Tonight is the Clinton/Obama debate in my town of Austin...it is a nuthouse downtown. You've got satellite vans on every block, Obama touring the Longhorn football facility, and Hillary - well, I don't know where she is.
The best part???? Only 100 seats are given to voters. The rest? Media.
I'm going to pipe in then withdraw because the debate has gone full circle and arrived at the starting point of not even agreeing on the definitions. Instead of "poor" or "poverty", let's insert the word "needy". Every nation, every community have people who are "needy", and it isn't based on money. We have a State hospital here that is full of needy people, people who through no fault of their own were either born with or because of illness or disease, have less than their full mental and or physical faculties. They are people that I readily believe deserve and need our help. But the needy are not all confined to hospitals; most live among us and just can't make it on their own. It isn't because they don't have the financial resources, although that is often the case. They cannot support themselves because of other conditions: drug/alcohol addictions, disabilities (physical and mental), or diminished capacities. They cannot secure good jobs, and usually struggle with even minial work. I believe these are the people that Jesus was referring to, people that every generation of every race of every nation and community would always have with them. And they, rather than people who choose to place themselves in poverty, deserve our support and attention. And for what it's worth, when we ask people if they support increasing the minimum wage, why not ask them how much more are they willing to pay (in taxes) to finance all of the entitlement programs that will come along?
>Lets raise the minimum wage to $10 per hour and see what happens. > >What will happen is: > >1) Employers will cut jobs. > >2) Some employers will shut down. > >3) More jobs will be outsourced to cheaper labor markets. > >4) The price of goods and services will go up to absorb the increased labor >costs. > >5) It will be more difficult for younger workers or unskilled workers to find >jobs. > >6) Employers will reduce benefits move some employees from full time to part >time. > >7) People will still be poor and unemployment will increase. > >Ok, tell me how I am wrong.
While I'm not particularly interested in debating the pros and cons of raising the minimum wage, a quick google search produced the following:
There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.
* A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates). * Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment. * New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale. * A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.
(A study of the impact of Florida's increased minimum wage a year after the increase took effect showing that none of the negative consequences predicted by the critics actually occurred after the passage of the minimum wage, and in fact, as of the date of the report:
- the Florida unemployment rate had steadily declined since the minimum wage increase took effect, and declined more than twice as much as the U.S. rate as a whole between May 2005 and February 2006 (increase went into effect May 2, 2005), and more than it had declined in the period prior to the enactment of the increase.
- Florida experienced steady employment growth after the min wage increase.
- The number of private employers grew substantially since the enactment of the minimum wage increase)
Of course none of that is conclusive without an analysis of the studies, how they were carried out, etc., and I'm sure we could find evidence at the other end of the spectrum. But suffice it to say that, at best, economists are divided on the impact of minimum wage increases. It's easy to proclaim that negative effects will occur; but without solid evidence to support those statements, I don't find them particularly compelling.
But regardless (since like I said, I wasn't that interested in debating the merits of a minimum wage increase - I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough about the issue to contribute much useful to that debate, though I'm pretty close with some economics professors; maybe I'll ask them to educate me), it may very well be that raising the minimum wage is not an effective way of making sure that working people will be able to afford basic necessities. Still, that's a completely separate issue from whether "working people should be able to afford basic necessities" is a reasonable opinion to hold.
Its not a myth here in Oregon which boasts the second highest minimum wage ($7.95) in the country. We currently rank 43rd in the country for highest unemployment despite a fairly thriving economy.
I am not against a minimum wage but I dont think it needs to be $9-11 per hour. I would like to see the minimum wage be a starter rate of around $6.00 per hour for unskilled and younger workers.
Housekeepers in Cannon Beach start at $11-13 per hour. Nothing wrong with that. That is basic supply and demand.
My employer is an electronics contract manufacturer. If we were forced to increase our starting pay to the $10-11 range that Paul mentions, we would be priced out of existence. We would not be able to manufacture product for our customers for a price that would allow us to stay in business. There would be jobs lost since we'd close our doors.
Basic economic theory (specifically, the oft-ignored law of economic entropy) says it will only impact those organizations that choose to use it as an excuse to move production or support offshore. History agrees.
A question, Ray... who are the customers of your employer? What do they manufacture?
We have a variety of customers, manufacturers of commercial products, military products and medical products. Our margins run in the 9 to 12% range, not much better than a grocery store. In 14 years we have passed on increased medical insurance costs to the ee's only twice, the company has taken the hit absorbing the annual cost increases. Typically, manufacturers come to companies like mine to reduce their manufacturing costs and unfortunately, sometimes that means going offshore when we are unable to produce at the price they need to reduce their costs. Many of the larger contract manufacturers have moved operations to Asia or Mexico to take advantage of reduced labor costs when they are unable to meet the cost demands imposed by their customers.
The community I live in is the home of IBM. In this area, IBM is now a shell of it's former self meaning many high tech jobs are gone, but it has also affected employers like mine who were suppliers to the local IBM plant. Oh, but the jobs were replaced. By part time, low paying, minimal benefits jobs in the local malls that have sprouted. Other communities that have relied on manufacturing jobs have had similar experiences.
I can not get my mind around the hourly pay for housekeepers. $11 to $13 an hour?
I guess you pass the cost on to the weary traveler. But, in manufacturing, in my area, $13 pays for an experienced machine operator. Housekeepers would probably be under $10.00.
I participate in wage benefit surveys every year with several local employers, all similar. A couple of those participating are much larger than us and we tend to equal them with bennies and be not too far off with mfg wages. And we beat a couple of similar small mfger's. So, I know we are fair relative to our competitors for ee's.
Like Ritaanz, $13 will pay for experienced machine operators running computer controlled equipment or top of the line military solderers and assemblers.
The high rate for housekeepers reflects the following:
- a very busy resort location with thousands of guests annually - a small labor market - an lack of affordable housing or even moderately affordable housing - a transient workforce that struggles to afford living here year round
I think Ray's comment (pasted below) may actually support what I'm saying.
""The community I live in is the home of IBM. In this area, IBM is now a shell of it's former self meaning many high tech jobs are gone, but it has also affected employers like mine who were suppliers to the local IBM plant. Oh, but the jobs were replaced. By part time, low paying, minimal benefits jobs in the local malls that have sprouted. Other communities that have relied on manufacturing jobs have had similar experiences.""
If the minimum wage was really the culprit, would the workforce be shifting toward those jobs?
Ray, believe me, if you want to stand up and holler that it's a crying shame what's happened to this country's manufacturing base, I'll stand right next to you and holler as loud as anyone. I think there are a lot of culprits - both "corporate" and individual. In the end, it rests on us - the American people. We all love to save a buck, and at some point it became way too easy to rationalize buying underwear made in Malaysia, dog food made in China, whatever we could get for a little less money.
At the same time, we don't like doing "dirty work", or anything uncomfortable. A lot of the jobs that have moved on were jobs that weren't well-suited for an American public that imagines a constitutional right to a high-pay, low-stress career with tenure and no interference with it's "real life" away from work... A work world in which stupidity - whether on the part of management or the employee - is answered by increasing the burden of regulation, litigation, and expensive oversight.
That all has a cumulative effect on local economies, and I don't know when we're going to catch on.
I have an acquaintance who does a lot of international travel for his employer, a national call-center company. He knows the industry's move to India is financially-based, but it's not because of the base wages. It's because the employees there take pride in silly things like attendance, studying new material, and working to get ahead. In short, he says, "Everything else being equal, it costs less to employ people who give a soap." Except he doesn't say "soap".
I don't know what they're paying for housekeepers around here these days but I'm sure it's around the same as what you're describing, Paul. That's probably pretty normal any more for areas where tourism is a big part of the economy.
The part that always floors me around here is what they will pay seasonal tourism workers and how that sets up the younger members of our workforce to have such unrealistic expectations of what normal starting wage is for most positions they are qualified for.
A couple of years ago we had one young lady apply for a job just as her seasonal job in the tourist industry was ending in September. We hired her, and I almost fell off my chair when I saw how much she had been making at her position at her previous job. It was only a few hundred dollars less per month than I was making at the time as Human Resources Manager! She at least was realistic enough to know that she couldn't make anywhere near that much in an off-season job, at her age and experience level.
Comments
Tonight is the Clinton/Obama debate in my town of Austin...it is a nuthouse downtown. You've got satellite vans on every block, Obama touring the Longhorn football facility, and Hillary - well, I don't know where she is.
The best part???? Only 100 seats are given to voters. The rest? Media.
Democracy at work.
Instead of "poor" or "poverty", let's insert the word "needy". Every nation, every community have people who are "needy", and it isn't based on money. We have a State hospital here that is full of needy people, people who through no fault of their own were either born with or because of illness or disease, have less than their full mental and or physical faculties. They are people that I readily believe deserve and need our help. But the needy are not all confined to hospitals; most live among us and just can't make it on their own. It isn't because they don't have the financial resources, although that is often the case. They cannot support themselves because of other conditions: drug/alcohol addictions, disabilities (physical and mental), or diminished capacities. They cannot secure good jobs, and usually struggle with even minial work.
I believe these are the people that Jesus was referring to, people that every generation of every race of every nation and community would always have with them. And they, rather than people who choose to place themselves in poverty, deserve our support and attention.
And for what it's worth, when we ask people if they support increasing the minimum wage, why not ask them how much more are they willing to pay (in taxes) to finance all of the entitlement programs that will come along?
Another question to ask, how much more is everyone, including the needy, willing to pay for goods and services as a result of the increased wages?
What will happen is:
1) Employers will cut jobs.
2) Some employers will shut down.
3) More jobs will be outsourced to cheaper labor markets.
4) The price of goods and services will go up to absorb the increased labor costs.
5) It will be more difficult for younger workers or unskilled workers to find jobs.
6) Employers will reduce benefits move some employees from full time to part time.
7) People will still be poor and unemployment will increase.
Ok, tell me how I am wrong.
>
>What will happen is:
>
>1) Employers will cut jobs.
>
>2) Some employers will shut down.
>
>3) More jobs will be outsourced to cheaper labor markets.
>
>4) The price of goods and services will go up to absorb the increased labor
>costs.
>
>5) It will be more difficult for younger workers or unskilled workers to find
>jobs.
>
>6) Employers will reduce benefits move some employees from full time to part
>time.
>
>7) People will still be poor and unemployment will increase.
>
>Ok, tell me how I am wrong.
While I'm not particularly interested in debating the pros and cons of raising the minimum wage, a quick google search produced the following:
[url]http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts[/url]
There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.
* A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).
* Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.
* New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.
* A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.
Also:
[url]http://www.risep-fiu.org/reports/Florida_Minimum_Wage_Report.pdf[/url]
(A study of the impact of Florida's increased minimum wage a year after the increase took effect showing that none of the negative consequences predicted by the critics actually occurred after the passage of the minimum wage, and in fact, as of the date of the report:
- the Florida unemployment rate had steadily declined since the minimum wage increase took effect, and declined more than twice as much as the U.S. rate as a whole between May 2005 and February 2006 (increase went into effect May 2, 2005), and more than it had declined in the period prior to the enactment of the increase.
- Florida experienced steady employment growth after the min wage increase.
- The number of private employers grew substantially since the enactment of the minimum wage increase)
Of course none of that is conclusive without an analysis of the studies, how they were carried out, etc., and I'm sure we could find evidence at the other end of the spectrum. But suffice it to say that, at best, economists are divided on the impact of minimum wage increases. It's easy to proclaim that negative effects will occur; but without solid evidence to support those statements, I don't find them particularly compelling.
But regardless (since like I said, I wasn't that interested in debating the merits of a minimum wage increase - I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough about the issue to contribute much useful to that debate, though I'm pretty close with some economics professors; maybe I'll ask them to educate me), it may very well be that raising the minimum wage is not an effective way of making sure that working people will be able to afford basic necessities. Still, that's a completely separate issue from whether "working people should be able to afford basic necessities" is a reasonable opinion to hold.
In fact, lower paid jobs are the ones MULTIPLYING under the current admin.
I am not against a minimum wage but I dont think it needs to be $9-11 per hour. I would like to see the minimum wage be a starter rate of around $6.00 per hour for unskilled and younger workers.
Housekeepers in Cannon Beach start at $11-13 per hour. Nothing wrong with that. That is basic supply and demand.
A question, Ray... who are the customers of your employer? What do they manufacture?
The community I live in is the home of IBM. In this area, IBM is now a shell of it's former self meaning many high tech jobs are gone, but it has also affected employers like mine who were suppliers to the local IBM plant. Oh, but the jobs were replaced. By part time, low paying, minimal benefits jobs in the local malls that have sprouted. Other communities that have relied on manufacturing jobs have had similar experiences.
I guess you pass the cost on to the weary traveler. But, in manufacturing, in my area, $13 pays for an experienced machine operator. Housekeepers would probably be under $10.00.
Like Ritaanz, $13 will pay for experienced machine operators running computer controlled equipment or top of the line military solderers and assemblers.
- a very busy resort location with thousands of guests annually
- a small labor market
- an lack of affordable housing or even moderately affordable housing
- a transient workforce that struggles to afford living here year round
Would you like an application?
""The community I live in is the home of IBM. In this area, IBM is now a shell of it's former self meaning many high tech jobs are gone, but it has also affected employers like mine who were suppliers to the local IBM plant. Oh, but the jobs were replaced. By part time, low paying, minimal benefits jobs in the local malls that have sprouted. Other communities that have relied on manufacturing jobs have had similar experiences.""
If the minimum wage was really the culprit, would the workforce be shifting toward those jobs?
Ray, believe me, if you want to stand up and holler that it's a crying shame what's happened to this country's manufacturing base, I'll stand right next to you and holler as loud as anyone. I think there are a lot of culprits - both "corporate" and individual. In the end, it rests on us - the American people. We all love to save a buck, and at some point it became way too easy to rationalize buying underwear made in Malaysia, dog food made in China, whatever we could get for a little less money.
At the same time, we don't like doing "dirty work", or anything uncomfortable. A lot of the jobs that have moved on were jobs that weren't well-suited for an American public that imagines a constitutional right to a high-pay, low-stress career with tenure and no interference with it's "real life" away from work... A work world in which stupidity - whether on the part of management or the employee - is answered by increasing the burden of regulation, litigation, and expensive oversight.
That all has a cumulative effect on local economies, and I don't know when we're going to catch on.
I have an acquaintance who does a lot of international travel for his employer, a national call-center company. He knows the industry's move to India is financially-based, but it's not because of the base wages. It's because the employees there take pride in silly things like attendance, studying new material, and working to get ahead. In short, he says, "Everything else being equal, it costs less to employ people who give a soap." Except he doesn't say "soap".
The part that always floors me around here is what they will pay seasonal tourism workers and how that sets up the younger members of our workforce to have such unrealistic expectations of what normal starting wage is for most positions they are qualified for.
A couple of years ago we had one young lady apply for a job just as her seasonal job in the tourist industry was ending in September. We hired her, and I almost fell off my chair when I saw how much she had been making at her position at her previous job. It was only a few hundred dollars less per month than I was making at the time as Human Resources Manager! She at least was realistic enough to know that she couldn't make anywhere near that much in an off-season job, at her age and experience level.