that would be making the assumption that we operatin a vacuum though

 

you wouldn't imply that the level of skill required for a congressman is more than that of a minimum wage worker, would you?

 

also, over the years I think it would be fair to say that the cost of acquiring such a job (education, campaigning, etc) has gone up in a disproportionate amount to the cost of acquiring a minimum wage job

 

finally, i don't care to guess, but would you say that there the pool of qualified candidates for both positions has stayed static?

this issue is not as black and white as some of you think. if you increase it too much, you will see more jobs going overseas and some business unable to afford the increase.

Show me even 1 example of a company that has outsourced in order to avoid paying minimum wage. Unions are a MUCH bigger player in that regard due to the additional costs associated with higher than average wages [far exceeding minimum wage] and above average benefits packages.

 

also, keep in mind that wage increases are felt more in the rural areas in an adverse way

If by “rural� you mean “agricultural,� then this is not true. Farmers have a completely different scale for minimum wage as do businesses with tipped employees. So, Aunt Flo's Diner doesn't have to pay Peggy Sue $5.15 per hour to serve coffee because the expectation is that she'll make at least $3 per hour in tips. And farmer Brown doesn't have to pay his migrant worker $5.15 per hour to pick oranges because they are working for him illegally - uh - I mean - because they are unskilled labor in a low profit industry.

 

For the record? Wal-Mart is the devil.

 

also, over the years I think it would be fair to say that the cost of acquiring such a job (education, campaigning, etc) has gone up in a disproportionate amount to the cost of acquiring a minimum wage job

Campaign funds are from a completely different pool and 0% comes from salary, so that is a bad example. I would also say that a BA/BS is roughly equivelent to a HS diploma 20 years ago so those costs are a wash.

finally, i don't care to guess, but would you say that there the pool of qualified candidates for both positions has stayed static?

No, I would say that the pool of qualified candidates has increased for both in line with population growth. On second thought, one might argue that there are more individuals qualified to run for office now due to the increase in the % of the population receiving basic and advanced degrees.

no, by rural I mean rural - low cost of living places where wages & expenses are typically smaller - not waitresses & farmers (although they probably do play a larger role than other economies) - i'm talking about the guys working at the pharmacy, sweeping floors at the deli, doing janitorial work, renting movies, etc

 

campaign funding is a different pool, but there is a personal cost occured to get a campaign started - this may be minimized at the national level, but at the local level it is probably more relevant - even with that conceded it is still a lot more costly to a persons personal income to obtain an elected governmental job than it is to obtain a minimum wage job

 

you do not currently, nor ever have, needed an advanced degree to make minimum wage - you have always needed an advanced degree to be viable political candidate - the cost of education has skyrocketed in the past 20 years at the university level, while the out of pocket expense for a public HS education has remained fairly flat for the student - no way this is a wash

this issue is not as black and white as some of you think. if you increase it too much, you will see more jobs going overseas and some business unable to afford the increase.

Show me even 1 example of a company that has outsourced in order to avoid paying minimum wage. Unions are a MUCH bigger player in that regard due to the additional costs associated with higher than average wages [far exceeding minimum wage] and above average benefits packages.

 

 

show me where I said that companies are outsourcing due to minimum wage? Companies outsource due to benefits on costs for the most part regardless of minimum wage and/or unions. Increase the cost and you will see more jobs going overseas

 

btw, I see outsourcing as something we need to adapt rather than fight. There is no point in fighting it. . . It is happening and it is here to stay

this issue is not as black and white as some of you think. if you increase it too much, you will see more jobs going overseas and some business unable to afford the increase.

show me where I said that companies are outsourcing due to minimum wage? Companies outsource due to benefits on costs for the most part regardless of minimum wage and/or unions. Increase the cost and you will see more jobs going overseas

My bad. I must be confused. I thought when you said "if you increase it [the minimum wage] too much, you will see more jobs going overseas" you meant that companies would be forced to outsource rather than pay increased minimum wages.

 

no, by rural I mean rural - low cost of living places where wages & expenses are typically smaller - not waitresses & farmers (although they probably do play a larger role than other economies) - i'm talking about the guys working at the pharmacy, sweeping floors at the deli, doing janitorial work, renting movies, etc

 

campaign funding is a different pool, but there is a personal cost occured to get a campaign started - this may be minimized at the national level, but at the local level it is probably more relevant - even with that conceded it is still a lot more costly to a persons personal income to obtain an elected governmental job than it is to obtain a minimum wage job

 

you do not currently, nor ever have, needed an advanced degree to make minimum wage - you have always needed an advanced degree to be viable political candidate - the cost of education has skyrocketed in the past 20 years at the university level, while the out of pocket expense for a public HS education has remained fairly flat for the student - no way this is a wash

So by "rural," did you actually mean "areas with depressed economies?" There's a big difference there.

 

Since we are talking about the FEDERAL minimum wage and the US Congress, let's stay on point and use federal campaign funds and rules as our measure. 0% of a politician's salary goes towards a campaign. Period.

 

My argument is simply that the talent pool - even at the bottom - is greater than ever. You have people with two and four year degrees competing for minimum wage jobs at Wal-Mart or Target with people with GED's or HS diplomas.

this issue is not as black and white as some of you think. if you increase it too much, you will see more jobs going overseas and some business unable to afford the increase.

show me where I said that companies are outsourcing due to minimum wage? Companies outsource due to benefits on costs for the most part regardless of minimum wage and/or unions. Increase the cost and you will see more jobs going overseas

My bad. I must be confused. I thought when you said "if you increase it [the minimum wage] too much, you will see more jobs going overseas" you meant that companies would be forced to outsource rather than pay increased minimum wages.

I was talking in a future tense and you were challenging me to show you one case of a company that outsourced to avoid paying minimum wage. . .

 

And it is not wether companies are forced to outsource or not. The smart money will move to look for ways to keep or increase their profits with relative controllable risk. that's why I'm afraid of a big increase in minimum wage. it may hurt more than help

how does that make it necessarily a depressed economy?!

 

by rural I mean small towns, villages, cities that you apparently aren't that familiar with - ones that don't have tons of industry, but get by on more of the cottage industry

 

places where wages aren't that high, but you can buy a 4 bed, 2 bath home for $70,000

 

places where small businesses prevail and often skate by - where business owners don't necessarily become super rich, but can live a comfortable life and provide jobs for the community

 

just by saying that an area has this type of demographic doesn't necessarily make it a depressed economy - to say as such is insulting to anyone living in a rural area - unfortunately many of these areas are becomming depressed by factors other than wages - but that is a separate topic

 

also, if anyone with a viable skill set is making more than minimum wage for an extended period of time that is their own fault

 

there isn't an abundance of degree holding individuals fighting for jobs at mcdonalds or walmart in most of the country - the majority of the workers in this segment are non degree holders

 

sure competition is greater and the skill sets have improved - however the challenge shouldn't be to pay skilled workers more for working below their abilities - instead it should be to stimulate economy and have these people use their skills in a way that benefits the economy

 

you shouldn't be paid more for equal work just because you are overqualified - I could go get 3 PHDs, but it wouldn't earn me a nickel more in my current position so it would be a waste in my current position

how does that make it necessarily a depressed economy?!

 

by rural I mean small towns, villages, cities that you apparently aren't that familiar with - ones that don't have tons of industry, but get by on more of the cottage industry

 

places where wages aren't that high, but you can buy a 4 bed, 2 bath home for $70,000

That's why I asked for clarification. In your previous post, you simply made a statement regarding their employment type and cost of living. There were no qualifications made regarding the area on a more generic basis.

 

So, before I continue, is it safe to say that you are referring more to suburban and exurban areas?

juanky - inflation and recession are not necessarily linked

 

it is possible (and happens fairly frequently) where stagnant prices occur in times of lower production - with recession often comes unemployment - when it gets scary is when you put inflation on top of that, you get something called stagflation

 

picture a scenario of high unemployment and high inflation - in typical periods of high unemployment the employees who eventually get squeezed are the low income earners and those employed by businesses who are unable to sustain the economic factors

 

these employees will get cut - however since prices are going up at say 6%, the minimum wage is also increasing that much, making it harder to retain current employees and impossible to hire new ones - the fed will try to contract monetary supply by increasing bond rates - the people with excess money are going to be more inclined to take advantage of rate and invest in markets tied to bond rates instead of consumerism

 

also with the increased rate you have student loans, mortgages, everything going up - however, those with lessor skills still can't get work because it's getting harder and harder for employers to pay for them

 

so basically the poor get crushed in this scenario - but at least some can feel good for helping them

 

also in some rural communities you can live off the minimum wage - it isn't easy, but can be done

 

with that said I have to agree with Irish - we are a competitive work force - although I don't mind an occasional increase to the minimum wage, do it when it makes sense - also, lets remember that minimum wage jobs are supposed to be the ones you raise a family and live large on - so many people try to live beyond their means - if you want the better lifestyle have some ambition and work for it

I agree with you completely, but here's where I'm coming from this.

 

I disagree in general with the minimum wage. It hurts the economy and companies/consumers will usually cover their own (for the most part). Nobody will work at McDonald's if they pay $2 an hour. However, it still gets used as a campaign issue every 5-10 years even though everyone has come to acknowledge it's going to (unfortunately) continue.

 

I think, if anything, we should give tax incentives to companies that have their CEO's wages at a fixed scale to the lowest paid employee. It's not forced, but it benefits people who do it.

to get past verbage let's use this from our friendly government

 

what I'm referring to is what they are defining as "non-metro"

 

Metro and nonmetro areas are defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In 2003, OMB defined metro areas as (1) central counties with one or more urbanized areas, and (2) outlying counties that are economically tied to the core counties as measured by work commuting. Outlying counties are included if 25 percent of workers living in the county commute to the central counties, or if 25 percent of the employment in the county consists of workers coming out from the central counties?the so-called "reverse" commuting pattern. Nonmetro counties are outside the boundaries of metro areas and are further subdivided into two types: micropolitan areas, centered on urban clusters of 10,000 or more persons, and all remaining "noncore" counties.

 

 

 

the source is the USDA Economic Research Service

Okay, so I printed up your map and threw a dart at the middle of the pink. I hit Finney County, Kansas. Since the largest town in Finney County is Garden City, KS, let's use that.

 

How will raising the minimum wage hurt me as a bookstore owner [5 employees] in Garden City, KS?

 

To further my point, take a look at this graphic:

 

Green = States with minimum wage rates higher than the Federal

Blue = States with minimum wage rates the same as the Federal

Yellow = States with no minimum wage law

 

Look at the Green states then look at the Yellow states. Which states would YOU argue are in better financial shape?

it probably won't - it probably isn't going to help your employees all that much either

 

as stated - my main objection is tying a wage increase to an inflationary indicator

 

in an inflationary time as this small business owner you will be personally and professionally impacted by the standard course of action by the fed (increasing rates) - this can increase any rate you (or your landlord if you are renting) may have on any loan that isn't fixed (which includes may student loans & mortgages)

 

even if those costs are all fixed, the cost of acquiring the books, cleaning products, pens, furniture or whatever else you may need to operate are going to go up increasing your business expense

 

also, demand for a non-essential item such as books is probably going to decrease as people will either put more of their income to essential goods that are also going up in prices or take advante of the higher rates to invest instead of spend disposable income

 

so right now you are facing flat to falling sales and an increased operating expense

 

on top of this, it is now mandated that you need to pay each and every one of your employees more

 

say at a $5.50 min wage with 5 employees working 40 hour weeks that comes to $1,100 a week in labor costs. 3% inflation is considered pretty healthy, so lets say at 5% there would be the fed actions that could trigger the above. Shifting the min wage from $5.50 by 5% creates a min wage of $5.76 and increases the employee expense to $1,152

 

so basically another $2,700 in expenses yearly and that is for a pretty small operation - keep in mind your personal expenses are also going up so it will be harder to reinvest into your business

 

and that is at a pretty modest rate of inflation for a fairly brief time period

 

Okay, so I printed up your map and threw a dart at the middle of the pink. I hit Finney County, Kansas. Since the largest town in Finney County is Garden City, KS, let's use that.

 

How will raising the minimum wage hurt me as a bookstore owner [5 employees] in Garden City, KS?

 

To further my point, take a look at this graphic:

 

Green = States with minimum wage rates higher than the Federal

Blue = States with minimum wage rates the same as the Federal

Yellow = States with no minimum wage law

 

Look at the Green states then look at the Yellow states. Which states would YOU argue are in better financial shape?

 

 

this also leads to my point that a federal min wage is mainly just political banter because most states already exceed it

 

also, you wouldn't argue that the green states are having their economies driven by minimum wage earners would you?! - also some of those states aren't exactly economic powerhouses - do you mean to say that montana is much better off economically than wyoming or idaho?

 

or that arkansas is in much better economic shape than tennessee?

The only flaw in this argument is that you are assuming inflation. An increase in minimum wage does NOT guarantee inflation.

 

I would also like to throw this into the mix:

 

Jan 1, 1978 $2.65 for all covered, nonexempt workers

Jan 1, 1979 $2.90 for all covered, nonexempt workers

Jan 1, 1980 $3.10 for all covered, nonexempt workers

Jan 1, 1981 $3.35 for all covered, nonexempt workers

Apr 1, 1984 $3.80 for all covered, nonexempt workers

Apr 1, 1991 $4.25 for all covered, nonexempt workers

Oct 1, 1996 $4.75 for all covered, nonexempt workers

Sep 1, 1997 $5.15 for all covered, nonexempt workers

 

These represent the dates of increases in Federal minimum wage rates. [link: http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm]

 

So, it has been TEN YEARS since there has been an increase in the Federal minimum wage. How much has the cost of gas [or bus/subway tokens], milk, and bread gone up since 1997? Is it fair to say that the time has come to throw our brothers and sisters a bone, here? I think there is no argument.

also, you wouldn't argue that the green states are having their economies driven by minimum wage earners would you?!

No, however it is worth noting that states that have chosen to exceed the federal minimum have, in general, prospered.

also some of those states aren't exactly economic powerhouses - do you mean to say that montana is much better off economically than wyoming or idaho?

As a matter of fact, Montana went from a rank of 47 in per capita personal income in 2003 to 39 in 2005, surpassing Idaho in the process. Wyoming is a tougher subject because half of the state is owned by the government. And since travel and tourism is such a huge part of their economy [Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Jackson Hole, etc] the minimum wage almost doesn't even apply.

or that arkansas is in much better economic shape than tennessee?

Since I generally associate Arkansas [and its demon seed Wal-Mart, which accounts for $8.90 of every $100 in retail dollars spent in this country] with the butt crack of our fair nation, I decline to comment on that. :shifty

i think there is miscommunication - my main foray into this thread was to respond that I didn't like the idea of tying a minimum wage into inflation - here is a bit from my first post on the thread

 

I don't think it's necessary to adjust at all - but economically wouldn't be opposed to a reasonable one time increase every 5 years or so if the prevailing economic condition could sustain it

 

however, tying something that is essentially loose money to an imperfect indicator and having dollars become more readily available during inflationary times is just nonsense

 

as stated, i'm not necessarily opposed to increases in minimum wage - i just don't think it's smart to limit flexibility with fiscal or monetary policy

 

this pretty much makes a loose money situation everytime there is inflation

 

in the example provided I took a pretty modest situation - if there was something more extreme like what happened in the 70s where yearly inflation was between 6 and 10% for the decade the results would be much more dramatic and adverse given the situation and lack of flexibility - even in normal inflationary times where you get a 1-2 yr span of 5-7% inflation it could hurt

 

so to summarize my thoughts:

 

I don't think a federal min wage increase would have much impact if kept to reasonable levels

 

I'm not opposed to a min wage increase

 

I feel that a COLA is perfectly reasonable and that the marketplace has adjusted fairly well to this on it's own, but would not oppose periodic adjustments based on cost of living

 

I absolutely do not like legislating an inflexible measure that will rapidly increase wages during times of high inflation

keep in mind that Montana didn't increase thier minimum wage until 2007 - it appears that isn't what caused them to jump past Idaho

 

this chart is pre-2006 election

 

 

here is bit from the state of montana webpage

 

Q. When did the increase in the minimum wage take effect?

A: January 1, 2007. As a result, all time worked after midnight on December 31, 2006, must be paid at the rate of at least $6.15 per hour.

 

Q: What businesses are exempt?

A: The same as before the passage of the initiative. As a result, if your business has annual gross sales of $110,000 or less and individual employees are not dealing with interstate commerce or otherwise covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the minimum wage remains $4.00 per hour.

 

Q: Do all the other exemptions remain in place?

A: Yes. None of the other exemptions currently in state law were changed.

 

Q: How are cost-of-living adjustments calculated?

A: The Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) will calculate the cost-of-living adjustment based on the increase in the consumer price index, if any, from August of the preceding year to August of the year in which the calculation is made. If there is no increase in the CPI, no adjustment is made. If there is an increase, the Department will round the amount to the nearest five cents.

 

Q: When will the cost-of-living adjustments take effect?

A: The DLI will calculate the adjustment by September 30, 2007. It will then become effective January 1, 2008.

 

they too think it's a good idea to tie wage to an imperfect nationwide price indicator - here is a bit from the BLS webpage stating who the CPI is supposed to represent - doesn't sound a whole lot like montana

 

The CPI reflects spending patterns for each of two population groups: all urban consumers and urban wage earners and clerical workers. The all urban consumers group represents about 87 percent of the total U.S. population. It is based on the expenditures of almost all residents of urban or metropolitan areas, including professionals, the self-employed, the poor, the unemployed and retired persons as well as urban wage earners and clerical workers. Not included in the CPI are the spending patterns of persons living in rural nonmetropolitan areas, farm families, persons in the Armed Forces, and those in institutions, such as prisons and mental hospitals. The price change experience of the all urban consumer group is measured by two indexes, namely the traditional Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and the newer Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U). (See answer to Question 4 for an explanation of the differences between the CPI-U and the C-CPI-U.)

 

but the BLS also does CPI analysis for specific areas

 

BLS publishes three major metropolitan areas monthly:

 

Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI

Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA

New York-Northern NJ-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA

Data for the following additional 11 metropolitan areas are published every other month [on an odd (January, March, etc.) or even (February, April, etc.) month schedule]for the following areas:

 

Atlanta, GA (even)

Boston-Brockton-Nashua, MA-NH-ME-CT (odd)

Cleveland-Akron, OH (odd)

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX (odd)

Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI (even)

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX (even)

Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL (even)

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD (even)

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA (even)

Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA (even)

Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV (odd)

(Note: The designation even or odd refers to the month during which the area's price change is measured. Because of the time needed for processing, data are released 2 to 3 weeks into the following month.)

 

Data are published for another group of 13 metropolitan areas on a semiannual basis. These indexes, which refer to the arithmetic average for the 6-month periods from January through June and July through December, are published with the release of the CPI for July and January, respectively, in August and February for the following areas:

 

Anchorage, AK

Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN

Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO

Honolulu, HI

Kansas City, MO-KS

Milwaukee-Racine, WI

Minneapolis-St, Paul, MN-WI

Pittsburgh, PA

Portland-Salem, OR-WA

St. Louis, MO-IL

San Diego, CA

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL

 

I would have no objection if it wasn't for that last bit

Ok here is what i have to say: Democrats wanting too raise the minimum wage are going to screw minimum wage workers in the long run.

 

The economy has two markets: A Product market in which businesses produce goods and consumers buy goods. And A Factor of Production market in which households sell and businesses buy. EX. Labor is something households sell to businesses.

 

So we all agree labor is essentially a PRODUCT. And so are strawberries. Ya I'm comparing labor to strawberries because they are both products. Let's just say that strawberries cost 3$ a pound because this is what the market has determined the price to be. After all the invisible hand will guide the economy. AKA supply and demand should determine the price of goods. But the government says that 3$ for a pound of strawberries is too low. So they set a minimum price at 4$ (aka they raise the minimum wage). Now the price of strawberries went up (inflation). Now obviously the demand for strawberries is going to be less because they are more expensive. Now you have a surplus of strawberries (aka labor workers).

 

80 percent of minimum wage workers are employed by small businesses. They can't afford to increase the minimum wage so they are going to lay people off. So now those minimum wage workers, who were already struggling have to pay higher prices due to the inflation caused by raising the minimum wage and then on top of that they are unemployed.

And the Democrats are supposed to be the party of the poor. :whistle

 

SO basically like PHNX said you get stagflation. Which has only happened once in our nations history. Thankyou Jimmy Carter! But thank goodness God sent his son down a second time in the form of Ronald Regan to save our economy.

AKA supply and demand should determine the price of goods. But the government says that 3$ for a pound of strawberries is too low. So they set a minimum price at 4$ (aka they raise the minimum wage). Now the price of strawberries went up (inflation). Now obviously the demand for strawberries is going to be less because they are more expensive. Now you have a surplus of strawberries (aka labor workers).

What were the inflation rates following fiscal years ending in 1991, 1996, and 1997 [the last 3 years the fed increased minimum wages]?

 

I'll do the research for you:

1991-1992 - 3.03 versus 4.25 the year before and 5.39 the year before that.

1996-1997 - 2.34 versus 2.93 the year before and 2.81 the year before that.

1997-1998 - 1.55 you have seen the rest.

 

In other words, each of the last 3 federal minimum wage increases have resulted in LESS inflation than the preceding year. From a historical perspective, the only anomolies to this trend are in 1978 and 1979 - thank you Jimmy Carter and OPEC. So there goes that theory. Microeconomic formulas do not solve macroeconomic problems...

if you also look at that data, the fed has made prudent decisions to increase the wage at a time where there isn't a high level of inflation present - to me it gets dangerous when you are increasing wages at a time of high inflation, especially if you increase it a substantial amount

 

i would argue against increased minimum wage being a reason why the price index went down as well

AKA supply and demand should determine the price of goods. But the government says that 3$ for a pound of strawberries is too low. So they set a minimum price at 4$ (aka they raise the minimum wage). Now the price of strawberries went up (inflation). Now obviously the demand for strawberries is going to be less because they are more expensive. Now you have a surplus of strawberries (aka labor workers).

What were the inflation rates following fiscal years ending in 1991, 1996, and 1997 [the last 3 years the fed increased minimum wages]?

 

I'll do the research for you:

1991-1992 - 3.03 versus 4.25 the year before and 5.39 the year before that.

1996-1997 - 2.34 versus 2.93 the year before and 2.81 the year before that.

1997-1998 - 1.55 you have seen the rest.

 

In other words, each of the last 3 federal minimum wage increases have resulted in LESS inflation than the preceding year. From a historical perspective, the only anomolies to this trend are in 1978 and 1979 - thank you Jimmy Carter and OPEC. So there goes that theory. Microeconomic formulas do not solve macroeconomic problems...

ya so OPEC wasn't Jimmy Carter's fault but he when stagflation was occurring he did nothing and almost let the economy implode on itself...thankyou Jimmy Carter...but then baby Jesus came and said the way to fix the economy was by supply side economics

ya so OPEC wasn't Jimmy Carter's fault but he when stagflation was occurring he did nothing and almost let the economy implode on itself...thankyou Jimmy Carter...but then baby Jesus came and said the way to fix the economy was by supply side economics

Oh, I give Jimmy Carter his due.

 

He was almost completely retarded when it came to economics in general and Middle Eastern affairs in specific. His Presidency was also pretty much cursed. I mean, the guy was a former commander of a nuclear submarine pushing for nuclear energy to wean us off of fossil fuels - he sticks his neck out to get people to believe that nuclear energy is clean and safe - then BAM! Three mile island. He got Israel and Egypt to meet at Camp David - which was actually successful but what everyone remembers is that the process infuriated Palestine and got Anwar Sadat assassinated. He failed in his mission at the SALT talks. He failed in his tax reform efforts. He failed in his labor reform package. He had a failed attempt to rescue the hostages due to inclement weather. I mean - the guy got zero breaks. Oh, and as a final insult, he finally cuts a deal to have the hostages released but they refuse to release the hostages until Reagan officially takes office.

 

Wow. That is a heck of a legacy for a peanut farmer from Georgia!

Carter had a really, really rough presidency - but the strange thing is how effective he's been since leaving office - i think he's had more meaningful impact than most ex-presidents - maybe still driven knowing how bad things went when he was in office

well i work as a tutor and i am not even making minimum wage and until today they werent taking taxes out and all of a sudden now they ARE taking taxes out so im getting paid way under minimum wage..so i think there should be minimum wage and that EVERY employer must pay minumum wage!!

 

Yeah thats kind of illegal. And unless your an illegal immigrant in this country you can easily report them.

 

 

well i work as a tutor and i am not even making minimum wage and until today they werent taking taxes out and all of a sudden now they ARE taking taxes out so im getting paid way under minimum wage..so i think there should be minimum wage and that EVERY employer must pay minumum wage!!

It's not going to be u to $7.25 right away.....but if you're getting taxes removed then you definitely have a way to file a claim for that.

 

Do you work for a business that has less than ten people?

 

AZ just passed a measure that ties it to inflation and it is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen

 

a recipe for stagflation if I've ever seen one

 

I don't think it's necessary to adjust at all - but economically wouldn't be opposed to a reasonable one time increase every 5 years or so if the prevailing economic condition could sustain it

 

however, tying something that is essentially loose money to an imperfect indicator and having dollars become more readily available during inflationary times is just nonsense - ever notice how bond rates go up in inflationary times, to make save more appealing and constrict the supply of money strain on pricing? - why make it law that you have to act contrary to this?

I don't think the minimum wage helps the economy as much as people think. In fact, I do think it can be contrary. However, if it's going to be adjusted from time to time it makes sense to tie it to inflation so that businesses know that it's going to go up about 3% a year and they can pay people accordingly. Raising them on a whim puts an unnecessary strain on the long term plans of many small businesses that aren't too small to avoid the wage.

 

1. No, I am not an illegal immigrant and 2. there is way more than 10 people working there but what would that have to do with anything?? :confused

If there are less than 10 people working there, they don't have to pay minimum wage.

 

Do you receive tips or commission sales?

If there are less than 10 people working there, they don't have to pay minimum wage.

 

Do you receive tips or commission sales?

 

 

no i dont i tutor in an afterschool care..right wen i get out of school