Minimum Wages Goes Up Today

[Isabella]

Originally Posted by piemaker720

I beg to differ, if a retired person has 30 to 40 years paid on a house, they are not just going to move on a whime. Why do you think they don't deserve to get a raise in minimum wage. If a person has invested 30 to 50 years in a job to retire and they work to supplement their income, your saying they don't deserve it. Listen to the news it is filled with stories of elderly who can't afford their medicine on a fixed income or have trouble paying utilities on a fixed income because of high fuel cost. Besides you ask awhile ago why I thought a student deserved a higher wage, but you say you live in a place where mostly students recieve minimum wage, but they don't deserve a raise.

You should pay a person according to the type of job. They start out at a wage an after a period of time if employer is satisfied with their performance they get a raise. You know, WalMart could do without hiring greeters. Many jobs for elderly will be eliminated.

[piemaker720]

Originally Posted by Isabella

Rhertz, I agree it is not fair. An employer offers a job at a rate of pay he can afford. An individual has the right to accept it or look for a higher wage. If an employer does not give them a raise then the employee has the right to seek another job with higher pay. Me for instance cannot afford to pay someone over $6 to clean my house who works slowly. I will have to let them go. This person has no transportation and depends on employer to give them transportation. How many people are going to be willing to hire this person? She is much better off receiving minumum wage at $5.15 an hour than nothing. She also gets $350 in food stamps each month. I pay social security on her and do not deduct her part out of her pay. She pays no taxes. There is no way I am going to pay someone over $7 an hour to watch TV and do a job that takes 4 hours in 8 hours. I feed her and pay her while she eats, too. I have to hire another person to come every other week to do the work she does not do. I also clean up after her after she leaves. Some people don't deserve to be paid more and these are the people who will suffer. Pay should be determined on perfomance. My husband gets raises he never asks for because he is valuable to his employer.

You are talking about someone to clean your house, I would get rid of that one that does nothing. I'm talking about companies as big as wal-mart, even convience stores that are a chain. That restaurant that I worked at in Jonesboro for 3 dollars a hour. You know why he got by with it. They say he has to have 5 or more working that was not related to him and he didn't because his wife, son, daughter worked there. I know because other people have tried to turn him in before. You know his son or daughter sure did not work for $3.00 a hour. Its true some people don't deserve what they get but that is not to say everyone is that way. But in truth if this lady does this to you it is because you let her get away with it.

[piemaker720]

Originally Posted by Isabella

You should pay a person according to the type of job. They start out at a wage an after a period of time if employer is satisfied with their performance they get a raise. You know, WalMart could do without hiring greeters. Many jobs for elderly will be eliminated.

I agree with this but what if you have a good employee that does not get offered a raise after a period of time just because the employer is tight waded, it happens, they think if I hired them at a certain rate and the worker doesn't say anything about a raise then the employer is not gonna give one because he thinks why should he. If they start at one rate of pay they should get a raise if the employer is satisfied. Wal-Mart can do without greeters then the elderly will just go to convience stores or fast food.

[piemaker720]

You know we talked about fast food and waiters and waitress that only make $2.13 an hour because of tips. A tip is another name for gratiuty. Do you know what that means?

<gra·tu·i·ty /grəˈtuɪti, -ˈtyu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[gruh-too-i-tee, -tyoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties. 1. a gift of money, over and above payment due for service, as to a waiter or bellhop; tip.
2. something given without claim or demand. >

It's a gift, not everyone tips these days.

Also what I said about you being the reason that woman does what she does, I may have said that wrong. I know some people are kind hearted and when they try to help someone like a job, they tend to over look their sloppy work habits. It was really nothing against you.

[Isabella]

Originally Posted by piemaker720

You know we talked about fast food and waiters and waitress that only make $2.13 an hour because of tips. A tip is another name for gratiuty. Do you know what that means?

<gra·tu·i·ty /grəˈtuɪti, -ˈtyu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[gruh-too-i-tee, -tyoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties. 1. a gift of money, over and above payment due for service, as to a waiter or bellhop; tip.
2. something given without claim or demand. >

It's a gift, not everyone tips these days.

Also what I said about you being the reason that woman does what she does, I may have said that wrong. I know some people are kind hearted and when they try to help someone like a job, they tend to over look their sloppy work habits. It was really nothing against you.

You are right, I allow her to work, because she needs the income and no one else would put up with her. She is not very bright, but she is a good person. Since I have to hire someone else to come and do what she cannot do, there is no way I can pay her more. People like her will lose out with the increase in minimum wage. If you don't like what someone pays you then go find another job. No one forces you to work for lower wages. There are people in the work force who are uneducated and without skills that need jobs, but will not be hired if an employer cannot afford to hire them.

Your comment about waiters and waitresses, they should be paid minimum wage and not under. I don't see how employers got away with this over the years. It is not all black and white. There are a lot of grey areas. The private sector will be hurt by this increase. Many people will lose jobs.

[Isaac-Saxxon]

The government should not be able to tell a business owner how much he or she should have to pay workers. This will drive up the cost of doing business and cost to the consumer and then the democRATs will blame this on the GOP and use it as another one of their nasty little political tools. All in the name of helping the little man and to buy votes.

[Isabella]

So true Isaac!

[LateNight]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose a bill to raise the federally-mandated minimum wage. Raising living standards for all Americans is an admirable goal, however, to believe that Congress can raise the standard of living for working Americans by simply forcing employers to pay their employees a higher wage is equivalent to claiming that Congress can repeal gravity by passing a law saying humans shall have the ability to fly.

Economic principles dictate that when government imposes a minimum wage rate above the market wage rate, it creates a surplus `wedge' between the supply of labor and the demand for labor, leading to an increase in unemployment. Employers cannot simply begin paying more to workers whose marginal productivity does not meet or exceed the law-imposed wage. The only course of action available to the employer is to mechanize operations or employ a higher-skilled worker whose output meets or exceeds the `minimum wage.' This, of course, has the advantage of giving the skilled worker an additional (and government-enforced) advantage over the unskilled worker. For example, where formerly an employer had the option of hiring three unskilled workers at $5 per hour or one skilled worker at $16 per hour, a minimum wage of $6 suddenly leaves the employer only the choice of the skilled worker at an additional cost of $1 per hour. I would ask my colleagues, if the minimum wage is the means to prosperity, why stop at $6.65--why not $50, $75, or $100 per hour?

Those who are denied employment opportunities as a result of the minimum wage are often young people at the lower end of the income scale who are seeking entry-level employment. Their inability to find an entry-level job will limit their employment prospects for years to come. Thus, raising the minimum wage actually lowers the employment and standard of living of the very people proponents of the minimum wage claim will benefit from government intervention in the economy!

Furthermore, interfering in the voluntary transactions of employers and employees in the name of making things better for low wage earners violates citizens' rights of association and freedom of contract as if to say to citizens `you are incapable of making employment decisions for yourself in the marketplace.'



Mr. Speaker, Congress should not fool itself into believing that the package of small business tax cuts will totally compensate for the damage inflicted on small businesses and their employees by the minimum wage increase. This assumes that Congress is omnipotent and thus can strike a perfect balance between tax cuts and regulations so that no firm, or worker, in the country is adversely effected by federal policies. If the 20th Century taught us anything it was that any and all attempts to centrally plan an economy, especially one as large and diverse as America's, are doomed to fail.

In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that while it may make them feel good to raise the federal minimum wage, the real life consequences of this bill will be vested upon those who can least afford to be deprived of work opportunities. Therefore, rather than pretend that Congress can repeal the economic principles, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead embrace a program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to strengthen the greatest producer of jobs and prosperity in human history: the free market.

-- Ron Paul

[Isabella]

LOL, I was reading and I was thinking, wow he is so right and great points, truly impressed with Latenight then I see the name Ron Paul at the end. Anyway, Ron Paul could not have said it better. The little man will be the one who suffers in the end. Unemployment will rise.

[piemaker720]

You know I don't understand why all of you are griping and so against the minimum wage increase. This raise only affects a small portion of workers. If you already make above minimum wage then you will not be getting a raise. It is to help the little people catch up with the economy. You can talk how the people needs to go to school to improve themselves but someone still has to do these jobs. It is also fine and good when you can sit in judgement of these people in your life, with your family and home and you have alot of single parents with children trying to do the best they can with what they can get. If you really understood you know life throws things at people out of the blue. A man dies and the wife has never worked, she has kids she has to take care of. It happens. Sure there are some people in these low paying jobs that are worthless and sorry but those same type of people run your big corperations too. Do you think a CEO of a corperation should deserve to make 6 figure paychecks? I have been where the little people are and unless you have you will never know how they feel. You can also say if a person doesn't like what they are being paid, quit and go somewhere else, but then the boss that pays low will not keep workers. Big amounts of turn overs cost more than a faithful employee that stays put. Have you ever been in a business when everytime you go there someone knew is working and you wonder what is going on.

[piemaker720]

Isabella, I understand what you are saying but there is one thing that differs here. You are not a business that makes money, you hire someone to clean your house, you don't have to pay minimum wage. You can set your own amount. I'm sure the wage increase is for businesses.

[Isabella]

Piemaker, you are missing the point everyone is trying to make to you. Many businesses cannot afford the increase in minimum wage to over $7 per hour. They will eliminate jobs then the people you are referring to will not have a job. Another point, they will have to increase the price for services/goods. Cost of living will increase. They will not be better off. If an employer is making enough profit they will increase their rate of pay to employees who deserve it. Employers should have the freedom to make this decision themselves, not the federal governmemt. I have tried to explain it as simple as I can for you.

[Isabella]

Originally Posted by piemaker720

Isabella, I understand what you are saying but there is one thing that differs here. You are not a business that makes money, you hire someone to clean your house, you don't have to pay minimum wage. You can set your own amount. I'm sure the wage increase is for businesses.

No it is for everyone. My family does have a business. I was trying to get you to see a very simple example. This does not apply just to large businesses.

[AnimeSpirit]

I agree with Pie. The minimum wage increase will only effect people who are working minimum wage jobs.

Also, we need to be clear about one thing. Productivity has nothing to do with how much a particular field of employment pays. What makes one field of employment pay more than another? Is the productivity? NO! It's the rarity of the skills needed to fill that position. I've worked in McDonald's before, flipping hamburgers, and I will admit that I worked longer and harder hours doing that then the standard 9 to 5 job I work now. Yet, my current job pays more.

Personally, I think if far fewer people flocked to these minimum wage jobs, the demand for these jobs would increase, causing an increase in pay for that field. That's supply and demand for you. Maybe employment just isn't dispersed enough, but what can you do short of supporting communism?

[Isabella]

Piemaker, please don't take offense. I don't mean to be picking on you. You are not looking at the whole picture, though. It would be wonderful if everyone could make higher wages.