|
Minimum Wage; ..for your consumption
|
|
Topic Started: Jul 16 2013, 01:14 PM (1,715 Views)
|
|
boilerup86
|
Jul 22 2013, 08:53 PM
Post #196
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 3,006
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
There is one thing I am surprised that no one has mentioned yet as a discussion point about raising minimum wage and that is an increase in the number of people seeking employment.
I personally don't really have a problem with the government setting some sort of price floor for wages, I think it keeps companies from abusing their employees and thus to an extent is necessary. However, a simple raise in minimum wage doesn't guarantee a better standard of life for the economic groups that you've been talking about.
When you raise minimum wage from say 7.75 to say 9 dollars, you almost by default increase the number of people willing to work. There are X number of people will to work for $7.75 and Y number of people willing to work at $9, the people in the X group are still going to be willing to work at $9 but now they have to compete with those people in the Y group as well. The people in the Y group could be people with similar skills as them but every time you increase wages you also begin to attract more qualified candidates as well.
Maybe a high school graduate in group X is now competing with someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75. Chances are the person in group Y being more educated and more qualified is going to get the job over person in group X who the increase in minimum wage was supposed to help.
Now granted that is a very simplistic way of looking at it, obviously in the real world there are other factors at play. For example maybe the increase in minimum wage leads to an increase in jobs because there is more disposable income to put back into the economy or maybe we actually lose jobs as companies now have motivation to become even more efficient as a means to curb labor costs.
|
|
| |
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Jul 22 2013, 09:03 PM
Post #197
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Jul 22 2013, 08:28 PM
- Jazen
- Jul 22 2013, 07:33 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jul 22 2013, 04:15 PM
or they could figure out how to rely on themselves instead of the government or their employer via government regulation and no longer be poor.
Not everyone, in fact there are lots of people in this country, that simply don't have the intellect to sustain a good education and subsequently a decent career that allows them to do much better than minimum wage. Needless to say, these people simply don't know how to rely on themselves, or if so, at a very minimum. IMO, minimum wage is essentially targeted for these types of people, along with high school students and/or people that have the intellect but just don't care (could throw lazy in there as well). In this case, and even though poor, I'd guess most are grateful that they even have a job.
Getting above minimum wage doesn't require a great deal of intellect. It does require a little drive. If someone isn't driven to better themselves, I'm not sure why taxpayers or employers should be forced to do it for them. They are already forced to pay for them.
br
|

|
| |
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Jul 22 2013, 09:05 PM
Post #198
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
- boilerup86
- Jul 22 2013, 08:53 PM
There is one thing I am surprised that no one has mentioned yet as a discussion point about raising minimum wage and that is an increase in the number of people seeking employment.
I personally don't really have a problem with the government setting some sort of price floor for wages, I think it keeps companies from abusing their employees and thus to an extent is necessary. However, a simple raise in minimum wage doesn't guarantee a better standard of life for the economic groups that you've been talking about.
When you raise minimum wage from say 7.75 to say 9 dollars, you almost by default increase the number of people willing to work. There are X number of people will to work for $7.75 and Y number of people willing to work at $9, the people in the X group are still going to be willing to work at $9 but now they have to compete with those people in the Y group as well. The people in the Y group could be people with similar skills as them but every time you increase wages you also begin to attract more qualified candidates as well.
Maybe a high school graduate in group X is now competing with someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75. Chances are the person in group Y being more educated and more qualified is going to get the job over person in group X who the increase in minimum wage was supposed to help.
Now granted that is a very simplistic way of looking at it, obviously in the real world there are other factors at play. For example maybe the increase in minimum wage leads to an increase in jobs because there is more disposable income to put back into the economy or maybe we actually lose jobs as companies now have motivation to become even more efficient as a means to curb labor costs. I agree with you, but the Y group in that scenario would work a minimum wage job if a $9/hr job weren't available. It's not like they would decide to become homeless due to the lack of being able to find a $9/hr job.
br
|

|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Jul 22 2013, 09:27 PM
Post #199
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- sirbrianwilson
- Jul 22 2013, 09:05 PM
- boilerup86
- Jul 22 2013, 08:53 PM
There is one thing I am surprised that no one has mentioned yet as a discussion point about raising minimum wage and that is an increase in the number of people seeking employment.
I personally don't really have a problem with the government setting some sort of price floor for wages, I think it keeps companies from abusing their employees and thus to an extent is necessary. However, a simple raise in minimum wage doesn't guarantee a better standard of life for the economic groups that you've been talking about.
When you raise minimum wage from say 7.75 to say 9 dollars, you almost by default increase the number of people willing to work. There are X number of people will to work for $7.75 and Y number of people willing to work at $9, the people in the X group are still going to be willing to work at $9 but now they have to compete with those people in the Y group as well. The people in the Y group could be people with similar skills as them but every time you increase wages you also begin to attract more qualified candidates as well.
Maybe a high school graduate in group X is now competing with someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75. Chances are the person in group Y being more educated and more qualified is going to get the job over person in group X who the increase in minimum wage was supposed to help.
Now granted that is a very simplistic way of looking at it, obviously in the real world there are other factors at play. For example maybe the increase in minimum wage leads to an increase in jobs because there is more disposable income to put back into the economy or maybe we actually lose jobs as companies now have motivation to become even more efficient as a means to curb labor costs.
I agree with you, but the Y group in that scenario would work a minimum wage job if a $9/hr job weren't available. It's not like they would decide to become homeless due to the lack of being able to find a $9/hr job. br You missed this part of his post "someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75."
|
|
| |
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Jul 22 2013, 09:30 PM
Post #200
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Jul 22 2013, 09:27 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Jul 22 2013, 09:05 PM
- boilerup86
- Jul 22 2013, 08:53 PM
There is one thing I am surprised that no one has mentioned yet as a discussion point about raising minimum wage and that is an increase in the number of people seeking employment.
I personally don't really have a problem with the government setting some sort of price floor for wages, I think it keeps companies from abusing their employees and thus to an extent is necessary. However, a simple raise in minimum wage doesn't guarantee a better standard of life for the economic groups that you've been talking about.
When you raise minimum wage from say 7.75 to say 9 dollars, you almost by default increase the number of people willing to work. There are X number of people will to work for $7.75 and Y number of people willing to work at $9, the people in the X group are still going to be willing to work at $9 but now they have to compete with those people in the Y group as well. The people in the Y group could be people with similar skills as them but every time you increase wages you also begin to attract more qualified candidates as well.
Maybe a high school graduate in group X is now competing with someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75. Chances are the person in group Y being more educated and more qualified is going to get the job over person in group X who the increase in minimum wage was supposed to help.
Now granted that is a very simplistic way of looking at it, obviously in the real world there are other factors at play. For example maybe the increase in minimum wage leads to an increase in jobs because there is more disposable income to put back into the economy or maybe we actually lose jobs as companies now have motivation to become even more efficient as a means to curb labor costs.
I agree with you, but the Y group in that scenario would work a minimum wage job if a $9/hr job weren't available. It's not like they would decide to become homeless due to the lack of being able to find a $9/hr job. br
You missed this part of his post "someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75." And in this economy, that's a small slice of the pie. A single-income family is quickly becoming a thing of the past if it isn't already for the majority of the population.
br
|

|
| |
|
IUCOLTFAN
|
Jul 22 2013, 10:03 PM
Post #201
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 10,098
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #131
- Joined:
- February 9, 2008
|
- sirbrianwilson
- Jul 22 2013, 09:30 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jul 22 2013, 09:27 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Jul 22 2013, 09:05 PM
- boilerup86
- Jul 22 2013, 08:53 PM
There is one thing I am surprised that no one has mentioned yet as a discussion point about raising minimum wage and that is an increase in the number of people seeking employment.
I personally don't really have a problem with the government setting some sort of price floor for wages, I think it keeps companies from abusing their employees and thus to an extent is necessary. However, a simple raise in minimum wage doesn't guarantee a better standard of life for the economic groups that you've been talking about.
When you raise minimum wage from say 7.75 to say 9 dollars, you almost by default increase the number of people willing to work. There are X number of people will to work for $7.75 and Y number of people willing to work at $9, the people in the X group are still going to be willing to work at $9 but now they have to compete with those people in the Y group as well. The people in the Y group could be people with similar skills as them but every time you increase wages you also begin to attract more qualified candidates as well.
Maybe a high school graduate in group X is now competing with someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75. Chances are the person in group Y being more educated and more qualified is going to get the job over person in group X who the increase in minimum wage was supposed to help.
Now granted that is a very simplistic way of looking at it, obviously in the real world there are other factors at play. For example maybe the increase in minimum wage leads to an increase in jobs because there is more disposable income to put back into the economy or maybe we actually lose jobs as companies now have motivation to become even more efficient as a means to curb labor costs.
I agree with you, but the Y group in that scenario would work a minimum wage job if a $9/hr job weren't available. It's not like they would decide to become homeless due to the lack of being able to find a $9/hr job. br
You missed this part of his post "someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75."
And in this economy, that's a small slice of the pie. A single-income family is quickly becoming a thing of the past if it isn't already for the majority of the population. br Majority of the population?
|

|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jul 22 2013, 10:47 PM
Post #202
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Jul 22 2013, 06:09 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 22 2013, 05:05 PM
- Mr Gray
- Jul 22 2013, 04:14 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 22 2013, 04:03 PM
aaron, I'm talking about the fact that most workers at McDonald's aren't able to get 40 hours there. That hasn't nothing to do with hourly wage, but it does have everything to do with the idea that these workers are just 'lazy' and 'should be able to get by on minimum wage'.
I don't know if they are lazy or not, but if we aren't talking about full time employment, then this conversation is just silly....I'll go on the record and say no...people most likely can't survive on their own working part time at McDonalds....and if anyone on here believes they should, please let me know why.
I'm not suggesting that someone should be able to live on part time minimum wage. I am simply saying that there aren't many minimum wage jobs -- especially fast food jobs -- that have full time opportunity. Remember the tax credit act I talked about previously that gave tax credits for hiring certain employee groups in low income jobs? The Work Opportunity Tax Credit gives a 40% tax credit to certain groups for the first $6000 they earn in their first year of employment with a business. Those 'special groups' that the company receives a tax credit for those that were previously on welfare, food stamps, are social security recipients, poor or disabled veterans, youths from disadvantaged areas, and ex-felons. The group was expanded under the most recent stimulus bill to include unemployed veterans and further expanded it for the young. From a companies standpoint, the best use of their money would be to hire two employees part time that fit this bill at $6,000 each as opposed to a more qualified person at $12,000, because they will receive a tax credit of $4800 for the two employees. Secondly, two part time employees won't qualify for insurance since they aren't full time. And there isn't a limit on the credits....which is why it's no big deal if an employee in the qualified group quits or gets fired from these jobs as they can simply be filled by another one in the qualified group. In fact, it is the company's advantage NOT to have the employee stay their first $6000 in earnings as they no longer receive a tax credit for them.
So then why are we debating whether or not someone can live off of full time minimum wage employment if it is such a rare situation? That is the debate of this thread. I was just pointing out a separate issue that for many minimum wage earners it's a moot point because they can't get full time employment.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jul 22 2013, 10:59 PM
Post #203
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- IUCOLTFAN
- Jul 22 2013, 10:03 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Jul 22 2013, 09:30 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jul 22 2013, 09:27 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Jul 22 2013, 09:05 PM
- boilerup86
- Jul 22 2013, 08:53 PM
There is one thing I am surprised that no one has mentioned yet as a discussion point about raising minimum wage and that is an increase in the number of people seeking employment.
I personally don't really have a problem with the government setting some sort of price floor for wages, I think it keeps companies from abusing their employees and thus to an extent is necessary. However, a simple raise in minimum wage doesn't guarantee a better standard of life for the economic groups that you've been talking about.
When you raise minimum wage from say 7.75 to say 9 dollars, you almost by default increase the number of people willing to work. There are X number of people will to work for $7.75 and Y number of people willing to work at $9, the people in the X group are still going to be willing to work at $9 but now they have to compete with those people in the Y group as well. The people in the Y group could be people with similar skills as them but every time you increase wages you also begin to attract more qualified candidates as well.
Maybe a high school graduate in group X is now competing with someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75. Chances are the person in group Y being more educated and more qualified is going to get the job over person in group X who the increase in minimum wage was supposed to help.
Now granted that is a very simplistic way of looking at it, obviously in the real world there are other factors at play. For example maybe the increase in minimum wage leads to an increase in jobs because there is more disposable income to put back into the economy or maybe we actually lose jobs as companies now have motivation to become even more efficient as a means to curb labor costs.
I agree with you, but the Y group in that scenario would work a minimum wage job if a $9/hr job weren't available. It's not like they would decide to become homeless due to the lack of being able to find a $9/hr job. br
You missed this part of his post "someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75."
And in this economy, that's a small slice of the pie. A single-income family is quickly becoming a thing of the past if it isn't already for the majority of the population. br
Majority of the population? If you are talking about couples living together -- married or unmarried -- yes.
"(March 2003) Images of the traditional family still dominate our televisions and magazines, but they do not represent how most Americans live. In 2002, only 7 percent of all U.S. households consisted of married couples with children in which only the husband worked. Dual-income families with children made up more than two times as many households. Even families with two incomes and no children outnumbered the traditional family by almost two to one."
And that was ten years ago.
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2003/TraditionalFamiliesAccountforOnly7PercentofUSHouseholds.aspx
|
|
| |
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Jul 22 2013, 11:56 PM
Post #204
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
I can't imagine even STARTING to fathom a budget breakdown of a single-income family in this economy for the average american.
And again, for probably the 4th or 5th time, no one has even touched the topic of a single mom on a minimum wage income. Total avoidance.
br
|

|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jul 23 2013, 05:30 AM
Post #205
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- sirbrianwilson
- Jul 22 2013, 11:56 PM
I can't imagine even STARTING to fathom a budget breakdown of a single-income family in this economy for the average american.
And again, for probably the 4th or 5th time, no one has even touched the topic of a single mom on a minimum wage income. Total avoidance.
br What are you talking about Brian? What single income budget are you looking for now? Also I absolutely DID address the single mom situation. You are pathetic man. Everytime your point is countered you move the goal post.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
IUCOLTFAN
|
Jul 23 2013, 06:13 AM
Post #206
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 10,098
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #131
- Joined:
- February 9, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Jul 22 2013, 10:59 PM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Jul 22 2013, 10:03 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Jul 22 2013, 09:30 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jul 22 2013, 09:27 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Jul 22 2013, 09:05 PM
- boilerup86
- Jul 22 2013, 08:53 PM
There is one thing I am surprised that no one has mentioned yet as a discussion point about raising minimum wage and that is an increase in the number of people seeking employment.
I personally don't really have a problem with the government setting some sort of price floor for wages, I think it keeps companies from abusing their employees and thus to an extent is necessary. However, a simple raise in minimum wage doesn't guarantee a better standard of life for the economic groups that you've been talking about.
When you raise minimum wage from say 7.75 to say 9 dollars, you almost by default increase the number of people willing to work. There are X number of people will to work for $7.75 and Y number of people willing to work at $9, the people in the X group are still going to be willing to work at $9 but now they have to compete with those people in the Y group as well. The people in the Y group could be people with similar skills as them but every time you increase wages you also begin to attract more qualified candidates as well.
Maybe a high school graduate in group X is now competing with someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75. Chances are the person in group Y being more educated and more qualified is going to get the job over person in group X who the increase in minimum wage was supposed to help.
Now granted that is a very simplistic way of looking at it, obviously in the real world there are other factors at play. For example maybe the increase in minimum wage leads to an increase in jobs because there is more disposable income to put back into the economy or maybe we actually lose jobs as companies now have motivation to become even more efficient as a means to curb labor costs.
I agree with you, but the Y group in that scenario would work a minimum wage job if a $9/hr job weren't available. It's not like they would decide to become homeless due to the lack of being able to find a $9/hr job. br
You missed this part of his post "someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75."
And in this economy, that's a small slice of the pie. A single-income family is quickly becoming a thing of the past if it isn't already for the majority of the population. br
Majority of the population?
If you are talking about couples living together -- married or unmarried -- yes. "(March 2003) Images of the traditional family still dominate our televisions and magazines, but they do not represent how most Americans live. In 2002, only 7 percent of all U.S. households consisted of married couples with children in which only the husband worked. Dual-income families with children made up more than two times as many households. Even families with two incomes and no children outnumbered the traditional family by almost two to one." And that was ten years ago. http://www.prb.org/Articles/2003/TraditionalFamiliesAccountforOnly7PercentofUSHouseholds.aspx A majority of the population doesn't receive a paycheck
|

|
| |
|
IUCOLTFAN
|
Jul 23 2013, 06:18 AM
Post #207
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 10,098
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #131
- Joined:
- February 9, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Jul 23 2013, 05:30 AM
- sirbrianwilson
- Jul 22 2013, 11:56 PM
I can't imagine even STARTING to fathom a budget breakdown of a single-income family in this economy for the average american.
And again, for probably the 4th or 5th time, no one has even touched the topic of a single mom on a minimum wage income. Total avoidance.
br
What are you talking about Brian? What single income budget are you looking for now? Also I absolutely DID address the single mom situation. You are pathetic man. Everytime your point is countered you move the goal post. Didn't we already show that a single mother can draw up to $60,000 worth of assistance. I'd love to see the stats on how many single mothers, living on their own, actually work a minimum wage job.....and that DON'T draw any assistance.
So Brian, if we raise the minimum wage to $9, does that woman's benefits see a decline? If so, then how does raising the wage even help her?
|

|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jul 23 2013, 06:27 AM
Post #208
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
Someone show me RIGHT NOW, how a single mom with 12 kids, 4 of which have chronic diarrhea (and diapers are expensive), can survive on 30 hours a week at McDonald's minimum wage......come on show me. If you can't, then that means we need to raise all minimum wages and taxes or we are a cruel society. -sirbrian's next post-
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jul 23 2013, 06:42 AM
Post #209
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- IUCOLTFAN
- Jul 23 2013, 06:13 AM
- brumdog44
- Jul 22 2013, 10:59 PM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Jul 22 2013, 10:03 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Jul 22 2013, 09:30 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jul 22 2013, 09:27 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Jul 22 2013, 09:05 PM
- boilerup86
- Jul 22 2013, 08:53 PM
There is one thing I am surprised that no one has mentioned yet as a discussion point about raising minimum wage and that is an increase in the number of people seeking employment.
I personally don't really have a problem with the government setting some sort of price floor for wages, I think it keeps companies from abusing their employees and thus to an extent is necessary. However, a simple raise in minimum wage doesn't guarantee a better standard of life for the economic groups that you've been talking about.
When you raise minimum wage from say 7.75 to say 9 dollars, you almost by default increase the number of people willing to work. There are X number of people will to work for $7.75 and Y number of people willing to work at $9, the people in the X group are still going to be willing to work at $9 but now they have to compete with those people in the Y group as well. The people in the Y group could be people with similar skills as them but every time you increase wages you also begin to attract more qualified candidates as well.
Maybe a high school graduate in group X is now competing with someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75. Chances are the person in group Y being more educated and more qualified is going to get the job over person in group X who the increase in minimum wage was supposed to help.
Now granted that is a very simplistic way of looking at it, obviously in the real world there are other factors at play. For example maybe the increase in minimum wage leads to an increase in jobs because there is more disposable income to put back into the economy or maybe we actually lose jobs as companies now have motivation to become even more efficient as a means to curb labor costs.
I agree with you, but the Y group in that scenario would work a minimum wage job if a $9/hr job weren't available. It's not like they would decide to become homeless due to the lack of being able to find a $9/hr job. br
You missed this part of his post "someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75."
And in this economy, that's a small slice of the pie. A single-income family is quickly becoming a thing of the past if it isn't already for the majority of the population. br
Majority of the population?
If you are talking about couples living together -- married or unmarried -- yes. "(March 2003) Images of the traditional family still dominate our televisions and magazines, but they do not represent how most Americans live. In 2002, only 7 percent of all U.S. households consisted of married couples with children in which only the husband worked. Dual-income families with children made up more than two times as many households. Even families with two incomes and no children outnumbered the traditional family by almost two to one." And that was ten years ago. http://www.prb.org/Articles/2003/TraditionalFamiliesAccountforOnly7PercentofUSHouseholds.aspx
A majority of the population doesn't receive a paycheck I'm pretty sure he's referring to the population of married couples, not the entire general population.
|
|
| |
|
IUCOLTFAN
|
Jul 23 2013, 01:04 PM
Post #210
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 10,098
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #131
- Joined:
- February 9, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Jul 23 2013, 06:42 AM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Jul 23 2013, 06:13 AM
- brumdog44
- Jul 22 2013, 10:59 PM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Jul 22 2013, 10:03 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Jul 22 2013, 09:30 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jul 22 2013, 09:27 PM
- sirbrianwilson
- Jul 22 2013, 09:05 PM
- boilerup86
- Jul 22 2013, 08:53 PM
There is one thing I am surprised that no one has mentioned yet as a discussion point about raising minimum wage and that is an increase in the number of people seeking employment.
I personally don't really have a problem with the government setting some sort of price floor for wages, I think it keeps companies from abusing their employees and thus to an extent is necessary. However, a simple raise in minimum wage doesn't guarantee a better standard of life for the economic groups that you've been talking about.
When you raise minimum wage from say 7.75 to say 9 dollars, you almost by default increase the number of people willing to work. There are X number of people will to work for $7.75 and Y number of people willing to work at $9, the people in the X group are still going to be willing to work at $9 but now they have to compete with those people in the Y group as well. The people in the Y group could be people with similar skills as them but every time you increase wages you also begin to attract more qualified candidates as well.
Maybe a high school graduate in group X is now competing with someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75. Chances are the person in group Y being more educated and more qualified is going to get the job over person in group X who the increase in minimum wage was supposed to help.
Now granted that is a very simplistic way of looking at it, obviously in the real world there are other factors at play. For example maybe the increase in minimum wage leads to an increase in jobs because there is more disposable income to put back into the economy or maybe we actually lose jobs as companies now have motivation to become even more efficient as a means to curb labor costs.
I agree with you, but the Y group in that scenario would work a minimum wage job if a $9/hr job weren't available. It's not like they would decide to become homeless due to the lack of being able to find a $9/hr job. br
You missed this part of his post "someone in group Y that is a stay at home parent (spouse works) has an associates degree and decides that part of their time is worth $9 but wasn't work $7.75."
And in this economy, that's a small slice of the pie. A single-income family is quickly becoming a thing of the past if it isn't already for the majority of the population. br
Majority of the population?
If you are talking about couples living together -- married or unmarried -- yes. "(March 2003) Images of the traditional family still dominate our televisions and magazines, but they do not represent how most Americans live. In 2002, only 7 percent of all U.S. households consisted of married couples with children in which only the husband worked. Dual-income families with children made up more than two times as many households. Even families with two incomes and no children outnumbered the traditional family by almost two to one." And that was ten years ago. http://www.prb.org/Articles/2003/TraditionalFamiliesAccountforOnly7PercentofUSHouseholds.aspx
A majority of the population doesn't receive a paycheck
I'm pretty sure he's referring to the population of married couples, not the entire general population. So we've jumped from individuals to single mothers to married couples? Is this thread even about anything?
|

|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|