Obama wants to raise minimum wage to NINE DOLLARS AN HOUR

[Branden Albert's Huge Balls]

@RyanLizza: Obama will call for raising the federal minimum wage to $9.00/hour.

[alpha_omega]

How long has it been since it was $3.35/hour?????

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

THIS! only in the short term is anyone effected but in the long term more business is created because those people with the increased minimum wage immediately spend that money. The majority of economists say this is what happens,

Every time the raise of the minimum wage is brought up the same arguments are made. It never changes.

I personally think that the richest country in the world can afford to pay a fair wage to its citizens that work 40 hours a week. What's a fair wage? Thats debatable, but it would seem the low bar is not living in poverty.

I think if you stay working at minimum wage for years, thats on you. And you need to make better choices in your life.

The $9 an hour when adjusted to inflation is at the minimum wage level circa 1981. That is a 32 year wait for a raise. The question I have for those opposed to this.............. If waiting for 32 years is not long enough, just how long should the minimum wage worker wait for a raise?

No smilie

I personally think a fair wage is dictated by what can be achieved in the market. If you can go get $100M/ year, go get $100M/ year. If you're making $12K, and think you should be making $25K, go get $25K. If you think you're work $25K, but don't do anything about it, that's on you, not the government.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I'd be okay with that issue being handled at the state level.

Well that's fine for you, but that leaves me with no one to call an asshole.

Someone get J Diddy in here ASAP.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

And where did it come from?

Yes, minimum wage workers have more money. Unlike the Fed, business can't just print it so it came from somewhere.

It doesn't spur the economy because a minimum wage increase robs Peter to pay Paul. That same $2 was already in the economy.

Perhaps, but the $2 may be spent by Paul, the minimum wage earner, whereas Peter may just stick it in a bank and not spend it.

That isn't really a justification in and of itself to raise the minimum wage however.

And if a minimum wage earner can't earn a raise, then he can just keep waiting. Minimum wage employees, by their very definition, are completely fungible. If they aren't, you'll give them a raise to keep them. And if they're fungible, they can ask for raises all they want but they aren't going to get them.

True, but at some point wages that are too low are "more bad" for the worker than they are good for the employer and the consumer.

Workplace laws, including wage and hour laws, exist primarily because of the unbelievable treatment that employers gave to employees before such laws existed. The US had child labor, 16 hour/7 day work weeks, wages that were absurdly low, etc. ad infinitum.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Fairplay

The Governor of Illinois proposed last week that their state raise minimum wage to $10.00 dollars an hour.

That should run more businesses out of that all ready fail state.

One of the issues with the national unemployment rate is that it doesn't account for differences in regional cost of living. $7.25 goes alot farther in Mississippi than it does in Boston. Of course, many states have higher minimum wages than the federal min. wage for that very reason.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by GoWalrus

And here is what you ****ing don't get.

Government is not going to force business into doing things the way they think they should be done. This isn't the USSR.

WTF? This is so wrong it's stunning. Do you know how many laws there are regulating employment? Do you think that equal opportunity laws haven't had an impact? Health and safety (OSHA)? Wage and hour laws?

You can't micromanage, but to say you can't effect some change makes no sense. The question is the cost/benefit of trying to effect some changes, and trying ti minimize unintended consequences or collateral damage.

Obama wants to control the profit margin these places are generating so "the weath is spread around" because he's a communist son of a bitch who can't keep his nose out of everyone else's business.

So was LBJ a Communist? Every other President who raised minimum wages? Or just Obama?

While he may have good intentions (not really because he's a ****ing tyrant), and paying poor people more is a nice fantasy, in the end he's just gonna make it harder for the little guy because HE IS ALWAYS THE GUY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOD CHAIN, even if he's making 9 bucks an hour instead of 7.

Think the guy at the bottom would rather be at the bottom making $9 than making $7.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Perhaps, but the $2 may be spent by Paul, the minimum wage earner, whereas Peter may just stick it in a bank and not spend it.

That isn't really a justification in and of itself to raise the minimum wage however.

It isn't remotely a justification, let alone a justification in and of itself. You aren't really under the impression that money in a bank is money that's sitting on the sidelines, are you? The bank puts that money in the game just as surely as the minimum wage worker that buys a beer with it.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Workplace laws, including wage and hour laws, exist primarily because of the unbelievable treatment that employers gave to employees before such laws existed. The US had child labor, 16 hour/7 day work weeks, wages that were absurdly low, etc. ad infinitum.

I agree that they served a role but I think we've moved beyond the days of "The Jungle". That's the kind of stuff wage/hour laws were designed to prevent - 13 yr olds working 30 hour weeks and meatpackers being ground up into the sausage.

Now they're being used for plain ol' income reallocation and frankly they don't do a lot to address the 'family' problems that we would like to remedy.

Just humping up the minimum wage manages the handy trick of being simultaneously too narrowly drawn and overly inclusive. But it doesn't become a targeted welfare handout for an administration that's taking a lot of heat for being pretty generous with those. That's why he's going that route.

[BucEyedPea]

Wrong, child labor was phasing out well before the federal govt passed laws against.
It was due to the increased standard of living of families who worked in factories whereby they could eventually remove their children. The Progs lied then, as they are now.

[unnecessary drama]

It'll have a ripple effect...all the workers making $10 an hour now are going to want raises to reflect what the minimum wagers got and can you blame them?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

It isn't remotely a justification, let alone a justification in and of itself. You aren't really under the impression that money in a bank is money that's sitting on the sidelines, are you? The bank puts that money in the game just as surely as the minimum wage worker that buys a beer with it.

Depends. When credit markets were seized up not many were lending to anybody. The banks were frozen in fear.

And it's probably fair to say given the Feds policy of late that banks aren't struggling to have money in their accounts to meet the various regulations. Quite the opposite, as banks are moving to try to rid themselves of low balance accounts as they perceive them as without value.

All in all I think $2.00 in the hands of someone who will spend it is probably better for the economy than another $2.00 in some random bank account somewhere, CURRENTLY. That, fo course, is subject to many variables and the analysis wouldn't be the same at different points in time.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

True, but at some point wages that are too low are "more bad" for the worker than they are good for the employer and the consumer.

Workplace laws, including wage and hour laws, exist primarily because of the unbelievable treatment that employers gave to employees before such laws existed. The US had child labor, 16 hour/7 day work weeks, wages that were absurdly low, etc. ad infinitum.

Originally Posted by Amnorix

WTF? This is so wrong it's stunning. Do you know how many laws there are regulating employment? Do you think that equal opportunity laws haven't had an impact? Health and safety (OSHA)? Wage and hour laws?

You can't micromanage, but to say you can't effect some change makes no sense. The question is the cost/benefit of trying to effect some changes, and trying ti minimize unintended consequences or collateral damage.

.

Labor unions, labor laws, OSHA, all that shit had a time and a place. In the 1800s. There aren't any steel mills killing more people than they retain. There aren't any business owners mistreating employees on a large enough scale to warrant Federal action any longer.

Look, some of that stuff was good, and of course the pendulum swung too far in terms workers rights. At some point it needs to swing back the other way and give some rights back to the employer.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

All in all I think $2.00 in the hands of someone who will spend it is probably better for the economy than another $2.00 in some random bank account somewhere, CURRENTLY. That, fo course, is subject to many variables and the analysis wouldn't be the same at different points in time.

Sure, I understand your point. Is that really what we want the feds to be in the business of doing though? Coercing money from businesses (of varying sizes) into the hands of private citizens with the hope of an incremental economic stimulus?

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

All in all I think $2.00 in the hands of someone who will spend it is probably better for the economy than another $2.00 in some random bank account somewhere, CURRENTLY. That, fo course, is subject to many variables and the analysis wouldn't be the same at different points in time.

This is a common sense explanation of why the majority of economists think it doesnt hurt the economy but makes it better in the long run.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Depends. When credit markets were seized up not many were lending to anybody. The banks were frozen in fear.

And it's probably fair to say given the Feds policy of late that banks aren't struggling to have money in their accounts to meet the various regulations. Quite the opposite, as banks are moving to try to rid themselves of low balance accounts as they perceive them as without value.

All in all I think $2.00 in the hands of someone who will spend it is probably better for the economy than another $2.00 in some random bank account somewhere, CURRENTLY. That, fo course, is subject to many variables and the analysis wouldn't be the same at different points in time.

Oh good grief, just admit that you really shouldn't have tried sliding that one over the plate.