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.

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!

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.

FTT,
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.

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?

Hollywood movies are such a good source of factual non bias information.

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.

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.

"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".

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.

@Lyle

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?

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.

@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 ...

@David

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.

@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?

@David

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?

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.

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.

Anyone?

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.

Anyone??

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323478004578302510280314712.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

@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.

Lyle,

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.

@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.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323478004578302510280314712.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

@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?

@Jay Sykes....Like I said, we either pay on the front side or the back side through taxes, in this case EITC.

Lyle:

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.

Lyle:

I found this interesting tidbit as I was Googling around the minimum wage subject.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7721/01-09-minimumwageeitc.pdf

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.

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.

What good is having more money to shop if all those shops have to raise their prices to pay the workers that 'more money'?

If minimum wage was $20/hr the people could shop even more, correct?

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.

Kathy:

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..."

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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?

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.

Kathy:

He may have given himself a raise of $43,000, but he was still $1.3 million below what he made the year before...

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?

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.

#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

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.

hey Greg

Another issue is heating up!

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/191484111.html

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. ...

And this relates to minimum wage how?

Ann Walsh Bradley acted like a baby and Tubbs gave her a pacifier, big deal!

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.

@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 ??

@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.

"@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"

a) Nope
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.

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

@Brian Dey
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.

Kathy:

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.

Cow,
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.

all of this is meaningless as Obongo inflates our currency to the point of irrelevancy.

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.

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.

@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.

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".

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.

No, this is where the Republicans want to get revenue instead of milking the middle class.

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?

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.