Well it didn't take long. The article below details how liberals want to limit IRA benefits. They set the amount at $3M, which would generate about $205,000 a year in retirement income, on the grounds that no one "needs" any more income than that. This demonstrates that liberals do indeed ponder the concept of a "maximum wage", no matter what term you might choose.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillip...

Pittuy, People sure do forget this. Some people here complaining about the wage is like you and me complaining that we can't buy a $200,000 car.

Though out the history of the minimum wage it was never meant to be a living wage only, as an entry level wage. Your next step in life was to improve your wage by gaining skills and or an education to improve your financial status. Hiking the minimum wage only forces employers to hire fewer people and excludes teens from procuring part time employment. All this is fact and shows up in any reputable data of employment.

If raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt job growth,then the min wage should be $20 hour...let's quite foolin around and do some serious business

Eksreigh - excellent! How unfortunate your comment goes unrecognized. There are way too many soapboxes to go around.

Your comments on Elizabeth Warren certain does. If the statements you used are correct and I believe they are, then she certainly believes that all gains or a large portion of the productivity gains should be trasnferrable to wages. That is not the case and they would not be transferrable.

Ezoner, nobody, 'dems' or otherwise are stating that the minimum wage should be tied to productivity. The point that was being made in discussing productivity and minimum in the same sentence was that employees did not realize any gains due to the rise of productivity, unlike company executives and shareholders, and this situation has resulted in an ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots globally and domestically.

You cannot compare MW or any wage for that matter to productivity gains. You first need to question why the productivity gains are required. The gains are required to compete in the marketplace, to offset the differnece labor rates in a global market, to offset the additional cost of shipping products out of the country to complete with local products that may be indigenous.

The arguement that all productivuty gains should be transfered in the form of wages should just how little many dems understand about basic economics.

You're right, in my Mar 19, 2013 at 3:17 p.m. comment I said "making" the MW $22/hour, which she did not propose. I stand corrected.
As far as the "absurd" idea of a maximum pay, I'm not saying that because liberals want to make everyone equal, they want a maximum pay, although it is consistent with liberal thought (despite your pleadings to the contrary). I'm saying that (watch for the if/then logic!) if the govt can mandate one, then why not the other? And for the record, I think it's a stupid idea, but I also think the MW is a stupid idea, so at least I'm consistent.
The existence of a progressive tax system is one thing, but it seems it's always libs that want to increase the tax *rates* and conservatives that want to make the system flatter. If you haven't been paying attention, Obama campaigned on having millionaires and billionaires pay "their fair share", a class envy argument at its finest.
Well I'm getting tired of this thread, so y'all say what you will. I've expressed myself fully. And I still don't have a good answer to question #1. Peace out for now.

Actually, the U.S. Constitution IS based upon classic liberalism as defined by John Locke. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classica...

Equality as I understand from our constitution is not liberalism, it is common sense which liberalism is not.

SuperDave, you totally misrepresent Sen. Warren's statement on the minimum wage. She said that the minimum wage would be $22/hr if it had kept up with the productivity gains that have occurred over the past couple of decades. She has not proposed changing the minimum wage to $22/hr. Secondly, it is not part of any liberal 'philosophy' to make 'everyone equal'. To allow everyone an equal opportunity is part of liberalism, and it's as American as apple pie. That's why your insistence that a maximum pay is a 'logical extension of a minimum pay is patently absurd, no matter how much sense it may make to you. Historically, the progressive tax system is as rooted in American conservatism as much as it's rooted in American liberalism. In fact, the first American federal income tax was based on the ability-to-pay principle and was passed by a Republican Congress and the best Republican president, namely Abraham Lincoln.

Uhtred, you are the recipient of the Left Field award for 2013. The spiel meter has been pegged.

Got my laugh of the day from this ignorant statement, "fallacious equation of socialism and the Socialist Party USA". Nothing funnier than the left fringe spouting nonsense.

Btw, Elizabeth Warren is extremely liberal, that's pretty well-known. So I think it's accurate to label her as being on the "fringe", and I doubt she would disagree!

There is nothing absurd or illogical about my questions. In fact, we have a sitting US Senator actually discussing a 22$/hour MW (see unanswered question #1). Q.#2 is a completely logical extension of the MW, and the concept of a maximum wage is completely consistent with the liberal philosophy of making everyone more "equal" - wealth redistribution, soak the "rich", progressive tax system, etc. etc.
Funny when you don't or can't answer these two questions, you take it upon yourself to rudely attack the questions themselves, and then myself. I always know I'm making sense when the personal attacks start. You know very, very little about me, and yet throw out labels. That's sad that you cannot simply state your thoughts without resorting to personal attacks, and I feel sorry for you. It must be very frustrating.
You did partially answer the question "Why do you suppose that some people get paid more than others?". I noticed that you very carefully avoided the word "productivity", and yet that is essentially your answer. Remember, I was responding to your comment "I don't think there is a direct correlation between productivity and hourly wage rates". So there is hope, you're starting to come around Uhtred :)

RAF, it is neither 'liberal' nor 'elitist' (nor hypocritical) to call-out SuperDave for his questions that are illogically premised or calling you out for your fallacious equation of socialism and the Socialist Party USA. It is also not hypocritical to identify you both as part of the flailing and failing right-wing fringe. By the way, what does troll soup smell like? I wonder if it's like humble pie, something you should try sometime.

Today's dose of liberal hypocrasiy is from Uhtred.

Today he/she stated, "If you want to label people as part of a 'fringe', perhaps you should look in the mirror."

Yet on March 14 he/she also stated. "your thinking represents an extreme fringe that has no bearing in fact"

Just another example of the do as I say not as I do part of today's left wing.

Dave clearly condescension is only allowed from one side. As is the case with most liberal elitists they’re convinced their emotional position is one of superiority because they feel they care more, logic and common sense have no bearing on that. Like when they bring up defining something then declare that wasn’t there intention after all, smells like troll soup.

SuperDave, you can't pose absurd questions and then claim that nobody answers them within your illogical framework. You ask, 'Why do you suppose that some people get paid more than others?' Well, there are many reasons why, including skill-sets, relative danger of the job, or physical requirements, among others. For instance, a brain surgeon rightfully earns more money than a lawncare worker. If you want to label people as part of a 'fringe', perhaps you should look in the mirror. I also think that you would be well-served by reading a primer on logic, which would allow you to make a more cogent case for your positions.

Again, you failed to answer the first two, and didn't even understand the third question.
1. Your water analogy fails as no one is mandating how much water we drink. That answer is essentially saying that $25/hour is just too much, never answering the question *why*? I see that Elizabeth Warren mentioned making the MW $22/hour, so for those on the left-liberal fringe it doesn't sound like "too much" at all!
2. Again, if the govt can mandate one, it is logical to assume they can mandate the other. So yes it is a logical extension of the MW. And I am surprised no one has seriously proposed a maximum wage, but for one reason - a maximum wage would do incredible, and highly visible, damage to the economy. And if you're harming the economy, you don't want people to be able to connect the dots!
3. No direct correlation between productivity and hourly wage rates? Why do you suppose that some people get paid more than others? Is it just because they've been there longer and the boss likes them more? People are going to North Dakota to work in the shale oil industry, without experience, to get free training and some are making well into the six figures. Hmmm, something about that old supply and demand thing still seems to work just fine, without the govt mandating anything!

My Dear SuperDave, 1. If you consume too much water, your body will drown, even though you need an appropriate amount of water to survive. 2. A maximum wage is not a logical extension of a minimum wage. It's as simple as that. I think that you're over-thinking the matter, and that's taking you to illogical places. 3. I guess I'm confused about your #3 because I don't think there is a direct correlation between productivity and hourly wage rates, but there is a direct correlation between lowering labor costs and increased short-term profits. Also, I'm sure that I'm not as young as your condescension would suppose.

My dear Uhtred -
1. Sorry, calling it "ridiculous" does not answer the question. I'll make it easier for you by asking a different question. If the MW can be too high because it's not "economically feasible", isn't that a tacit admission that the MW distorts and harms the economy (but only a little bit so that's okay)?
2. A "maximum wage" is a logical extension of the MW. If government can and should control wage levels on one end of the wage scale, why not on the other end? Again, calling the question "ridiculous" does not answer the question. One more try...
3. Whoops! You didn't understand the question. Please re-read question #3 and try again.
Zero for three my young friend. (SMH)

RAF, I never said that you tried to define socialism. What you have done repeatedly is equate socialism to the Socialist Part USA, which is inaccurate. In any event, a mandated minimum wage is hardly a 'radical socialist ideal'. Another nice try though.

The minimum wage puts money in the system, to be spent, and the positive cycle continues. Deniers are denied.

Uhtred speaking of simplistic I never "tried" to define the word socialist. I do however have issues with those espousing radical socialist ideals especially in government. You might try climbing off your ivory tower before claiming to know what others are talking about...typical lib.

SuperDave, a $25/hr minimum wage would not be economically feasible, and such a suggestion by you is cynically ridiculous. The concept of a maximum pay is unAmerican and likewise ridiculous, although the compensation for executives of publicly-traded companies should be transparent to shareholders. Lastly, the idea that everyone should make the minimum wage is beyond absurd. Can't you bring any reasonable thought to this dialogue?

Back on topic. Still unanswered questions:
1. Why not a MW of $25/hour?
2. Why not a maximum wage (and how much should it be?).
3. If productivity is not recognized by employers (as some here are saying), please explain why all employees are not making the government-mandated MW.

RAF, as usual, you're far too simplistic in your thinking. The Socialist Party USA does not define socialism any more than the Republican Party defines republicanism. Nice try though.

I see walter once again ignores the effects of complete dem control in the great cities like Detroit.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials...

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/detroits-...

Whoever said it should be possible to support a family of three with only one minimum wage worker? If you’re making minimum wage and considering starting a family, either ensure your future spouse is also bringing home a paycheck, reconsider creating that cute new dependent, or improve your job skills so you can earn a higher pay rate.
.
Otherwise, where does it end? Should minimum wage burger flippers make $15/hour so they can own an SUV and a wide-screen TV and therefore support their family of six in dignity?

The word socilism has scared the left for decades, because they see much of their wants in the ideals of leaders from that movement. They fight back with things like roads and police, claiming "see you use it to", in some weak attempt to make their ideas justifiable. They further ignore today's meaning of the socilist movement, http://socialistparty-usa.net/ , by pretneding according to webster others are wrong.

Justchilin, unlike others posting here, I have no problem with any amouunt you paid your employees, that is a great part of our society; freedom. What I do find scary is people telling others they should spend more of their money...where is the freedom in that?

RAF and SuperDave, it's clear that you have no business acumen, nor do you understand the meaning of socialism, beyond your penchant to use it as a pejorative. Traditionally, successful companies knew that it was good business to treat your employees well, including paying the employees a livable wage, saving the minimum wage for teens entering the workforce for the first time. It was considered good business because the company was able to avoid the cost of avoidable turnover. It was also considered ethically correct. During the past couple of decades, business ethics have fallen to the wayside, and businesses collude (via the Chamber of Commerce and industry associations) in order to keep labor costs as low as possible. They have succeeded in doing this, as evidenced by record profits that result from diminishing employee benefits and pay. It has also resulted in a widening gap between the wealthy and everyone else. The long-term prognosis of this anti-ethical business activity is not good because it leads to fewer consumers being able to purchase goods and services, which, in turn, causes a downturn in general commerce and an increase in economic hardship and failure. By focusing on short-term greed, businesses fail to account for the need for long-term sustenance.

Socialism and capitalism have coexisted quite well, and it's wrong to assume an 'either/or' situation between the two. In fact, it's illogical to do so. National defense, law enforcement, fire protection, highways, bridges, ports, water supplies, sewerage, and education are but a few examples of socialism that is required for a developed society. In the case of the United States, such things are required by virtue of the 'General Welfare' clauses within the Constitution. The libertarian law of the jungle and survival of the fittest mentality that you so obviously support leads to nothing but a guaranteed dead-end.

Things that nauseate SuperDave: The US military, roads & highways, libraries, police and fire departments; need I go on. Also, it was suburban sprawl, white flight and illegal/racist mortgage lending policies that happened to the inner cities. If socialist style policies hadn't been put in place to help out those people left behind in the inner cities, there would have been even more homelessness and hunger. Has a culture of failure and dependency been created? For many, yes. Too many, in fact. Clinton remedied some of that with welfare to work. That said, it's not like jobs are being created en masse in the inner cities, and commuting an hour each way for a low paying job isn't exactly a realistic possibility if one doesn't have reliable transportation or has to rely on not always predictable public transportation. There's also daycare to worry about for parents. Sometimes finding a job leaves the worker more in the hole than when they were on government assistance, and that's pretty ridiculous.

In that dailykos article, just the long list of government agencies and programs itself is nauseating. And yes we do have, and have had, creeping Socialism for decades. Go to the inner cities to see how that's working out.

RAF:I don't need to justify myself to you, but I will tell you this. We were in business for 30 years and used our own money to build it. When we hired employees we started them at $3.00 above MW.They came in when scheduled, were never late, did their job and did it well. Just because I know the difference between right and wrong and didn't take advantage of people for the sake of making a buck then fine call me what you will, at least I could sleep at night. By the way, if you think that any form of Socialism does not exist in this country you are sadly mistaken. This link is just for you, please read it and educate yourself.

www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/29/107885...

If productivity is not recognized by employers, please explain why all employees are not making the government-mandated MW.

Funny reading socialists talk about business. The same folks who never put their own skin in the game like to think they know better how those that invest their own time and money into a business should spend their own money....

Exactly chillin. As the primary model for paying workers transitioned to one of finding the lowest wage at which workers will still be highly productive rather than finding the highest wage that can be paid while still growing the business, the relationships between employers and their employees have generally soured. Unions may be seen as these terrible greedy monsters, but they made sure that the middle class was able to maintain a fair share of the pie that couldn't be made without them. If you get a chance, read that MotherJones article. It's amazing what people will put themselves through for $11 an hour. What's even more sad is for every one of those working there are dozens probably even hundreds who would kill for those body torturing and soul crushing jobs. This is what we're reducing people to in this country: wage slaves.

Walter:You hit the nail right on the head! When are employers going to realize that their employees are their greatest asset. You do right by them and in return they will do right by you. Its only common sense.

"...hopefully it will be recognized and you will get a raise."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You might want to catch up with current events my friend. We live in a "just be happy that you have a job" world. Raises are mythical creatures among the tens of millions of low wage earners in this country. Not being fired is the new pay increase.

Here's an article about the "fortunate" souls that can make more than minimum wage. Welcome the brave new world of right to work laws and temp agencies. For those of you that worry about our national debt and leaving that as a legacy for future generations, does the fact that we're dooming future generations of low wage earners to this type of life also bother you?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012...

If you raise the minimum wage then the worker who was making just above minimum is now making minimum wage, or as much as the new hire, so now you have to raise the wage of the worker who deserves more than minimum wage, then you have to raise your cost to your vendors to cover the higher wages, they raise their cost to John Q public, who did not get a raise when minimum wage was raised. see where I'm going here folks, just better yourself, put a little effort into your job and hopefully it will be recognized and you will get a raise

"Raising the minimum wage for the nation's lowest-paid workers doesn't reduce employment or slow hiring and will provide a boost to the economic recovery, a study released Monday shows.

As several states consider raising wages above the federal minimum, the National Employment Law Project (NELP) noted that the new study reinforces more than 15 years of economic research showing that wage hikes boost incomes without slowing job growth.

“This comprehensive new study provides the latest evidence that raising the minimum wage is an effective way to help families and our economy recover,” said Christine Owens, executive director of NELP. “As policymakers work to accelerate a weak recovery that’s been largely confined to low-wage industries, raising the minimum wage makes sense.”

The study examines every minimum wage increase over the past two decades, including increases during protracted periods of high unemployment, especially 2007 to 2009."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/80...

"One correction, "will not cause a(n) *measurable* rise in the cost of goods and services"..and I agree. A small change in anything (small being of course a relative term) affects little"
I answered your question, but if you don`t like the answer there`s not much I can do about it.

pharm, you're getting way off-topic. To respond to your statement "About 60% of wage earners make less than that" ($50,000/year).. Assuming you're right, let me re-phrase. Let's call it a median level of salary. It's certainly not an excessive salary. The point is that MW supporters always want to tinker with some arbitrary amount that is picked so as to not harm the economy in any measurable way. That is tantamount to admitting that the MW harms the economy, but we only want to harm it a little so it's not measurable and then we can all feel good 'cause Johnny gets a raise. Of course what's harder to attribute to a MW increase is when Johnny gets fired. Or when Johnny's boss Lamont decides to close his small business and lay off everyone because he can no longer make a profit.
Again, no one that supports the MW can answer the core questions because it puts the lie to the whole concept of a MW.

"Rep. Paul Ryan exaggerates future growth of the federal debt in a chart contained in his newly released budget plan.

The chart relies on Congressional Budget Office projections from last year that do not account for actions taken since then to reduce federal deficits by nearly $2 trillion over 10 years. The chart also projects debt levels out to 2060, although CBO warns that such long-term projections are “highly uncertain.”
http://factcheck.org/2013/03/charting-ry...

The Ryan budget pockets Obamacare’s Medicare cuts and tax increases

"The way in which the proposed House budget resolution treats Obamacare is central to how Ryan was able to balance the budget in ten years. Over a ten-year period, Obamacare spends $1.9 trillion on subsidizing insurance coverage for uninsured Americans. The law funds that additional spending by cutting Medicare by $716 billion, and raising taxes by $1.2 trillion. The Path to Prosperity keeps, but repurposes, Obamacare’s Medicare cuts and tax increases, while repealing the law’s spending on the uninsured."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/03...

Why not ask if they want to keep the program at all?
Good idea. Just abide by the results.
"The economy has always been driven via demand, your poor unwashed red herring rhetoric has nothing to do with it."
Would you please communicate that to your Republican brothers and sisters.
A complete change of SS is not needed, IMO.
If you are advocating getting rid of it, please explain if you wish to emulate the eskimos and leave the elders to the polar bears when the economy tanks again. SS is the major source of income for a great percentage of them.

"I have posted more than once about getting rid of Medicare Advantage to save the 14-17% it costs over regular Medicare?"
-
As part of a complete change to medicare, yes.

"Let`s ask the public if they would rather pay a few hundred more a year while they are working, or possible thousands of year when retired to protect Medicare."
-
Why not ask if they want to keep the program at all?

"Let`s ask them if the earnings limit, and the type of income subject to tax, should be changed to protect SS."
-
As part of a complete change to SS, yes.

"Let`s ask them if the "rich" drive the economy, or demand from the "poor unwashed" is really 70% of the equation."
-
The economy has always been driven via demand, your poor unwashed red herring rhetoric has nothing to do with it.

"amounts to only $50,000/year, a fairly modest salary at that"
About 60% of wage earners make less than that now.
"Yes, that's hilarious if you don't understand inflation."
Exactly.
Do you want $10 gas, $6 gallon of milk? How about a Tea Party person answering the one I have posted more than once about getting rid of Medicare Advantage to save the
14-17% it costs over regular Medicare?
Let`s ask the public if they would rather pay a few hundred more a year while they are working, or possible thousands of year when retired to protect Medicare.
Let`s ask them if the earnings limit, and the type of income subject to tax, should be changed to protect SS.
Let`s ask them if the "rich" drive the economy, or demand from the "poor unwashed" is really 70% of the equation.
Just a few "babblings" as some would say

Hilarious how the socialists that claim they want increased money, higher minimum wage, for those "living" on it, but in reality they really want to "limit" what those same people will get. Shows their hypocrisy.

"Too much" of anything is too much. But clearly, $25/hour is not too much income, that amounts to only $50,000/year, a fairly modest salary at that. So why not make the MW $25/hour? If that blows your mind, then maybe $20/hour? What exactly is wrong with that idea?
The answer is obvious, and the answer illustrates why the MW is a bad idea all the way around. And the other question no one is answering is why not establish a maximum wage. I had friend once tell me that no one should be making over $100,000/year. I cited numerous examples of why that is also a bad idea, but I will let you all mull that over on your own.
And no one has yet explained why the government should be interfering with the employer/employee relationship in the first place. Go ahead and cite examples of how the government already interferes, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking *why*? And where in the Constitution is this power enumerated? It's not.

Yes, that's hilarious if you don't understand inflation.

lol, raise the minimum wage but not too much.

"the facts that 2.7% of those employed earn minimum wage". TCB
Raising the minimum wage of that small percentage of workers is why it would have a minimal effect on the greater part of the economy, except for them. At $25 an hour you are talking 60% or more of the workforce. leading to a much bigger effect,highly increased inflation.
Shouldn`t the minimum wage keep pace with inflation?

Wow, lots of reading and links. Wish I had the time! @pharm: You said "Basic economics 101 says a small increase in minimum wage, affecting a small segment of the population, will not cause an overall rise in the cost of all goods and services as would a raise to $25".
One correction, "will not cause a(n) *measurable* rise in the cost of goods and services"..and I agree. A small change in anything (small being of course a relative term) affects little. That is not the question. The question is: If a small increase in the MW is good, than why not increase it more, to an amount that would profoundly help people making the MW, e.g. $25/hour? *All* of the purported benefits would be thusly magnified! If it's good, more is better!
Full disclosure, I've been having this conversation for decades, and no one supporting the MW or a MW increase has ever fully answered the question. They either mock the question, document how small increases in the MW have not created measurable increases in unemployment, cited class warfare, etc. etc. Either it is good or it is not. Which?

SuperDave, I know you must feel that you're being very profound by repeatedly asking, 'If a little of something is good, why not do more of the same thing, to the degree that it would really help a lot of people?'

In fact, you're being cynically ridiculous. Think of it like this: A modest amount of water is essential for survival, while too much water causes drowning.

Open letter to Obama and Congress... Here is how you fix America's economy. Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will waste the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan. Call it the "Patriotic Retirement Plan": There are over 40 million people over 50 in the workforce. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations: #1. They MUST retire. "bingo" 40 million job openings- unemployment fixed. #2. They MUST buy a new AMERICAN Car. 40 million cars ordered- Auto Industry fixed. #3. They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage- Housing Crisis fixed. It can't get any easier than that!! P.S. If more money is needed have ALL members of Congress pay their taxes.. Also Obama, while your at it, make Congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I'll bet both programs would be fixed promto. SO Put those golf clubs away and get BUSY....

Here's a few more for ya:
*
John Burton and Amy Hanauer, Center for American Progress and Policy Matters Ohio, Good for Business: Small Business Growth and State Minimum Wages, May 2006.
*
Paul K. Sonn, Citywide Minimum Wage Laws: A New Policy Tool for Local Governments, (originally published by Brennan Center for Justice) National Employment Law Project, May 2006, includes a good summary of impact research.
*
Liana Fox, Economic Policy Institute, Minimum Wage Trends: Understanding past and contemporary research, November 8, 2006.
*
Paul Wolfson, Economic Policy Institute, State Minimum Wages: A Policy That Works, November 27, 2006.
*
Arindrajit Dube, Suresh Naidu and Michael Reich, “The Economic Effects of a Citywide Minimum Wage,” Industrial & Labor Relations Review, July 2007.
*
Jerold L. Waltman, Minimum Wage Policy in Great Britain and the United States (New York: Algora, 2008), pp. 17-19, 132-136, 151-162, 178-180.
*
Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube and Michael Reich, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment?, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, June 28, 2008.
*
Michael F. Thompson, Indiana Business Research Center, “Minimum Wage Impacts on Employment: A Look at Indiana, Illinois and Surrounding Midwestern States,” Indiana Business Review, Fall 2008.
*
Hristos Doucouliagos and T. D. Stanley, "Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis," British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 47, no. 2, 2009.
*
Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube and Michael Reich, Spacial Heterogeneity and Minimum Wages: Employment Estimates for Teens Using Cross-State Commuting Zones, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, June 25, 2009.
*
Arindrajit Dube, T. William Lester and Michael Reich, Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders: Estimates Using Contiguous Counties, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, August 2008.
Published by The Review of Economics and Statistics, November 2010.
*
John Schmitt and David Rosnick, The Wage and Employment Impact of Minimum‐Wage Laws in Three Cities, Center for Economic and Policy Research, March 2011.
*
Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube and Michael Reich, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment? Accounting for Heterogeneity and Selectivity in State Panel Data, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, June 21, 2010.
Published by Industrial Relations, April 2011.
*
Anne Thompson, What Is Causing Record-High Teen Unemployment? Range of Economic Factors Drives High Teen Unemployment, But Minimum Wage Not One of Them, National Employment Law Project, October 2011.
*
John Schmidt, Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Febuary 2013.

Also, there is some interesting reading in that little bibliography, but you might want to update it. You've got some dated research in there that doesn't hold up. I've got a lot to chew on there, though. While I do that, you can peruse my stable of sources that are a little more up to date.
*
Lawrence F. Katz and Alan B. Krueger, “The Effect of the Minimum Wage on the Fast Food Industry,” Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University, February 1992.
*
David Card, “Using Regional Variation in Wages to Measure the Effects of the Federal Minimum Wage,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, October 1992.
*
David Card and Alan Krueger, Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995).
*
David Card and Alan B. Krueger, “Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: Reply,” American Economic Review, December 2000 (in this reply, Card and Krueger update earlier findings and refute critics).
*
Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt, Economic Policy Institute, Making Work Pay: The Impact of the 1996-97 Minimum Wage Increase, 1998.
*
Jerold Waltman, Allan McBride and Nicole Camhout, “Minimum Wage Increases and the Business Failure Rate,” Journal of Economic Issues, March 1998.
*
A Report by the National Economic Council, The Minimum Wage: Increasing the Reward for Work, March 2000.
*
Holly Sklar, Laryssa Mykyta and Susan Wefald, Raise The Floor: Wages and Policies That Work For All Of Us (Boston: South End Press, 2001/2002), Ch. 4 and pp. 102-08.
*
Marilyn P. Watkins, Economic Opportunity Institute, “Still Working Well: Washington’s Minimum Wage and the Beginnings of Economic Recovery,” January 21, 2004.
*
Amy Chasanov, Economic Policy Institute, No Longer Getting By: An Increase in the Minimum Wage is Long Overdue, May 2004.
*
Fiscal Policy Institute, States with Minimum Wages above the Federal Level Have Had Faster Small Business and Retail Job Growth, March 2006 (update of 2004 report).

For you TCB,
"The 'dynamic monopsony' model of the labor market is sometimes referred to as a 'frictions model' because these models take seriously the idea that workers and employers must contend with important deviations from the smooth functioning of the standard, perfectly competitive model. Perhaps the most important frictions in the low-wage labor market involve the high rate of turnover (which is assumed to be zero in the standard competitive model). Because many low-wage workers are constrained by scheduling responsibilities (child care, for example), transportation limitations (lack of a reliable car or inadequate public transportation), and only partial information about available vacancies in their local labor market, employers paying the 'going wage' often face significant recruitment costs in the form of unfilled vacancies, rapid turnover, and related screening and training expenses.
In frictions models, a higher minimum wage makes it easier for employers to recruit and retain employees, lowering the cost of turnover. These cost savings may compensate some or all of the increased wage costs, allowing employers to maintain employment levels. Moreover, if the minimum wage reduces the number and the average duration of vacancies, the employment response to a minimum-wage increase could even be positive."
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publicatio...

Let`s ask the public if they would rather pay a few hundred more a year while they are working, or possible thousands of year when retired to protect Medicare.
Let`s ask them if the earnings limit, and the type of income subject to tax, should be changed to protect SS.
Let`s ask them if the "rich" drive the economy, or demand from the "poor unwashed" is really 70% of the equation.
Just a few "babblings" as some would say.

"In my view, health is a business in the United States in quite a different way than it is elsewhere,” says Tom Sackville, who served in Margaret Thatcher’s government and now directs the IFHP. “It’s very much something people make money out of. There isn’t too much embarrassment about that compared to Europe and elsewhere.”

The result is that, unlike in other countries, sellers of health-care services in America have considerable power to set prices, and so they set them quite high. Two of the five most profitable industries in the United States — the pharmaceuticals industry and the medical device industry — sell health care. With margins of almost 20 percent, they beat out even the financial sector for sheer profitability"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...
Granted, everyone is affected by taxes(payroll taxes also, they all go in the same pool). What is your solution, don`t help fund tuition, and let the US fall farther behind in education?

Pharm,

in 2010 UW madison alone received 185 Million in federal money-for 400 projects. The fed has no money. It has to confiscate it first. From whom you ask? The chinese (among others) and US tax payers. Grnated this is not everyone-since many pay little to no federal income taxes-but everyone is impacted by education.

Walter-If we are to believe you when you say that the business you worked for had a noticeable uptick in sales and profit last time the MW was raised (and we have no reason not to believe you) why not raise it to $25/hr?
Think how much more sales and profit that company could have then. Might be enough to hire you back.

For the lefties and socialists out there...In general -- I do believe that increasing that minimum wage CAN have an effect on employemnt. However, given the FED's current monetary policy and he monitization of our debt -- which is a devaluation of the dollar, we probably should consider raising the minimum wage some. To what level, not sure, but in general -- I feel that our montization of debt has created an erosion of any purchasing power the minimum wage earners had. Unfortunately -- there are some that will be affected to a greater degree. Service people that received tips have been compensated as costs and prices increased as tips (undeclared income for many) follws the inflationary effects of pricing.

People that are in standard labor jobs have not seen the gains from increasing prices. To use simplified examples as I have seen by some is not a fair analysis. However, devaluation of the dollar is a justification for an increase.

Virtually 100% of the population is impacted by health care costs. Only those choosing college are impacted by rising tuition, much the same as choosing to own a car, boat, house, etc. It is a great problem, but only by learning the reasons can solutions be found. In health care the first, and foremost reason is obvious overcharging by providers, and insurers. A single payer system is the only true remedy, not free markets(which add to the problem), not the ACA, which is basically a free market program. Of course, unless I cite something I am only offering an opinion.

" As college students start returning to campus they -- and their parents -- face a troubling fact: Higher education costs have been rising so fast in recent years that they're going up even faster than health care costs.

Since 1982, the average cost of college tuition and fees has increased by 439 percent, while the typical family's income increased by a mere 147 percent. College has been put financially out of reach from some students, while crushing others with debt.

But even more troubling is the cause of these skyrocketing costs: administrative bloat.

In fact, as a new Goldwater Institute study finds, universities have in recent years vastly expanded their administrative bureaucracies, while in some cases actually shrinking the numbers of professor"
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/23/opinio...

Pharm,

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...

Im certain the deans at UW Whitewater, Beloit, URock, Madison, Plattville, et al are aware of this....

Walter-

How many hedge fund managing directors? Do you think there are more or less than the number of assembly line workers employed in Janesville wisconsin in 1985? What is their collective net worth? Do they all earn a billion or more per year?

Do you really worry that these evil greedy capitalists (Warren Buffet and Soros) will need to find something else to do when big crash comes?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...

Pharm,

If you think the cost of health care has risen fast-the cost of college tution has risen much faster over the same period.

Perhaps free college for all? (at least those who can pass standardized tests-there must be some means testing)

Walter,

Well done-please continue your personal attacks. You're getting played like a grand piano.

Milton Friedman, quoted in Keith B. Leffler, "Minimum Wages, Welfare, and Wealth Transfers to the Poor,"Journal of Law and Economics 21, no. 2 (October 1978): 345–58.

Joint Economic Committee, "50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage," February 15, 1995,http://web.archive.org/web/20110629183749/http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-....

Daniel Aaronson, Eric French, and James MacDonald, "The Minimum Wage, Restaurant Prices, and Labor Market Structure," Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, WP 2004-21, rev. August 3, 2007.

Sara Lemos, "The Effect of the Minimum Wage on Prices," Institute for the Study of Labor (Germany), Discussion Paper no. 1072, March 2004. See also Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway, "Does the Minimum Wage Reduce Poverty?" Employment Policies Institute, June 2001; Jill Jenkins, "Minimum Wages: The Poor Are Not Winners," Employment Policy Foundation, January 12, 2000; and Ronald B. Mincy, "Raising the Minimum Wage: Effects on Family Poverty," Monthly Labor Review 113, no. 7 (July 1990).

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2010," February 25, 2011,www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2010.pdf.

Richard V. Burkhauser and Joseph J. Sabia, "Minimum Wages and Poverty: Will a $9.50 Federal Minimum Wage Really Help the Working Poor?" Southern Economic Journal 77, no. 3

David Neumark and William L. Wascher, Minimum Wages (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008).

here are a few. have fun. Quantifiable evidence.

Read the Time article about health costs. It will chill you.

I didn`t pick the $25 figure, I answered a question. Pharm is the first thing that popped into my head when asked for a name by the Gazette. No relevance to anything.

TCB,
Perhaps you don't have a basic understanding of capitalism. The basis of the system under which we operate is that some must win and some must lose. Why do you think the US government has to employ socialist policies like welfare and foodstamps to try to combat the poverty and hunger created by capitalism functioning just as it is supposed to. Capitalism is not a perpetual economic system. Not the bastardized version we're using here in the US, anyway. There is an end to this system and we're already well on our way. The bigger the wealth inequality the closer we get to collapse. Collapse is going to come in the form of a class revolution where the people that actually perform the work take the power back from the people that have created the illusion that they're financing the work. The system will ultimately collapse and the rich man's money will become worthless. He'll be forced to trade whatever material goods for the things he doesn't know how to produce on his own. He'll be trading his fancy cars, boats and houses for food and clothing. That's what will happen to finance company CEOs and hedge fund managers. When your livelihood is based on 1s and 0s in a computer system you'll one day go from the most powerful to the most needy.

Pharm,

What is the point at which a "raise" in minimum wage policy has a negative effect? is is 24.99 is is 7.26 is it 18.55? Where and how did YOU come up with this figure?

Is it your opinion that MW has no effect on economic activity? BTW are you a pharmacist? Perhaps you would advocate an immediate elimination in the dispensing fee that pharmacies receive for dispensing product? after all these costs given to dispense meds could simply go to reducing confiscatory drug costs? WHich impacts the poor more than the rich....

thoughts?

Awww boo hoo to you TCB. Now you want to play the victim card after all I did was quote you. If you self-identified with the whole mow your own lawn and do your own laundry comment, that's on you. You certainly did get defensive. Enough so that you decided to toot your own horn by giving us your little bio as if anybody gives a rat's behind. What do you want, a medal or something?
As pharm, has pointed out there is absolutely no empirical evidence that shows raising the minimum wage has a quantifiable negative impact on the American economy. If you'd like to point out some specific research, as pharm has, that can back up your point, I'm sure many of us would be more than happy to give it a read.
Also, your point that people don't stay at minimum wage very long is actually a good argument for raising the minimum wage. If we raise it, then those people that see pay increases quickly will have an even better jumping off point. That sounds great.

Suoerdave,

Good point. Be prepared to be personally attacked that you are greedy, detached from reality or do not care.....

The number is irrelevant-over 70 years of history has demonstrated that minimum wage law rarely benefit those intended. Politicians would rather create laws/policies that pick winners and losers rather than creating policies that generates ECONOMIC growth which benefit all workers-including business owners.

"No one has yet explained why our government should not raise the MW to $25/hour"
Basic economics 101 says a small increase in minimum wage, affecting a small segment of the population, will not cause an overall rise in the cost of all goods and services as would a raise to $25.

"Saltsman’s economics are no better than his legislative research. The old Economics 101 textbook theory he recites – that a higher minimum wage will necessarily reduce employment – was not supported by empirical research. As a 1995 paper in the Journal of Economics Literature put it, “There is a long history of empirical studies attempting to pin down the effects of minimum wages, with limited success.” No one found significant employment losses when President Truman raised the minimum wage by 87% in 1950. When Congress raised the minimum wage by 28% in two steps in 1967, businesses predicted large employment losses and price increases. As the Wall Street Journal reported six months later, “Employment and prices show little effect from $1.40-an-hour guarantee.” Empirical studies even before Card and Krueger’s landmark New Jersey study found no increase in the unemployment rate for teens and young adults from a 10% rise in the minimum wage, while it was clear that higher wages were bringing housewives into the workforce."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/e...
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

A person called in to a radio station claiming that when the minimum wage goes up, their hours are reduced so they end up with less than before.

No one has yet explained why our government should not raise the MW to $25/hour. Calling it ridiculous or extreme doesn't answer the question. Of course it's extreme! That's the whole point! If a little of something is good, why not do more of the same thing, to the degree that it would really help a lot of people? Answer: because it's not a good thing in the first place. The MW is government interfering with the relationship between two people, employer and employee. As to the idea that $25/hour would be a shock to the economy, then raise it a dollar per month until you get to $25. I also like the question about a maximum wage - it logically follows that if a minimum can be mandated than so should a maximum. Lastly, those of you who use class warfare in your posts are really grasping. The notion that you don't care about people in management is totally immaterial to the discussion.
I favor freedom over government mandates that distort and thusly harm the economy.

Walter,

Page 1 of the liberal playbook-attack the messenger-in this case me. Well done-entirely predictable. Your inability to continue a cogent, reasoned debate without personally attacking me says more about you than anything else.

I cut my grass, do my own laundry. The reality is that economies and businesses do not operate and thrive in a vacuum. You can believe that management is evil and out to reach into your pocket. But thats false. Business exist to make profits-nothing else.

I have worked many minimum wage jobs. The oasis as a dishwasher, corn de-tasseling (which was below minimum wage), the library, as a mover, among others. Then again, I also freely chose to go to college (and pay for it myself), go to graduate school (and pay for it myself), did not have children out of wedlock, did not take on un-necessary debt, did not get in trouble with the law, all of these active choices I made-part of this due to the great education I received in Janesville schools-the other part is that I am personally driven. Does this detach me from reality? Does this make me greedy?

You attack me because of the choices I made to better my life and my families life. You think I dont hold empathy for those in worse financial straits than me. You could not be more wrong. Give a man a fish-he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish he eats forever. There is a reason why the WORLD beats a path to the USA-and its not due to minimum wage laws-its due to the unfettered opportunity this land offers. If this were not the case-then all of the unskilled people would simply go to austrialia where the minumum wage is twice it is here + free healthcare. (and very high taxes-and incredibly high real estate prices)-but free healthcare and 15 OZ dollar minimum wage!

The fact is-those working at minimum wage do not stay at minimum wage. The main finding of economic theory and empirical research over the past 70 years is that minimum wage increases tend to reduce employment. The higher the minimum wage relative to competitive-market wage levels, the greater the employment loss that occurs. This is not my opinion-these are facts. Are there a few studies that show the opposite? Sure. Increasing the minimum wage is politically popular because people believe it helps the poor. History tells and teaches us a different story.

TCB,
It's pretty easy to tell that you sit on a corporate board. You refer to people, actual human beings, as "low skilled-quasi permanent labor". Your main concern is "bottom line revenues". For the rest of us who haven't been divorced from reality by the disease that is greed, we know that the only people that think minimum wage is a destructive economic force are the people whose biggest fear in life is one day having to do their own laundry, mow their own lawn or raise their own children.

Silly walter,

If raising the minimum wage has no NEGATIVE impact on the economy than there should be a law to force the minimum wage to triple or quadruple what it is today. if you are going to help-then help in a big way-dont you agree?

Just as you may believe that raising income taxes has no net impact on economic activity.

But for employees like you whose wages are indexed to minimum wage-I understand why you want an increase in the minimum wage-YOU get a raise. One based on govt policy-not on individual achievement or merit.

How many corporate boards do you sit on? Is your experience during your quarterly meetings that raising wages for unskilled, low wage, high turnover employees impacts your firms ability to purchase or buy fractional share of a corporate aircraft? I'll tell you with me-it does not. My board is concerned with growing bottom line revenues - period-the 4700/hour cost to use corporate aircraft is a cost of doing business-its use- like the number of low skilled-quasi permanent labor needs to be justified.

Walter, ignore the facts that 2.7% of those employed earn minimum wage. Ignore the FACT that the vast majority of those are aged 16-24. The minimum wage has failed. My company hires no one at minimum wage. Zero. The reality is that very few stay at minimum wage for any period of time. The minimum wage law is one of the most destructive economic policies surpassed only by rent control and farm subsidies. Then again, low information voters believe that the federal govt has your best interests in mind when it promises to "give" you more....

Note,

Are you claiming that australias minimum wage law caused 5.4% unemployment rate?

If so what was the minimum wage in the USA (where I live) in january 2007 and what was the unemployment rate at the same time? (hint the unemployment rate was 4.6%)......In Austrialia-at the same 2007 period-the unemployment rate was at a 31 year low-4.6%. Was this due to the local minimum wage as well?

Perhaps you also think an Oz labor force of 11.5 million is the same as ours with 163 Million and falling?

abs.gov.au for the statistics.

TCB,
Yes the Recession ended in June 2009 and the last increase to the minimum wage was July 2009. What's your point? Also, your point that there is no difference between a $7.25 minimum wage and $25 minimum wage is absolutely idiotic. Do you even reread what you've typed before you post? Raising the minimum wage gives more buying power to the poorest workers among us and raises tax revenues. You know who gets mad about raising the minimum wage? Corporate board members at huge companies who worry about not being able to buy another jet, yacht or mansion. Well, they can go scratch for all I care. I worked for a small business during the last round of minimum wage increases. Between July 23,2007 and July 24, 2009 the federal minimum wage increased by $2.10. That was an increase of almost 41% over what it had been in the decade prior. All the other workers at my employer were given raises based on the increase to the min wage as well. Did we continue hiring? Yes. Did we raise prices? No. Did we lay anyone off? No. Did we see a rise in profits? Yes. I realize that this is just anecdotal evidence, but the economy itself has done OK. Yes we need more and faster growth, but with corporate profits and the stock market seeing historic highs, it's time that somebody reward the little guy for his contribution. The "job creators" (what a joke) aren't going to do it. They'd just rather pat themselves on the back and count their money. Somebody has to step in and level the playing field. The working poor already lose a disproportionate amount of their income to regressive sales taxes. All raising the minimum wage does is create a little bit of equilibrium. If you don't see that, you're probably very well off and it's not that you can't see it. It's that you choose not to because your money is more important to you than the prosperity of the country in which you made your riches.

Note you just outlined inflation not productive economic impact.

People that do not support the concept of a minimum wage do not understand Econ 101. Australia’s minimum wage is $15.96 an hour. Yet the unemployment rate in Australia is only 5.4%. Claiming raising the minimum wage would lead to fewer jobs is a straw man argument. Higher wages leads to more revenue to pay down our war debts.

'But proponents like Natalie Sabadish and Doug Hall of the Economic Policy Institute emphasize that about 80 percent of workers who will be directly affected are over age 20.'

walter,

The recession ended in June 2009. Please stop with your demagoguery. If 9 or 10/hour is good for the economy, why isnt 15? What data can you site to support your theory? Look how great the Obama economy has been since he magically ended the recession? 14 million without jobs. 48 Million on food stamps. the lowest labor participation rate in 30+ years-with millions of working aged adults leaving the workforce! But a 24% raise from 7-9 will change this? Nope. No chance. There are more peope without jobs-earning NOTHING, than those whom are employed earning minimum wage. Again, most of those are called children-since the vast majority of minimum wage earners are 16-24. Minimum wage laws are fairy tale -feel good measures that cause more harm than good.

But why stop at 9 per hour? Someone earning 7.25 who lacks needed skills-certainly would like 25 per hour. Why not force companies to start at 25 per hour? There is no difference in demanding employers pay 25/hour for unskilled menial labor than 7.25 is there? Think of the purchasing power these unskilled, employed people wil have-let alone the new taxes these people will pay for much needed govt services (like welfare, food stamps, new schools, new teachers, etc)...

If there is a difference-its called a market clearing wage. All positions-from CEOs to menial laborers earn this wage. Perhaps Walter you would like your benevolent govt to institute a maximum wage as well? Seems fair? Where else on planet earth has this worked?

When the minimum wage was last raised I was working for a small business that operates a handful of stores throughout the state of WI. The owner of the company and his immediate underlings droned on and on about how it was going to force them to lay people off and destroy their business. None of that happened. There was actually a noticeable uptick in sales and profits even when comparing year-to-year against pre-recession years.
Oh, and SuperDave, the reason no one talks about ridiculous extreme increases to the minimum wage is because the economy is a delicate system and would be thrown into complete disarray. A substantial increase to $9 or $10 an hour, however, would be a benefit to the economy especially since companies have taken to doing less hiring and more intimidation of current employees in order to extract extreme levels of productivity under threat of dismissal. "Well if you can't do the job of 4 people there are plenty of people out there who would kill for the opportunity to try!" Recessions are a capitalists best friend. That's why you're seeing them fill their diapers over the idea of the minimum wage being raised. They're probably thinking to themselves, well if they're going to do that anyway why didn't we just start hiring instead of working all these people to death?

Basic economics 101 says a small increase in minimum wage, affecting a small segment of the population, will not cause an overall rise in the cost of all goods and services as would a raise to $25.

This is always an interesting topic. And I will never understand how presumably otherwise intelligent people can completely dismiss basic economic theory and common sense. If the MW is a good idea, why not just make it $25/hour and get it over with? Would that not yield the same alleged benefits, "meaning they had more money to spend – and pump into the local economy. Affected employers, meanwhile, experienced a drop in turnover from workforce better able to make ends meet". But MW supporters can never explain why a little increase in the MW is good, but a substantial increase is not. Anyone?

The poor will now have to fork out money to pay for federal control of mandated healthcare. How are they getting ahead? If they do get free or reduced healthcare everyone else has to pay for it through increased taxes on consumer goods or services. Round and round we go with social justice programs that keeps people in the hole.

"As Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute points out, the median worker’s real hourly compensation (real earnings plus benefits) has stagnated over the last 10 years, and the declining real value of the minimum wage has contributed to increased income inequality.

The resulting economic stresses are bad for children, bad for working parents and bad for family formation and stability. In 2010, children represented 24 percent of the United States population, but 34 percent of all those living in poverty.

Critics of the proposed increase in the minimum wage object that it would increase unemployment. But proponents point to considerable evidence, nicely summarized by Brad Plumer at The Washington Post’s Wonkblog, that this potential effect would be small or nonexistent,

Critics like the economist David Neumark also insist that the policy is not effectively aimed at poor families, because many individuals earning the minimum are young people living with their parents. But proponents like Natalie Sabadish and Doug Hall of the Economic Policy Institute emphasize that about 80 percent of workers who will be directly affected are over age 20.

Many young people earning the minimum wage are living at home. Some can’t afford to do otherwise. And while their parents may be helping them out with living expenses, the wages they earn will determine their opportunity to enroll in college, pay off their debts, save money and start a family of their own."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1990/07/art3full....
Raising the minimum wage helps reduce poverty in families more than previously thought.

pharm,

2.7% of those employed in the USA work at minimum wage. The Bureau of Labor statistic defines those people as those above 16 years old. The vast majority of those employed at minimum wage are between 16-24. When I think of minimum wage I think of young people working at Mcdonalds or other entry level jobs. They are not the single mothers with 5 children working 4 jobs to pay rent. though, there are some like this as well. even in this single mother example-she has a job.

The issue is not minimum wage-the data is overwhelming that this law disproportionally hurts more than it helps. BLS data, income tax data-specifically the earned income tax credit data show that 60% of people-not students working part time jobs-adults-living below the poverty level DO NOT WORK AT ALL. They dont want a raise in the minimum wage-they want a job. Minimum wage laws have no impact on poverty. If you want to give working poor a raise-expand or improve the EITC -this will have measurable impact on poverty.

Obama wants an increase in minimum wage to reward his union supporters whose incomes are indexed directly to the minimum wage.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2010.htm

uhred,

What is a liveable wage?

http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...

One of the most definitive studies of higher minimum-wage laws was released in 2005. Co-authored by two University of California economists and funded primarily by the Ford Foundation, the report examined the impact of the city of L.A.’s original living-wage law (full disclosure: Researchers with my organization, LAANE, co-authored the study). This ordinance, one of the broadest in the country, was enacted in1997 despite furious opposition from business leaders, who warned of massive job loss and economic dislocation.

The study found just the opposite. L.A.’s wage law increased pay for an estimated 10,000 jobs with minimal reduction in employment. “Most firms affected by the law have adapted to the living wage without eliminating jobs,” concluded the study’s authors. The report also revealed that most of the workers covered by the law were in poor or low-income families– upending another favorite myth that minimum-wage laws do not target the people who really need them. These workers saw an average pay increase of 20 percent, or $2,600 a year, and kept 70 percent of that after taxes, meaning they had more money to spend – and pump into the local economy. Affected employers, meanwhile, experienced a drop in turnover from workforce better able to make ends meet.

Another city of L.A. wage law covering hotel workers nears Los Angeles International Airport has yielded similar results since its implementation in 2008. The Century Corridor hotel sector is thriving while hotel workers have seen significant increases in their pay, generating an estimated $5.4 million in additional revenue for the local economy. A 2011 increase in the wage rate for workers at LAX, meanwhile, has boosted pay to $15.37 an hour without any reported job loss or negative business impacts.

Los Angeles is no anomaly when it comes to minimum-wage increases. That’s why some of the most eminent economists in the country, including Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University’s Richard Freeman, delivered a letter last summer to President Obama and top congressional leaders urging them to raise the federal minimum wage. “(T)he weight of evidence now (shows) that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market,” stated the letter. “A minimum-wage increase can also serve to stimulate the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings potentially raising demand and job growth."
http://fryingpannews.org/2013/03/05/rais...

Econ 101 is about as mainstream and relevant as is possible. Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

"In 1996 CEPR produced an analysis celebrating the passage of Ordinance 442, a Baltimore "living wage" law that raised the minimum wage for service workers in the city's tourist hub. It dismissed the "concerns of critics about negative economic and fiscal consequences" as being "not well-founded." But as Steven Malanga chronicled in his book The New New Left, the law crippled Baltimore's economy to such a dregee that by the mid-1990s, the city had lost nearly 60,000 jobs at a time when 120,000 jobs were being created throughout the otherwise prospering state. "

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/group...

SuperDave, fortunately, your thinking represents an extreme fringe that has no bearing in fact, nor does it have any political traction.

" Not to mention that the MW causes more unemployment, which pays at the *real* MW, which of course is $0.00. Think."
"Economists have conducted hundreds of studies of the employment impact of the minimum wage.
Summarizing those studies is a daunting task, but two recent meta
-
studies analyzing the research
conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the m
inimum wage has little or no discernible effect
on the employment prospects of low
-
wage workers."
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publicatio......

@Uhtred: This comment pretty much says it all LOL! "TCB, it's absurd to suggest, as you have, that a ridiculously high minimum wage would be better, given that it would cause the failure of every business". DUH! So a little is good, but a lot won't work --- because it puts the lie as to why the MW is just wrong.
Then this gem: "It is the government's responsibility to make sure that employers do not turn their employees into impoverished slaves and keep them there". Really? I thought slavery had been abolished. And exactly how many people do you employ, Uhtred? And at what wage? I bet you're a generous employer, and pay well over the market rate.
The relationship and agreement re: wages, between an employee and an employer is simply *not* the government's business. Sorry, but it's not. Government has certain defined responsibilities, and that is not one of them. Not to mention that the MW causes more unemployment, which pays at the *real* MW, which of course is $0.00. Think.

"Economists have conducted hundreds of studies of the employment impact of the minimum wage.
Summarizing those studies is a daunting task, but two recent meta
-
studies analyzing the research
conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the m
inimum wage has little or no discernible effect
on the employment prospects of low
-
wage workers."
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publicatio...

TCB, it's absurd to suggest, as you have, that a ridiculously high minimum wage would be better, given that it would cause the failure of every business. It appears that your logic plays well in the right-wing echo chamber, but it doesn't fly anywhere else. It is the government's responsibility to make sure that employers do not turn their employees into impoverished slaves and keep them there. It's not the slaves' responsibility to end slavery. Insteaith d, it's the responsibility of all citizens, which in our nation constitutes the government. Employers with good ethics understand this and pay their employees a livable wage (like Costco, who pays their employees a livable wage and just announced record profits). Employers who lack ethics execute a business model that assumes that the rest of society will cover the costs associated with their company's failure to pay employees a livable wage.

Uhtred,

What is absurd is your notion of economics. The economic well being is the govts responsibility? Its not govts money to give away. WHy shouldnt govt mandate 25/hour as a minimum wage? Or 100 per hour? If some is good more is better, isn't it? Is it the local city govt that should gaurantee my wellbeing? Or county, or state-please be specific on where govts responsibilities ends and my responsibility begins.

Business responds to mandating higher costs by cutting employment and making other decisions to retain earnings. Who loses? low skilled employees. The net effect of minimun wage laws is to make less experience, less skilled, the least desirable employee more expensive.

The real minimum wage is zero. Just ask the 14 million in the obama economy who are unemployed.

SuperDave, your comment is absurd, unreasonable, and impractical. What is none of those things is a minimum wage that stems abject poverty and prevents a permanent class of have-nots whose employers force the rest of society to pickup the cost of their employees (an example of corporate welfare). The economic well-being of citizens is a fundamental part of the business of government, and this includes minimum wage levels.

Mhoelzel42, your comment speaks to the need of an 'entry-level' minimum wage for teens who are getting their first work experience. That 'entry-level' wage should adjust to the normal minimum wage after certain time period (after 1 year, perhaps).

HandBookHarry, the flaw in your logic is the assumption that everybody who wants to 'improve' themselves has the aptitude and circumstances to do so. Those who don't have the aptitude and circumstances to improve should not be subject to a life of abject poverty.

The minimum wage promotes the notion that you cannot rise above the poverty. It is simply a tool for liberals to push their social justice agenda. Instead of advocating for the poor to rise above they like their people at the bottom so they can garner votes. How else would the Democrats exist?

People that support the concept of a minimum wage do not understand Econ 101. If MW wage is such a good idea, why not make it $25/hour so that people making MW can live comfortably? And with "dignity"!
Moreover, the MW interferes with the relationship between the employee and the employer. Wage levels are not the proper business of government.

I agree with some points of this article, and feel the need for a minimum wage increase in places where the cost of living is much higher. However, I work in a manufacturing shop making $12.60 per hour - currently, $5.35 higher than minimum wage. Not the best wage, but it pays the bills. If minimum wage goes up to $10 per hour, however, high school kids taking orders at a fast food restaraunt will be making just $2.60 per hour less than I do, and they will be doing a fraction of the hard work. What happened to the American ideal of "the harder you work, the more you make"? This doesn't seem to be the case anymore, as the government just caters more and more to the poor of this country.