Increase the $5.15 minimum wage?





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Increase the $5.15 minimum wage?
By Avidreader2006 (Avidreader2006) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 11:23 am: Edit

Hey, everyone! I was wondering what everyone here thought of the US minimum wage. State whether you think the minimum wage should be kept the same, lowered, increased or no minimum wage is neccessary and then explain why you feel that way on the issue of minimum wage. Also state what you think the minimum wage should be in an exact amount e.g. $7.25.

I personally think that the minimum wage should be raised to $7.00 per hour. The minimum wage has not increased since 1997 and $5.15 per hour can't get you much today, even when shopping at Walmart. Some corporations that can afford to give everyone WAY ABOVE the current minimum wage of $5.15 ,e.g. McDonald's, sometimes give their employees near the minimum wage (I got $5.30 per hour at McDonald's). Its also been shown that increasing the minimum wage stimulates buisiness(sp?) for the fast food industry and other places of work where minimum wage is usually paid.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 12:01 pm: Edit

I believe the minimum wage should stay the same, maybe go up every couple years (or every year) to reflect inflation- although not a drastic increase- but inflation should be taken into account.

The reason I'm against a specific and drastic increase is because while big corporations like the ones you mentioned can often afford to pay more, often times it hurts small businesses. It does have a negative effect on the business owners when it is forced. Also, and I do know from experience, small business owners give pay raises on their own based on experience. They do not keep a person on min. wage forever, and I feel it should stay in the hands of the business owners. For those who need the wage to live on, if they're working full time, they will naturally get a larger and larger wage as they continue to work (they won't be on min. wage long). I know that small business owners treat their employees very well and do not need a forced minimum wage.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 12:12 pm: Edit

Oh yes, raise it. $5.15 is a piddling sum. Some states do have a higher min wage, btw.

I just read the other day, that if worker salaries had increased with *the same percentage as CEO salaries* in recent decades.... that the avg blue collar worker would earn 101k and minimum wage would be $21.

I found that very interesting-- it was an article on tne ineqlality of wealth distribution in the US--

By Born2run16517 (Born2run16517) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 12:24 pm: Edit

hmm this is an interesting question and the answer all depends on what you want to do. Anybody who has passed a Economics 101 class can show that raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment. While many people think raising minimum wage will help the little man the contray is true. If you raise minimum wage those that have jobs and are successful at them will benefit while those that are unemployed will have an even more difficult job of finding a place of employment. Economists agree that 5% unemployment is a good place to be at as we are now, so I would leave minimum wage where it is. Now those well-versed in economics may see unemployment is much more than just minimum wage which is true though minimum wage does play a signifcant role, but I figure if it isn't broken why try and fix it.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 12:42 pm: Edit

Minimum wage should, and does, vary by state. $7/hour is close to MA's state minimum, and for good reason. However, the same sum in a state like Tennessee or Mississippi might not be that far off from what a recent college grad would make.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Heres why you can't just raise the minimum wage. If you raise the min wage, then all companies will have to raise prices of their goods to pay wages. Then, all companies that use the products of that company will have to pay more, and then raise the price of THEIR products. This will just raise the price of everything in the market, and pretty soon that $7 an hour will be just like the $5.15 is today.

Also, if we get rid of the minimum wage, it's not like everyone is going to me making $.50 an hour, because no one would take those jobs. If you allow the market to regulate prices, you can lower unemployment (by some people taking jobs that pay under 5.15)

And finally, the reason you abolish the minimum wage is that the government should not have the right to regulate what a private company can pay an individual.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Also, if anyone thinks that this wil just lead to more exploitation of illegal immigrants, I have a solution. BORDER CONTROL.

By Tdizzo (Tdizzo) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:05 pm: Edit

hmmn...not nessecarily border control, but stricter regulation of companies hiring illiegals. I live in California where the minimum wage is $6.25 (granted teh cost of living is atrociously high as well), this is not enough o live on. The minimum wage has produced the phenomena of the "working poor" people who have jobs but are paid so little they are unable to raise themselves above the poverty line. I certainly agree that there should be some form of "livable wage" law (something the San Francisco/Bay Area is considering) but the economic consequences of this would be catastrophic. So what solution exists? We can turn to philosophy for ansers, but that generally just leads to more questions. I have my own problems with redistributive programs, so I'm unwilling to go for the old "just tax the rich till they ain't riuch anymore" scheme. However, the minimum wage of old needs to be adjusted to acknoledge the higher cost of living many working poor face these days.

By Tdizzo (Tdizzo) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Also...I see nothing wrong with paying working minors diddly squat (so long as they do not face excessive financial burdens, i.e. helping support their family, paying their own way, etc...) so long as you are a dependant on your parents tax form, you can make minimum wage without crying as you bring absolutely nothing to the table beyond a set of hands.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Stricter regulation of companies hiring illegals? First of all, the first thing that the illegal immigrants do when they enter the country is break federal law. We should allow them to stay and take jobs that many Americans would take? Regular immigration is fine, but illegals have no right being here. Also, illegal immigration is a security issue. If I were a terrorist and wanted to get into America, I would use our Mexican border before I ever flew over here.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:31 pm: Edit

When the CEO earns 55 million and the teenagers he employs earn 5 bucks and hour... how is this not corporate slavery? How is this not serfdom?

Residtributing corportate wealth would be better for our eccon--- reagan's trickle down ecconomics don't work.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:42 pm: Edit

That is true, SmHop - as someone said, you can't use market forces to justify giving CEOs $50 million - because someone equally as qualified will happily do the job for $10 million.

I'm not sure that the remaining $40 million (hypothetical, of course) should go immediately to the lowest-wage workers; some form of equitable distribution along the pay scale would be good. Give middle managment a small raise and a better 401K. Improve benefits. Give longer maternity leave.

I am all for having a minimum wage. People will work for less - ask any immigrant. They might happily work for $2/hour here, pack into an apartment, and feel like their kids have more opportunities than they would in their native country. Also, when the economy is bad, there at least is some floor to the wages. An employer can't turn around and say, "You're lucky to have this job, so I'll pay you $3/hour. If you don't like it, get $0/hour when you're unemployed." The gov't min. wage is, IMO, fairly reasonable.

I always question kids who say that the minimum wage should be raised. If it goes up, it does not mean that the salaries of other fields will increase. While you might think it's great now that everyone should earn at least $10/hour for their work, you'll think differently when you realize that your first job requires a bachelor's degree, prior work experience, references, and pays $12/hour. You'll wonder why you're getting paid that when the cashier at the local pharmacy earns 80% of what you do and is 16 years old. (My friend worked at the Gap while job-searching; graduated magna cum laude from a top university, and barely earns more now than she did in retail.)

There is a balance somewhere, and I don't think it's in raising minimum wage too quickly.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:51 pm: Edit

Min wage is a horrible idea for everyone, and it should be eliminated.

As an issue of fairness, whose business is it to tell a human being what he can pay a consenting person, and whose business is it for the gov to tell a person what they can agree to work for. It should be between the employer and consenting employee. It is none of government's business.

For the employer, it makes things more expensive to pay people an artificially high amount when they are doing a job that is worth less. It makes it harder to be profitable and harder to hire more artificially high wage earners, which leads to my next point.

It is worst for the low-skilled workers. Economists agree that for every dollar the minimum wage is raised, hundreds of thousands of workers lose their jobs, because employers are unable to hire as many workers. If a person is capable of doing a job worth 5$ an hour, he would be sqeezed out of the job market because he isnt allowed to take that job.

And for the average consumer, it makes products and services more expensive because of the high unfair cost of labor. Minimum wage also makes outsourcing more popular, because why would a company want to do business in a place with so many government intrusions.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Is the person consenting? If that person needs a job (to eat, to pay for heat, to not be homeless), they are not free to reject all job offers. I can go shopping for fajita pans. If I don't like the prices of them, I don't have to get any fajita pans. The same is obviously not true for jobs.

How can a single person negotiate a fair price for their labour when faced with a large, influential company? Have you studied the eras of blacklisting and unionization? Read The Grapes of Wrath?

Would you work for $2/hour? 50 cents an hour? Should we eliminate minimum wage, you might be forced to do this.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 02:10 pm: Edit

WOW. I didn't know we had so many Communist Pinko's on this message board. I'll pick apart the arguments 1 by 1.

smHop- How can you say that Reagan's trickle down economy didn't work? It lowered unemployment (a ton), lowered inflation (a ton), and got the nation out of the worst depression since the Great depression.

Second of all, what right does the government have in regulating what a CEO, or a burger flipper, can make? Also, let's look at what redistribution of wealth really is:

Let's say I work hard and become a CEO of a company. I make tons of money. Why should someone be able to take that money away from me? What right does someone else have to my money? It is a communist principle that should be regarded as such.

Ariesathena- Look, no one would take a $.50 job. If anyone did, not many other people would. To get more people to take jobs a company would have to pay more. But secondly, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, if a company paid its workers less, they could lower their prices. Then, companies that used this companies products would lower their prices, and soon that $4 an hour would be worth just as much as $5.15 an hour. The market will readjust to these market forces.

Also, keeping a minimum wage causes unemployment. Is it better to have more people make $4 an hour, or more people to make $0 an hour?

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 02:16 pm: Edit

Yes, there are millions of jobs, and employers try to get the best people for lowest price, so people of all skill levels have some choice as to jobs. If a company paid only 50 cents/hr for a job as a clerk, they would be out of business because other companies would pay more than that and they would not be able to hire. Why do you think there are jobs that pay 10$ an hour without min wage? because they need to.

Santa Monica, a city which is very socialistic, has some of the highest minimum wages in the nation, 10.65 an hour plus benifits. Even though Santa Monica is in a prime economic location on the beach in LA, it has enormous unemployment, high homelessness, and a load of disincentives to create new business and jobs. It just does not work for the government to artificially control how much one makes. There are serious consequences.

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 02:22 pm: Edit

All theoretical evidence by economists say min. wage is a bad idea, as well as all practical evidence such as Jlg3d3's point about Santa Monica illustrates the stupidity of artificially regulating people's pay. It sounds good to say "pay people more", but even the littlest thinking reveals how shallow and damaging that would be to everyone and the economy.

A recent editorial in "Investors Business Daily" put it this way:

"Minimum wage laws, an icon of the political left, are particularly damaging to low-income workers. Many are locked out of jobs. The Employment Policies Institute figures that the first 50 cents out of the $1.00 hike in the minimum wage in 1996 through 1997 cost 645,000 jobs. Rarely do economists agree on any given issue. But here, however, almost all economists agree: Minimum wage hikes destroy jobs. And they hurt the very people that the victicrats purport to help—women, minorities, and teens. Most minimum wage workers are not heads of households, attempting to raise a family on $5.75 an hour.
But, suppose that the typical minimum wage earner were a married man with a two-child family. Can we agree that one should defer producing a child until one can feed, clothe, and educate that child? Shouldn’t a minimum wage person have a minimum family, at least until skills, and therefore, future prospects, improve?


A recent "Investors Business Daily" article explained how minimum wage hikes kill jobs, "It’s clear to everyone but the most diehard socialists how this happens. Employers who can afford to pay four workers $5.00 an hour can’t afford them all at $6.00 an hour. Somebody has to go. So, three are marginally helped—a fourth is simply without a job. And the fifth, sixth, and seventh don’t get hired in the first place." "

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 02:40 pm: Edit

There's a radical difference between paying someone $5/hour and $10/hour. If you've read my previous posts, you'll understand that I'm not in favour of a radical increase in minimum wage.

Rampant deflation, by the way, is not a good thing. Ask anyone with debt (Student loan, mortgage, credit card), and you'll understand. I would hate to try to pay back my loans (which will be $120,000) during a time of deflation, effectively making my loans worth a quarter million in today's dollars. Low inflation (a percentage a year) or so is quite good for the economy. Deflation will result in people defaulting on their loans (never a good thing); huge inflation obviously not good either.

The question remains: what if all companies decided to only pay new workers $2/hour? Would you work for less than minimum wage? Both of you criticized me, but neither one of you affirmatively answered that you would work for less than minimum wage. Wonder why...

By Chavi (Chavi) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 02:41 pm: Edit

Seems to me its harder for teenagers to find summer and part-time jobs these days. If you raise the minimum wage, it'll be virtually impossible.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 02:42 pm: Edit

AriesAthena: I agree with everything you said... yes, the money should be redistributed across the board, including perhaps dividends to stockholders... certainly employee benefit increases (retirement etc), maternity et al. I read that the people of France get 4 years paid vacation... Americans work SO hard for what we get.

Your points about a fed minimum are well founded-- history has shown there has to be some sort of stop-gap... we can't wel expect ppl to work for $1.50 a day, can we? Yet, it happens in the third world nations such as India. The rich there are very, very Rich, and the poor are sickly poor...

EIpowers77: you're not really thinking this through... "if the wages was 50cents, no one would take that job".... uh, okay, given a choice between 50 cents and nothing, people take the 50cents. My great grandmother sold apples during the great depression bc there was NO job, no *nothing* for her... you do what you have to do in this life. Fortunately, we have a government that keeps the corportate wolves at bay, without mandating too much control over capatalist enterprise.

As for your take on Regan, you're spouting re-written history, proppganda. Americans lost more buying power in the 80s than ever in this nation's history-- it began the current cycle of dept ridden lifestyle-- for the first time in US history, the working class wages did not even keep pace with inflation, yet the wealth at the top grew by like 400%.

By the way, I am a die-hard fiscal conservative- not a pinko. Yet, somehow, I manage to have a little heart too...

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Its harder for kids to find summer jobs bc a)the CEO is taking too big a cut. b)bread-winners need those jobs as thier jobs get outsourced c)so many families HAVE to have two incomes just to get by today that moms are out working those jobs.


Our econ is in a lot worse position than people are willing to admit.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 02:45 pm: Edit

sorry, dbl post

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Let's see, had Jimmy Carter been president for another 4 years, no doubt the huge stagflation would have continued. Reagan made the economy BETTER than it was, he IMPROVED it. Did he make it perfect? No. Were there still major problems with it? Absolutely. But he improved it more than any other president ever has.

Also, about the trickle-down economy, the poor don't make the economy run. Someone who makes very little will end up buying what he needs. Someone who makes a lot of money will buy what he needs, what he wants, and will invest. Investment helps new companies start out, therefore helping employ more people.

Also, smhop, what are you talking about it's tough to find a summer job? I found mine in a week and work about 2 mins from my house. I have never had a problem finding a job, you are basing your arguments on false assumptions.

Smhop, you are also comparing our current economy to the Great Depression. You can't talk about economics and compare the two. Of course people in the Great Depression took $.50 jobs, thate because there was NOTHING else. Nowadays there are so many choices in jobs.

Arth- first of all, the government has no right to redistribute wealth. You make money in spite of government, not because of it. And I would take a job under min wage because I am not supporting anyone.

But seriously, lets look at the from an Adam Smith perspective. When someone makes so little money, it is irresponsible to have a wife and 5 kids. If you can't support them, you should not be having them. $5.15 an hour is enough to get by on by yourself, and maybe a wife. You can't bring EVERYONE out of poverty. As Jesus said, there will always be poor people.

By Princess_Banana (Princess_Banana) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 03:03 pm: Edit

I thought it was $6.75 in CA

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Also, you can call yourself a fiscal conservative all day (Howard Dean and GWB say they are, so that term has little weight nowadays), but when you support income redistribution, you are supporting a communist principle. It's that simple.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 03:13 pm: Edit

What's to say that a company which starts paying it's workers $4/hour instead of $5/hour will then cut the cost of its goods? We can see very well from exhorbitant CEO salaries (which have increased about two orders of magnitude, on the average, in the past decade) that the increased wealth to the company does not go towards decreasing cost or increasing benefits, but rather towards management or CEO compensation.

The Great Depression analogy is completely fine. Even in the past year, people took pay cuts to stay employed, worked longer hours, took on more duties, skipped vacation - why? If they didn't do it, someone else would. Same theory goes for wages. Now, I'm not a pinko; I'm not even in favour of raising min. wage. I laughed at the lunatics at my alma mater who staged a huge protest so that janitors could get paid $12/hour. (I think that, upon graduation and seeing what types of jobs they can get, they'll probably want a $12/hour job!) But I don't think that eliminating minimum wage will do a damn thing save to wreck havoc on the economy. CEO and management compenstation will skyrocket (even more); people who have trouble making ends meet on two jobs will be in larger trouble.

If you can't support them, you should not be having them. Agreed. But it still happens... so are you supposed to help create a situation where a kid can't eat because Mom can't afford formula on $2/hour? $5/hour? Isn't it better to have a minimum wage which is at least decent (not phenomenal) and allow Mom to try to earn enough money to get the family going instead of relying heavily on WIC? You are going to have to help people who have families accidentally and too young somehow, whether it be through minimum wage, subsidized childcare, WIC, or a huge socialist system in which the state takes care of them because the mother can't earn enough.

Arguing for minimum wage is not a pinko position - actually, it's damn moderate. Arguing for its elimination is heartless, ignorant, or radically conservative. Take your pick.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Someone please explain how minimum wage (in which workers help the company earn money and thus earn money themselves) is income redistribution. It's only IR if we assume that CEOs should have all of the money, and dole it out based on their needs alone.

Have you ever worked both a low-wage, low-skill job (i.e. restaurant work) and a high-wage, high-skill job? As someone who has done both, I understand what my time is worth as a human and as a professional. While there is a five-fold difference in what I earned scooping ice cream and what I make as an engineer, I understand that both have worth. I think that my time, as a human, doing a low-wage job, is still worth something - and I'm happy that the government set a standard as to what my time is worth. I guess I learned that $5/hour really is not that much money. My guess is that the adults argue for min. wage (even though adults tend to be more conservative), while the kids argue against it.

By the way, no one has yet to stand up and say that they would work for $2/hour.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 03:18 pm: Edit

I just don't understand why everyone hates how CEOs make tons of money. Let's see, they do one of the most difficult jobs on Earth, and have tremendous pressure on them to produce results. These aren't people who tricked, lied, and cheated their way to the top, they worked very hard for what they have, and continue to work very hard for it. Why should these people have their money taken away just because they have more?

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 03:22 pm: Edit

"Also, about the trickle-down economy, the poor don't make the economy run. Someone who makes very little will end up buying what he needs. Someone who makes a lot of money will buy what he needs, what he wants, and will invest. Investment helps new companies start out, therefore helping employ more people. "

Exactly why it would be nice if a few more people made a bit more money-- more people making more money euals more spending. If we keep people down at the bottom, they cannot spend... which hurts the econ.

Also, smhop, what are you talking about it's tough to find a summer job? I found mine in a week and work about 2 mins from my house. I have never had a problem finding a job, you are basing your arguments on false assumptions.

You are apparently not even reading this thread, bc that was in response to another poster who said it was hard for a teen to get a job.

Your beliefs on Regan crack me up- I lived it. All you are spouting in the reqritten history to glorify a now-dead man. That always happens. An individul is mediocre until he dies (or falls out of public view as reagan did) -- then suddenly "he's the greatest".

NO, I am not comapring the current econ to the great depression. I was making an analogy, the point of which you missed... said point being: people do what they have to do in this world, like it or not. And, isnt it nice that there are some protections in place to prevent it from getting so bad as it once was? Whereas you seem to think it would be fine to pull this protection away... well, go live in Mexico or India then-- where you won't have electricty or a car or a newspaper bc your daily wages won't get it for you.

I did not ask the GOV to redistribute wealth... I said, that it is good for us to have some measure of regulation. (IE a 40 hour workweek, no child labor, etc) Minimum wage is merely a teeny tiny regulation that keeps the corps from screwing the little guy.

I am all for capatalism, ayn rand pie in the sky, make your money if you can. But That was fine back in the 50s where the avg Joe could make a living at his own business, and rise up. Avg Joe has a tough time doing that today-- This new econ of corporations is really dangerous ground.

I am agianst corporate wellfare and for more money in the individual's pocket- the individual has great impact on the econ... this is conservative economics... dont pigeonhole me if you can't figure out which hole I belong in.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Ariesathena... I am with you on every point.. though I think a slight raise in Min Wage is due as it has been many years since it went up. Your posts are well said, well thoght through.

Min Wage is not income redist... it certainly is moderate, and I consider it mild neccesary regulation.
Companies are goughing profitt, even when they cut wages.


Eipower: "These aren't people who tricked, lied, and cheated their way to the top...away just because they have more? "

They aren't? Are you here in America where I am? Where the corporate scandal over things like compnay backed loans and $5000 shower doors in companies like Tyco bolstered the Leadership's salary while raping the coffers of the worker's retiremnet funds? Where leadership salaries have increased since 1979/80 to the present in astounding percentages, yet most of America has the same purchasing power or less?

A business man/individual who can make it big should have every opportunity to do so. To start a business, employ others, make a good, solid living at a job you enjoy, have purchasing power, help teh econ, etc... All good stuff: stuff the American dream is made of; Capatalist enterprse.

Getting a degree from a good school,networking a corp leadership position, taking more than you desrve in salary, perks, and etc... leaving nothing for the shareholders, and even less for the workers = corporate theft. Not exactly the American dream.

The first is conservative economics, the other is a slave driven economy. So many people are at the mercy of these big corps... they have no autonomy... I think the more powerful the corps get, the worse off we will be.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:06 pm: Edit

"They aren't? Are you here in America where I am? Where the corporate scandal over things like compnay backed loans and $5000 shower doors in companies like Tyco bolstered"

So they are commiting crimes, it is not like that is legal CEO behavior.

And for every company paying $2 an hour, why would that happen. Why dont companies pay the min wage to everyone now? Because companies want to hire the best employees, and will pay enough so that they can keep their desired employees. A company who pays $5 an hour to every worker would be out of business in a day.
Just pay people what you think they deserve. If it is an appropriate amount, then they will work for you. If it is too low, they won't work for you and you will need to raise your wages.

Min wage is stupid even though it sounds good to pay people more. It is noone's business how much I accept for a job.

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:10 pm: Edit

If I want to rake leaves for $3.00 an hour, I should be allowed to. If I want to walk someone's dog for $2 an hour, I should be allowed to. It is not the government's business to restrict what jobs I can accept as long as that job is legal and I pay taxes. It is an intrusian on my civil liberties and an insult to my intellegence for goverment to tell me how much I can work for. It is none of their god damn business.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:11 pm: Edit

As I said earlier, CEOs are making about 500 times what they were making ten years ago. They were adequately compensated 10 years ago, let me tell you. You're also making the mistake of equating my rant against them earning $50million/year when other people would do the job for $10 million/year with me saying that they should not be well-compensated. There is a HUGE difference between a CEO earning a few million a year (more than adequate for the jobs they are doing) and the salaries that many of them pull down. When Bradlees went under, many people lost their pensions; the CEO made $6 million that year. Hell, I can run a company into the ground for $6 million! I would do it for a hundreth of that!

Tyco, Worldcomm, Enron. Honest, hard working chaps, right? Remember them?

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:15 pm: Edit

one last thing: just fyi from wikipedia

"Crony capitalism" is a pejorative expression, denoting a type of capitalism in which business success is heavily dependent upon one's connections. In such a system, business decisions are significantly influenced by friendships and family ties, rather than by market forces and open competition. The term, often abbreviated "crapitalism", is generally used as part of an explanation for why a superficially market-based system fails to generate adequate economic growth. The term has been used to describe the economic systems of Japan, Indonesia and the United States.

Like fascism, "crony capitalism" often describes a close relationship between government and business, but to a much less obvious extent. Instead of the government directly controlling businesses and giving it orders (as is the case with Fascism), the government gives legislative favors to certain businesses or types of businesses - ease of permits, government grants, specially created tax benefits, etc.


^^^^THIS IS NOT TRUE CAPATALISM... I am against ^^^ this "crapatalism".

It hardly makes me a "pinko", nor even a "liberal" to be against this trend in gov/politics/econ... it merely makes me smart ;)

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:21 pm: Edit

"They were adequately compensated 10 years ago, let me tell you."

Who are you to say who is making enough money?

When I say CEO is a tough job, I'm talking about LEGALLY running a company. That is why we have laws. What Enron, Worldcomm, and Tyco did was wrong, and they are being prosecuted for it.

By Demingy (Demingy) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Jlq3d3:
"A company who pays $5 an hour to every worker would be out of business in a day.
Just pay people what you think they deserve. If it is an appropriate amount, then they will work for you. If it is too low, they won't work for you and you will need to raise your wages."---

This would be true if there were enough jobs for a large percentage of the population, if there weren't people who have been unemployed for over a year (some who have been unemployed for YEARS), if there weren't so many teenagers who have a difficult time finding jobs, and if we didn't have immigration (especially illegal immigration).

There are far too many people who would accept a job with far less money because they are desperate for anything. Many companies already take advantage of this with minimum wage and they would do it even more if they could hire people at a ridiculously low rate. They wouldn't even have to worry too much about finding talented labor in this economy because there is a lot of talented labor still looking for work (and some at any price just to feed their families).

And, do you really think that those savings would be passed on to the consumer? In your ideal world, maybe, but in the United States the answer would be no (well, maybe you'd have 1/100th of a percent that would).

Bunmushroom:
"If I want to rake leaves for $3.00 an hour, I should be allowed to. If I want to walk someone's dog for $2 an hour, I should be allowed to."---

You are allowed to. These fall under those areas that aren't covered under minimum wage. You can even babysit for less than minimum wage.

In fact, we have people here who sell newspapers on the street for the newspaper agency. These people only keep what they sell the papers for, they don't get paid minimum wage or any wage at all (and no, they can't "just" sell the papers for a lot more money, no one would buy them). This was put in place so the newspaper can increase circulation (and charge higher prices to their advertisers that way) and they are able to take advantage of the fact that the homeless (who are the ones who sell the papers) will take what they can get.

By Demingy (Demingy) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:31 pm: Edit

By the way, I did want to point out that I don't believe that raising minimum wage is always a positive thing. Minimum wage that is too high will also have adverse effects on the economy as inflation would increase. In fact, in the economy as it is now I don't think that raising the minimum wage is the answer.....but there don't seem to be too many jobs being created either.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:35 pm: Edit

I lost $7,000 in Worldcomm stock, just letting you know. Also, Ken Lay was just indicted for what he did - years ago. Does prosecution make up for what they did? I don't think that I'm getting any of my money back.

Who are you to say who is making enough money?

Frankly, that's a childish question, but I'll answer it anyway. First of all, I know what it is like to work as a professional and to earn a high salary, but one that is truly earned. So I have more of a clue than other people would. I think I can say that anyone who earns in excess of a million a year is probably well compensated for their work, especially when other people are also working extraordinarily stressful jobs and not making nearly the same. Physicians probably have more stress than CEOs, along with the threat of malpractice. Certainly, they should be compensated for that; yet, their salaries are far lower than those of CEOs of top companies. Simply put, the compensation of CEOs is out of line with other highly specialized, skilled labour, high stress jobs.

Who am I to say? I never heard my grandfather, a Fortune 500 company CEO since the age of 35, complain about his compensation. He's made more than enough money - I could go into the gory details, but suffice to say, there's a lot of cash hanging around.

To answer your question - as someone who has personally known one of said former CEOs and seen the level of compensation, yeah, I think I can say that they did quite well for themselves.

So who are you to say that they were not compensated well? Were you alive then? Were you one of them who felt that $5 million/year was not adequate for your work?

Have a good cry for those poor, underpaid CEOs of the yesteryear, then return here when you can make some well-reasoned and mature arguments.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 04:45 pm: Edit

I'm going to restate my post, because we all seem to be focused on the huge corporations, making it easier to say "they can afford it" (with some legitimacy). But we are forgetting about the small businesses:

The reason I'm against a specific and drastic increase is because while big corporations like the ones you mentioned can often afford to pay more, often times it hurts small businesses. It does have a negative effect on the business owners when it is forced. Also, and I do know from experience, small business owners give pay raises on their own based on experience. They do not keep a person on min. wage forever, and I feel it should stay in the hands of the business owners. For those who need the wage to live on, if they're working full time, they will naturally get a larger and larger wage as they continue to work (they won't be on min. wage long). I know that small business owners treat their employees very well and do not need a forced minimum wage.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Hunter: There's a difference between small businesses, owned by a family, and many other non-large corporations. Small businesses would probably treat people very well, as a personal relationship develops. But what about the busboys at Denny's? While no one at the local Denny's is getting rich, it's probably reasonable to assume that minimum wage is a good thing there.

This all begs the question: if you don't think that the current min. wage is good, what do you think it should be? Dollar amounts and region of the country you are posting from, please.

So, the questions:
1. Do you think we should have min. wage?
2. What do you think min. wage should be?
3. What part of the country are you in?
4. What is the minimum amount you would work for? (Age as well, SmHop and I, being adults, probably will have different answers!)

I obviously am for min. wage, both federal and state; federal so that there is at least some baseline, and state so appropriate cost of living adjustments can be made. I think that about $5/hour is completely fine. I'm in MA, and closer to $6/hour or $6.50 I think it is now is probably reasonable. I don't think I would, as an engineer, work for under $20/hour.

By Kluge (Kluge) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:31 pm: Edit

In 1967 the minimum wage was $1.65. Gas cost about $.30/gallon. You could buy a house in a nice neighborhood in California for about $30,000. Tuition at UC Berkeley was about $500 a year.

Obviously, a lot has changed since then. But the minimum wage has changed a lot less than most things. It's really not so much a question of raising the minimum wage as it is reversing some of the cuts that have been made in it by inflation over the years.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Min. wage to gas price ratio:

1965: 5.5
2004: 2.46

Just for fun.

By Demingy (Demingy) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:50 pm: Edit

I'll answer your questions Ariesathena:

1. Do you think we should have min. wage? Yes

2. What do you think min. wage should be? Around $5/hr (in other words, not much of an increase from where we are) in the current economy.

3. What part of the country are you in? Colorado

4. What is the minimum amount you would work for? Given prices here I wouldn't work for anything less than $14/hour (luckily I make more than that)

(Age as well, SmHop and I, being adults, probably will have different answers!) You guys are the only adults :) 26

By Demingy (Demingy) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Hunter, I agree with your argument as an argument for avoiding raising the minimum willy nilly (sorry, at a loss for words today), but as I mentioned in my argument above there really is a good reason to have *a* minimum wage. There would be far more problems without it (which is why it was created in the first place). It just takes a very fine balance.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 06:45 pm: Edit

Kluge said "Obviously... is reversing some of the cuts that have been made in it by inflation over the years. " Yes!! yes, yes.. I agree. Min wage earners have less purchasing power today than previously.

Hunter: The problem is, that we really don't have an economy dependent upon small business anymore-- we did in the 50s, but it is long gone. That is the point I was making with my long anti-corporate posts. Further, most family owned businesses are willing to do better by the thier employees anyway. Mimimum wage is a regulation to prevent any workers from being taken advantage of.

Aries: Again, well stated!

So, the questions:
1. Do you think we should have min. wage? Yes.

2. What do you think min. wage should be?

In a perfect world fed minimum would be 7.50. It would take a two year plan to get it there, but I think it needs to be there. Working full-time this would still only equate to about 15k a year, sadly, that is less than the federal poverty level for a family of three! Shouldn't our federal minimum guarantee living above the poverty level?

Otherwise, why would one work at all??? Just screw the job and go on welfare which by the way, pays more than minimum wage in many states.

* In fact, a mother on welfare in R.I. gets compensated better than if she actually went out and got a full time minimum wage job. How awful is that?


3. What part of the country are you in? Currently SC.

4. What is the minimum amount you would work for? Hmm, I would not like to work for less than 30k, which is 14 bucks and hour or so. If I am going to be out of the home, not with my kids, and paying extra taxes as well as daycare expense... I certainly cannot work for min wage. On the other hand, if I *needed* money desperately, then I guess I would do whatever I had to do to support my kids--- work for $5 bucks an hour? Well, that would make life pretty miserable for my family. God forbid my hubbie looses his job, becomes disabled... I am not a professional, How would I support us?!!?
Its not happening on a min wage job, let me tell you =(

By Takiusproteus (Takiusproteus) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 07:24 pm: Edit

Raise minimum wage

Pass legislation that bans the laying-off of employees until the point that the CEO's own salary is equal to that of the most poorly-paid full-time worker.

By Fenix_Three (Fenix_Three) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 08:06 pm: Edit

Yeah... econ stuff. Well technically minimum wage will increase unemployment, however, this is also temporary. Other measures can help put employment back on track. And no, economists don't agree that 5% unemployment is good. We need about 3% unemployment, and only frictional at that. That means we'd like to have some college graduates who are looking for jobs and some people who are moving to a different city/state. Right now the official unemployment may be around 5%, but that's only because so many people have given up looking for work and are no longer counted in the labor force. I'd say that raising minimum wage gradually with respect to inflation is a reasonable demand. I think the 70's had the best minimum wage even if it was below $5.00/hour. Oh yeah, as for redistributing wealth, min wage won't do that. Do you expect the CEO's to give up their salaries to pay their employees? I didn't think so.

Can you tell I want to be an econ major?

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 01:23 am: Edit

"Pass legislation that bans the laying-off of employees until the point that the CEO's own salary is equal to that of the most poorly-paid full-time worker. "

Haha.
You're funny!


Before reading the arguments on this post, I was adamant for raising minimum wage. But now, I see that simply raising it more than a dollar at one time could negatively affect the economy. Given the example of the mother with the formula, I believe what we should do is deal with that- perhaps, we can raise the wage by no more than 75 cents for the next few years, and instead pass laws protecting those cases- providing free formula, rehab, hospital visits, drastically discounted apartments, everything that is needed that the current minimum wage fails to provide. This way, a raise will not be necessary, and we are sure that the money is indeed going to a good use.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:01 am: Edit

We have welfare. But, far better would be to have an ecconomy where it makes sense for a single mom to work, than to have an economy where welfare babies produce more generations of welfare babies.

I know several women who refuse to work (single moms) bc the state will take better care of them than they could manage to do out on thier own. That's so sad. The money should be spent on job training and child care so the woman gets a hand up instead of a hand-out.

Unfortunately, there will always be those few bad apples... the dug-addicted etc-- who for whatever reason in this world cannot or willnot take care of themselves. For those pathetic souls we need welfare assistance, but I am not a big believer in welfare (too much abuse and fraud) so IMO very firm lines would have to be drawn between those who should be "supported" and those who should be given alternate means of assistance (job training etc).

However, without a livable wage-- there is no reason for these people to ever get off the welfare roles. WHICH means, you and I support them with OUR tax dollars... and that, really ticks me off. =(

A livable wage would put money in the pockets of the poor, and also return some tax dollars to the middle class. (Bonus for both!) Entitlements take up a huge portion of the gov budget, and it is off the backs of the middle class.

By Gidget (Gidget) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:22 am: Edit

HOLY CRAP- the minimum wage is the U.S is $5.15 ????? .. here in Canada it's $6.85

By Twinkletoes696 (Twinkletoes696) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:23 am: Edit

I think the minimum wage should be whatever it takes to live somewhat above the poverty line.

Would this hurt the economy? Probably, I don't know, I'm being idealistic.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:27 am: Edit

Gidget, is that Canadian Dollars?

Also, it would hurt the economy by increasing inflation. While idealistically it may seem right to increase the minimum wage, as long as there is a minimum wage it will not be enough to live on. Supply and demand will always take over.

If $7 is enough to live on now, pretty soon it won't be if min wage is increased.

By Conker (Conker) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:44 am: Edit

Yeah, let's raise the minimum wage so more manufacturing jobs go to China! At the moment, if we convert our cost of living ($30,000/year) to RMB (240,000/year), we do not get their cost of living (10,000/year). The minimum wage is part of a larger scheme that drives this cost of living skyward. Now I'm not saying that we should abolish the minimum wage. If that happened, then many Americans wouldn't even be making enough to survive (although abolishing the minimum wage would be the quickest fix). I believe that the economy will correct itself, and that manufacturing jobs will EVENTUALLY come back to America. But when is "eventually"? And during this period of waiting, the lower-class Americans will suffer greatly, only increasing the disparity between the rich and the poor.

Disclaimer: I am not a rabid capitalist, nor a libertarian. In fact, surveys show that I have considerable socialist leanings. But I am divided on many issues, and this is one of them.

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 02:58 pm: Edit

minimum wage is making more outsourcing, and raising it will make it a lot worse. It will kill so many jobs.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 03:06 pm: Edit

"Stricter regulation of companies hiring illegals? First of all, the first thing that the illegal immigrants do when they enter the country is break federal law. We should allow them to stay and take jobs that many Americans would take?"

Ejpowers87,

Since you seem to me such a hard spoken conservative, I take pleasuring in informing you that Bush supports the exact policy that you just chasitized.

By Gidget (Gidget) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 03:19 pm: Edit

No it's in Pesos... :)- Yes it's in Canadian dollars and I was wrong it ranges by provinces from $7 in Manitoab to $8.50 in Nunavut

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 03:45 pm: Edit

The problem with raising minimum wages is that it ends up hurting the people that the policy would intent to help.

The minimum wages are no longer meant to ensure someone LIVING wages. It is meant to represent a floor for entry-level jobs. Instead of helping the poor, a minimum-wage increase could kick many of them out of the job market. If a business views the minimum wage as too high, they won't debate the issue, they will simply hire fewer employees.

Of the 1.5 percent of the workforce that earns the minimum wage or below (about 2.1 million people), more than half are under age 25. More than 500,000 of them are between the ages of 16 and 19, which means that they likely live with a parent or relative, are in school and work part-time for extra pocket change. Many of the rest of them are in entry-level or temporary jobs, which means they likely will get raises in the future. (Indeed, a study of minimum-wage earners revealed that 63 percent saw their wages increase over a year.)

As the Wall Street Journal notes: "Three-fifths are in the leisure and hospitality industry, which means in jobs that often come with tips in addition to wages." Furthermore, unmarried workers are more likely to earn the minimum wage or less than their married counterparts. And finally, only 15 percent of those earning the minimum wage or below are lone earners with children.

For flame-bait purposes, here's an additional conservative view of the subject!

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 04:00 pm: Edit

SmHop: Yes, giving people the tools to better their condition is often better than giving them handouts. You are absolutely correct in that welfare kicks in far below 2,000 hours of min. wage jobs. That's why I'm a big fan of subsidized child care: hopefully, women can put their kids in day care, get a job, and through the job, help themselves, earn some money, set a good example for the kids, have some self-respect (which is apparently a big issue - many people would love to work and want the respect), and get some job experience so they can get a better job and get off welfare.

Just a thought, but a county in Illinois got everyone off its welfare rolls. Basically, they did very intense job training, subsidized day care, psychological treatment, and checked up on the people as they began jobs. It is less expensive than having people on welfare and, obviously, gets people to be self-sufficient.

Just a data point so we can all talk about it: 1/3 of homeless people have severe psychological problems, such as bipolar, alcoholism (many drink Listerine when they cannot get booze), or schizophrenia.

By Demingy (Demingy) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Ariesathena, don't forget PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). Many of the homeless people that I knew were war veterans who suffered from PTSD.

By Kluge (Kluge) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 04:53 pm: Edit

For your consideration on this topic: Over the past 20 years, the overall wealth of the USA, adjusted for inflation and population growth, has increased by over 50%. If that increase had been shared among all economic sectors, the poor would still be poor, but would be 50% better off financially than they were in the 80's, as would the middle class, the wealthy, etc.

But it hasn't been equally shared. The segment of the nation who earn less than $30,000 per year (current dollars) actually are worse off now than they were twenty years ago. The middle class - from $30,000 - $100,000 (current dollars) have seen a little increase in income (<10%), $100,000 - $300,000 have enjoyed a 15 - 20% increase in income. All of the rest of the increase in wealth has gone to the top 1% of the economy. The rich have gotten very rich. The poor continue to get poorer.

So if you want to debate the consequences of minor economic regulations, consider that you are starting at a point where the economic disparity between the poor and the wealthy is far greater than at any time in recent history - and is increasing.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Kluge: this is just my guess, and if you have data to back it up or refute it, that would be great... but I don't think it's the top 1% that are really doing well. It's probably the top 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/10th of 1% - it's not the professionals, but the CEOs, athletes, or top managers. I could be wrong, but I think that the wealth is going to the extreme top of people - the one in a few hundred are making obsence salaries, while the rest of the top 1% are doing well, but are still "upper middle class."

To quantify, top 1% is $293,000/year, right? The massive increase in wealth probably has not gone to the $300k/year crowd so much as the few million per year crowd... the extremely wealthy.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 05:28 pm: Edit

Kluge~

I do not doubt your statistics for a second.

However, for a person to earn $30,000/year, he must be paid at roughly 3 times the minimum wages.

The level of minimum wages does little to help citizens emerge from poverty.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 06:11 pm: Edit

Scuba, good point, and that is one of the biggest problems I have w/ GWB. He has been AWFUL on the domestic side of his presidency, but I cannot image Kerry being any better (actaully, he would be much worse). Also, I will vote for GWB because he has done a great job in keeping America safe after 9/11

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 06:46 pm: Edit

Ejpowers -- let's not speak to soon.
(By the way -- what exactly has he done?)

By Kluge (Kluge) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 07:13 pm: Edit

Xiggi - You're right - and those earning the minimum wage have lost the most ground over that same period. In fact, the entire economic progess/regress picture appears to be a gentle curve, with the bottom losing the most ground, and the top gaining the most. Break even looks to be right around $30,000.
And I'll rise to the flame bait as well. The interesting thing about the article in the Spectator is that it argues that - despite actual real life experience to the contrary - increasing the minimum wage really does cause job loss. (He give's "explanations" for why it didn't happen when the minimum wage was raised in the recent past, and cites expert opinions as being more significant than actual events.)
I'm curious regarding the theory that raising the minimum wage results in fewer jobs. The minimum wage jobs I see are at places like McDonalds. (No tips.) Exactly which of those employees would be fired if the minimum wage was raised? It's not like they're not doing anything that doesn't need to be done. It seems to me that if they were unnecessary they wouldn't be hired - at $5.15 or $7. I'm having a tough time trying to picture the job which exists at $5.15/hour and won't exist if the minimum wage is $7.

By Ejpowers87 (Ejpowers87) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 07:56 pm: Edit

Craigk10 are you talking about what he did to keep us safer? Perhaps the Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Patriot Act.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 08:00 pm: Edit

I don't know why I ingored this thread for such a long time. I just believe the minimum should be $6. But personally I don't really care (sorry if that should shallow). But I agree on completely head with the fact lots of people will lose a job and not be able to buy a meal. I think Bush should pay more attention to home issues than overseas. That's why I'm with Kerry.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 08:00 pm: Edit

I am not going to respond with anything more than disagreement because this thread is not the place nor will anything come of it. Despite that I shudder at even the mention of the Patriot Act.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 08:02 pm: Edit

Just so you know many experts (anonymous CIA agent who has written a book recently -- title escapes me) argue that the actions abroad since 9/11 have actually made things worse. So at a minimum it is not as clear cut as you make it. Sorry but I had to say something.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 08:20 pm: Edit

You cant pay people more than what their jobs are worth without bad consequences. Something will have to give. Many will lose their jobs because they arnt able to perform a higher wage job, more wont be hired in the first place because the cost of labor will be too high, more jobs will be outsourced, products for all will become more expensive.... Min wage hurts most the people it is intended to help.
On a theoretical basis so that you can imagine the effects on a larger more visable scale (1 dollar hike is bad enough, but just for an easier view: ), why dont we rasie the min wage to 50$ an hour, than we'd all be rich! Not exactly, the opposite would happen.

And it is so obvious with empirical evidence; min wage leaves more people, espessially those with low skills and education, with no job. Unemployment rates and homelessness in Santa Monica, a place with the highest in min wage in the US is horrible. Not only do people not get hired, but it is a huge disincentive to start new businesses, businesses which would bring much needed jobs to students and those with low education. It is a horrible horrible policy pratically, and it is a harmful intrusian of govt into the lives of people.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:42 am: Edit

Editorial in today's Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2004/07/23/theres_hope_for_poorer_workers/

By Benzo415 (Benzo415) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 08:52 am: Edit

I was at Boys State last month, and a few kids were arguing that there should be a huge minimum wage increase to $12-14! This is very radical, even in a state like Vermont, but since the few people who wanted this were the heads of my party, the Federalists (Democrats), this came onto our party's platform.

Now raising it this high is a terrible idea, as it will cause major outsourcing of labor. Many big companies will not want to pay their part-time employees $14/hour, especially someone like a Wal-Mart cashier.

But yes there should be a minimum wage, or else we might start paying workers as little as $1/hour, practically bringing back slavery. Maybe it should go up a little depending on the area, but right now it's pretty good where it is I think.

By Salamanda (Salamanda) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 06:12 pm: Edit

i wasn't sure what min. wage was...but everyone around here is payed like $7.50+/hr min. wage- and we're just a small town in Oregon :)


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page