Minimum wage

Increasing to $8.38 an hour in NJ. Good thing or bad thing?

(Thought this topic was out here last time it increased, but couldn't find it)

botheredbyuu2 botheredbyuu2
Dec '14

Excellent idea. Not going to get all political but given that we are one of the most expensive states to live in, these hard workers deserve a raise, and $8.38 still hardly covers what we need to live comfortably, comfortably meaning the basics.

OK, I got political, my bad.


"$8.38 still hardly covers what we need to live comfortably, comfortably meaning the basics."

By that logic, let's just make minimum wage something like $50K/year... I mean, every 16 year old kid needs to be able to afford their own new car and house, right?

Do it for the children!

It's no wonder a *value* meal at fast food places are pushing $10 or a bucket of chicken for almost $30 (when we all know the food costs are dirt cheap for the restaurant).

If Burger King cashier is your career choice you shouldn't expect that to cover a "comfortable" living. It should be a stepping stone to teach some responsibility, pay for your gas, cover some school books, and maybe have a little extra to go out with friends once in a while (to buy other overpriced food and drinks).

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Dec '14

Wow, a whole $.13 an hour. How generous.

Fuji
Dec '14

Bad idea. The economy still sucks!

Lower the price on goods and services!

The price of gas went down, do you see the price of food or anything else going down? NO!!!!!!!!!!!! all liars!

Happy Old Years!!

Mr Negative Mr Negative
Dec '14

Living comfortably, I defined just for some of the above comments. I am referring to families being able to provide the basics which does not include luxury cars for teenagers, Disney trips, etc.


Really? We really had to take up legislative time to raise the minimum wage by $0.13 ? For what we pay those guys per hour they should be doing a bit more for the people than this.

Oh, and Mark? According to the Motley Fool - "labor is less than a quarter of the cost of what you pay for at the fast food giant, so the impact may not be as big as you think." And " prices would go up but a $10 minimum wage would cost consumers about a dime more per dollar spent(meaning a $4 burger would go up about $0.40) and a $15 minimum wage, or more than doubling pay, would cost about $0.27(same burger would go up about $1.07) more per dollar. What's interesting is that labor is only the second largest cost component and food costs should be watched more closely than the minimum wage debate.

Labor isn't the problem
While labor gets the headlines at McDonald's, if you want a cheaper hamburger you should be putting a focus on global food prices. Since the minimum wage was last increased, the consumer price index for beef is up 38% and vegetable and soft drink costs are up as well"
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/08/what-will-a-higher-minimum-wage-cost-you-at-mcdona.aspx

According to Forbes - This article asserts that food pricing is not related to actual costs, but to supply/demand and competition. It is very interesting and may help you make sense of why a meal at McD's is pushing $10. Hint - It's most likely not the paltry sum they are paying their workers no matter what you think of the appropriateness of the job as a career.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/02/the-real-change-in-the-cost-of-a-big-mac-if-mcdonalds-workers-were-paid-15-an-hour-nothing/

Lets figure this out Lets figure this out
Dec '14

Perhaps before starting a family you should be beyond the minimum wage job level, eh?

Especially by the time your kids are teenagers...

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Dec '14

Mark Mc

Unfortunately,
The ignorant think with their equipment instead of their future.
And then we end up paying for it.

Mr Negative Mr Negative
Dec '14

You really think that a frozen pink slime burger, a handful of fries, and 1/10 oz. of cola syrup is costing McDonald's ~$7 in raw materials, with a buck or two to microwave it?

Sure, it's not all labor cost, there is equipment and rent and all that... but raising wages is raising prices no matter how you look at it - and the excuse that minimum wage should support a "comfortable" living is the root of the problem.

Minimum wage is what you make in the summer or between semesters to help offset some costs, not to support a family.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Dec '14

And what did Obama's Christmas vacation cost!


Mark, so you have no problem with this? You understand that we all wind up subsidizing these workers when they then utilize government programs to subsist?

The chief executives of McDonald's and Starbucks earn more than $9,200 an hour, which is at least 1,000 times the hourly wages of their sales associates, according to a new report by the personal finance website NerdWallet.

The report highlights fast food and retail companies with some of the biggest gaps between CEO pay and hourly wages paid to associates.

McDonald's, Starbucks and Dollar General top the list, followed by Gap, TJ Maxx, Target, Wal-Mart, CVS Caremark, Best Buy and AT&T Wireless.

yankeefan yankeefan
Dec '14

And what does Obama's trip to Hawaii have to do with this topic????????

JerryG JerryG
Dec '14

Numbers can be made to tell any story you'd like, but there seems to be a general consensus... and based on our history, it's certainly evident that a rising tide lifts ALL boats.

As fast-food workers strike and protest in seven cities across the country this week for higher pay, one estimate suggests that raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour could increase the cost of a Big Mac by 68 cents.

Economists have long debated the economic effects of raising the minimum wage, but Arnobio Morelix, an undergraduate student at the University of Kansas School of Business, estimated how increasing pay to $15 an hour would affect prices at the most popular fast-food restaurant in the country, McDonald’s.

Morelix created financial models based on McDonald’s annual reports and investor data. He estimated that paying workers $15 an hour could raise the price of a Big Mac to $4.67 from $3.99, as first reported by the Huffington Post. A Big Mac meal would jump to $6.66 from $5.69, and McDonald’s Dollar Menu would go to $1.17, Forbes reported.

yankeefan yankeefan
Dec '14

I agree with Mark. Minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage. Those types of jobs are meant for teenagers or working part time. Don't like the wage you're making then do something to make yourself more valuable. I did just that and it wasn't easy by a long shot. I made a plan and sacrifices and happy to say am now reaping the rewards.


Here's some minimum wage jobs that might surprise you: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/list-minimum-wage-jobs-2571.html

And who makes it: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/

Indeed a rising tide might lift all boats especially if you consider "near minimum wage" jobs, those people who make slightly more that the minimum wage but still work below the poverty level might surprise you.

I guess the question is do folks who work 40 hours a week deserve to be above the poverty level? Or should Americans who put in 40 hours a week still live below the poverty level? Right now, the answer is let em starve and freeze and 13 cents won't change that.

Those who are against the current increase are indeed principled seeing we are talking about 13 cents an hour or about $300 a year. Seems a low number to be digging your heals in for. If you got a 13 cent an hour raise, I bet you would quit.

Meanwhile, indeed a tricky problem since most feel that teenagers and part timers don't deserve a living wage. And perhaps they don't. Nor do you feel that people working at the bottom deserve to live at or above the poverty line; they should just do better. One solution, pay full time workers a decent wage probably wouldn't work given the low-paying sector's expertise managing part-timing in a high unemployment economy, just raising a full time minimum wage would probably just give people less hours.

The thing that galls me is that we, the taxpayers, are essentially subsiding these industries, like fast food, while taking our "entitlements" in taxpayer-supported low-priced burgers, tacos, and fries. How? Well, about 50% of those workers fall below the poverty line and are subsidized. Therefore, we are using tax dollars to pay these workers to make our fast food meals artificially lower cost. That's just stupid, either we should pay what our burgers really cost or throw these workers off entitlements and let them starve, homeless, while putting in 40 hours at Mickey D's.

According to Forbes, we pay $6.2B a year to Walmart workers so we can get cheaper Walmart goods. We probably put in close to $2M ourselves per year to support the Beatystown Walmart. That's about $200 per year for every Hackettstown man, woman, and child. Hope you shop there to get your money's worth.

Or call it outsourcing. According to Forbes from two different studies, we "outsource" $7B a year to fast food with McD's topping the list at $1.2B. On a pure average basis, that's $84 per year per Hackettstown man, woman, and child and I can guarantee you our McDonalds is way above average.

So for two Hackettstown stores, we fork out $300 per year, per person, so they can hire folks, keep them below the poverty line, to sell us crap we are not paying our fair share for at the cash register. Instead we pay for it in our taxes; the more you work, the more you pay.

If we raised these workers above the poverty level, sure our burgers would cost more, but our welfare payments would drop. Which is better? I say paying our fair share at the cash register is better all around.

Just can't figure out how to do it given how badly we have messed up minimum wage in America.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Dec '14

" If you got a 13 cent an hour raise, I bet you would quit."

Except my raises are governed by my performance and the company's financial situation, nothing is "automatic" as mandated by the government. Plenty of people get no raises, and in this economy plenty of people have taken pay cuts.

Want to make more money? Take on more responsibility or, yes, quit and find a new job.

Flipping burgers next year isn't any more demanding than flipping burgers this year... why should you get a raise?

Want the solution? Stop having so many damn kids.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Dec '14

So minimum wage increases should be tied to the number of dependents. And inflation should have no bearing on minimum wage. Brilliant.

yankeefan yankeefan
Dec '14

Does inflation automatically raise your paycheck?

By less kids, I mean making the job pool smaller so there is no need to artificially buoy the wage rate... if there are enough people alive that some are willing to work for less, let them.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Dec '14

+1000 Ras

botheredbyuu2 botheredbyuu2
Dec '14

I am not against raising minimal wage, I know how hard it is to survive on a very limited income. But every time it goes up, I think that my hourly rate goes down for the same number.


You're so busy focusing on "it's their fault," while the rest of us are tax subsidizing your purchases, or better said --- entitlements, from the stores that leverage minimum wage, that you missed the point.

Why should someone who works for 40 hours a week live below the poverty line? Really, it that principled?

And these are not just burger flippers and Walmart minions; they are pilots, home health care workers, EMTs, and more.

If you would just be willing to pay for what you buy at the cash register rather than judging the moral value of the minimum wage worker perhaps America would be a better place. Like the 40-hour a week minimum wage worker did something wrong to be stuck in that job. Can you really make that call?

Right now, in Hackettstown, you probably pay over $1,000 per year in taxes, per your own family members, just to support your minimum wage principles. Wouldn't it be better to pay for it based on what you buy from these stores? Or do you like being entitled through the back door?

Or should be just let them work the 40 hours without the welfare payments? Better be careful on eating those burgers.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Dec '14

Minimum wage should vary state by state, depending on the cost of living. No need for a $9.00/hr. Min wage in Arkansas, but it may be justifiable in NJ/NY, etc. maybe even on a county level with state oversight? That said, raise it too high and the very people who are complaining that they need a raise will be pushed out the door by "higher skilled/educated" workers. If a college entry level job pays 15 bucks an hour, but are harder to come by, why wouldn't someone with, say, an associates the apply at McDonalds if the wage is comparable? Even if it was a temp job until they got their "dream job", they'd still be pushing teenagers and GEDs out the door s. The ones protesting would have it backfire in their face.

And as for these "hard working people" as some have mentioned on here, yes some work hard, but some hardly work. Let there be no confusion. Stop boo-hooing every single minimum wage worker.

Ru4real Ru4real
Dec '14

How often do these minimum wage workers treat you politely? How
Often can they answer your questions? How often do they
Say thank you? How often do you walk into a fast food
Establishment and it is clean? They are being paid
Almost the same as entry level college grads yet
Want to stand around and get paid for it. This will mean
Less jobs, terrible service and more mom and pop
Businesses going out of business.

Cops wife Cops wife
Dec '14

My only concern is that if you keep raising minimum wage, people won’t be motivated to better themselves. These jobs are not meant to be careers. There are some office jobs that pay $10 to $12 an hour and require an education. Why should minimum wage jobs be close in comparison?

Jazzykatt Jazzykatt
Dec '14

The minimum wage should definitely start at $10 an hour I don't mind paying a few cents more for something if it means someone is making a livable wage. When I had my business my lowest paid employee made nearly double the minimum wage this is just my personal observation but I found the more money I paid my employees the better job they did whether it was some guy who had 20 years experience running a dozer or somebody I hired off the street to push a broom I always had very little turnover in employees

oldred
Dec '14

The value of the dollar today is less than it was in the past. When the dollar loses value, that's called inflation. That's because prices seem inflated as each dollar is able to buy less and less.

How much lower is today's dollar value? In 1913 you could buy as much with a dollar as you can with $23.63 in 2014, more than 100 years later. By 1920, the dollar had lost about half its value, and was worth $11.48 in today's value. Deflation (the opposite of inflation) during the Great Depression of 1929 increased the value of the dollar to $13.43. By 1940, the dollar was worth even more -- it could buy as much as $16.40 could today.



By 1950, the dollar's value had dropped even lower than before the Depression. It was worth only $9.53. It has fallen ever since:
•1960 = $7.76
•1970 = $5.92
•1980 = $2.79
•1990 = $1.76
•2000 = $1.33
•2010 - $1.05.(Source: CPI Inflation Calculator)

We basically have two choices...enable those working at the bottom of the pay scale to live without having to utilize government assistance, or accept the fact that WE at higher levels will finance the government assistance. As it stands today, we are subsidizing the profits of the employers who benefit from paying their employees the bare minimum, knowing full well they will use the government assistance, as Mr, G has correctly stated numerous times in this and other threads. And yes, Mark, there are many jobs where salaries and raises incorporate COLA.

yankeefan yankeefan
Dec '14

"And yes, Mark, there are many jobs where salaries and raises incorporate COLA."

And there are many jobs where they don't. If a job doesn't pay enough, don't take it. Find another one that does.

If enough people don't take the job due to low wages, the company will be forced to set the correct rate on their own. If someone is willing to work for less, that's what the position is worth. If you hate your low paycheck, you'll have incentive to improve yourself or climb the ladder (doesn't mean you'll jump to CEO, but in just about any company there should be opportunities to rise above the entry level position).


What someone "deserves" shouldn't be a factor. There are probably a lot of people that "deserve" to win the lottery. Should we all just buck up and create a few million dollar pool to donate?

The only thing that people "deserve" are the opportunities to decide if they are willing to do a certain type of work for a certain amount of money. If not, move along and let the next person make that decision too. But don't bitch about it when they accept it and you didn't.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Dec '14

Great plan... "And there are many jobs where they don't. If a job doesn't pay enough, don't take it. Find another one that does."

You assume that people working at the minimum have CHOICE?

And then... "The only thing that people "deserve" are the opportunities to decide if they are willing to do a certain type of work for a certain amount of money."

I think first they deserve the opportunity to QUALIFY for those better paying jobs. Which is something the great majority of those working minimum wage don't have.

Your arrogance and lack of compassion leads me to believe you always had it pretty good and never knew real poverty or lack of opportunity. Good for you, sucks for "them", right?

yankeefan yankeefan
Dec '14

So if we have the means to boost EVERYBODY up to a non-poverty level... why stop there?

Shouldn't we just set the minimum wage at like $100/hour and make everyone rich?

There's only so much money to hand out for free, you know.

Here's a situation... a business can afford another $10/hour for labor. Would you rather they hire two (willing) employees at $5/hour or one employee at minimum wage. Just priced one guy out of a job there, didn't ya? I'm sure he'd probably rather make $5/hour than $0/hour - but because the BUSINESS didn't have a choice with the wages they could offer, neither did the still unemployed person.

Sure on a small scale this example is pretty rough (deciding between one or two people) but scale that up and maybe a business is only able to hire 50 people instead of 60... I'd rather have everybody at least be EMPLOYED, and then earn their way higher up.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Dec '14

"And the payers gonna pay pay pay pay pay
And the haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate
So I'm just gonna pay it off pay it off pay it off."


Making the assumption that adults taking min wage jobs are too lazy to better their situation is pretty arrogant. There are many qualified, educated people that are under employed- through no fault of their own. Have some compassion for those that haven't had lucky breaks. In this economy it seems getting a decent job is more about luck then qualifications!

MommyinGreen MommyinGreen
Dec '14

Mark - who would accept $5 an hour. Seriously. What type of job would that be for someone to live from which is the main point of this post. A summer job, for a teenager, maybe, who will work for 3 months, and go back to school or start his or her first year in college. But I'll bet $5.00 an hour, at 40 hours a week was pretty hard to stretch for college expenses. Were you expecting tips with that hourly wage?

denise denise
Jan '15

denise - the point is it should be up to the business to find the wage that will satisfy the right candidate. If someone accepts $5/hour, then that's what the position is worth... If nobody does, the business makes a better offer. What is so abhorrent about finding the right value for that particular job rather than saying that EVERYTHING is this country is worth at least $X dollars an hour? Some things simply aren't (and plenty are worth more than minimum wage, but maybe that money is tied up overpaying someone else).

And it is EXACTLY for the summer job for a teenager. There are millions of food service, cleaning jobs, retail, grocery store, etc. jobs that can be filled by teenagers part time looking for a bit of extra cash. It isn't supposed to pay for college, it's supposed to be an ENTRY LEVEL JOB. Sorry to say, but if you're trying to make a "living" on a minimum wage job, you've done something wrong, and this isn't about lack of opportunity, but lack of initiative. Plenty of people here started at minimum wage, but applied themselves and *created* opportunities as evidenced by some posts a bit higher in this thread.

So you're saying that every job should pay at a minimum ~$40K per year (to cover a $10K college tuition by working only 3 months)? That's some expensive vegetable aisle in the supermarket... Why even go to college? You could probably up that to $60K by stocking the breads and dairy as well...

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Jan '15

"Here's a situation... a business can afford another $10/hour for labor. Would you rather they hire two (willing) employees at $5/hour or one employee at minimum wage. Just priced one guy out of a job there, didn't ya? I'm sure he'd probably rather make $5/hour than $0/hour - but because the BUSINESS didn't have a choice with the wages they could offer, neither did the still unemployed person."

OK, let's flip this. The business can afford another $10 per hour; why not hire people at $1 per hour and get ten people to work. Or 50 cents and 20 people. Or a penny and we can hire the world!!!!! If all the businesses agree, everyone will be able to be fully employed for just pennies. Good news ---- no more unemployment!!!!

OR

Since this business needs two people but only has $5 a hour to pay them we cast the owner into the burning fiery pits of hell for being a lazy, unmotivated business owner who needs "incentive to improve" his business to climb the business success ladder. He's probably rude to his customers too.

I just find it appalling that folks who don't want busiensses to pay a living wage to 40-hour a week workers are more than willing to subsidize large corporations via their tax dollars to hire people at the poverty level. Remember, we're talking poverty here, not just, 'it's not the best paying job, but it's a start." Poverty is poverty --- it's not just "a start." Folks seem just too happy to allow backdoor subsidizing of large corporations like Walmart and Mcd's while bashing the poor people who work there for poverty wages as being lazy, stupid, and unmotivated. And the fact that they work 40 hours a week and still are on welfare ---- yeah, you blame the workers for this shame. Just appalling. This ain't small business main street USA ----- this is the HUGE global business folks that you are subsidizing with your judgmental principles.

Maybe they should all form a union to fight Walmart and Mcds ----- oh wait, that would be evil too..........

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jan '15

"OK, let's flip this. The business can afford another $10 per hour; why not hire people at $1 per hour and get ten people to work."

If people willingly agree to this, why not? Did you know that some people even volunteer their time and actually work for nothing? Nobody is forcing you to accept a low paying job, but if someone else takes it, your loss.


"I just find it appalling that folks who don't want busiensses to pay a living wage to 40-hour a week workers "

There's that "living wage" thing again... Plenty of jobs pay living wages, just not burger flippers. If you really want to make a career at a fast food joint, how about rising to the top, become a team leader or manager, or even move on to another job offering more money? If you are content to ask people if they want fries with that, don't expect the same rewards as those who make a larger effort.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Jan '15

So are you still OK paying welfare to those workers who do not get paid enough working those jobs? Like I said, I think that's about $1,000 out of your pocket per each of your family members each year to support this life in Hackettstown alone.

That's what you are apparently OK with to support Mcd's, Walmart's and other big businesses' low salaries and lower priced burgers, fries, and crap from China.

Weird principles to me.

mistergoolge mistergoolge
Jan '15

Here's a quest for your Google Fu... has the welfare rate gone down as minimum wage has gone up?

Methinks not:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/hhs-report-percentage-americans-welfare-hits-recorded-high

Check out the spike in unmarried mothers having babies... there's a problem. Everyone wants to pop out a dozen kids to get the benefits, rather than having personal responsibility and working to support a small family.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Jan '15

You don't possibly think the spike in welfare could be associated with the crash of 2007-2008? The loss of jobs at a clip of 600-800 thousand a month? The millions of foreclosures?

And there you go again with the stale stereotype..."popping out a dozen kids to get the benefits". Data source? Or simply your innate feelings of self righteousness and superiority. Both pitifully misplaced. Go back to polishing your AK-47...or whatever it is you stroke...

yankeefan yankeefan
Jan '15

Cute name, I hope you are not abbreviating.

Remember, we are talking a 13 cent per hour increase although I would gather you are talking holding the line based on your 13-cent principles.

And you didn't answer the question except with questions. Or did you?

"Here's a quest for your Google Fu... has the welfare rate gone down as minimum wage has gone up?"
Methinks it's a question that can not be answered based on the variety of other economic factors and the rarity of minimum wage increases. Just like you can't say raising the minimum wage caused the recession. But raising the minimum wage did reduce crime :>) But if you must correlate that which can not be, the answer is both up and down with no clear direction.

"Check out the spike in unmarried mothers having babies... there's a problem. Everyone wants to pop out a dozen kids to get the benefits, rather than having personal responsibility and working to support a small family."
OK, there is a spike. But rather than applaud the lack of abortion, you go to benefits even suggesting that young unmarried mothers lack responsibility because you surmise they don't work. But you do surmise they are having a dozen kids. Perhaps it's not for the benefits. Perhaps they all work at Walmart or Mcds. Methinks you surmise a lot none of which has to do with the minimum wage. At least you left color and religion out of it.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jan '15

" Go back to polishing your AK-47...or whatever it is you stroke..."


Who on Earth polishes an AK-47? They are made of stamped sheet metal for crying out loud... Shows what you know (AK's are illegal in NJ... it would have to be something like a WASR-10) and a poor attempt at an insult..


"The loss of jobs at a clip of 600-800 thousand a month?"

Wait, I thought minimum wage hikes were increasing jobs...

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/06/ben-cardin/does-raising-minimum-wage-result-job-growth/


Other times, they just completely lie about the result:

http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2014/10/16/if-minimum-wage-is-so-great-why-cite-bogus-study-n1905730/page/full

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Jan '15

Reading through this topic, it's clear, as with many topics on this site, that many heartily-voiced opinions are simply people taking an opportunity to spew anger, resentment, bias and ignorance. Few have the emotional maturity - regardless of political perspective - to take the time to actually examine reality and/or the facts presented and respond on that basis. It's really a shame that some of the loudest "people" continue to decline to knee-jerk emoto-robots. A shame that there are so many with such overwhelming resentment and anger that fact-based discussion is not possible in the general population - it's very worrisome when there is so much needing reasonable discussion.

pmnsk pmnsk
Jan '15

So nothing needs to be changed with the attitude of the poor? They can just have as many children as they want knowing that society will not allow them to be neglected?

All of the poor people I know that have risen to better lives only had one or two children. Just my experience, but I doubt others would deny that it is just common sense...

I am for welfare as long as it is not lifelong. There needs to be a 5 year limit, but then what happens to the children... so we cannot punish the poor stupid parent(s) to protect the children. A vicious cycle of poverty in most cases.

Stock markets are allowing the richer (not always rich) to increase their wealth at high rates -- the poor pull public resources at high rates
touche...


"Cute name, I hope you are not abbreviating. "

Wow, for someone that thinks himself the search engine, you fail again:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=google-fu


"But if you must correlate that which can not be, the answer is both up and down with no clear direction."

So you admit to just throwing out more red herrings. You linked welfare and minimum wage, and expect me to prove your case for you?


"But rather than applaud the lack of abortion, you go to benefits even suggesting that young unmarried mothers lack responsibility because you surmise they don't work."

Maybe if men and women had family values, stayed married, and had reasonable family sizes they wouldn't find themselves on the wrong side of poverty trying to support several kids on a single minimum wage income.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Jan '15

What I don't get are the adults working at fast food places, bitching they aren't making enough to live on. No duh!

I worked at Burger King from 1977 to 1980 (all through high school) and the only adults in the afternoon were the managers - the rest of us were all high school students from 3:00 until closing. During the day the managers worked the registers and a few of our mom's worked part time in the back along with a few college students that had afternoon classes.

Nobody that I knew expected a living wage from it. Those jobs were always meant for teens (to learn how to work and get someplace on time and work as a team, etc), mom's to make a little extra for their "fun money" and the occasional bored senior citizen who wanted to get out of the house a few days a week.

Now these people are expecting to do what -- buy a house and a car and raise a family pulling the fry baskets out of the fryer when the buzzer goes off. Really?

Heidi Heidi
Jan '15

OK, Heidi has answered all based on the brief experience of one. Nice. Meanwhile, Heidi, look above and note it's not just the Burger King in Hackettstown; it's department stores, regional airlines, factories ------ gosh it's more than just one outlet in one town in one industry.

Mark, first ---- it appears that the experts agree that you can't correlate minimum wage increases with employment rates --- either way, conclusively. Kinda like when someone said: "Methinks it's a question that can not be answered based on the variety of other economic factors and the rarity of minimum wage increases."

And on "So you admit to just throwing out more red herrings. You linked welfare and minimum wage, and expect me to prove your case for you," you're not even close to what I have been saying. Trying reading the Forbes article for a start; there's many others on the topic: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jan '15

I can think of one federal agency we can dissolve to cover that $6.2B bill... kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

It'll mean you won't have to take your shoes off to go flying, as well.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Jan '15

How dare any one of you throw an adult under the bus for working a fast food job, how DARE you! Its hard but I make it, WITHOUT LIVING off welfare and food stamps or any other assistance from you!. I work there bc they are flexible with me regarding my childrens school schedule. A different career is going to change the way I parent my children so it's this for now. I RAISE my kids and I PAY my bills and I don't think any of you should decide how my life should be at whatever age. Shame on you.

icicle icicle
Jan '15

I understand what you are saying icicle. Sometimes life gets in the way of our best laid plans. Good for you for being able to support yourself and raise your children without any assistance. That cannot be easy. I met a woman not too long ago and this reminded me of her. She works for the garbage company. I see her on occasion and we talk. She is not making much money, but for now it is the only way she can be there for her children.


Way to go icicle! What you are doing is harder then most people will ever understand. Good for you!

MommyinGreen MommyinGreen
Jan '15

+10000% for Icicle!!!

joyful joyful
Jan '15

Icicle we applaud you working fast food but you have to accept the wage scale that goes with it. The Job is not meant to be a career or have a living wage. Some people think a job is a job and a worker is a worker bud sadly that is not true. If you are happy with no skill minimum wage job Good for You but don't expect $15 and a pension.People get comfortable at different wage levels and you chose fast food

Brad2
Jan '15

I just find it shocking that people are OK with being able to work a 40-hour a week job that forces them to be on welfare because we don't believe in paying a living wage for some jobs. More shocking that we are OK funding these large rich corporations via our tax dollars to hire these people at sub standard wages.

If I work a minimum wage job, 40 hours a week, for 25 years ---- why don't I deserve my pension via social security that I paid for?

Minimum wage does not always equal no skill ---- see listing of minimum wage jobs above.

Minimum wage does not equal a lack of family values, never did.

Minimum wage does not mean teens, training jobs, never did.

You have to accept the wage that comes with it ---- really???? I have never accepted any wage for any job that I worked. My answer on the survey has always been ---- nope, I am worth much more.......

At one level, the fix is easy. Just equate the 40-hour week, full time pay, with what it takes NOT to pay this worker welfare based on one person. We can argue whether it helps or hurts business, the economy, and the universe, but in the end ---- taxpayers should not have to support a 40-hour worker via tax dollars to cover for business owners. Especially for the likes of Walmart, Target, Mcds, B-King and the rest making a corporate profit off our taxpayer provided welfare payouts. I just can't fathom why conservatives aren't off the wall on this one.

On another level we can argue what is poverty? And where do welfare payments start and stop? I think we pay at some % over the poverty level, but it's tough to tell. I gotta tell you --- that's a tough one. For a good time, pretend you are working full time at Walmart, but falling behind in rent and getting a bit hungry too. Start googling how to apply for assistance and see if you can figure the rules. It stymied me.

But I just can't see how some guy working a 40 hour week should be in poverty.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jan '15

I had two truck driver (delivery person) jobs open up three months ago, I contacted Unemployment, Jobs4Jersey website ad filled out, Bergen County Career One Stop, the Veterans counselor at Unemployment. Starting salary $15.00 per hour. I did not receive one applicant from any of those agencies. It's a tough job, heavy lifting involved, the only thing I required was a cleaning driving record and the ability to speak English fluently. Finally filled the positions through Craigs List. Very sad state the "system" is in...

JrzyGirl88 JrzyGirl88
Jan '15

I believe Mister Google is beginning to see the shortcomings of Government. Life is learning how to survive. It is basically a barter system. You provide a service, another provides a service that you can't and we both survive. Some skills are more valuable than others due to their having exceptional gifts.
Governments try to mandate that the barter system is not fair, and attempt to equalize the system. Well life is not fair. Survival has different meanings to different people. We spend our life trying to survive within their rules. They change so often that they become the challenge for survival. One size doesn't fit all, hence we become divided and fight over the division of the spoiles. Lord knows there is enough fighting on these threads among neighbors.
My faith is in the Lord who by his Grace, is seeing me through to this point.

Old Gent Old Gent
Jan '15

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000 icicle!!!!!!

botheredbyuu2 botheredbyuu2
Jan '15

There is nothing wrong with minimum wage jobs if you are satisfied with it and don’t want more or something better. If someone could make a comfortable living flipping hamburgers, why would they take the time to get an education or learn new skills? I do not speak for all but sometimes we all get what we settle for.

I didn't grow up with a lot of money, my parents couldn't afford to pay for college and I didn't want to take out a loan and be in debt forever. After working for minimum wage for so long and getting nowhere, I knew I had to do something so I went to an affordable community college and learned office skills and went on to earn an Associates Degree. I started at the bottom in an office and would keep applying to higher positions. I am happy with the efforts I made.

I come from a country that depends heavily on its government for care. You have no idea how many friends and family members I have that are on social assistance, many subsidizing minimum wage jobs. It angers me to no end because they should really know better. But they are always broke and popping out kids left, right and center. The problem is they have no incentive to be better. The government stepped in when they left the nest so they still don't have to make a big effort to be contributing members of society. I am talking about Canada, a very large socialist country, but that is what you get when the government has open pockets to help those that don't help themselves. I am referring to my experience in another country but my point is you have to want to try and make yourself better.

Jazzykatt Jazzykatt
Jan '15

I am not sure the Canada of today is the Canada of your youth. I think welfare is about 5% so what can I say about your circle of friends. Here's just a tidbit on BC which is about 4% welfare -- http://mlaonwelfare.com/background/

In the US it's 23%, but that's across 3 different programs so perhaps not apples to apples ---- I did not really compare line items.

But the point is not how many people are on welfare or how much welfare pays --- that's another thread.

The question is should the minimum wage be raised and I still say, and tempered by --- for a full time minimum wage earner to be on welfare is wrong.

And the real question was should it be raised by 13 cents. Do we really need to argue that?

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jan '15

" I work there bc they are flexible with me regarding my childrens school schedule. A different career is going to change the way I parent my children so it's this for now. I RAISE my kids and I PAY my bills and I don't think any of you should decide how my life should be at whatever age. Shame on you."
Icicle

I applaud the fact that you have figured out a way to pay your own way making minimum wage without assistance but it should not be considered a "career". That's part of the problem imo.

Yankeefan, Walmart, Target, etc. are also among the largest US employers in the United States. They hire many people who could most likely not be employed anywhere else. If you think you deserve more than minimum wage, do something to earn it. I wouldn't compare a CEO's salary to a burger flipper.

hhs75
Jan '15

Thank you for the supportive and constructive replies. I DO want better, and have been better with a much more substantial job. However, in my personal experience a job is a job and you accommodate your way of life accordingly. I own 2 older cars so I don't have car payments, I don't used drugs, my home is meager but its full of the things and people I love. My kids did well for xmas. I just really ration out my money properly which to me is a valuable life skill that I have that maybe someone thinking a woman working for close to minimum wage might not have. But I do, I'm smart, I don't owe anyone anything. The minimum wage is was it is and I don't expect 15.00/hour but a steady increase of pay when I've earned it IS expected.

icicle icicle
Jan '15

hhs75, the fact is that all of us...in the form of our taxes, and in the cost of health care, SUBSIDIZE the huge salaries these CEOs receive. How? The thousands of employees that receive minimum wages and no health benefits are forced to use various forms of assistance and the emergency rooms...Walmart makes the profits, WE pay for the assistance and the emergency rooms...that's their business model and it works VERY well for them...and I see you're OK with that. I'm not.

By the way, I make a very good salary at a major telecom...I get health care benefits, COLA, paid vacation, etc. So it isn't sour grapes, it's simply common sense.

yankeefan yankeefan
Jan '15

I too think a substantial rise in minimum wage would reduce my subsidy to Walmart. I also think it would support the dignity of labor: hell yes, pay more for burger and fries.

I think there would have to be exemptions from the minimum: the obvious ones (under 18, etc.) Perhaps the ability of a business to PUBLICLY apply for an exemption on various grounds.

Before jumping down my throat: I have a degree in Economics from one top 10 depts, and I am well aware of the negative affects on employment. I think the labor market has gotten to a very unhealthy equilibrium and needs a good kick to get it working again. Raising minimum wage ALSO has a positive effect on demand.

There is more to life than cheap pizza.

MrCharlie
Jan '15

it's the constant influx of cheap foreign labor that helps keeps wages depressed.

and both political parties and big business wants it that way. they all got skin in this game, all of them, and it hurts the little guy

minimum wage should be raised to keep pace with the falling value of the dollar.

it's been shown that when it's easier to exercise discretionary spending that the economy does better, the more these wages get turned over in the economy the more it churns back in economic activity,

that's a good thing.

and stop marginalizing all of the minimum wage jobs as 'burger flippers', that's does a disservice to those who are stuck in min wage occupations, (which more and more companies are moving towards, "how low can/will you go?") these occupations run the gamut, EMS workers, hospital staffs, administrative and clerical work, cleaning companies, security firms, manufacturing firms, warehouse and truck work, and the list goes on,

combine that with the push to re-classify full timers to part timers who work less than 30 hours per week so that these big companies can avoid the obamacare dictates and it gets even worse for these people.

we can do better and we should all try,

what i don't get is the 13 cents thing, make it even like 8.50, 8.75 or 9.00 per hour, this strange number '8.38' is weird

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Jan '15

BrotherDog, the hypothetical reason for a mere 13-cent-per-hour raise is that the minimum wage is supposed to represent the bare minimum upon which a person can survive, if he/she works a 40-hour week, based on the average cost of living. Basically, that means the government believes a person can now theoretically survive in New Jersey, making approximately $1,340.80 gross pay, in a 4-week month. And it IS possible, even without other government subsidies (like food-stamp and energy benefits. It doesn't mean you can live well or that you will be filling up your bank account, but you can survive.

Yes, in the old days, the government might round up the figure to the nearest nickel, because it was fairly insignificant. But these days, when two cents per employee hour can add up to huge amounts, for big corporations, I'm not surprised that the government is no longer rounding.

JerseyWolf JerseyWolf
Jan '15

JW Is correct, for a single individual this amount is about 138% of federal poverty level (fpl) so these individuals, as individuals, are above the poverty level. But the rub is assistance payouts begin above the fpl, and in NJ, quite a bit higher based on the expense of living in this state. For example:

NJ Medicaid kicks in at 138%. However, add one kid and the kid is in.

Food Stamps might kick in starting at 130% of fpl for the FED, but for NJ it's 185%, so minimum wagers stand a chance of applicability depending on deductions, most certainly if there is a kid.

Energy Assistance programs are at 175% and 200% of fpl so those apply.

I didn't look up housing, but you get the drift. Point is that being above the fpl does not mean you are not poor. Nor does having less mean that you can't get by. Expenses, lifestyles, health, and personal choice all come into play.

But the point that minimum wagers are well within their rights to these taxpayer entitlements means that businesses can hire folks FULL TIME at these wages and have the rest of us pay lower prices for goods but foot the rest of their FULL TIME employees bills for living in NJ instead of paying living wages and raising product prices so that taxpayers don't foot the bill on April 15th.

Sure, some of these people could theoretically get by on that wage. My grandmother used to blow her nose with two bricks; just because it can be done does not mean everyone can do it. And it does make sense that we provide assistance at some level above poverty, we can argue the fine points of what is the correct percentage, but you can see the current listings.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jan '15

Minimum wage is intended for entry level positions for minimum skilled people. It's called starting at the bottom. If you are a 30 something person still working for minimum wage then you have not advanced your job skills to deserve to earn more. An employer will pay what your worth, so make the effort to be worth more than minimum wage and you will get it.


Minimum wage is not "supposed to represent the bare minimum upon which a person can survive, if he/she works a 40-hour week, based on the average cost of living."

That was never the intention and nowhere does it (or has it ever) been stated as such.

Minimum wage is simply the least amount, by law an employer can pay an employee - which stemmed from the child labor laws and such, when employers were making their employees work 60 hours a week and paying them $12.00 total. The government decided that there had to be at least a minimum allowed to prevent people from working for nothing in sweat shops.

Never, in history, was minimum wage meant for a family man with children or a single mom to live on long term.

Heidi Heidi
Jan '15

+1 Heidi. Yet should minimum wage for an individual working 40 hours a week mean that we need to add food stamps, energy reimbursements, Medicaid, and housing taxpayer payments?

Many here believe that minimum wage should not be "comfortable," but should large corporations be comfortable while we subsidize their low-cost labor?

See the payouts listed above to see how much you spend currently to support this.

See the jobs listings above to see how it's not just burger flippers and kids.

See the poverty levels listed above and tell me the payout-levels would leave you with a comfortable feeling.

All I am saying is that for a 40-hour a week worker, we should not have to subsidize bad businesses with out tax dollars to bring this guy to a "reasonable" level of poverty. Not for kids, and maybe not for part-timers. But I would rather pay more for a burger or a Walmart product at the cash register that allow these companies to make profits off the back door of entitlements which we are all paying for whether we eat the burgers or not.

Sure, that might mean a wage bifurcation for full time, part time and maybe teens, but hey, that's why politicians get the big bucks. I doubt they can make the system much more complex at this point anyway.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jan '15

+100 Heidi,

I don't understand why everyone is blaming the largest employers in the U.S rather than those who would be collecting much more if they were not employed. Employees of Walmart, McDonald's etc are being paid what their position is worth.

hhs75
Jan '15

"Many here believe that minimum wage should not be "comfortable," but should large corporations be comfortable while we subsidize their low-cost labor? "

There are 3.3 Million people that earn minimum wage (or less, plus tips). That's approximately 2.6% of the nation's workforce (and ~1% of the total US population). 97.4% of workers earn more than minimum wage.

There are 109.6 Million people on welfare. That's ~35% of the total US population. Obviously that includes children, but let's assume that each household has the US average of 2.54 people per household. That means 43.1 Million households are on welfare (possibly earning nothing, so minimum wage has no effect).

Being generous, let's also assume that only one person per household earns minimum wage. That leaves ~40 Million households that are on welfare earning something other than minimum wage.

Also consider that >50% of minimum wage earners are younger than 24, and 24% are younger than 19. 64% of them are employed at part time jobs. Not your typical "head of household" situation there, so the number of families that blame their welfare dependency on minimum wage should be even smaller.

As Icicle has proven, it's possible to "survive" on minimum wage without being on welfare, so there has to be some other reason (maybe, as she indicated, it's got something to do with work ethic and financial responsibility - plus spiraling costs of everything that may/may not have anything to do with profits, greed, etc. Problem is you just can't solve the equation when you include every single variable imaginable.)

Just as an aside... under the current administration (2008-2012 data) welfare dependency has increased ~13% despite only ~3% population growth and ~6% dollar devaluation, so as a whole the country is worse off now... just saying.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Jan '15

please, please!!!!!!! Watch a movie called "we're not broke ". It's only about an hour long and will explain every topic covered here. It will also warn you of things to come. After viewing the movie, spread the word!!!!! It is on Netflix free.

terry page terry page
Jan '15

Mark, your numbers are good and make sense. It's indeed a small number of the working population that we taxpayers support because they can't work full time and make a living wage.

Let's flip it around. For Fast Food and Walmart workers, we pay over $13B in welfare assistance. So given Target, Kmart, etc.; let's round up to $20B. That's $20B we spend to support minimum wage earners.

Now everyone, even illegals, pay some sort of tax in America. But about 122 million of us pay Federal Income Tax.

So, we the taxpayer, pay an average of 170 bucks a year to support these workers since their salary doesn't. (this number is much smaller than the $1,000 I posted earlier because I used just Hackettstown residents against local McDs and Walmart which obviously server a much larger geographic area --- my bad). If we make more, we pay more of this bill, less, we pay less.

Again, Mark, I agree with your assessment and that we certainly don't need to pay more money to people who don't need it. But neither do we need subsidize people who are working full time. Do you think we should pay welfare to a full time minimum wage earner? How to do both is the rub.

While a small number of people against the total work force; $20 Billion is a lot of welfare outlay.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jan '15

"That's $20B we spend to support minimum wage earners. "

I think you're tying it too tight... that's $20B we spend to support welfare recipients who may or may not earn minimum wage. Welfare use is (or could be) driven by insufficient wages across the board, coupled with soaring expenses - not just retail, but insurance, medical, etc. (which is partially due to higher salaries in those professions... higher salaries that some people want for all workers... think about that downward spiral...)



"Do you think we should pay welfare to a full time minimum wage earner? "

Automatically, no. Every situation is different, which is why I think broad brushing this as "minimum wage = welfare dependency" is the wrong tack.

Could higher minimum wage help wean any one particular individual off welfare? Sure. But even if you weaned every single minimum wage earner off welfare, we'd still be paying the remaining 93% of the welfare bill. Something bigger is going on, otherwise the solution would simply be to set minimum wage at a crazy high $$ figure. Even you couldn't argue that doing so wouldn't break something else in the system, so how do you know where that breaking point is? Maybe we're past it already.

My opinion is no one thing will solve both problems, and I think minimum wage should be based on business needs (setting the value for a particular position) and welfare should be based on other factors (controlling rising costs, poor allocation of our tax dollars, etc.)

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Jan '15

Note: The following is just my opinion...

I think part of the problem as to why people get stuck at minimum wage is precisely BECAUSE they can supplement with welfare, Section 8 Housing, TRA, Food Stamps, WIC, etc, etc, etc,. It makes it so easy to get stuck in that position and stay there forever (sometimes even for generations).

I feel (again just my opinion...) that if those things were not available so easily and readily a few things would have to happen.

1. Employees would try harder, either by working better to try to move up the ladder, or try to outshine their co-workers so they could ask for a raise (like we used to do back in the day). There is no incentive to work hard anymore. When I was a kid, those workers that worked the hardest (and kissed some but, honestly) got raises. The duds either got nothing, a warning or got fired.

2. People would have loftier goals than to work permanently as adults in fast food or other low-paying jobs out of necessity.

3. American's would care more about the ever growing illegal population that will work for very low wages (in some cases like dishwashers and lawn care, etc., even below minimum in some cases) whereby bringing down wages for everyone.

4. If American's cared about #3 and there were less workers available, employers would not get zillions of resumes every day, would have fewer workers available and would be forced to offer more starting pay than minimum wage to entice a smaller pool of workers to work for them, instead of the guy next door (supply and demand).

5. If we were spending much less on Welfare, Section 8, WIC, etc, etc, etc,. could lower taxes specifically on small businesses. The tax money they save would give them a larger pot at the end of the month to pay their employees better. This would work especially well for small family owned franchises like Dunkin Donuts, Philly Pretzel, dry cleaners, stores on Main Street, Burger king and Wendy's, etc. that are privately owned through a franchise and employ so many unskilled or young workers.

Heidi Heidi
Jan '15

Here is some nice no-show wages from the public sector in dysfunctional India...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/11/376557395/indian-man-a-no-show-at-work-for-25-years-finally-gets-the-ax


"I think you're tying it too tight... that's $20B we spend to support welfare recipients who may or may not earn minimum wage."
Not correct. The $20B is directly paid to those earning minimum wage at fast food and our largest two chain department stores. It is not the total number of minimum wage welfare recipients but just for those two areas. The total amount of welfare paid to working folk would be much higher. See links above.

"I think part of the problem as to why people get stuck at minimum wage is precisely BECAUSE they can supplement with welfare, Section 8 Housing, TRA, Food Stamps, WIC, etc, etc, etc,. It makes it so easy to get stuck in that position and stay there forever (sometimes even for generations)."
I commend Heidi for having the courage to say what she thinks; was waiting for someone to step up. Yes, Heidi, we could cut payments to these people as an incentive to try harder. Then many could be working 40 hour weeks while living in poverty. Certainly an incentive for some sort of change.

"If we were spending much less on Welfare, Section 8, WIC, etc, etc, etc,. could lower taxes specifically on small businesses. The tax money they save would give them a larger pot at the end of the month to pay their employees better."
Ah, the ole benevolent business theory. Like Walmart passes any additional profits to employees. Since they are still paying minimum wage, that means Walmart, Target, Mcds, etc. etc. have never made a profit...........

" American's would care more about the ever growing illegal population that will work for very low wages (in some cases like dishwashers and lawn care, etc., even below minimum in some cases) whereby bringing down wages for everyone."
Ah, the stick and carrot theory. If we only got rid of those accepting low wages, then wages would instantly increase. You know, hit em with a stick and then they will provide a carrot.

I guess illegals don't bring out the benevolence in business. Go figure.

But Heidi does raise the point that perhaps we pay too much in welfare to people who don't deserve it. So, according to JW, "Basically, that means the government believes a person can now theoretically survive in New Jersey, making approximately $1,340.80 gross pay, in a 4-week month." Figure no taxes, and you do the math. Can you get by?

Start with rent and I suggest sharing.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jan '15

Thus, we, as a society, think it's ok to subsidize the payment policies of Walmart, etc. Note the vitriol against the minimum wage workers as opposed to the corporations whose policies for their workers make it impossible to get by while working full time - while lining their own pockets.

pmnsk pmnsk
Jan '15

Everyone seems to use Walmart as an example of a suckish place to work - but they base that on a lot of propaganda and hearsay. Is Walmart the best job in the world? Obviously not.

As most of you know by now because of my previous posts throughout this site, I am a property manager for a large apartment complex in Morris County and also manage a few smaller complexes in Passaic County. I am the one who deals with the leases and does the employment/income and background checks.

We have many tenants that work at Walmart and none of them make minimum wage. Most of the Walmart people make anywhere from $10.75 up to $18.50. I have had a few "department managers" that make upwards of $20.00 per hour and currently have 2 store managers that make $48,350 and $53,275 respectively. They also all have health insurance with prescription plan and eye care/eyeglass coverage. They all get paid vacations, even if it's just a week (most have 2 or 3, and I have a few that get 4 weeks paid due to long-term employment) and paid sick days.

Is it a 6-figure Wall St Job? No. But to say that Walmart ONLY pays minimum wage and gives no benefits is just a lie. I needed to throw that out there because I am so sick of hearing how Walmart "abuses" their employees and only pays minimum wage.

Closer to home, my granddaughter's boyfriend works right here at the Mansfield Walmart. He's only 18 and is making $9.75 and has only been there for around 7 months now. That's not minimum wage either. Not bad income for what he does and for his age.

Heidi Heidi
Jan '15

The corporations benefit from lobbying.
Consumers benefit from low prices.
You can always buy from stores who don't pay minimum wage.
Lots of issues here. No easy solutions

Justintime Justintime
Jan '15

I work at Walmart and make $19 an hour. Not bad for a high school grad. Think it is a fair wage for a check out clerk.


I want everyone to know that there is a social security tax cap. Everyone who makes over 129k a year pays the same tax. So... if you're an upper management employee, making 130k a year, you pay the same ss tax as Bill Gates . If the cap was removed, everyone would have to pay their fair share. The ultra wealthy complain about not receiving the retirement check because they make too much money. Well... geez, than move out of the country! I have two handicapped children, but I still paid for someone's football field with my taxes... an entitlement we can never use. We need to remove the cap on social security and it will replace all the "IOU'S" that "Dubya" aka Bush, filled with and used for the war. Clinton left a surplus when he left office. So... bottom line... to save social security, make everyone pay their fair share. Make a hundred million a year? Pay the same percentage I do . Most folks don't know about the cap..... spread the word.

terry page terry page
Jan '15

"Everyone seems to use Walmart as an example of a suckish place to work - but they base that on a lot of propaganda and hearsay."

Uh, the links I posted don't seem to be hearsay. They detail issues and statistics of Walmart and minimum wage but obviously everyone at Walmart is not at minimum wage. You can review, but I think this is data flows, not surveys or hearsay.

And then you go and list all your anecdotal stories but we hearsay you...... :>)

Pretty funny, really.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jan '15

I know people who work for one of the largest banks in the world. The tellers have gotten a .20-.50 cent raise in the last 15 years. Core pension gone. From what I understand, it's a very stressful job. Pay ranges from 11-13$ for most tellers. To understand this better, watch a short documentary "We're not broke "on Netflix free.

terry page terry page
Jan '15

Not sure I agree with all this but can see the value of some level of consolidation on welfare programs and his earned income program change sounds pretty good. Unfortunately the Republicans will screw up the consolidation and go over the top but Rubio's replacement of the EITC has a lot of merit. It basically calls minimum wage what it is --- poverty --- but basically goes to augment working wages on a monthly basis to reduce fraud and incentivize work versus teaching/showing folks how to live off welfare without working. He also theorizes that it's better than raising the minimum wage because that would mean the take-out orders would be by touch screen instead of cute kids...... Think it also allows what I like which is targeting those in need versus a minimum wage hike which benefits many who don't need (teenagers, etc.)

Lastly, while we are supplementing wages with tax dollars, Rubio notes we are doing that anyway ------ just not effectively.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/01/08/sen-rubio-proposes-consolidating-poverty-programs/

Course then again, he got skewered by Stewart who preamble the session with a solid lambasting of Florida. Rubio handled it pretty well, even got a lame (and machines get the order right) snark off, but he definitely got a pile on and some late hits. A bit unfair but certainly the Fla preamble was very funny. http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/14/jon-stewart-actually-likes-marco-rubios-idea-raise-wages/

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jan '15

"He also theorizes that it's better than raising the minimum wage because that would mean the take-out orders would be by touch screen instead of cute kids."


I have no problem with that. Faster service, no errors, and cheaper for the restaurant. win, win, win.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Jan '15

Neither does Mark, or I.

The point he was making was that if you raise the minimum wage, an artifact is the rapid replacement of these workers by machines rather than a smoother migration not artificially forced by governmental wage maneuvers as well as potentially other unintended economic effects.

Not sure I buy it, but hey.

Personally if we go to touch screens, just arm up with the antibacterial wipes; billions of dirty fingers probably more toxic than a few minimum wagers.......

Next we go after the tellers :>)

Now, if we could only touch screen that hose from the pump to my tank !!!! Wait, I hear in NJ we have an ap(e) for that........

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jan '15

Anyone ever hear "trickle up economics"? Bernie Sanders, a politician from Vermont, proposed a reverse bail out. From what I understand, the billions that were given to the banks would have been enough to give every family a check for 200k. What would you do with it? First you put it in the bank. Maybe pay down your mortgage. Buy a car. Invest it. Seems to me that Everyone wins. The banks get the billions in deposits so they have money to work with. The auto industry would soar, housing would improve, less foreclosures. Take a trip..... whatever. The point is that Everyone wins if we practice trickle up economics. Trickle down never worked and the recipients of those billions spent most of it on themselves. Lavish trips, huge bonuses in the millions, all from taxes from your pay. We didn't see a penny of that money. How much money can ever be enough for these multi millionaires? Yes, I understand that a small percentage of people would do stupid things with the money but it would still boost the economy.

terry page terry page
Jan '15

Interesting article

. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30875633

Old Gent Old Gent
Jan '15

Terry, there is one difference I think you might have missed. The banks paid most of it back and we made a profit on the returns.

Guess you all better thank Obama for this.........although Bush should get a lot of the credit.

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jan '15

The Fed also created how much $$$ misterg? Sorry, but shifting the problem from private to public isn't a solution, it has only masked the problems. IOW, think bigger picture. Repeating a small, distracting statistic won't help any of us in the long run.

justintime justintime
Jan '15

Looks like the $15/hr minimum wage isn't working out as planned.....


http://www.westernjournalism.com/15-minimum-wage-looms-seattle-restaurants-close-doors/#wxP1gZ6aKsuqcaTh.97

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '15

Well it's a bit early to tell but could be. Law has not taken effect until April 1. If you were thinking about going out of business, would this be a good time berfore a major resource wage hike? And, if you did, why would you say you did it: minimum wage or really bad business person?

The actuall rise is from $9.32 to $11 not the $15 you mistakenly quoted. The $15 does not occur until 2021 ---- 4B burgers away. Actually $16.49 for non-tip earners.

Many are saying: "mission accomplished, we told you so," might be premature.

Here's the actual reasons for what the Tea Party News Network calls "closing in record numbers." Every resturant listed as closing so far is covered.

Should I quote the gunner's code: "do your research, naive one"

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-no-the-minimum-wage-isnt-20150316-column.html

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '15

The minimum wage is 8.38 legally can a company pay you less?

needajob
May '15

Only about four percent of hourly workers make minimum wage. Many are teenagers, college kids, and/or seasonal. Many (not all) of the rest don't have higher aspirations than an entry level job. Minimum wage isn't the problem. It should serve as motivation to pull yourself up and do better, but people would rather fight for an increase because that's easier and they can blame others for their lot in life. Makes for great political sound bites.

MeisterNJ MeisterNJ
May '15

I think a lot of the minimum wage drama is due to union contracts that use the minimum wage as a base multiplier for salary

skippy skippy
May '15

MeisterNJ -
You don't know "needajob's" situation.
Not only did you not answer "needajob's" question, but you were rather rude.

hapiest girl
May '15

Why would you assume that MeisterNJ was addressing "needajob" directly and not just commenting on the general topic of the thread? It seems rather apparent that his post had absolutely nothing to do with the one that immediately preceded it.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
May '15

"Why would you assume that MeisterNJ was addressing "needajob" directly and not just commenting on the general topic of the thread? It seems "Rather Apparent" that his post had "Absolutely Nothing" to do with the one that immediately preceded it."

LOL
Perhaps you meant to post your comment on the Friday Funnies thread.
LOL

hapiest girl
May '15

It was a general remark about minimum wage. That's all. Nothing to do with prior post and wasn't a response to anyone/thing. Dead wrong hapiest. Good day.

MeisterNJ MeisterNJ
May '15

Well odd that you answered TWO MONTHS after the prior post ........
yet 5 hours after "needajob's" post.
Whatever .........
Good night to you also, but try to have some compassionin your heart.

Telling someone to "pull themselves up" is a sorry assumption not knowing their circumstances Indeed, many people are educated and have degrees but cannot find a job. And those that are not educated but work to serve the public certainly deserve a minimum wage that is fair.

hapiest girl
May '15

To answer the question, yes, certain industries usually associated with tips or commissions (I think).

To once again over respond to the rest :<)

"Only about four percent of hourly workers make minimum wage." Actually, it's 4.7% or about 5% or 3.6 Million people. 75% of those are above 20-years in age, the majority are women, the majority, 77%, are white. While teenagers make the biggest bucket, it's not just teenagers.

So being a guy, this affects me less :>) although I am very white. But I gotta say, being a white guy is God's gift to me. Let's face it, in the scheme of things, I skate on clear ice and just slide on by. I get hassled less, pay less fines, can find jobs easier, make more money for the same work as others, and I don't even have to go to Church. I didn't even need to join a Frat. Why I bother pointing out these inequalities is beyond me.

Of course, you didn't count those who make 1 penny more than minimum wage. 35 million make less than 10.50 an hour; that's 26% of the workforce. Now that's a HUGE number and lower wage earners are certainly affected by the level of the minimum or floor wage.

Roosevelt initiated the minimum wage in 1938 to put a floor on earnings. The same bill mandated the 40 hour week and prohibited most child labor (although tobacco uses it today, legally). The idea was health of the nation and helping reduce poverty. Today minimum wage is 20% below it's peak value in real dollars and "it literally takes an act of Congress for these people to get a raise." Basically we are paying at 1948 wage levels. Full time workers would make less than $15,000 a year; that's the poverty line for two, below poverty for a family of 3. (Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper 251, 2009)

"It should serve as motivation to pull yourself up and do better, but people would rather fight for an increase because that's easier." Yeah, since we legalize pay below the poverty line, maybe next we can add cattle prodding as a great motivator.

"I think a lot of the minimum wage drama is due to union contracts." Yet amazingly as unions lose power, there's more volume to the minimum wage "drama."

29 States have said BS to Congress (and you) and will raise minimum wage starting in 2016; 21 of those started this year or earlier. I think it's time to move the floor higher than 1948 in real earing dollars at least above the poverty line. And if the rest of us can not afford that, it's a shame. At the same time, if we want to bifurcate minimum wage to cull out and pay teenagers less, so be it. No biggee IMHO with that.

mistegoogle mistegoogle
May '15

hapiest, try reading (and comprehending) my post, with a little less reading into it what you like. I said it 'should' serve as motivation to pull themselves up (no matter what the minimum wage and if it increases).

I also said ' many, not all'. I do have compassion for people that are trying and have the motivation to try and do better. Having an education shows that they are trying and looking for a job and they are not the ones who don't have higher aspirations. Not talking about them, hence the 'not all'. When 1 in 5 is on foodstamps in MS AND they have the highest obesity rate in the nation? That's not trying. And before you get started, no, that's not ALL of them. Of course there are exceptions.

I didn't paint everyone with a broad stroke and yet you jump right towards painting my post entirely towards the negative. Seems to be your MO, looking for a battle.

I worked my butt off, working and going to school to have three advanced science/engineering degrees, and have done well providing a good living for my family. Neither mine nor my wife's family had money. They worked their tails off for us to do better. Good day.

MeisterNJ MeisterNJ
May '15

"Well odd that you answered TWO MONTHS after the prior post ........
yet 5 hours after "needajob's" post.
Whatever .........
Good night to you also, but try to have some compassionin your heart. "

That's because "needajob's" post brought this thread back to life and put it on the first page of HL. Meister's post had clearly nothing to do with the post above him.

darwin darwin
May '15

And to answer needajob's post, no a company can't pay you less.... hence the definition of MINIMUM WAGE.... unless you are taking a job where tips are expected such as a waitress then you can get paid $2.13/hr

darwin darwin
May '15

Thank you darwin for answering. There is a company on here that pays only $8.00 hr. For data entry.

needajob
May '15

Some interesting data concerning minimum wage and housing affordability. Page 18 and 19 are interesting, especially because it looks like the calculations don't include taxes which would make the situation look worse.

http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2015_FULL.pdf

justintime justintime
May '15

Back to the Top | View all Forum Topics
This topic has not been commented on in 3 years.
Commenting is no longer available.