i can't believe i'm about to type this, but i found this blade editorial piece to be a good read. of course, the writing was from an outside source.
nonetheless, it address the feel-good political issue of the moment.....the minimum wage.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070122/OPINION02...
most people apparently turn off any intelligence they may have when considering this issue. the recent voter approval of the state constitutional amendment is a clear example of this. oddly enough, the blade was against this amendment as well.
for all the lousy editorials I've read in that paper they were bound to hit on a good one :-)
My only thought about appealing to charities to provide autos for the poverty stricken is that as a 'charity' worker over the years who also pays taxes - it's a big burden. You pay into a welfare system to help people and hear stories about abuses IN the system by the employees.
Add to that policies that are just stupid. I knew a woman who's hubby stepped out suddenly. Left without his income, she was a stay at home Mom, and his having cleaned their accounts out - she was with no cash. Doing what any responsible party would do, she obtained employment and went to the Welfare Dept' to ask for help for one month. She needed about $400.00 to make it until her first paycheck. They turned her down flat. She wasn't allowed to 'own' a home. They wanted her to abandon the house, take a section rental and they'd give her 1200.00 a month in benefits, health insurance and something like 800.00 food stamps.
Hunh? Rather than help out over that first month, they'd rather set her up to receive substantially more, perpetually.
Makes no sense and we're paying for it. And yes, we donate clothing, run a food shelter and I support a drug mission and a homeless shelter. Should be that if the government is taking money to DO something and the charities are actually doing it - we shouldn't have to support both systems.
Ok, rant over :-)~
Wholesaler...just wanted to make sure that you know this wasn't a Blade editorial...it's an 'op-ed' piece and I read it a couple of days ago on www.townhall.com
Anyway...TMACOG operates a good car-buy program in Lucas County to help people who need transportation to/from work. They don't just get a car, they learn how to take care of it, too. Really good program - but subsidized by your tax dollars...
What's wrong with having the minimum wage keep pace with inflation, or with worker productivity gains?
There are arguments on both sides as far as the effect it has on unemployment. For instance, the last time it was raised federally unemployment went down. And states that have higher minimum wage than the federal wage, also saw a decrease in unemployment. Obviously, it's not the only factor when considering unemployment as nothing in the economy exists in a vaccuum. What a lot of people overlook when considering economic measures is the social costs. So, shouldn't the minimum wage keep pace with the rate of inflation, or with worker productivity gains?
Will keep pace with either social pressure or economic pressure. It cannot exist in both areas. What some are trying to do is to bring social pressure to create a living wage.
If you can't get behind that idea - it's very likely you aren't having any problem covering your overhead.
1/4 of those folks will not thank God for their blessings. The other 3/4's do so regularly.
Kills ya', don't it....
overall, i'm against any minimum wage increase. more importantly, i'm against any minimum wage issue being placed in the constitution.
i'm a free markets person and i believe the free markets have worked well in terms of wages.
pink_slip, i'm honestly curious. where did you get the info on the unemployment rate and minimum wage? i'm particularly interested in the state w/ higher minimums vs states w/ $5.15. any comparisons between states is tricky because of the other variables involved, like you had mentioned. regardless, if you have a link, could you post it? i'm genuinely interested.
also, what social costs do you see in regards to the min wage being set at the current levels? the vast majority of minimum wage earners are young and w/o dependents. they aren't 41 yrs old and raising 4 kids. quite honestly, if they are, it doesn't sound like a system or instutional problem. it sounds as though it's a "you" problem. how deficient must a person be to be making min wage at the age of 41 (or whatever)?
No, seriously Maggie tell us what you think. I honestly don't mean to offend.
Why aren't you against unions? Aren't they bad for the economy? Don't they drive wages up? Everything I read on conservative sites is anti-union.
The EPI data should be used for one thing only in my opinion. That the effect on unemployment is negligible, therefore that argument should not be an issue.
"If you want to do the same research I did, I'd be happpy to refer you to all the other articles which document the...vast majority of people making minimum wage only stay at such wages for a very short period of time (usually while gaining necessary job experience), or the data which documents that most people at minimum wage are not full-time workers but are usually second incomes in households which earn more than $40k, or students."
We both know however that those that are "at" the minimum wage are not the only ones who benefit. I would however greatly appreciate reading this data if you are serious. (and if it's not from The Heritage Foundation or The Cato Institute). Who knows, you may change my mind.
Btw, a very important "think tank" advocated raising the minimum wage--the American public.
What was so terrible about the minimum wage as it stood?
About 3% of the working public is subject to the minimum wage. Most of these are young and single in jobs that have no development worth mentioning.
On top of that, we have states setting their own, higher minimum wages, and then on top of ALL THAT, we have cities setting "living wages".
Really, what was the problem that Pelosi et al wanted to solve? I'm grasping for the reasons here, but my socially liberal side can't compete with my economically conservative side on the issue. I'm rather confident that there ARE no reasons.
I find it funny how the debate here goes from minimum wage to influence on the unions.
What intrigues me the most is no one has discussed the racial issue I brought up previously.
If no one wants to look at that portion of the debate that's fine but I don't want to hear the subject of race brought up during other debates such as "Cop on Civilian violence" or "Voter Fraud".
MikeyA
Mikeya said "Plus raising the minimum wage is a racial issue. It actually hurts immigrants more than any other group. Immigrants from Central America already work for pennies under the table. By raising the minimum wage you are effectively increasing the gap between them and those who do make minimum wage. "
Ok, i'll bite, working under the table is illegal. If the person working is also illegal well then they're breaking the law so........
Plus raising the minimum wage is a racial issue. It actually hurts immigrants more than any other group. Immigrants from Central America already work for pennies under the table. By raising the minimum wage you are effectively increasing the gap between them and those who do make minimum wage
I honestly fail to see why legal employees should be paid less just so that the illegals working under the table won't have such a large gap between their wages and anyone else.
I don't really have a problem with the 20somethings making more money. Maybe they'll ask for less from Mom and Dad then. Same goes for the teens.
If they make more then spend more isn't that supposed to be good for everyone?
Personally I think this raise should be applied to waitstaff too. Instead of them being paid $2.15 and resturant patrons expected to make up the bulk then of their wages through tips.
If congress can raise it's wages why can't the people making minimum wage get an increase too? All in all the "kid" behind the counter at McDonalds is probably working more hours then congress does anyways.
Kat I think you raise a good point on waitstaff. I'd actually not give them a raise but make their tips tax free. I believe that would better help their situation.
TM I agree with what you are saying but many times we address issues of poverty without really addressing issues of poverty. For example stopping homelessness in this country is actually better combatted by improving mental health funding.
While I agree that we need to deal with the issue of paying under the table we also need to recognize the gap we are creating by raising minimum wage. They are hand in hand.
As a better idea I say if we insist on raising the minimum wage instead of giving it to the employees to spend at the club, or on the new Ipod etc. I say we tell employers add $1 more an hour but make them do it with a basic medical plan. It would help to lower the medically uncovered in this country and would make those minimum wage reliant families less susceptable to more personal tragedies such as with a unforseen medical cost.
Now that would really improve this countries quality of life without increasing a "financial gap".
MikeyA
rant understood and appreciated.
i realize it wasn't a blade piece, but was surprised it was in the paper.
When you get down to it, owning and operating a car are expensive actions. Over a 4-year own period, you'd better budget 30
What's wrong is the minimum wage is it's viewed even by the article listed as "a way to combat poverty". When in fact it's not.
If this were a way to combat poverty let's get rid of poverty all the way and raise the minimum wage to a level that brings everyone earning it out of poverty. That should solve everything right?
Wrong. With the exception of two times since the minimum wage was introduced it has caused a drop in employment every time it was increased. Now theoretically I have no problem raising the minimum wage but only as long as we examine those two instances and determine what factors contributed to the wage increase without an increase in unemployment.
If raising the minimum wage increases unemployment how does it combat poverty? It doesn't. Raising it just because we feel it's "due" is an irresponsible approach to those who's jobs may be on the line.
MikeyA
ps....when i said "you", i didn't mean you in particular. i'd hate for that to be taken the wrong way. wink, wink.
When I did research on the minimum wage provision for Ohio, the only source I could find that was promoting the minimum wage was the EPI, the Economic Policy Institute (http://www.epi.org/) which is billed as a non-partisan think-tank, but which has 9 of it's 19 board members who are union members or former Sec. of Labor for Democrat presidents...
Even Policy Matters Ohio (http://www.policymattersohio.org/) used the EPI data for their position paper on Ohio's minimum wage constitutional amendment. Of their 18 board members, 6 are members of unions or Democrat elected officials...and their president is state Sen. CJ Prentiss...
EPI's research was the only source referenced in numerous columns, articles and position papers on this issue.
Pink on the surface the answer is yes but it's much more complex than that. The problem with a national minimum wage is you're dealing with making changes in all areas of the country. Each area is as different from the next. By instituting national limits it risks advancing some areas while hurting others.
Raising the minimume wage generally helps urban areas while hurting rural areas. There is poverty in each area. Ohio with it's rust belt tradition is still more rural than urban. By raising the minimum wage you increase the standard of living of those in New York and LA while hurting those in places like Swanton and Delta. Now I'm not saying don't raise it but I am saying minimum wage determinations at the state level are better for the state's standard of living.
Plus raising the minimum wage is a racial issue. It actually hurts immigrants more than any other group. Immigrants from Central America already work for pennies under the table. By raising the minimum wage you are effectively increasing the gap between them and those who do make minimum wage. In most cases it tries to do what it was started to prevent and make the poor poorer.
MikeyA
pink...i had a really nice response for you that I hope would promote further discussion on this, but the internet just blew it all away...
I'll try to recreate it an respond, but it will be later on...
.......the very same "think tank" that give us smoking bans.
ya gotta love clueless mob rule.
GZ - they do that as well ... actually, primarily TARTA passes. Not everyone qualifies for the car-buy program - the eligibility requirements accommodate for the ability to maintain the vehicle.
It's true, much of that info wholesaler is from the Economic Policy Institute. The numbers in their report are taken from the US Department of Labor, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In fact, I went to the BLS site myself and looked up states with higher minimum wage than the Fed. I picked Jan '06 as an arbitrary month. I found that 13 out of 19 states with a minimum wage of higher than 5.15 had LOWER unemployment rates than the national unemployment rate. Of course as I said, it's not the only determining factor. But it is what it is.
Maggie, do you dispute their numbers or only their support of unions? I mean, I know in general Republicans are at war with unions...
Pink - you continue to try and paint every conservative or republican with a wide brush ... and, to be quite honest, I'm beginning to resent your mis-characterizations of me. Perhaps I'm taking it personally, but such attacks, as I see them, really detract from the potential good conversations we can have on issues.
I'm not at war with unions and neither are most of the Republicans or Conservatives that I know. I've been honored by the support I've had from unions throughout my public career. Certainly, we've disagreed on issues, but they've always appreciated my positions and my consistency in decisions. And I appreciate the role they play in our community.
The minimum wage issue is vitally important to unions because they use that as a standard by which they set the pay for their members. Unions are as much of a special interest as 'big oil' or 'evil corporations.' The union dominance of the board of a think tank that promotes an increase in the minimum wage is important for critical analysis of the issue.
I also find it interesting that they're the only think tank (out of many in the country) that promoted the minimum wage increase.
Finally, I don't dispute the federal data - I checked that out too. But as you so correctly pointed out - it's a fallacy to make the correlation that increases in minimum wage have no negative impact on employment because of several states who raised their minimum and also saw a decrease in unemployment. I mean - I got elected and unemployment in Lucas County began to decline. If the argument is valid for states which increased their minimum wage, then let's give me credit for declining Lucas County unemployment numbers. (Please note the sarcasm in this position.)
So many things go into an analysis of a state's unemployment rate that it's pointless to give validity to EPI's conclusions. Further, EPI concludes that the minimum wage didn't have a detrimental effect on employment. The problem is... they cannot know if the unemployment rates in those states could have been even LOWER without an increase in the minimum wage.
If you want to do the same research I did, I'd be happpy to refer you to all the other articles which document the detrimental impacts of minimum wage increases on the unskilled workers, the federal census data which shows that the vast majority of people making minimum wage only stay at such wages for a very short period of time (usually while gaining necessary job experience), or the data which documents that most people at minimum wage are not full-time workers but are usually second incomes in households which earn more than $40k, or students.
I can also direct you to numerous references which show that increases in minimum wages artificially inflate the value of employees which mean that employers will want 'more' for their money - with 'more' being more experience or more skills.
So...with a majority of economists and other think tanks saying such a feel-good legislation is detrimental to the very people it's supposed to help, how do you justify accepting only EPI's conclusions to the contrary?