Workers want pay boost

[ford91exploder]

According to the MIT wage calculator, the living wage for Orange County, Florida is $10.57.

As ford91exploder noted, the minimum wage is designed to support one adult within reason. You could never allow for every circumstance anyway. If you find yourself a single parent or with a spouse who is unemployed or whatever else then you are going to need some help (public assistance). That's why such programs exist. But every low income worker should not have to depend on such assistance as a routine matter; They should be able to earn their own way in life, and it is reasonable to have wages which support that.

Any increase in the minimum wage is not the sole solution. Among many other things is a need for more reasonably priced housing, or policies which make it easier for low income workers to earn additional income (second job, etc.), thus increasing their standard of living while reducing reliance on public assistance.

As @CDavid notes a systemic approach is needed, There also needs to be a rational immigration policy probably modeled on Canada/ANZAC to stop the inflation of the labor supply and the concomitant downward pressure on wages and increased demand for public assistance. Along with that we need a surtax on businesses which where a majority of employees are eligible for public assistance as some companies business model is to subsidize costs by relying on public assistance for medical care etc for employees.

 

[njDizFan]

I agree that it wouldn't need to be an increase of 300%. Let's say for example that a $5 value meal goes up a quarter like your example. That represents a 5% increase in the price. Doesn't seem bad, but if all of your expenses go up 5% and your wages don't it could have an impact. For someone making say $10 or $12 an hour now who wouldn't benefit from an increase in minimum wage that increase could hurt.

The $0.25 number is interesting. McDonalds had $27.5B in revenues last year so a 5% increase in prices would generate about $1.4B in extra revenue. Spread amongst 1.4 million employees that's roughly $1,000 a head. You would probably need a little more to make a difference, but that number includes international employees. I'm thinking if minimum wage went to $10 they might need to hike the price up closer to $1 but it's still nothing like tripling it.

I know Im still about 15 pages behind but had to bring up this article. http://www.salon.com/2014/01/30/6_r..._run_unz_wants_to_raise_minimum_wage_partner/

Ron Unz a conservative republican has this theory and frankly I think it makes sense.

If Walmart raised their minum salary for all workers to $12.00 the Walmart customer would spend an extra 1.1% on their groceries or about $12.50 a year.

 

[GoofGoof]

I know Im still about 15 pages behind but had to bring up this article. http://www.salon.com/2014/01/30/6_r..._run_unz_wants_to_raise_minimum_wage_partner/

Ron Unz a conservative republican has this theory and frankly I think it makes sense.

If Walmart raised their minum salary for all workers to $12.00 the Walmart customer would spend an extra 1.1% on their groceries or about $12.50 a year.

I agree. I can save you some time on reading, you will find that this plan would bankrupt all small businesses and only benefit the losers that are making minimum wage who just need to find better jobs or work harder to advance (I'm paraphrasing a bit, not my words).

 

[jaklgreen]

I still do not understand why some people have the misconception about people who work in these types of jobs(food, retail, etc).Trust me when I tell you that not "everyone" can do them. These are honest jobs that although may not seem like much to some, do take concentration and effort to do. I have worked with many many people who could not handle the food industry. They could not manage their time or keep the procedures strait that is needed to follow health codes. Even though these people were considered smart and were able to move onto other jobs. Sometimes it is not only the actual work but the customer service aspect of it. It takes a special kind of personality to deal with the public. My hubby is a genius(high IQ, good job) super smart can do about anything but can not do what I do day after day, not because of the work but because he could not deal with all of the rude/stupid customers. I am not trying to be mean but anyone who has worked these jobs knows what I am talking about. Most every other country in the world has adults working these jobs and they are considered good careers. Teenagers do not work at all because there are not enough jobs for them. Working those jobs are not looked down upon like it is in this country.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

The last few pages pretty well ends the low paying worker is worthless (said in so many words, but some posters meaning was clear) discussion! Any job done well is honest work and just as good as any over paid CEO in the country!

 

[flynnibus]

It takes a special kind of personality to deal with the public.

Yes, but while it may not be everyone's piece of cake... If it can be done by anyone with little to no prior training, it's going to be depressed in value vs other jobs with higher pre-reqs. There will always be more supply when the requirements are lower.

The "I work hard in my job" spiel only goes so far.

 

[flynnibus]

I know Im still about 15 pages behind but had to bring up this article. http://www.salon.com/2014/01/30/6_r..._run_unz_wants_to_raise_minimum_wage_partner/

Ron Unz a conservative republican has this theory and frankly I think it makes sense.

If Walmart raised their minum salary for all workers to $12.00 the Walmart customer would spend an extra 1.1% on their groceries or about $12.50 a year.

Reads like a pitch for cold fusion to me... Arguing all his negatives will be magically wiped out by 'new gains' that will magically appear.

If a family is on food stamps... And now we pay them 20% more so they don't need food stamps... That does not mean there is 20% more money flowing into grocery stores. Only the color of the money has changed.

It's like people saying people are not saving... They are in debt ... But if we give everyone 5% more... That will boost spending! Did people forget 4th grade math? If you are at -10 and you add +5.... You don't end up at +5.

These gains are offset by trading existing deficiencies.

And I love the part where he advocates that spending 150 billion to save 40 billion makes it sound great! While admitting mealy all the costs will be passed into the consumer. Why would I advocate spending $15 to save $4?

 

[Nubs70]

Reads like a pitch for cold fusion to me... Arguing all his negatives will be magically wiped out by 'new gains' that will magically appear.

If a family is on food stamps... And now we pay them 20% more so they don't need food stamps... That does not mean there is 20% more money flowing into grocery stores. Only the color of the money has changed.

It's like people saying people are not saving... They are in debt ... But if we give everyone 5% more... That will boost spending! Did people forget 4th grade math? If you are at -10 and you add +5.... You don't end up at +5.

These gains are offset by trading existing deficiencies.

And I love the part where he advocates that spending 150 billion to save 40 billion makes it sound great! While admitting mealy all the costs will be passed into the consumer. Why would I advocate spending $15 to save $4?

Worse yet, this also serves to cement the inefficiencies into the economy.

 

[Potter]

As I stated in an earlier post, those who have low incomes are making a killing at tax time due to our progressive tax system. Case in point, I am a banker and below is page 2 of a couple's 1040 who are applying for a loan and the tax return shows that they paid $1,260 in federal taxes on $31,196 in gross wages and they got back $8,554 for a net increase in income of $7,249. There are 2,080 work hours a year (40 hrs x 52 weeks) so this corresponds to an extra $3.49 per hour. Add this amount to the $7.25 minimum wage and the actual wage is $10.74 per hour.

Granted, not all low income borrowers on minimum wage receive this much of a refund because this couple has 2 children but you get the picture (and this does not even include the state refund). Based on our progressive tax system, not only is a hike in the minimum wage not warranted but these tax refunds should be counted in the gross income when applying for food stamps which would decrease those on the rolls.

 

[CDavid]

As I stated in an earlier post, those who have low incomes are making a killing at tax time due to our progressive tax system. Case in point, I am a banker and below is page 2 of a couple's 1040 who are applying for a loan and the tax return shows that they paid $1,260 in federal taxes on $31,196 in gross wages and they got back $8,554 for a net increase in income of $7,249. There are 2,080 work hours a year (40 hrs x 52 weeks) so this corresponds to an extra $3.49 per hour. Add this amount to the $7.25 minimum wage and the actual wage is $10.74 per hour.

Granted, not all low income borrowers on minimum wage receive this much of a refund because this couple has 2 children but you get the picture (and this does not even include the state refund). Based on our progressive tax system, not only is a hike in the minimum wage not warranted but these tax refunds should be counted in the gross income when applying for food stamps which would decrease those on the rolls.

That's not accurate. If every low income taxpayer (specifically, a single individual) received such a large refund at tax time, you might have a point, but most taxpayers do not see anywhere near that size windfall. An effective wage (after taxes) of $10.74 for an individual might well reduce the need for a minimum wage increase, given the (Orange County, Florida as an example) living wage of $10.57. However, the living wage for two adults with two children, as in your example, is $20.66. This produces an effective after-tax wage which is $9.92 less than the indicated living wage.

You are also erroneously assuming a tax refund from the states, some of which do not even have a state income tax.

 

[Nubs70]

That's not accurate. If every low income taxpayer (specifically, a single individual) received such a large refund at tax time, you might have a point, but most taxpayers do not see anywhere near that size windfall. An effective wage (after taxes) of $10.74 for an individual might well reduce the need for a minimum wage increase, given the (Orange County, Florida as an example) living wage of $10.57. However, the living wage for two adults with two children, as in your example, is $20.66. This produces an effective after-tax wage which is $9.92 less than the indicated living wage.

You are also erroneously assuming a tax refund from the states, some of which do not even have a state income tax.

So the minimum wage for a single earner family of four should be $20.66? As a business owner would it be discriminatory for me to hire only childless singles?

 

[Potter]

That's not accurate. If every low income taxpayer (specifically, a single individual) received such a large refund at tax time, you might have a point, but most taxpayers do not see anywhere near that size windfall. An effective wage (after taxes) of $10.74 for an individual might well reduce the need for a minimum wage increase, given the (Orange County, Florida as an example) living wage of $10.57. However, the living wage for two adults with two children, as in your example, is $20.66. This produces an effective after-tax wage which is $9.92 less than the indicated living wage.

You are also erroneously assuming a tax refund from the states, some of which do not even have a state income tax.

The wife of this borrower is a part-timer and had her hours cut due to Obamacare and the government mandate. Does this mean that the minimum wage should follow the living wage based on family size regardless of how many wage earners are actually working full-time? God forbid if Obama gets wind of this ideology. However, I guess that since my wife is a stay at home mom, my income would then be doubled (unless your intention is to discriminate).

 

[CDavid]

So the minimum wage for a single earner family of four should be $20.66? As a business owner would it be discriminatory for me to hire only childless singles?

Nobody should be saying that - and certainly I am not. I am saying a reasonable increase in the minimum wage needs to be part of a comprehensive solution for low income workers in America. As I stated previously, a single individual should be able to basically support themselves; If you have kids to support on a low-income job you may very well need assistance.

Does this mean that the minimum wage should follow the living wage based on family size regardless of how many wage earners are actually working full-time?

Nobody is saying that either.

 

[njDizFan]

Reads like a pitch for cold fusion to me... Arguing all his negatives will be magically wiped out by 'new gains' that will magically appear.

If a family is on food stamps... And now we pay them 20% more so they don't need food stamps... That does not mean there is 20% more money flowing into grocery stores. Only the color of the money has changed.

It's like people saying people are not saving... They are in debt ... But if we give everyone 5% more... That will boost spending! Did people forget 4th grade math? If you are at -10 and you add +5.... You don't end up at +5.

These gains are offset by trading existing deficiencies.

And I love the part where he advocates that spending 150 billion to save 40 billion makes it sound great! While admitting mealy all the costs will be passed into the consumer. Why would I advocate spending $15 to save $4?

I seriously disagree with his politics and some of the reasons why he would introduce such a legislation but the math on consumer spending for WalMart customers seems relatively sound.

Although it is easy to disperse increases in labor across such a broad customer base, in this case the largest retailer in the world, I still see how this could work for even the small business model.

Like noted earlier many of these low income employers are in the service industry and fast food. I dont have a breakdown of employee expense ratios but hotels make huge profits on their room rates and as a former restaurant owner and manger I know that food costs and overhead(rent, utilities) are the major expenses. I would love to see a breakdown of what Mcdonalds would have to raise their meal prices in order to accomodate a $12 minimum pay.

The reason this will never happen(I'm sure 1 of many) is because Wall Street would implode if entire sectors would see a dip in their earnings. The world would sell away every share of Burger King because they only made 15% on earnings instead of 20%(hyperbole intended).

 

[Nubs70]

Nobody should be saying that - and certainly I am not. I am saying a reasonable increase in the minimum wage needs to be part of a comprehensive solution for low income workers in America. As I stated previously, a single individual should be able to basically support themselves; If you have kids to support on a low-income job you may very well need assistance.



Nobody is saying that either.

That may have not been your intent but that is the logical conclusion.

Minimum wage = Living wage
Living wage = $10.57 for single person household
Living wage = $20.66 for a 2 adult/ 2 child household

Therefore, Living wage is contingent upon household size.

Imagine if the Duggers (the lady with a uterus masquerading as a clown car) would need for a living wage. 2 adults with 19 kids would require Mr Dugger's employer to pay him $108.47/hr.

 

[copcarguyp71]

Since this thread has gone so far off topic I would also like to bring up the fact that we (as a country) need to internalize and support industry (especially small to medium businesses) on these shores. Saying that the minimum wage needs to be raised is fine and I understand but however if we continue to embrace goods from offshore then businesses here involved in manufacturing goods can in no way compete and will go under. The more manufacturers that go under the more we depend on manufacturing offshore and the more that happens the less we have as our own resources which begets the cycle of being a voraciously consuming country without the means to meet those voracious needs. That means that once we let manufacturing go offshore for the most part that they (offshore manufacturers) have us by the proverbial naughty bits and then can bring the prices up to where we become the "have-nots" instead of being the "haves" that we are so used to.

I would truly love to pay my employees more but we are in an industry where we work for municipal governments and for the most part staying busy means consistently being the lowest bidder. I pay what I can which is certainly above minimum wage but it is a tough world out there that is not entirely based on retail or service industries which seem to be the most effected by minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage then makes my own employees feel like they are less above minimum wage than they were previously but I cannot raise rates as then we would not receive bid awards. It is a far reaching issue with a huge ripple effect and there are really no easy answers IMO.

Just a point of view from my side...take it or leave it.

 

[donaldtoo]

That may have not been your intent but that is the logical conclusion.

Minimum wage = Living wage
Living wage = $10.57 for single person household
Living wage = $20.66 for a 2 adult/ 2 child household

Therefore, Living wage is contingent upon household size.

Imagine if the Duggers (the lady with a uterus masquerading as a clown car) would need for a living wage. 2 adults with 19 kids would require Mr Dugger's employer to pay him $221.97//hr.

Which, actually, works out fine, 'cause I'm pretty sure TLC is/was payin' 'em that and more.

 

[ford91exploder]

Since this thread has gone so far off topic I would also like to bring up the fact that we (as a country) need to internalize and support industry (especially small to medium businesses) on these shores. Saying that the minimum wage needs to be raised is fine and I understand but however if we continue to embrace goods from offshore then businesses here involved in manufacturing goods can in no way compete and will go under. The more manufacturers that go under the more we depend on manufacturing offshore and the more that happens the less we have as our own resources which begets the cycle of being a voraciously consuming country without the means to meet those voracious needs. That means that once we let manufacturing go offshore for the most part that they (offshore manufacturers) have us by the proverbial naughty bits and then can bring the prices up to where we become the "have-nots" instead of being the "haves" that we are so used to.

I would truly love to pay my employees more but we are in an industry where we work for municipal governments and for the most part staying busy means consistently being the lowest bidder. I pay what I can which is certainly above minimum wage but it is a tough world out there that is not entirely based on retail or service industries which seem to be the most effected by minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage then makes my own employees feel like they are less above minimum wage than they were previously but I cannot raise rates as then we would not receive bid awards. It is a far reaching issue with a huge ripple effect and there are really no easy answers IMO.

Just a point of view from my side...take it or leave it.

Having BEEN a partner in a small business, which also catered to government clients (who take their time paying usually > 120 days for a NET30 account) partner and I FREQUENTLY went without paychecks so regular employees could have theirs and that is a common theme among small business owners.

But I do love the B---s of governments in how they demand money from taxpayers IMMEDIATELY but when it comes to PAYING for services rendered its a situation which for commercial accounts would have their accounts assigned to a collection agency.

 

[copcarguyp71]

Having BEEN a partner in a small business, which also catered to government clients (who take their time paying usually > 120 days for a NET30 account) partner and I FREQUENTLY went without paychecks so regular employees could have theirs and that is a common theme among small business owners.

But I do love the B---s of governments in how they demand money from taxpayers IMMEDIATELY but when it comes to PAYING for services rendered its a situation which for commercial accounts would have their accounts assigned to a collection agency.

...and they act totally outraged when after 90 days you send a second late notice with the finance charges tacked on that are clearly stated (at least on ours) on the invoice. Best paying client of all time though was surprisingly the US Coast Guard. Funds direct deposited into our account within seven days. Yes, I was truly amazed on that one!!!

 

[ford91exploder]

...and they act totally outraged when after 90 days you send a second late notice with the finance charges tacked on that are clearly stated (at least on ours) on the invoice. Best paying client of all time though was surprisingly the US Coast Guard. Funds direct deposited into our account within seven days. Yes, I was truly amazed on that one!!!

You have to BE a small business person to understand how badly being one SUCKS in the US and my experience is a couple decades old now and its worse than it ever was. Guess we are 'greedy' for wanting to have a regular paycheck but ours is the only one we can legally NOT pay at the end of a pay period.