Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning January 2006 » Michigan Senate Votes to Raise Minimum wage « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Zulu_warrior
Member
Username: Zulu_warrior

Post Number: 2607
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.251.27.41
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 12:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

MIRS BREAKING NEWS: Senate Votes 33-0 To Hike Minimum Wage - 10:50 AM
http://www.mirsnews.com/alert. php?alert_id=63
-----------------------

Just moments ago the Michigan Senate unanimously passed legislation hiking the state's minimum wage.

The bill would increase the minimum wage to $6.95 on Oct. 1 of this year, to $7.15 on July 1 of 2007 and to $7.40 on July 1, 2008. The ballot proposal to raise the minimum wage would peg the wage lower than the Senate's legislation. If adopted by the people, the ballot proposal would take precedence.

Look for a complete story in Thursday's edition of MIRS.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jqls
Member
Username: Jqls

Post Number: 8
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 68.43.81.255
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 12:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Too High....Yes take minimum wage up, but 7.40 come on. What people do not understand is that the market will adjust itself to what employees should be paid. Here is where the problem lies. So you go buy your five dollar large at little ceasars, well come here shortly it will be a seven dollar large. There are just jobs out there that do not deserve to get paid over seven dollars an hour. For instance your sixteen old girl at dairy queen making you a blizzard. Its not to say that blizzards are cheap, but it comes to a point where you should have to show what you are worth before you receive the money.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 800
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 152.163.100.8
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 12:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Something is fishy about this. Granholm wanted it in her state of the state address. Rupublican Senators brought it up and passed it. They gave Granholm something she wanted, and did not ask for anything in return....yet. They must want something. This will end up having something to do with the Single Business Tax or some other major legislation that they want and Granholm doesn't. Nothing is that easy in election year.
Top of pageBottom of page

Goat
Member
Username: Goat

Post Number: 8205
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.53.99.72
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 12:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

First mistake is that you bought a pizza at little sleazers.

But what are we to do considering the middle class jobs are eroding faster than Bush's popularity. The only jobs that are being found to replace these lost jobs are service industry jobs such as those you have posted. And as far as I know you can't own a house on $6.00/hr.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1256
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 141.213.173.94
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 12:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

33-0? Sounds likely political convenience/expediency really drove this, especially for the republicans.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2875
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.79.90.50
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 12:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Let's take a look at what it cost just to exist in today's world before bitching about raising the minimum wage.

$7.40 x 40hrs = $296.00 per week,
$296. x 4 weeks = $1184.00 per month
That is pre tax.

Think about, utility bills, rent, insurance, and, (oh my God) Food.

You want to try to live on that?
Top of pageBottom of page

Ndavies
Member
Username: Ndavies

Post Number: 1662
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 129.9.163.234
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 12:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is to try and preempt a move from Democrats and union leaders. They want to put a measure on the ballot to add the Minimum wage to the state constitution and tie it to the rate of inflation.

The republicans see a one time hit as the lesser of the two evils.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 801
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 152.163.100.8
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 1:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good point NDavies....they knew they were going to lose, so they tried to make themselves look good.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2876
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.79.90.50
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 1:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh, I forgot about reliable transportian!

OK, you can get a bus pass for app. $50. a month to allow you a couple of hours a day to get to your job.
Top of pageBottom of page

Atl_runner
Member
Username: Atl_runner

Post Number: 1840
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 24.98.116.13
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 1:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Primary Adults and families should not be living on that. Transitional workers and supplementers are the target audience. The only one so far who has it right is jqls. This all leads to higher prices which leads to inflation indicators rising which leads to higher interest rates which leads to economic slowdown which leads to loss of jobs etc. Jams, you see it on the personal level, and that is fine, but the bigger picture needs to be understood here as well.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2877
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.79.90.50
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 1:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If there was no need for a minimum wage, Great, wonderful!!!

I've not been at minimum wage for years, but I understand the bigger picture is not the primary objective of the minimum wage earner. IT IS HIS/HER SURVIVIAL.
Top of pageBottom of page

Goat
Member
Username: Goat

Post Number: 8207
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.53.99.72
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 1:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Runner, so what do we do with the massive job losses occuring today? These people need some sort of job and if all a person can get is a minimum wage job then let's hope those jobs can at least pay for something.

Increasing minimum wage will not lead to inflation (too small of an impact). Hot economies increase inflation as the more products that are purchased the more these products can command higher dollars.
This is happening in Canada right now because of the energy boom. The manufacturing sector is taking a huge hit and thousands of jobs have been lost yet because of the energy sector, inflation is on the rise, the dollar is increasing and the TSX (Canadian Dow Jones equivalent)is at an all-time high. Yet for the average middle class worker they have no jobs to look to. No jobs are being replaced by the loss of manufacturing. What is the gov't to do?
Top of pageBottom of page

Merchantgander
Member
Username: Merchantgander

Post Number: 1647
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 150.198.150.244
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 1:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Every time the minimum wage is raised it means their will be fewer summer jobs for high schoolers and kids in college. Minimum wage is not intended for people to raise a family on and if that is the only job you can get, my cost of living should not go up just so you can earn more. Work two jobs if you cannot find a job that pays better then minimum wage.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 359
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 68.2.191.57
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 1:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Zulu_warrior, thanks for that link. Unfortunately I wasn't able to read the article yet.

Surely there are factors beyond minimum wage that influence inflation.

It seems the larger problem we're facing is evergrowing economic disparity in general.

With today's vanishing middle class it seems we're marching headlong toward a world where the
underpaid will be unmotivated because they're unable to gain by their contributions and the overpaid will be unmotivated because they're unable to lose by their lack of contributions.
Top of pageBottom of page

Goat
Member
Username: Goat

Post Number: 8208
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.53.99.72
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 1:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If they work two jobs then who takes care of the kids? That will be the next complaining session. Not to mention what two jobs? It doesn't seem as if there are an abundance of work out there lately.

What needs to be provided are decent paying jobs. Sadly the gov't are letting the crucial paying jobs slip away.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jmcbroom
Member
Username: Jmcbroom

Post Number: 44
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 160.39.138.56
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 1:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

there's an article about the vote in the free press as well.

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll /article?AID=/20060309/NEWS11/ 60309003
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 2879
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.79.90.50
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 1:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Work two jobs if you cannot find a job that pays better then minimum wage


.

The epitome of arrogance, demand more of people that haven't had the same choices as you.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 16
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 69.136.155.244
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 2:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Increasing minimum wage will not lead to inflation..."

Maybe true but irrevelant - what it will lead to is fewer jobs for minimum wage earners if customers balk at paying more for the services and goods they work on.

On what basis did the Senate decide to incrementally increase the minimum wage to $7.40? Surely it is not based on what it takes for someone to single-handedly operate a household while working only 40 hours/week (which some folks tend to mistakenly think is a basic human right).

So why not bump it up to $10.00 or more? Hey, it's only a stroke of the pen and then it's the law of the state, right?

".... What is the government to do?"

Stop trying to act as the heavy-handed bargaining agent between employers and employees - they should be working to remove impediments to job creation, not adding to them!

The Republicans in the Senate have given us another good reason to make the Legislature a part-time operation.
Top of pageBottom of page

Merchantgander
Member
Username: Merchantgander

Post Number: 1648
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 150.198.150.244
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 2:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I earned minimum wage all throughout high school and some of college. My choice was to work full time go to school at night, work my ass off and take 6 1/2 years to graduate college. I don't demand anymore than what I did and if you don't want to work for a better life then don't expect me to bail you out.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jqls
Member
Username: Jqls

Post Number: 10
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 68.43.81.255
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 2:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes we are moving to a service industry. We have to to survive. You don't raise minimum wage so people can live out on their own. You let people who want to live out on their own work their way up to management or get out of the fast food worker industry. There are plenty of service industry jobs that pay pretty well. Try the company cintas for one. They are always hiring. By the way Little Ceasars was an example, I too think their pizza has gone down hill. Support your local pizza parlor.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mrjoshua
Member
Username: Mrjoshua

Post Number: 727
Registered: 03-2005
Posted From: 69.209.182.9
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 2:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yet another example of the idiocy displayed by this state's leadership on both sides of the aisle. If you think unemployment in Michigan is bad now, just wait until a minimum wage increase is forced upon already overtaxed MI businesses.

Minimum Wage, Minimum Sense

By DAVID R. HENDERSON
February 25, 2006; Page A11
The Wall Street Journal, op-ed

Attempts to raise the federal minimum wage have been stymied for several years; nevertheless, campaigns to raise state- and city-mandated minimums continue apace: This year there are efforts to raise the minimum wage in as many as 11 states. Meanwhile, the nation's most populous state is poised to fall without a fight. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, after humiliation at the polls in November, now advocates raising the state minimum wage from its current $6.75 an hour to $7.75 by July 2007. Since that's what the Democrat-dominated legislature wants, Californians will no doubt benefit from this increase. Or will they?

While there's some truth to the old joke about economists never agreeing on anything, most of us actually agree on a lot, including the fact that when the minimum wage law confronts the law of demand, the law of demand wins every time. And the losers will be the least-skilled workers, who will be out of a job.The wage that exists in the absence of a legally mandated minimum reflects the willingness of workers to work (supply) and the willingness of employers to hire them (demand); and the main determinant of what employers are willing to pay is the productivity of workers. That's why most working people are not directly affected by the minimum wage: Their productivity and, hence, their pay, are already well above it.

The law of demand says that at a higher price, less is demanded, and it applies to grapefruit, cars, tickets to Terminator movies and, yes, labor. Since a legislated increase in the price of labor does not magically increase workers' productivity, some workers -- the least-productive ones -- will lose their jobs. That's why economists looking for the effect of the minimum wage on employment don't look at data on 45-year-old men but, instead, on teenagers and young adults, especially black teenagers and young adults. Paul Samuelson, the first American winner of the Nobel prize in economics, put it succinctly back in the 1960s, when analyzing a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $2 an hour: "What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2 an hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?"

It is a question that proponents of the minimum wage typically ignore. Nevertheless, a comprehensive survey of studies of the minimum wage found that a 10% increase in the minimum wage reduces employment of young workers by 1% to 2%. If this estimate holds for California, therefore, Gov. Schwarzenegger's proposed 15% increase would destroy 1.5% to 3% of young Californians' jobs -- about 35,000 to 70,000 jobs. The effects, percentage-wise, would be even bigger for teenagers. Some might argue that teenagers should be in high school or college anyway. Unfortunately, a higher minimum wage entices some of them already in school to drop out -- and take the jobs of some of those less-educated and lower-productivity teens who had already dropped out.

Gov. Schwarzenegger's uncle-in-law, Ted Kennedy, argues that the minimum wage should be increased because it's difficult to raise a family with the only breadwinner making the current minimum. It's a popular claim, but it is flawed, for three reasons.

- First, a study by economist David A. Macpherson of Florida State University and Craig Garthwaite of the Employment Policies Institute suggests that only 20% of the workers who would have been directly affected by an earlier $1 increase in California's minimum wage were supporting a family on a single minimum-wage income. The other 80% were teenagers or adult children living with their parents, adults living alone or dual earners in a married couple.

- Second, as economists David Neumark of the Public Policy Institute of California and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Board show, increases in minimum wages actually redistribute income among poor families by giving wage increases to some and putting others out of work. They estimate that the federal minimum-wage increase of 1996 and 1997 increased the proportion of poor families by one half to one percentage point.

- Third, consider the long run. Mr. Neumark and Olena Nizalova have found that even people in their late 20s worked less and earned less the longer they were exposed to a high minimum wage, presumably because the minimum wage destroyed job opportunities early in their work life.

There is also equity -- how can we justify forcing employers, the very people who are taking risks to provide jobs in the first place, to pay a higher wage? If "society" decides that unskilled people should receive more income, why shouldn't taxpayers provide it?

Many Democrats in California who support a higher minimum wage probably don't understand its nasty effects on younger, less-productive workers. But there's a less benign reason: The Democratic Party and many of its members are closely affiliated with unions. Union members themselves almost always make more than the minimum wage but support it anyway, because it hobbles competition from low-wage workers.

Northeastern politicians, for example, have traditionally favored high federal minimum wages partly to stem the flow of jobs to the lower-wage South. Indeed, in 1957, Sen. John Kennedy argued for a higher minimum because it would make low-wage black workers in the South less competitive with the higher-wage white workers whom he represented.

To his credit, Gov. Schwarzenegger wants to avoid indexing the minimum wage either to the consumer price index or to a wage index, something that his Democrat opponents badly want, and which a coalition of labor unions and social-welfare groups wants to put on the ballot this November. If indexing were implemented, it would be much harder to ever get the inflation-adjusted minimum wage down, making it permanently harder for the least-skilled workers to find jobs.

But let's not give him too much credit. In 2004, when Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed a minimum-wage bill very similar to the one he now proposes, he stated, "Now is not the time to create barriers to our economic recovery." So it's worth asking him, "Is now the right time to create barriers to our economic recovery, Mr. Governor?"

Mr. Henderson is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and co-author of "Making Great Decisions in Business and Life" (Chicago Park Press, 2006).
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroit_stylin
Member
Username: Detroit_stylin

Post Number: 2550
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.202.227.12
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 2:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

We will return to this thread after this commercial break...

F:
Top of pageBottom of page

Sknutson
Member
Username: Sknutson

Post Number: 464
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 67.114.23.202
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 3:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

To put this another way......

$7.40 per hour x 2080 hrs = $15,392

$15,392 x 65 = $1,000,480

If one bigwig gave up $1,000,000, 65 minimum wage jobs could be created.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 18
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 69.136.155.244
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 3:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The economy is not a zero-sum game and confiscating wealth will not grow the economy.

Alternately, if one bigwig felt that investing a million into a productive enterprise was a better risk than the stock market, 65 better-than-minimum wage jobs could be created. However, if that enterprise is here in MI, the minute they add a Soc Sec number to the payroll, the SBT kicks in, even if the new enterprise is not yet turning a profit. Small wonder that more new jobs are created elsewhere.
Top of pageBottom of page

Belleislerunner
Member
Username: Belleislerunner

Post Number: 231
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 198.204.133.208
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 4:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Don't beat up Michigan too much. It's a 2006 Election Year strategy move across the board.

They (GOP) did it in Ohio yesterday as well.

From yesterday's Toledo Blade:

http://www.toledoblade.com/app s/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200603 08/NEWS24/603080348

COLUMBUS — House Republicans yesterday stunned Democrats by attaching a 90-cents-an-hour increase in Ohio’s minimum wage to a controversial bill reducing workers’ compensation benefits for injured workers.
Top of pageBottom of page

Zulu_warrior
Member
Username: Zulu_warrior

Post Number: 2609
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.251.27.41
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 4:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The republicans know that the nation, should it continue this way, would lead to a revolt of the middle class, who are already shopping in Dollar Stores.

Industries, particular commmunications- cell phones and cable, would see a huge hit as people pared back costs. Next would be Drug companies as people went back to cod liver oil to cure everything.

Then we would see drops in insurance and tourism, and entertainment.

This move by midwest republicans was a coordinated ploy for one reason- the more people have to spend, the more they will.

We have had to ecomonic booms in 15 years, the tech boom in the 90's and then a boom in aggregates (raw materials, like oil and steel). A lot of profit by the wealthy has occurred, now we see a bonus for the poor man in due course.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jqls
Member
Username: Jqls

Post Number: 12
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 68.43.81.255
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 5:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

zulu you are apsolutely right about seeing drops in insurance, tourism, and entertainment. The only cheap entertainment left is a Tiger's game, if you do not eat or drink.

One last note about minimum wage increasing is that it cost an employer this:
If you make 7.00 per hour your employer is charged 1.45% medicare match, 6.2% social security match, approx. 6% workers comp. insurance (depending on business), and approx 4%-10.3%max unemployment insurance. So if you made $7.00 per hour it cost your employer approx. $8.35 per hour.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3301
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 6:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

The republicans know that the nation, should it continue this way, would lead to a revolt of the middle class, who are already shopping in Dollar Stores.

Industries, particular commmunications- cell phones and cable, would see a huge hit as people pared back costs. Next would be Drug companies as people went back to cod liver oil to cure everything.

Then we would see drops in insurance and tourism, and entertainment.

This move by midwest republicans was a coordinated ploy for one reason- the more people have to spend, the more they will.

We have had to ecomonic booms in 15 years, the tech boom in the 90's and then a boom in aggregates (raw materials, like oil and steel). A lot of profit by the wealthy has occurred, now we see a bonus for the poor man in due course.




Amen. Good, astute observation, Zulu. If only to counter what looks like the potential end of the Single Business Tax, which will do nothing more than to burden the poor even more.

It does look like this was done as if it were an exchange.
Top of pageBottom of page

River_rat
Member
Username: River_rat

Post Number: 47
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 68.166.44.44
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 6:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mrjoshua has posted an article by David Henderson of the Hoover Institute. Henderson is correct in his statement that most economists agree about the effect of raising the minimum wage. This article should be read by everyone who wants to have a meaningful comment on this thread. Every increase in the minimum wage eliminates jobs for the least skilled and poorest in our society. Maybe not the way it should be, but the way it is. Hard fact - someone making minimum wage has minimum skills and when the cost of purchasing those minimal skills goes beyond what the service (or product) is worth to the consumer, the job ceases to exist because the consumer won't buy the product or service.

These are called market forces. All of us in Detroit and Michigan should know what they have done to our economy over the last decades. Why opt for more of the same.

Although I condemn excessive executive salaries, the Pistons basketball team could create hundreds of jobs by each player giving up a million dollars of his contract. This too, is called market forces. Each skill, or lack thereof, has a price.

the river rat the economist
Top of pageBottom of page

Mrjoshua
Member
Username: Mrjoshua

Post Number: 728
Registered: 03-2005
Posted From: 69.209.182.9
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 6:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Zulu,
I'm a member of the middle class and shop in dollar stores when I have the opportunity to do so. I also go to garage sales, use coupons and wait until the last minute to purchase anything over $50.

The only thing a minium wage hike will do is encourage businesses not to hire or scale back their hiring and make their current employees assume multiple roles. It's basic economics and has nothing to do with class warfare.
Top of pageBottom of page

Hamtramike
Member
Username: Hamtramike

Post Number: 457
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 4.229.90.116
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 7:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So what should the limit be on exceutive salaries? WHy stop at excutives? I think $26 an hour is too much to turn a single bolt or sweep a floor but people are making just that.

Maybe we should all make the same wage and redistribute the wealth....


(Message edited by hamtramike on March 09, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Zulu_warrior
Member
Username: Zulu_warrior

Post Number: 2611
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 152.163.100.8
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 9:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And then enter Politics....

The republicans also voted for these measures so that they wouldnt appear on the Nov. Ballot, inciting a large popular turnout which is normally believed to disfavor the Republicans.

Mr. Joshua logic only applies to business that employ large numbers of people who will shave off a couple of positions.

But the trade off is that the hundreds of thousands of people that make minimum wage will have more money to spend, thus reinvesting that in the economy.

Employers, while grumbling, will accept it- they have bigger things to worry about like health insurance and Homeland Security costs that impact businesses.

And people are already doing multiple roles. The real loss will be in larger profit margins, which dont always wind up being reinvested in the business.
Top of pageBottom of page

Belleislerunner
Member
Username: Belleislerunner

Post Number: 234
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 68.33.62.174
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 9:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'd argue the real loss will be the middle class segment that makes more than minimum wage but doesn't have a degree to advance their careers. (i.e. those trapped in the $10-20 hr) jobs. Minimum wage will rise, which in turn will cause business to charge more for goods/services. However, this section of the middle class will be squeezed even more, having to shoulder more health care costs, gas/transportation, housing etc. The poor we'll always have with us.

Firms are already rolling out health savings accounts like 401(k)'s and I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now, the majority of Company's don't even offer traditional health insurance. The cost is simply too high. Embrace it early because you'll only hurt yourself in the long run by refusing to sign up. Let the employee beware. Long life expectancy correlates to higher health care costs as you age. Getting a degree is a necessity. Getting that master's is even more important. The bachelor degree of today will be the diploma/GED of tomorrow.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 366
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 68.2.191.57
Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 9:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

  • The poor are demotivated when they're unable to gain from their effort.
  • The wealthy are demotivated when they're unable to lose by their lack of effort.
To destroy commerce, the solution is clear: maximize economic disparity.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3304
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.172.95.197
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 12:49 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I hear some whinning about this, but I don't hear any of those same people decrying the increasing gap between rich and poor. Our free market system needs to be checked when it runs amock, and if it's by an act of the government, so be it. There are times when the government needs to be more involved, and to help balance a system that won't balance itself, and this is one of those times.
Top of pageBottom of page

Futurecity
Member
Username: Futurecity

Post Number: 237
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 69.212.226.191
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 1:58 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Its practically criminal for an employer to pay its workers $5 an hour in this day and age.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitduo
Member
Username: Detroitduo

Post Number: 513
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 194.138.39.53
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 6:59 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As a business owner, we pay over minimum wage to stay competitive. Otherwise, you cannot get even semi-reliable workers. Regardless, we occationally have seasonal jobs which require nothing more than someone standing around and doing nothing. Having the option to pay someone less is a nice option, in this case. Now, the State has taken that option away and those seasonal jobs will not exist in our future business.

Raising energy costs, raising heating costs and now raising human resources costs will cause us to have to raise our prices. This could cause a drop in business and potentially put the overall business into a tailspin.

Overall, such a large jump in the minimum wage in such a short time will wreck havoc on an already shaky small business community in Michigan.
Top of pageBottom of page

Track75
Member
Username: Track75

Post Number: 2239
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 12.75.20.114
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 12:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

The republicans know that the nation, should it continue this way, would lead to a revolt of the middle class, who are already shopping in Dollar Stores.

Industries, particular commmunications- cell phones and cable, would see a huge hit as people pared back costs. Next would be Drug companies as people went back to cod liver oil to cure everything.

Then we would see drops in insurance and tourism, and entertainment.

This move by midwest republicans was a coordinated ploy for one reason- the more people have to spend, the more they will.


A swing and a miss by the stocky left-hander.

quote:

And then enter Politics....

The republicans also voted for these measures so that they wouldnt appear on the Nov. Ballot, inciting a large popular turnout which is normally believed to disfavor the Republicans.


He laid the lumber on that pitch, trotting safely to second base. Zulu, it was all political. Those who study the issue, particularly those with a conservative bent, know that a higher minimum wage creates new losers as well as winners in the low-skilled labor pool. The income gap between rich and poor is a function of the increasing economic returns to knowledge work and decreasing economic returns to low-skilled work. Mimimum wage laws won't do anything about this global mega-shift. They certainly won't do anything to prop up the economy or "save the endangered middle class".

It was political realism, pure and simple. Public support for raising the minimum wage is very high. A ballot proposal would very likely pass and it would increase democratic turnout which would hurt Rupublicans on the November ballot. Why not try to short-circuit that outcome by defusing the issue now? Thus a "surprising" 33-0 vote.

In terms of the effect of the increased minimum wage, it will create some winners and some losers but not only where it's most obvious.

Winners:
  • very-low-skilled adult workers who are nevertheless more productive than the newly increased minimum wage
  • some workers who earn slightly above the new minimum who will see a corresponding small bump
  • those businesses and workers in lower-cost states who now have a cost advantage vs. Michigan businesses
  • unions or other high-cost labor that faces competition from low-cost labor
Losers:
  • Very-low-skilled adult workers who are were cost-effective at $5.15 but not at $6.95 -- they'll be fired and replaced with "upgraded" workers
  • entry level job seekers who lack basic work skills and work ethics -- employers forced to pay $6.95/hour will choose an employee with $7 skills, leaving the entry level job seeker with lesser skills out of work
  • businesses that depend on low-wage employees to compete with businesses in other states
  • businesses that depend on low-wage employees to compete with businesses in low-wage nations
  • businesses that can't pass 100% of the increased cost along to their customer
  • businesses that can pass 100% of the increased cost along but see a experience a decrease in sales when they do
  • consumers who pay higher costs for some goods and services


Increasing the minimum wage is a "feel good" issue. The benefits to some workers are highlighted while the harm to other workers is glossed over. The harm to businesses is usually dismissed as businesses just being greeedy.

A better alternative to increasing the minimum wage is to increase usage of the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit). This increases the income of low-skill workers without the harmful effects on other low-skill workers and businesses. It's supported by liberals and conservatives. Yet no one mentions this. Why?

I think it's all politics. Dems use the minimum wage issue to play to their constituiencies and the ballot issue is used (like the gay marriage proposal was by repubs) to increase friendly turnout in November. Repubs play along to try to defuse the natural advantage the issue has for Dems. Neither really addresses the issue of increasing the economic skill level of workers to above minimum wage levels. Neither focuses on the EITC which economists think is a better solution for workers AND businesses than minimum wage laws. And the beat goes on...
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitduo
Member
Username: Detroitduo

Post Number: 526
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 194.138.39.53
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 12:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

wow track75. great spin on that. and I have to agree, sounds plausible. One thing the Reps. have proven time and again, they have figured out how to get "their people" out to the polls....
Top of pageBottom of page

Gambling_man
Member
Username: Gambling_man

Post Number: 673
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 199.178.193.5
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 12:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Track 75 and Zulu are 100% correct. The Repuplicans don't want it on the ballot, because they don't want the Democrats to energize their voters. In fact, I don't believe the "State Minimum Wage" would affect many, if any employers. I believe the "State Minimum Wage" would only affect companies who do a certain minimum business (contracts) with the state of Michigan. (Including Schools, Prisons, etc..) Someone more knowledgeable might know better here, but I am pretty sure of it. (IE: Living wage ordinances only apply to those doing a certain level of contractual business with the municipality that enacted it)
Top of pageBottom of page

Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia

Post Number: 380
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.221.66.98
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 4:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Michigan has the worst unemployment rate in the country and these clowns do something sure to further reduce the amount of jobs available ...just to save their political asses.

This is not designed to do anything other than give the union thugs an adjusted baseline and automatic raises that are tied to minimum wage and built into their contracts...and Michigan Republicans were too weak to fight it.

Don't forget to turn out the lights...
Top of pageBottom of page

Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto

Post Number: 178
Registered: 07-2004
Posted From: 65.92.151.235
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 4:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I can't believe some of you think the min wage should not be increased.

The min wage is way to low in Michigan and most US states.

Are you aware that in Australia min wage is $14.00 an hour.

In Canada the highest min wage is in Nunavut, where you get $8.50 an hour min.

Your neighbours in Windsor get $7.75 min wage.
And that is going to go over $8.00 as the Gov Of Ontario increases the wage more.

These companies make billions a year. They can afford to pay more.

Also with such a lack in public transport in Michigan, the min wage should be higher as everyone needs a car.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 22
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 69.136.155.244
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 4:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"These companies make billions a year. They can afford to pay more."

Most new private sector jobs in the USA are created by small businesses. Most minimum wage jobs are also in small businesses. I don't know of any small businesses that "make", much less gross, billions of dollars each year.

And even if they did "make" billions of dollars each year, who are you to say that "they can afford to pay more"? Are you a stockholder or owner of those companies?
Top of pageBottom of page

Zulu_warrior
Member
Username: Zulu_warrior

Post Number: 2617
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 205.188.116.137
Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 5:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

lol, respectfully, @Track75


Good post, encyclopedic even.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001

Post Number: 2048
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 69.14.135.95
Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 11:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Now, what is the difference between a "republican" and a "democrat" again?
Top of pageBottom of page

Alexei289
Member
Username: Alexei289

Post Number: 1050
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.61.183.223
Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 4:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If people cannot live at 7.40 an hour... they are not obligated to take that job...

Once the shortage of labor happens, obviously they will have to naturally raise the wage..

Its called economics....

BTW most people making 7.40 an hour as their only income also recieve federal assistance because they need it to live... If they cut off this assistance, they would not be able to work for 7.40 an hour... and they would have to raise the bottom wages ANYWAY... but would also save money that they pay on these programs.

Basically... people shouldnt take jobs that cannot pay their bills, and you would be suprised at how fast those wages go up.
Top of pageBottom of page

Goat
Member
Username: Goat

Post Number: 8229
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.53.96.43
Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 4:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So you would rather they not have a job at all? Great reasononing there...
Next, you will bitch that they receive too much welfare or supplemental income.
Top of pageBottom of page

Alexei289
Member
Username: Alexei289

Post Number: 1052
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.61.183.223
Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 9:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

... no thats not my point.. my point being that without any assistance, people could not ever be civil at 7.40 an hour.... If they had no other cash, savings, or federal assistance to survive, most people would probably find ways to unionize, or other ways of boosting the price floor.

Basically, refusing en masse to work for such a low wage would be a probable result of not being able to pay your bills after 40 hours a week... Many people that do work for that either recieve assistance, have savings (been laid off from GM ect.), or live with relatives... since it is not possible to be financially independant.

Basically, if there were no federal assistance, almost everyone in the country would be part of a union and making no less than 10$... At the same time the taxes for those federal programs would not be needed (although I know the government would just keep the taxes and spend it elsewhere) the principle would be that business owners would in turn pay less taxes. People need a certain wage to survive... Either a business owner will have to pay now or pay later..
Paying less than 11$ an hour basically means you are going to end up paying the other 3$ an hour later somewhere else in form of taxes.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 387
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 68.2.191.57
Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 9:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Alexei289, just curious. What do you think of the Anthropic principle?
Top of pageBottom of page

Wcpo_intern
Member
Username: Wcpo_intern

Post Number: 1867
Registered: 04-2004
Posted From: 71.227.58.187
Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 10:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Now, what is the difference between a "republican" and a "democrat" again?"

Republicans believe that everyone should have an opportunity to improve their lives which consequently means everyone is also given an opportunity to screw up their lives. Democrats believe that is their job.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.