earnings to begin with. If they had that alternative base period law I would have been fine and not wasted so much money. I probably could have found a job faster because I could have used those funds to move to another state to get work.

[Brett85]

The truth is that minimum wage has not been keeping up with inflation. I feel sorry for the minimum wage workers. I don't know how they can afford to drive to work. They must live right next to work because paying for gas at these high prices would not be economical to drive to work. Probably ride the bus otherwise.

Most of the people who make minimum wage are either part time workers or high school students just trying to make a little extra money. Very few adults actually work full time at minimum wage jobs.

Also, why exactly do you support Ron Paul if you support massive government regulations like the minimum wage? Do you realize that Ron Paul wants to abolish the minimum wage?

[rockerrockstar]

Most of the people who make minimum wage are either part time workers or high school students just trying to make a little extra money. Very few adults actually work full time at minimum wage jobs.

Also, why exactly do you support Ron Paul if you support massive government regulations like the minimum wage? Do you realize that Ron Paul wants to abolish the minimum wage?

I don't like that aspect of Ron Paul's ideas of getting rid of minimum wage. I like many other things he says though. I don't support his stance on right to work law too. I think Unions are good. I don't like our current system of free trade. I think the free trade is the reason for union busting and shipping jobs over seas. We need better standard of living in America not worse. I don't want us to become a third world country.

Anyways, I do like Ron's ideas on getting our spending under control. Social Security can't be saved if our country keeps spending like it has. The dollar probably will not be saved if things keep going the way it has with the over spending. I don't like the endless wars. I know Ron is serious about cutting spending unlike the rest of the politicians. We need to stop doing all these wars we just can't afford it. I am really concerned with a future default of the dollar being possible. I don't like the idea of future tax hikes and high interest that probably will be coming once inflation starts taking off from all the out of control spending. I don't like the patriot act or the defense authorization act. I am sure there is much more. What it comes down to is that Ron would help get this country headed back to a more sustainable direction. The dollar would be more stable under Ron. Ron would fight to up hold the rights of the people. Which makes us all more free.

[Brett85]

I don't like that aspect of Ron Paul's ideas of getting rid of minimum wage. I like many other things he says though. I don't support his stance on right to work law too. I think Unions are good. I don't like our current system of free trade. I think the free trade is the reason for union busting and shipping jobs over seas. We need better standard of living in America not worse. I don't want us to become a third world country.

Anyways, I do like Ron's ideas on getting our spending under control. Social Security can't be saved if our country keeps spending like it has. The dollar probably will not be saved if things keep going the way it has with the over spending. I don't like the endless wars. I know Ron is serious about cutting spending unlike the rest of the politicians. We need to stop doing all these wars we just can't afford it. I am really concerned with a future default of the dollar being possible. I don't like the idea of future tax hikes and high interest that probably will be coming once inflation starts taking off from all the out of control spending. I don't like the patriot act or the defense authorization act. I am sure there is much more. What it comes down to is that Ron would help get this country headed back to a more sustainable direction. The dollar would be more stable under Ron. Ron would fight to up hold the rights of the people. Which makes us all more free.

Fair enough. I don't agree with Ron on every single issue either. There probably aren't many of us who do.

[LibertyEagle]

It seems strange to read two threads where a large number of members here are arguing in favor of FDA regulations and increasing the minimum wage. Doesn't everyone realize that Ron is opposed to the minimum wage and the FDA? I'm not even a libertarian, but I'm still more libertarian than most of the people who post on this forum.

[The Free Hornet]

The truth is that minimum wage has not been keeping up with inflation. I feel sorry for the minimum wage workers. I don't know how they can afford to drive to work. They must live right next to work because paying for gas at these high prices would not be economical to drive to work. Probably ride the bus otherwise.

Many carpool.

In 1970, minimum wage was $1.60 & gold was $36. One hour at minimum bought you 0.044444 oz of gold. Today, if you were paid 0.044444 oz of gold per hour, that would be worth $71 (at $1600/oz). By one measure, a 1970 minimum wage job is worth ~$142,000 annually today.

Anybody thinking minimum wage is designed to compensate for inflation ought realize the horrible failure it is.

[The Free Hornet]

I don't like that aspect of Ron Paul's ideas of getting rid of minimum wage. ... I don't support his stance on right to work law too. I think Unions are good. ... I don't want us to become a third world country.

Anyways, I do like Ron's ideas on getting our spending under control.

Read the Mainspring of Human Progress. It addresses the question of why mankind has been starving for thousands of years but we are not. If you think we're not a third world country because of government meddling in our affairs, you are mistaken. What led you to that conclusion?

Here is yet another link discussing the ills of the minimum wage:

Every intervention includes both winners and losers. Otherwise, there would be no intervention at all. Workers with a higher marginal productivity that are thus able to retain their jobs will gain in wealth because they now earn a higher wage. Those that are unemployed, find lower wages, or worse working conditions will be harmed in wealth. Producers will be harmed in wealth because there costs have increased. They are also harmed in utility because they have been coerced into exchange. Consumers will also be harmed in utility because the supply of goods will shrink due to additional costs for producers.

http://hanseconomics.com/2012/03/05/...torts-reality/

I doubt even the referenced subset benefits because they have to live in the same economic hellhole as the rest of us.

Do apologists for the state have any reasoning for their stance?

More so, how do you expect to get "spending under control" while keeping all the regulations you hold so dear?

Social Security can't be saved if our country keeps spending like it has.

SS = theft. It ought not be saved. Send the would-be recipients a list of the people who voted for it and a blank police report. Their money got stolen.

The dollar probably will not be saved if things keep going the way it has with the over spending.

The dollar is a small fraction of what it used to be: 5%. It's not unlike Terry Schiavo before the plug was pulled.

I don't like the endless wars. I know Ron is serious about cutting spending unlike the rest of the politicians. We need to stop doing all these wars we just can't afford it. I am really concerned with a future default of the dollar being possible. I don't like the idea of future tax hikes and high interest that probably will be coming once inflation starts taking off from all the out of control spending. I don't like the patriot act or the defense authorization act. I am sure there is much more. What it comes down to is that Ron would help get this country headed back to a more sustainable direction. The dollar would be more stable under Ron. Ron would fight to up hold the rights of the people. Which makes us all more free.

That's all legit but you need to learn how deep the rabbit hole is.

[kezt777]

You want to know why this is the case? Because some jobs quite simply aren't worth the current minimum wage, so why would an employer add more jobs when the minimum wage is paying the employee more than the production of that employee is bringing in? The idea of business is to make a profit. In some industries, paying an employee the current minimum wage doesn't put companies in a good position to even break even just like any regulations cause unemployment to skyrocket.

I think my business would be a good example of that. We would love to hire an extra person as a 'support person' in our daycare center because there are constantly so many new govt regulations adding to our paperwork load, we are having a lot of difficulty balancing that with looking after, you know, THE CHILDREN. However, we cannot afford to hire anyone new at the $9.10/hour minimum wage in Alberta without raising the fees for parents yet again. It's a slippery slope that a lot of small businesses go through. They cannot hire new people because the bar is set too high and paying someone over $9 an hour to clean a few counters and toilets and sign some checklists for 3 hours or so a day is just not going to work for us or our parents.

I just did some quick calculations as an example. The monthly fee at my center is the second lowest in the city, yet even though I get paid more than $5/hr above minimum wage, the daycare fee accounts for 37.6% of my highest possible 'take home' pay after income tax, pension, and employment insurance deductions. Those who make minimum wage can get a subsidy from the govt, but those that make above that will not. That's a hefty sum to pay for one of the cheapest daycares in the region and if we were to hire someone else, I would be paying pretty darn near 40% of my net income to the center before I got to pay for anything else. Who can live on that?

Then if we look at the center, the only income is from the 'service' we provide. That totals $12,000 income per month. That sounds pretty good for a business owned by a woman in her own home. But she has not paid the 4 staff members yet (4 are needed by govt regulations, no less). Before matching for taxes and contributions, she has to pay out an average of $8600 per month to wages alone. This is for people who have been employed there for 23, 17, 13, and 7 years respectively. The center actually pays between $1.40 and $2.50/hour above minimum wage from it's own 'profit'. We get mandated govt wage enhancement to make up the rest of our pay (hence why she is paying me $2 above min wage herself, but I actually make $5 an hour above it - clear as mud?). Anyhow, my point is that with wages alone, wages barely above minimum wage, for very long term staff, 72% of each month's income goes to wages- BEFORE adding in what comes out for matching income tax EI and CP, and before paying vacation pay. We do not have a health care plan or anything else - the only deductions are the required labour law amounts. So how on earth can this small business possibly hire even one more minimum wage staff member? Hiring just one more person for only 3 hours a day at minimum wage would eat up almost 20% of what was left of her 'profits'. Profits before paying any bills the center incurs (utilities, groceries, etc). It is ridiculous.

Parents cannot afford to pay more than they already do, and centers cannot hire more staff at these rising minimum wage amounts without charging the parents more. Insert 'consumers' 'employers' and 'products or services' into this story instead and I believe it is much the same for any small business. I can't think of another way to explain it other than my own personal experience. I live in a country where the standard of living is unbelievably high compared to many places in the US, including large cities, and raising minimum wage repeatedly across the provinces has not done a thing for anybody, not that I have seen. If you get 50 cents more per hour and then prices of goods and services go up in response, you are not making any more money at all. We watch House Hunters International a lot and watch home shows from the US a lot and nearly choke to death at the prices of homes down there compared to here. It's staggering. And it's not just because of the failing economy because I have been obsessed with home shows for many many years and it was the same before the big bubble burst. Houses in my city, old cruddy ugly houses that need a lot of work are over $200,000. It's insane. The price of everything has gone up hand in hand with the raises in minimum wage over the past 10 years - but when you are a min wage worker, you notice that the wage goes up FIRST, then the prices of products goes up AFTERWARD. Not the other way around. I was a single parent for a decade, believe me, I paid close attention to all of that for a very long time.

[LibertyRevolution]

Au contraire. In most cases, better employees mean higher quality work and thus more profits. It is competition for the best workers in the marketplace that determines wages. It is not the government.

Well, When it comes to employing minimum wage workers, your not looking for high quality workers..
You are looking for a body to carry heavy stuff, at crappy hours, for little pay...
My ex boss would go through 40+ employees a season. He work the guys on the crew 60-80hours a week on average..
When you started to slack off, or look burned out, he slap you with more hour or heavier loads till you quit, then replace you.
He had a pool of willing victims (employees), he would just hire the next guy out the halfway house to replace you...

Its hard to compete in a labor market that is filled with halfway house victims..
They have to work to not be in jail, they will take any job, they cannot refuse..
They only labor that can compete with that is illegal immigrant workers, and my ex boss switched to that in the end.

[Working Poor]

tptb do not want the very poor to have opportunity they want to keep them dependent.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, When it comes to employing minimum wage workers, your not looking for high quality workers..
You are looking for a body to carry heavy stuff, at crappy hours, for little pay...
My ex boss would go through 40+ employees a season. He work the guys on the crew 60-80hours a week on average..
When you started to slack off, or look burned out, he slap you with more hour or heavier loads till you quit, then replace you.
He had a pool of willing victims (employees), he would just hire the next guy out the halfway house to replace you...

Its hard to compete in a labor market that is filled with halfway house victims..
They have to work to not be in jail, they will take any job, they cannot refuse..
They only labor that can compete with that is illegal immigrant workers, and my ex boss switched to that in the end.

Which is one of the many reasons why it is worthwhile not to have a job on the bottom of the totem pole. Isn't this why our parents encouraged us to do well in school, so that we could get better jobs?

[green73]

Schiff:

Because the minimum wage prevents so many young people (including a disproportionate number of minorities) from getting entry-level jobs, they never develop the skills necessary to command higher paying jobs. As a result, many turn to crime, while others subsist on government aid. Supporters of the minimum wage argue that it is impossible to support a family on the minimum wage. While that is true, it is completely irrelevant, as minimum wage jobs are not designed to support families. In fact, many people earning the minimum wage are themselves supported by their parents.

The way it is supposed to work is that people do not choose to start families until they can earn enough to support them. Lower wage jobs enable workers to eventually acquire the skills necessary to earn wages high enough to support a family. Does anyone really think a kid with a paper route should earn a wage high enough to support a family?

And this:

In addition to keeping unemployed the low-skilled, the minimum wage also hurts consumers..it's the consumers of products made with minimum wage labor that bear some of the burden. As it tends to be the low paid who themselves consume the products of minimum wage labor this just makes the poor poorer in consumption terms: the only terms in which poverty ought to be measured.