Editor Sarah Worthman firstname.lastname@example.org
The President is recommending we raise the minimum wage.
Why do we have a minimum wage and how does it affect society?
2:50 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
I have never understood the need for a minimum wage..except to give union workers a measurement that they can use to request there incomes be artificially inflated as Minimum wage rates rise.
12:01 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
You present one reason some ask for a minimum wage to be established, or increased. I suspect the Unions consider another aspect, however. When minimum wages are increased, non-union labor costs more. It can be a method to reduce competition.
11:43 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
Thanks Bottom Line for bringing up this topic. I'd really like to encourage you to bring up these topics on a regular basis on Patch. You get a chance to reach out and educate lots of folks who have been brain washed by years of Liberal and "Progressive" policies. Keep it up PLEASE!
3:42 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
If you have seen the first half of the movie Cinderella Man, you will understand the need for unions and minimum wage. Without them, companies would over work and underpay their workers across the board. Wage disparity will sky rocket (more than it is presently if that can even be believed). And poverty would be over whelming.
As business main goal is profit, without government (and union) intervention on behalf of workers, the Middle Class would cease to exist. Any one who argues that is kidding themselves
4:12 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
Not true FTT. We still need good workers and most companies are willing to pay decent wages to get good help. What we are not willing to do is pay a shop sweeper $60k per year. That is where the unions over-stepped there bounds. Along with benefit packages equal to salary.
10:37 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
If you look at yearly earnings vs hourly rates, you will see that a lot of the private sector unions are not doing so well for their members. A good wage only means something if the employees get hours. $50/hr X 0 hours is the same as $5/hr X 0 hours. In many cases the work rules are pushing the jobs to open shops and the union boys ride the bench.
12:04 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
I think you missed the import of Cinderella Man.
It is true that a business hopes to profit from their risk taking and investment. Do you believe that is wrong?
1:38 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Hollywood movies are such a good source of factual non bias information.
6:42 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Brian, Greg, Bottom Line and Steve are naive. I believe it was Adam Smith who said to the effect that the goal of a business is to get the most labor for the least possible cost.
8:48 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Adam Smith said a lot of stuff, but he really had no clue about capitalism. The goal of business is to make a profit, period! The one thing I am not, is naive.
9:09 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
"there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits"
The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1976 was awarded to Milton Friedman "for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy".
3:45 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
@Bottom Line…I don’t know why you want to put a Socratic Question out there without an opinion. The answer to the question is found in the concept of “minimum wage”. It is designed to prevent worker exploitation by unscrupulous and manipulative employers.
4:10 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
The problem is that Obama expects that the minimum wage should be a liveable wage. That simply was never the intent of the minimum wage. It was intended as a starting point for entry level positions. Employers, like myself use minimum wage as a trial run to permanent positions. Also, it is used to hire teenagers who don't need a sustainable wage. In our case, those on minimum wage get onto our regular payscale after 30 days and are fulltime employees.
We simply won't hire summer help if this passes. Employees that we gave full time hours will now be put on part time schedules and the 30 day trial period will increase to 60 to 90 days.
Why? Because we just can't pull money out of tree or print it like the government. It has to come from somewhere, and in our competitve field, raising prices are not the answer. And before you call me a greedy corporate owner, we have sustained losses in each of the four years of this administration. I'm not going to blame Obama for it all, but some of his policies did contribute like allowing the Bush tax cuts to sunset in an already ailing economy. Our commercial companies are running scared with the uncertainty of the AHA, and wervices like ours have to find ways to cut costs and turn them over to our customers or we simply go out of business, costing more decent paying jobs. This is a very dumb idea made by a President that is trying to give out more free stuff.
5:41 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
Your comment begs the question regarding minimum wage.
Why aren't you and working for "unscrupulous and manipulative employers" at this very moment? Why didn't you work for them your entire life?
12:17 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
I posed the questions because without critical thinking too many are willing to accept proposals that are not in their best interest because they sound nice.
I disagree with your summation, it merely causes cost that may not be warranted, or eliminates jobs because the value cannot be recovered. Manipulative, unscrupulous employers can still choose to operate and exploit workers, if that is their mistaken aim.
The government is exploiting the consumer, while misleading the general public to believe something that isn't true. Raising the minimum wage will not help the poor, they will always suffer disproportionately when there are cost increases or inflation.
No one has to work for an unscrupulous employer.
4:57 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
Each State is capable of setting it own 'Minimum Wage'. Nineteen States have a minimum wage that exceeds the Federal Minimum Wage. We do not need this President or for that matter any President, weighing-in on the minimum wage rate.
State Minimum Wage
North Carolina: $7.25
North Dakota: $7.25
New Hampshire: $7.25
New Jersey: $7.25
New Mexico: $7.50
New York: $7.25
Puerto Rico: $6.55
Rhode Island: $7.75
South Carolina: $7.25
South Dakota: $7.25
West Virginia: $7.25
5:33 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
@Jay Thanks for the facts involved regarding the practices in each state -- but how do you come to your conclusion that no minimum wage is needed?
These are raw facts which are not interpreted as to what they mean --- they don't tell us the industries involved, the number of minimum wage jobs in a particular state, the demographics of those that fill those jobs, the competitive factors in the industries involved, the availability of jobs, the number of minimum wage earners making less than poverty level wages, etc, etc ...
6:48 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
Think about the irony of the question you just asked Jay in the context of a discussion regrading a national minimum wage, which you are defending.
11:56 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
@David T... I did not say eliminate the 'Federal Minimum Wage' program. I did say each State can set their own minimum wage, to fit their own needs;they appear to being doing so, as nineteen Sates have a minimum above the Federal rate.
Therefore, no apparent need exists for the President to usurp the States and set a wage rate above the current federal minimum.
Can you prove the case for the OnE SiZe fiTS aLl Federal Minimum Wage?
5:03 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
@Brian If this passes you say you would not hire summer help in the future --- if they are really not needed, why are you hiring them now?
You also talk about a competitive field and that you would not be able to raise prices -- but if everybody is paying the same minimum wage, you are competing on a level playing field, with nobody having a wage advantage over the other.
Your competitors would be paying the same minimum wage, and if that means the cost of the services of your industry have to go up to pay that wage, it is a cost increase that you and your competitors all need to do, and therefore you would not lose business on that basis.
I would daresay that if you have been sustaining losses for the past four years --- there is a much deeper problem with your business model than just the minimum wage.
Think about your question using an analogy. If the cost of gas goes up to $5 per gallon, will people drive more or less? Will they find other ways of avoiding using gasoline?
The fact is that customers will avoid higher prices. It does not matter if everyone has the same costs. In addition, people will find ways to do without. Right now in China, for example, the factories are turning more and more to automation as wages rise. We face the same threats and consequences.
Will people use more goods and services if the prices are higher?
12:24 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
Competing on a level playing field ... really? Is that what you believe will occur?
As far as businesses that are parallel not being affected, you overlook that as cost to the consumer increases, his interest in the expense weighs heavier. Economics proves you are overlooking quite a bit.
9:40 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
Dave T: Let's try this from a common sense approach.
1. No one says that summer help is not needed. It has been a successful program to get kids working instead of laying around all summer. But the reality is that they were there to make our full-time permanent employees jobs a little easier. if we can't afford them, those other employees will just have to work harder.
2. If the consumer can't afford the product, you can't raise prices. This is an industry wide problem. See that is the big problem with the mindset of this administration. Everyone in business is competing for a shrinking dollar. If you were to add in oil prices and grocery prices to the inflation rate, which arguably why it isn't I will never understand, true inflation today is much higher than during the Carter administration. Either you figure out a way to do more with less, to keep your prices competitive, or you cut costs. Our industry as whole has suffered because we are not a necessity service everyone. If our prices go too high, our customer base shrinks. It is that simple. So to keep our prices down, we will layoff and expect those left to do more.
3. Sustaining losses only goes so far before it starts to affect the business. Either you go out of business, or you cut costs. We will be shrinking our workforce. The pressures of Obama and taxing, AHA and higher min. wage will have an affect.
5:34 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
Germany has no minimum wage.
To the proponents of minimum wage I must ask, why are you not in favor of $25 per hour or more?
11:58 pm on Sunday, February 17, 2013
12:07 am on Monday, February 18, 2013
Luke, I agree that you are punctuating the ridiculous nonsense posed by those that mislead the public to accepting nonsense. It is exactly why you cannot get a response.
5:56 pm on Tuesday, February 19, 2013
10:23 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
In the end the money has to come from some place. Pay the tater head that bags your groceries $20/hr and the price of groceries goes up, or the cashier just doesn't get a raise. For every action there is a reaction. In the end the grocery bagger will probably end up with no more buying power than they had before the increase. People on fixed incomes and the least skilled will be hurt the most. The two things that Obama least understands are mathematics and employment, I guess you don't need either as a community organizer.
10:31 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
This is just an election issue for the Dems. They don't care about the logic involved or the consequences. This issue is one that they can return to endlessly, and the culture of greed and misguided, toxic compassion enables and encourages it.
10:47 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
The GOP should let the Democrats have this one, it really doesn't hurt any of their supporters. It is more of a principle issue for the GOP and at this point they need to pick their battles.
12:27 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
I agree with you, Greg, and furthermore ... many consumers agree as well. It is why they choose to pump their own gas, and bag their own groceries. Many are even checking out without a cashier. You have brought up one of the effects that has been detrimental, and has been overlooked by many.
12:33 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
None have brought that the only benefactor might be .... the government.
They stand to see an increase in revenue as a result of this action, should it occur.
I believe this is a discussion that is long overdue, and while we have only scratched the surface, it would benefit society if more of our citizens considered the effect of minimum wage laws.
Critical thinking is something that might heal most of what ails this country. I hope we continue discussing these important issues.
1:12 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
Obama an not keep himself from his Marxist upbringing.
4:02 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
The Thirteenth Amendment...our first minimum wage law.
6:55 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
"The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime."
Well then, what do you call property taxes?
What crime did the people commit?
Perhaps pledging allegiance to a gang of thieves in a suit and tie.
Property tax, income tax, Fiat Federal Reserve Toilet Paper.
Where's your constitutional money?
7:08 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
Minimum Wage? That's for the lumpen proletariat.
Government - that's where the $$$ is. Taken and enforced without shame by any number of heavily armed alphabet-lettered state sponsored terrorist groups.
See the salary and benefits for every City of Racine employee that makes more than $25,000/yr and decide for yourself.
Some of your local Elites:
Interesting, there is a Dettmann Group helping to set government salaries in Wisconsin - and as we all know - public employees point out one another with envy and greed so one overpaid public employee justifies another. It's been the same M.O. since the Hortonville strikes.
"In the past, Carlson Dettmann was responsible for a study, which took place in Oshkosh City. The study proved that employees within the area made up to $10,000 more than other employees who were doing similar work within the private sector."
I'd say Dettmann still got that number too low: http://www.humanresourcesjournal.com/2012/02/new-pay-scale-possible-for-employees-in-wood-county/
Carlson Dettmann Consulting, LLC (CDC) is an independent management consulting firm with primary expertise in compensation strategies, employee relations, and related business services.
Carlson Dettmann client list: http://www.carlsondettmann.com/resources/current-projects/
9:11 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
We shouldn't have a minimum wage. At the very least, it should be reduced to acknowledge market reality. In the heated market of the mid 2000's entry level employers were paying well above min wage to attract better and more reliable employees. Elderly workers were see by the likes of McDonalds to be a better bet than dopey kids.
Ideologues like Lyle would have us believe min wage is big brother looking out for us. There is no correlation, beyond the infationary impact it always has Exploitive companies eventually find themselves out of business.
With overhead costs to business rising, particularly energy, regulations and health, wages need to drop. It is the only way to get through the incremental cost of putting one more person on payroll. Want to reduce enemployment? End the minimum wage!
9:26 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
Reliable studies from Bureau of Labor Statistics and reputable economists confirm the benefits far outweigh any costs. Any price increases do not pace with wage increases. Raising the minimum wage will only bring more out of poverty and become less dependant on welfare and foodstamps. This is a good thing from all the criticism I have heard of food stamps on my months on Patch.
Minimum wage has not even kept up with the rate of inflation. If it were, the wage would be over $10/hr. – not the $9 the President is calling for.
9:58 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
The assumption is that the businesses are going to absorb the differential between the increase in minimum wage and price increases. If increases in the minimum wage make certain forms of automation or other forms of increased efficiency more cost effective than hiring or maintaining employees at the proposed 20% increased wage level, businesses will move in that direction. They're under no obligation to maintain the jobs they currently provide, or create new ones, particularly since an increase in the minimum wage forces increases in pay levels above the minimum.
For instance, if I have an employee making $9.00/hr now after working his or her way up from minimum wage, I would now effectively have to increase their wage as well. So not only would my least expensive form of labor become more expensive, so would that of other levels (to a point) within my organization. If the market I'm selling to is relatively inflexible in terms of price increase, I'm going to have to cut costs. Guess who gets cut when those costs go up?
This may be a boon to certain businesses that produce various forms of automation, but in terms of the human labor workforce, it may very well price a good portion of it out of the marketplace. That's not good for the economy, nor is the inevitable inflation resulting from an increase in minimum wage. Throw in the growth of the global economy and technological quantum leaps we've experienced and past experience may not even apply anymore.
2:45 pm on Sunday, February 17, 2013
An increase in minimum wage is strongly positively correlated with an increase in black teen unemployment and reduction of hours given to workers who work less than 30 hours, across the board.
10:14 pm on Sunday, February 17, 2013
Bob, thank you for your reasoned response. When others realize how business reacts to cost they might be more diligent and less accepting of nonsense from legislators.
Truth is, most individuals apply the same approach to cost in their personal lives. If they are able to see the connection they would be in a better position to evaluate policies that weaken our economy, which directly affects them.
10:17 pm on Sunday, February 17, 2013
Luke, the reason I included a link to Thomas Sowell is to address the issues you raise. He and other wise economists hope to inform the general public how these policies have caused great disadvantage to the general public, and specifically the teenage black community.
9:48 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
Rational thinking still requires you consider more than the amount of the wage. If you artificially affect the cost of labor, because the market hasn't justified it, inflation would have to occur. If price increases do not follow, it is more likely that efficiencies have been found to offset the cost. So fewer hours are required to produce products.
The result adversely affects the poor, and less skilled, who are less valuable as the wage rises.
9:57 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
Consider the realities of economics and you'll realize that even if you support minimum wage legislation, you wouldn't increase the wage during periods of high unemployment.
10:22 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
Some would benefit the wisdom of Thomas Sowell, Milt Friedman, Larry Elder, and Dr. Williams ...
Cause and effect analysis should allow those who wish to do well for the disadvantaged to realize how this legislation is bad legislation.
10:29 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
The UAW contracts have a built in clause whereby a 25 cent raise in minimum wage makes a 75 cent UAW member raise an automatic. No negotiation necessary, it’s automatic. Little wonder unions support a push for higher minimum wages if this is the norm. I wonder is public employee union wages indexed to the minimum wage?
10:21 pm on Sunday, February 17, 2013
AWF, you raise important questions, especially as it regards public sector unions. Most are now aware of the negative consequence in our economy brought about by the UAW and other private unions. They (the unions) have moved to the public sector where they hoped to escape scrutiny and competition.
11:42 pm on Sunday, February 17, 2013
It appears the liberals are unable to construct a viable debate on this issue ... It seems conceded.
We must still do our due diligence to ensure the general public is empowered by communicating the truth that is missing in public debate. Teach your family and friends, that we might correct, or remove, the misguided legislator that professes such nonsense.
7:54 am on Monday, February 18, 2013
I don't think they ever concede. They just can't build a logical argument against common sense. So they're stuck debunking common sense, which they do by belittling it or suggesting it just doesn't apply to the government or on a national level.
This particular issue is problematic for them because it is soooo common sense. You artificially inflate the cost of something and you reduce demand for it when there are other, more cost effective options available.
If they'd just accept that instead of trying to fight it or create theories that attempt to circumvent it, they'd understand not only how that's going to screw things up, but why unions no longer function like they did. If you can't control the marketplace for the supply of X (in this case, X being labor), you can't force someone to pay more than the cost of the next most inexpensive alternative to the X you're attempting to provide.
We're not in the first half of the 20th century anymore. If I want to set up a business selling products produced in and distributed directly from China, to the US and elsewhere, I can pretty much do so in a couple of months with relative ease. Even if I don't want to do it, I may be forced to if I'm in an industry that relies on low cost labor. That's the bottom line. If the choice is between being guilted into struggling until I have to close the doors and making a move overseas to at least keep the doors open, the decision is an easy one. I'm keeping the doors open.
11:27 am on Monday, February 18, 2013
Bob McBride....The advent of the minimum wage reflects a different time and a different set of circumstances. Business has learned very well how to circumvent the minimum wage requirement, along with providing benefits, etc. The minimum wage worked fairly well as long as we, the US, had a closed labor pool. Before outsourcing and offshoring became an option, business moved production to the low wage states and areas of the nation. Where the needed labor was in short supply, it caused an increase in wages because the demand was higher than the supply.
Automation has also undercut the need for larger labor forces and created a demand for very specialized labor, which has raised wages for a very select few. What remains is a classification of worker that management doesn't value their labor.
In the past, you and I have discussed the wage issue in terms of globalization and that until parity is reached globally, we will continue to have a problem with to many workers chasing to few jobs. But I want to introduce something else to the discussion.
We, as a nation, have made a commitment to provide a safety net so that none of our citizens will be without basic survival needs (safety net). We are going to pay to supplement people either through higher prices or through higher taxes. Given that it is of higher value that people should work and earn rather than be dependent, either fully or partially, on "Uncle Sugar"; I would prefer to pay more on the front end (continued)
11:33 am on Monday, February 18, 2013
@Bob McBride (continued)...than to pay higher taxes on the back end. In either case we are going to pay higher taxes, but at least I want people to earn their own way as much as possible. We will be plagued with this problem until global economics reaches parity.
If you eat at McDonalds any where in Europe you will end up spending at least twice as much for the same meal. It is all due to the livable wage that European service workers earn. The McDonalds there is just as crowded as it is here.
In conclusion, we will all be paying more for goods and services either through higher prices or higher taxes. I support a higher universal minimum wage because the low income earner will at least be contributing partially to the overall benefits received.
11:58 am on Monday, February 18, 2013
The problem with utilizing the minimum wage as a mechanism to "lift people up" is that that wage, in fact, is the only thing that can be controlled. You can't control what happens after that, without building in further restrictions.
For instance, if I run a pick and pack distribution center that relies heavily on minimum wage jobs (which many do) and I am now faced with a 20% increase in my labor costs associated with those jobs, it isn't automatic that a) I can pass any or a good portion of that on to my customer or b) that I won't be able to recover some of that increased cost by implementing more automation - thus reducing my reliance on human labor. The theory doesn't match reality.
What we have to come to grips with is that the human machine is imperfect and inferior in virtually all ways to its automated counterpart as a means of production, as well as when it comes to various other business functions, and will replace the human machine when the opportunity arises. This is what we will be dealing with going forward and it's only going to get worse. One of Mr. Obama's favorite new technologies, 3D printing, will most likely wreak havoc with the remaining labor force like nothing we've ever seen - and yet that seems to escape him completely.
The solution, whatever it is, is not going to be simple, painless or easy. The problem, in its full manifestation, will be on us in what amounts to no time.
12:01 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
@Lyle Ruble... "... most minimum-wage earners are not the primary bread winner. Nearly 40% live with a parent or relative. The average family income of a household with a minimum-wage worker is about $47,023—which is far above the poverty line of $23,550 for a family of four."
Lyle, if your objective is to provide a 'livable wage' then the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is more suitable to your purpose. Raising the minimum wage across the board distorts the market for goods and services;see your example of McDonald's in the EU. The EITC just distorts the tax code.
12:11 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
@Bob McBride....I know you're right and it is our responsibility to find what will make people employable. The question is; will people be necessary in the future and if so, in what capacity?
12:12 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
@Jay Sykes....Like I said, we either pay on the front side or the back side through taxes, in this case EITC.
12:27 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Isn't your 'pay higher min wage or pay higher taxes' theory only valid if the majority of minimum wage earners would otherwise be receiving welfare benefits? We have millions of earners that are claimed as dependents on their parent's tax returns. If they make up a large percentage of minimum wage earners, then the raise in minimum wage is certainly going to cost more than the tax increases to support those trying to raise a family with a minimum wage job.
1:43 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
I found this interesting tidbit as I was Googling around the minimum wage subject.
The CBO analysis of a minimum wage hike from $5.15 to $7.24 would cost $11 billion in increased wages, with $1.6 billion of that going to poor people/families. Increasing EITC payments could get $1.4 billion to those poor families at a cost of $2.6 billion.
It seems that it is far more cost effective to pay more through EITC than to raise the minimum wage.
7:30 am on Monday, February 18, 2013
A hike in the minimum wage will raise prices. How is in favor of raising prices at this time?
8:54 am on Monday, February 18, 2013
Liberalism is based upon emotion, not logic. This is why so many of the flaming idiot liberals who haunt these forums are absent, they cannot logically defend the minimum wage. So they send out the leakers who can't put together a coherent thought.
10:24 am on Monday, February 18, 2013
It would appear that liberal followers tend to be driven by emotion. The leaders, however, are simply tapping that weakness to further their agenda. They are also directing their followers to refuse critical thinking as propaganda. Good marketing strategy but hardly beneficial to the disadvantaged.
12:24 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
@ Ann and other Liberal bashers.
please remember it was the Liberal party who fought for workplace rights like; 40 hr work week, work place safety, disability rights, etc. and not just unions and wages. it's not a perfect party but nor is any party. No, I am not a liberal. My alliance is with the agenda that I feel will do less damage.
Any one ever thought that raising Min. wage puts more money in pockets which puts more money to shop? Just saying...
The only Republican contribution to this is the right to work laws that limit union influence. We are now increasingly uncompetitive worldwide because our health care costs are rising faster than our ability to increase productivity. The Republican solution is to outsource jobs internationally, reduce or eliminate health care benefits, and wipe out pension funds.
Republicans talk the talk of caring for the working man, while the Dems have walked the walk. If the only way we can compete with third-world countries is to pay our workers third-world wages and benefits, then what have we won with our fanatical adherence to free market dogma? Practice your Chinese, because they're going to need directions to Disney World.
12:29 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
What good is having more money to shop if all those shops have to raise their prices to pay the workers that 'more money'?
1:00 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
If minimum wage was $20/hr the people could shop even more, correct?
5:30 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Could someone please point out when I stated I am pro min wage increase or pro Obama? I made one statement about possible effect of raising min wage, not a pro min wage statement. Sheeesh. I gotta go wash my hair and brush my tooth...carry on.
7:17 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
It certainly sounded like you supported raising the minimum wage:
"Any one ever thought that raising Min. wage puts more money in pockets which puts more money to shop? Just saying..."
7:25 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Another statement that seems to favor a minimum wage increase:
"One possible reason a living wage needs closer consideration? Quad Graphics - largest printer now in USA."
Even your flawed example of how easy it is for business to absorb a 25 cent/hour raise in minimum wage indicates support for raising minimum wage.
1:03 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Interesting ...CowDung finds the one flawed thought to discuss. Must mean the rest makes sense?
Small business owner has 8 employees he has to give a raise of .25 ( as an example) let's say they work 35 hrs a week. $70.00 to payroll a week is not recoverable with potentially more shoppers? Yes, some prices might get raised, everything goes up .
FYI: Wisconsin has a long history of "living wage" laws that are applied to minimum wage laws. For Your Reading Enjoyment "Historical Resume of Min. Wage Regulations in WI" http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/publications/erd/pdf/ls_39e_p.pdf
1:13 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Feel free to assume whatever you like about the rest Kathy. I just see no point in responding to baseless rants against republicans...
If the employer is going to follow Obama's plan, it will be much more than a $0.25/hour increase--more like $1.75 ($9 - $7.25 = $1.75). Those 8 employees working 35 hours/week will cost $490/week more. This doesn't include the increase in payroll taxes that must also be paid.
1:19 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Another thing to consider is that the shop not only has to increase prices to cover the increased wages of the shop employees, they also have to increase prices to cover the increased price of the goods they are reselling. The manufacturer of those goods will also be hit with the 25% increase in the wages paid to those workers.
1:22 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Kathy, in additon to the wage increase, why not mandate a new car for every worker? Because us Republicans aren't allowing you to build fast trains quickly enough. How about a house on the beach for everyone? Where does it end?
1:42 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Look to Greece and Spain to see where it ends.
Baseless rant against Republicans? So that party is not pro outsourcing? The GOP fought a bill that would stop incentives and pay to companies moving over seas. Baseless rant? I think we all know the GOP is anti health care or any benefits for the working and unemployed.
One possible reason a living wage needs closer consideration? Quad Graphics - largest printer now in USA. Over the past few years reporting losses and many employee firings. Employees there long term are at top of pay scale and some for 5 years not given any raise yet theirr benefits costs raise. Joel Q gives himself a 250k bonus while he sends thousands to unemployment. Point a finger at a company like that for having your small business having to possibly pay 490 a week (going by my previous example and cowdungs perception of proposal).
No easy answer.
I have no party alliance. Dems want to hold hands with the weak and give them anything under a guise of "assisting" but its really enabling. Repubs; Not our fault or problem they not working or rich. Jump off the bridge and learn to fly. If you try we will help...maybe.
1:57 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Kathy. You post with no factual information only emotion fed to you in the form of political propaganda.
You would like to believe as Obama states companies get tax breaks for shipping jobs over seas. Yet is it untrue, and isn't even logical when you really use your brain.
Did Joel Q get stock options or cash? Let's say it was cash to go along with the propaganda you are fed. Thousands are laid off, lets say that is at a minimum 2000 employees. $250,000/2000 = $125 per employee.
So if Joel Q did not receive his bonus, $125 would have been available per employee laid off. Does that really save all those jobs?
But isn't more fun to believe in the propaganda, right?
1:59 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Yes Kathy, baseless rants.
I don't believe that the Republican party has taken any stance supporting outsourcing according to their party platform.
Not sure why you are questioning 'my perception of the proposal'. Obama clearly wants to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9/hour. There are numerous news sites that can confirm it.
As far as Quad graphics goes--why are they losing money? Could it be the size of their payroll prices them out of the market? Perhaps their $90 million in pension debt had something to do with it.
2:11 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Like I said, liberals are all about emotion when they babble on about subjects they know very little. Sit back and observe these buffoons as they bloviate on subjects they are ignorant. None of them have ever had to make a payroll, sell a product, hell, do anything.
3:03 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
@ann....Even the least capable on the Patch and this thread know better than to make such a generalization. With the way you express yourself and the beliefs you hold; it's pretty obvious that you have received an inadequate socialization and a sub standard education. I implore you to refrain from continuing to comment unless you have something constructive to add to the discussion. Ad hominem attacks are hardly constructive.
3:10 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Kathy- Oh careful, the Republicans want to beat up your grandma, steal your shoes, lock you in a cage and give it all to the rich... You are such a fool. Blindly follow the Chosen one as he leads you down a path of personal self destruction. i for one, will fight it 'til my last breath.
Oh, and by the way, our industry released an estimate that if min. wage goes up to $9.00, our workforce could shrink by as much as 35% in the next decade. Way to go Obumble.
5:02 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
So it's the media reporting false facts? House Bill 4 in NC is a lie? Just one example of my oh so emotional buffoon response.
As to Quad? My figures might have been off. Yes, stock options fell. Joel did give himself a raise though. SOURCE: http://www.jsonline.com/business/quadgraphics-ceo-compensation-falls-to-423-million-c94sr81-146275325.html unlike some, I can admit to being wrong without resorting to personal attacks.
@Ann and other haters: I'm disabled, care to take a jab there? I've been blessed to have a lot of drive and in my career done fabulous things that I am and others are quite proud of. I have owned my own business, been the exec director of sales and marketing, produced stage,events and radio shows. I've volunteered in my community and held several board seats. I've done all this in two different states. Shall I post my full resume? I am happy to say I am not mean spirited, I eschew small minds that opt to hate. Now go ahead and say it's free speech and you're right.
Would you say these things to my face oh mighty keyboard warriors?
5:08 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
PS: My soon to be ex has worked at quad for twenty years and in a management position. Knowing what I do about that place, I'd sooner opt to scrub toilets with my own toothbrush then toil away for Joel. If his father rose from the grave I'd reckon he'd give his son a thrashing for the way Joel runs that place. <---personal opinion.
8:26 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
He may have given himself a raise of $43,000, but he was still $1.3 million below what he made the year before...
8:33 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
But he is an evil CEO who whips his employees and eats minority babies for breakfast protein. Quad and the min wage, I fail to see any comparison. But it's fun to paint the business guy as evil, right?
3:22 pm on Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Kathy doesn't that business owner now have $70.00 less money to shop and invest with every single week. Kind of kills your point. How about the Govt. gets the hell out and left the businesses owner pay the price per hour that suits his/her business, and the job being fulfilled.
1:16 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
The simple answer is that there should not be a artifically proped Minimum wage. The market should set what an appropriate wage is.
I am an employer. If I offer a job for $.50 per hour and I get someone to agree to do the job, then, by definition, that is what the market has decided the job is worth. If no one applies, and I raise the wage to $5.00 to get applicants then THAT is what the market decided the job is worth. It is very simple economics. ANYTHING, whether it be a job, a baseball card, or a house is worth what someone is willing to pay for it or in the case of a job, what someone is willing to do it for.
Exploitation is not involved because of the 13th Amendment. No one is FORCED to do a job. They choose their job.
In the end the one question, NO ONE can answer is why stop at $9. Why not $25? Opponents say, well, $25 is too much. It is. For many job, $9 is too much. Why let the govt decide what I should pay for a job. Let the market decide.
Who will get hurt the most by raising the minimum wage? The same people who earn it. Costs will go up (in an elastic pricing model) or the item will be less available (in an inelastic model because fewer people will produce the product). Fast food (which is disproportionally eaten by those earning less; ask Bloomberg) will be the first to raise prices.
1:46 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
We don't have a labor shortage, Obama has keep those unemployed on unemployment welfare with his policies. Raising the min wage does nothing to grow the economy so it is either a distraction, or a way to raise revenues through higher payroll and income taxes.
In a free market system the employee agrees ahead of time to the employers competitive wage offer.
2:15 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
#lyingRyan is at it again!
Spud Lovr @SpudLovr
RT @bluecheddar1: Paul Ryan got caught weaseling on network television - blue cheddar blog - j.mp/15pruSu #WIunion #WIpolitics
2:39 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Paul Ryan handed that idiot his head, plain and simple. Blue Cheddar is too stupid to comment on any issue that is more complicated than drinking water. Obama is golfing with a lying adulterer when he should be working on a budget, that's the real story.
2:45 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Another issue is heating up!
Tubbs issues statement saying security plan given to Supreme Court
By Patrick Marley of the Journal Sentinel Feb. 15, 2013
Madison -- Former Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs issued a statement Friday backing Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's claim that a security plan was put in place because of safety concerns.
Bradley wrote in a court document Wednesday that she and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson were given emergency phone numbers and told to lock themselves in their offices when working at night because of concerns that Justice David Prosser could endanger their safety.
Two months later, in June 2011, Prosser and Bradley got in a physical altercation in which Prosser put his hands around the neck of Bradley. Prosser has had ethics charges filed against him, but he contends he acted in self defense.
On Thursday, Capitol Police officials said they had no record of any additional security provided for Bradley and Abrahamson. ...
2:59 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
And this relates to minimum wage how?
Ann Walsh Bradley acted like a baby and Tubbs gave her a pacifier, big deal!
3:00 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
You wish it was heating up. It's DOA.
If Abrahamson and Bradley called the police expressing concerns, what were the cops supposed to do? Tell them to kiss off? It's not like the cops made the first move. They responded to the concerns in a logical way and they would have been derelict in their duties had they not. If a SCJ calls up maintenance and says they want someone spit polishing their desktop everyday, what do you suppose is gonna happen?
Fortunately, most people aren't stupid enough to fall for this crap.
3:41 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
@Greg You are absolutely right --- Obama should be home working on the budget day and night, and not out golfing with some admitted adulterer --- we all know that Republicans never consort with adulterers --- or are ever adulterers --- why just look at all of our past Republican presidents --- oops, guess that won't work --- well maybe look at all of our Republican Senators and Congressmen --- oops, guess that won't work either !!!
So what is your point? a) Obama should never have a moment to swing a golf club b) Morality is holding back the budget compromise ??
3:45 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
@Steve....Your statement is not entirely true. We do have labor shortages in certain vocations and professions. Second; we don't have a free market system. It is a synthesis and as such requires a certain level of intervention on the part of the government.
3:55 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
"@Greg You are absolutely right --- Obama should be home working on the budget day and night, and not out golfing with some admitted adulterer --- we all know that"
b) Nope (I don't think that Obama's budget policy is one bit moral)
c) morninmist can post any crap he/she wants and people like David won't say a word.
1:58 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
When it is broken down into its two simplest parts, this discussion is whether a) The free market should decide what the minimum wage, or any wage is; and b) Whether the government has an interest in setting a minimum wage.
In the United States we do not have a pure Capitalist economy -- and that is for both the employer side and the employee side.
Our economy has been regulated to one extent or another for well over a hundred years now.
In the current day debates, when Business gets what they want, and they get tax breaks, or grants, or tariffs to protect their profits, or subsidies of one kind or another, Conservatives and Republicans find ways to justify that.
When the employee side is given something by government, those same Republicans and Conservatives decry that the government is destroying our economy and our country.
I believe that the truth is that there are times and situations in which the best interests of our country, our citizens, and our Middle Class -- when the government needs to have policies and aids to both the employer and the employees, as the situation dictates.
I daresay that if Business had to make a choice between loosing help, resources and services from the government and not having to pay a decent (subjective) minimum wage --- Business would elect to pay the minimum so they can keep getting what they want.
2:56 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Yes David. Business should just give everything to their employees. After all, they are nothing but money-hungary, greedy, evil-minded entities. Anyone that pours their life savings and takes a risk of losing everything is just doing it to see how bad they can screw the little guy. Obama has brainwashed you and your attitude is simply pathetic.
3:47 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
@Brian And just where did I say that? Please point it out, because I must have missed that give everything to employees part, or the part about greedy and evil minded entities ....
I certainly can't empathize with someone who is in business himself -- oops -- I am in business, and I do take risks ......shame on me for my pathetic attitude.
BTW -- it seems that the common worker is taking a lot of risks nowadays too !!
How many have been squeezed by their employers to give up compensation or benefits under the threat of shutting down the factory and moving the jobs overseas ..... and how many have given up those concessions, and got screwed in the end anyway???
I believe I said that there are circumstances for Both Employers and Employees to receive help or protection from the government --- I guessed you missed that point.
3:48 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
@Brian Dey....Unfortunately there are enough of the "bad employers" out there that it makes it bad for the rest. That is precisely why we have business regulations and standard business practices.
4:32 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
David and Lyle: My point is this. Government intervention to manipulate the parameters of business operations is doing a huge disservice to our economy. Artificially tipping the scales in either direction generally hurts more than it helps. you know that thing called unintended consequences.
I don't believe for a moment that the majority of businesses are out to stick it to their employees, just like I don't believe the majority of employees are out to stick it to their employers. But the mentality on both sides makes it harder and harder for me to empathize with policies made by a government that seems that the employer is an evil person out to stick it to everyone else for a profit.
That is why the progressive tax system will always be the most unfair form of taxation. Picking winners and losers is not what the government is supposed to be there for. It has corrupted the system.
Let's just say that if every single employer out there decided that all they were going to pay was minimum wage and not a penny more, then where would the middle class be. If that was all that was out there, then you would have to work for that wage. Sounds alot like what happened in the USSR. It collapsed their economy.
Dare I say that businesses face bigger risks every day. If I need to meet a payroll and it means me not getting paid, that is what I have to do. The employee doesn't take that risk.
6:26 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
The employee takes no risk? A good employee is part of the life blood of the business as they become vested to see the business thrive to keep the job. The customer is the other life blood. the customer purchases the product or service they employee worked to make. A business owner makes the choice to take the risk of having a business and has many pressures. The employee takes a risk of vesting time to help you succeed.
7:13 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
How is 'vesting time' a risk on the part of the employee? Certainly you can't think that the 'risk' taken by an employee is anywhere near the level of risk taken by the employer.
9:21 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
That is why the employees pay that unemployee insurance, it is so the employer does not suffer, at no fault of its own, when an employee leaves them hanging.
2:10 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
I'd personally take no issue with Third World wages if the cost of living in the U.S. also fell in proportion. Not likely to happen. The writing's on the wall, just waiting for people to read it. We're on an unsustainable path.
If one is not making a liveable wage they will not:
--be able to fulfill previous commitments (car payments, mortgages, student loans, etc.)
--be able to make new commitments
--have disposable income
The opportunity to find a second or third job may not exist under current circumstances of high unemployment.
What happens to small/midsize businesses that do not have enough customers? Or even the larger companies? I know someone who just cancelled their cable service to compensate for this year's health insurance/Social Security increase combo. AT&T U-verse just lost $70/month or $840/year. If a thousand people did the same that's a revenue loss of about $840,000. I'm fairly certain a lot more people than that cancelled or cut back. So what does AT&T do? Will they close more U.S. call centers (most are already in Manila). More people out of work, not paying taxes, without disposable income.
I think this is an issue that needs a top-down solution from the corporate front. Perhaps the executives are not thinking beyond their own retirements but big picture thinking is needed. Will smaller companies continue to be gobbled up by larger until only a few mega-corporations run everything? That doesn't seem like the American way to me.
2:12 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
all of this is meaningless as Obongo inflates our currency to the point of irrelevancy.
2:16 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
How does raising the minimum wage lower the cost of living?
It's Kenesian economisc which has failed everywhere. You all walk around like the world owes you something. Well, grow up! It is what you make of it and as long as you make excuses that someone is trying to rip you off or put you down, you will never amount to anything. Like I told Dave. Obama has you brainwashed and it is soooooooo pathetic.
3:08 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Here are a few things you can do once you get skills and or education, then get a job and work your way up the ladder:
--be able to fulfill previous commitments (car payments, mortgages, student loans, etc.)
--be able to make new commitments
--have disposable income
FYI, If you expect these things on your first day of work you may be better off staying on welfare.
3:51 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
@Brian Dey...Keynesian economics haven't failed, misinterpreted and misapplied yes. It is Milton Friedman and Supply Side and Austrian Economics that are a total failure. I don't think you have thought it through or understand our basic economic processes. Economics only work if they provide for the majority, not the minority.
8:35 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Lyle.... We know factually, through actual practice, that much of Hayek (Austrian Economics) and Supply Side is/can be effective. We learned the bounds/limits of effectiveness by actually changing the marginal tax rate;from Kennedy (90% marginal rate) through Bush II (28% marginal rate).
Lyle, you might need to let everyone know that you are motivated to bash Hayek and the Austrian School of Economics because of Hayek's view that "Social Justice has no meaning".
11:01 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Lyle ... indulge my curiosity ... when did we apply the unfettered economic discipline offered by Milt. It has always been contaminated by government intervention.
Milt exposes simply what you cannot refute ... the market will always decide value, the government will always add cost to the equation ... and the consumer pays additionally as a result, or they decide the value is unworthy the expense.
Yours is a fools folly, that you can add cost without detriment ... that you can mandate value in a global economy. Stuff and nonsense.
You stated in a prior post that we cannot realize correction until the global economy meets our watermark ... we didn't have to add cost to ensure we would reduce our competitive advantage, and ensure our citizens would be left wanting.
I think you should reconsider your position, but I lament you will not.
3:12 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Since many here suggest that getting more citizens employed would result in more retail purchases, should we consider lowering the minimum wage?
3:28 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
The fact is that the minimum wage hurts people during a recession. It inherently raises the prices of goods and services and reduces employment levels.
So while it sounds good to get a raise, doing it via the minimum wage reduces your purchasing power and the hours that are available for people.
There are many other unintended consequences like what happens to the people that had worked to get above minimum wage? Are they now entitled? Obama is creating a massive mess---his distict talent.
3:35 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Currently about 5% of workers make the minimum wage. THat shows that employers will willingly pay more than minimum most of the time.
However sometimes a job just is not worth $9 per hour.
3:53 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
From Bloomberg Business Week
"It hasn’t drawn much attention, but Facebook’s first annual earnings report contains an accounting gem: a multibillion-dollar tax deduction for the cost of executive stock options and share awards.
Even though Facebook (FB) reported $1.1 billion in pre-tax profits from U.S. operations in 2012, it will probably pay zero federal and state taxes—and even receive a federal tax refund of about $429 million—according to a Feb. 14 statement from Citizens for Tax Justice."
3:54 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
"You won’t find any $429 million tax refund in Facebook’s financial statements. Indeed, the company says it had a $559 million federal tax liability in 2012. But that liability isn’t an actual payment. In a footnote, the company also said that it had a $1.03 billion “excess tax benefit” last year related to “stock option exercises and other equity awards.” That benefit is what flips the federal tax liability into a refund. (A small portion is applied against state taxes.)
Facebook says that it anticipates reducing its tax liability in the future by an additional $2.17 billion by using further net operating loss carry-forwards that it has banked."
Facebook spokeswoman Ashley Zandy declined to discuss the tax break but pointed to the transcript of Facebook executives’ conference call with analysts. On the call, Chief Financial Officer David Ebersman cited the accumulated tax benefits and noted that the company ended the fiscal year with nearly $10 billion in cash and investments, “giving us great flexibility and risk protection.”
3:58 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Are these tax breaks for Google (and many others) the kind of deductions that the Republicans are fighting to keep?
4:07 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
No, this is where the Republicans want to get revenue instead of milking the middle class.
10:44 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
David ... being in business you realize that what you are suggesting is short information.
The tax code has to respect investment losses as well as taxing profit. When companies avail themselves the offset, it is a correction that invites companies to take risk. If we overlook the balance provided what will result?
It seems we are in a situation where few are willing to risk investing ... if we follow your model do you think others will risk investment?
4:19 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
The Minimum wage pretty much eliminates a high school drop out from employment in this country. Clearly, this effects minorities in a dramatic way. If you take Racine as a example the minority drop out rate is very high . If the country was smart it would allow the employee to opt out of the Minimum wage. It might allow them to get a foot in the door and learn the skills needed to build a future with business willing to hire them. Under the current law you we see this uneducated class of people unable to get a job and that usually leads to a life of dependence or crime . Good bye American Dream . We all know this is true.
People need skills and some small business cant afford to pay like the government has mandated. The solution is to let people basically be free agent with their own services and let them work for what they agree too. That way the business gets a worker and the worker gains the skills and dignity of a entry level job which clearly will benefit him/her future more than Govt dependence or life of crime. The goal should not be to totally eliminate Job opportunity for the least successful people with no skills. But the minimum wage clearly does this to the people farthest away from gaining the American dream.
7:51 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Based on the number of times I've had to duck out of the way of roving gangs in Wauwatosa in the last few weeks, along with the recent crime reports, it seems like we are already there without a higher minimum wage.
If we raise it high enough, you'll be able to earn more by dropping out of high school than by going to college. If I'd known there'd be people working entry-level fast food jobs demanding $15/hour, I never would have bothered getting my degree. Working as a salaried employee in IT you can make less per hour for work that is a lot more demanding and stressful and requires a lot more skill. But if we are to form a communist state, I suppose we will have to flatten out wages at some point.
12:30 am on Tuesday, February 19, 2013
There are massive indirect costs with hiring an employee into many types of businesses. If the job requires training the new employee may work for hundreds of hours before actually producing enough to cover his wages. During the training period the company will incur costs for the trainer(s) and possible scrap product. The costs of training a $9/hr employee could cost in the area of $60/hr. This training could take weeks or months. It may take years for the employer to recuperate these expenses, all the while the employee expects raises. Or at any point the employee may just walk out the door. Most beginning employees think the grass is greener over there. If you are lucky, you can snipe the trainee and save some training expense. So in many cases the minimum wage job includes a free education, but that does not show up on the W2.
8:43 am on Tuesday, February 19, 2013
If you are paying an employee minimum wage now, with FICA and Workers Comp., you are paying $8.67 p/hr, or $18,033..60 for a full time employee in my industry.
If the minimum raise gets bumped up to $9.00 p/hr, with FICA and Workers Comp, you will pay $10.76 p/hr or $22,380.00 per full time employee.
The total cost of minimum wage full time employee in my industry will be an additional $4,347.00.
Somebody please tell me how this is good for the worker. To keep my costs unchanged, I would have to make them part time and cut 404 hours from them annually.
How is that good for the consumer? I just got hit with a 20% increase in labor. I turn that over to my customers.
But, but, but... They will be getting paid more so they can afford to buy more!
REALLY? If the price of everything has to go up (in economic terms, they call this inflation), isn't the value of the consumers dollar going to be the same?
The employee really isn't going to make more because hours will be cut or jobs will be eliminated, thus shrinking the consumer pool or remain stagnant with part time hours an now no benefits.
I hope this little economics lesson gets through to the liberals because I have just outlined how most businesses will react to this huge expenditure you President wants to inflict on small business.
10:02 am on Monday, February 25, 2013
Informing citizens, and inviting critical thinking, when legislators suggest something as dynamic as raising the minimum wage improves the possibility that we can stop bad policy before we are invested.
Reversing bad policy, once we are invested, is usually too challenging. Better to nip it in the bud ...
Would you like to receive email updates about this blogpost?
Advertise on Patch and reach potential customers in your backyard and beyond. Click here for more information.
Learn more »
If you want to help local causes, or your cause needs local help, your next click should be right here.
Learn more »
Share with your social networks:
Greendale news, events, and deals sent to you daily and breaking news as it happens.
See more options
You’re now signed up!
Enter your tip here and it will be sent straight to
Greendale Patch's (incredibly grateful)