Minimum wage should be $22.62 an hour

With democrats in Washington attempting to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour and protests for a $15 minimum wage going on across the country. Many have argued that we simply cant afford to pay them these wages, that somehow they're asking for more than they deserve, or that raising the minimum wage right now would hurt the economy over all. Well it turns out that if the 1% had simply paid the minimum wage adjusted for growth the minimum wage would be paid $22.62 per hour.


While this might not say much about the busboy at your local restaurant it does say something about how the 1% have a collective interest in keeping the minimum wage low.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/19/3091141/minimum-wage-gdp-jobs/

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/01/3007011/minimum-wage-percent-leave-workers/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ree-raising-the-minimum-wage-reduces-poverty/
http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/MW EITC ILRR.pdf

 

Since your post is a fantasy, let's explore another fantasy. Let's assume today hourly wages range between $7.25/hour and $60/hour. So you think the minimum should be raised to $22.62? This is about 3.12 times higher than the current minimum wage. So logic dictates that if you increase the minimum wage by 3.12 times then you must also increase the entire wage scale by the same factor. So, in your fantasy future, you would have a wage scale that is $22.62/hour to $187.20/hour.

Today's median wage of about $17.50/hour in your fantasy future would be $54.60/hour and the annual salary would be about $113,568.

Today's median household income of about $27/hour in our fantasy future would be $84.24 and the annual income would be about $175,219.

Can you possibly see anything wrong with your position???

 

no, this is what minimum wage would be if the 1% raised their salaries to the same degree as they raised theirs. Are you saying the 1% are much more important now?


and the median wage wouldn't adjust 3.12 times because many jobs that already pay less than 22.62 per hour would raise their wages to the minimum not according to the wage scale nor would they be required too.

 

The minimum wage has nothing to do with the so-called 1%?

Minimum wage is a political tool and nothing else today.

So a worker who has been working for several years, started at minimum wage and worked their way up to $22.62/hour, gained some education and skills and had good performance, all of a sudden will be working for minimum wage earning the identical amount as those with zero education, zero skills, and no performance history? Good luck selling this!!

There are solid reasons why people earn what they earn and you can't mess with this process without creating major havoc! You can't create horrific inflation by forced higher wages and expect the US to compete in the global marketplace.

Don't you get it...all workers are going to be paid based on supply and demand along with cost of living along with education/skills and performance! Once you can accept this you will see the ONLY way for a person to earn more than minimum wage is to differentiate themselves by obtaining education/skills and to have good work performance.

Lastly, even if you had a $100/hour minimum wage, pay attention to the underlined words...it's still a MINIMUM WAGE compared to all other workers who will earn more...

 

I have another point my SSI is needs based and tied to the cost of living so wouldn't that shoot up since the costs of everything would go up, making me a bigger burden off general revenues and Medicaid would cost more since labor costs would also go up. Seems to me with millions getting help like me this could get very expensive.

 

yes but your not taking into the fact that this is what minimum wage was in 1960 when adjusted for both inflation and growth. So hurl out all the nightmarish fantasies you think will happen if the kings don't get their crowns. This is just what minimum wage was in 1960, things weren't so bad for the rich back then, where they??

 

This guy is a radical Marxist. The goal is income redistribution and government control of all industry and wages.

 

I'm the founder and co-owner of an LLC manufacturing company and my partner and I had to calculate the employee "wages and benefits" for the business plan. We didn't use the "minimum wage" but instead addressed other criteria in determining our starting minimum wage and benefits for a new and untrained employee. When we did that it established the starting wage needed to be $20/hr plus health/dental insurance, a 401K plan (with employer matching contributions) and profit sharing that took the total compensation package to $25+/hr.

There was no problem whatsoever in including this employee compensation in our business plan from a financial planning standpoint and anyone can do the same thing regardless of the type of enterprise. The problem for the enterprise isn't the cost of wages and benefits. The problem is that they don't include it as a part of a well thought out business plan where they can pay this "minimum wage plus benefits" and maintain it within the 20% to 30% of gross revenue for the enterprise.

Planning for the "employee compensation" is no different than planning for rent or ultilies. It's a cost of doing business identical to all other expendiitures that must be planned for.

 

It would, but the $17T debt would be nothing so the GOP should support it if they are really worried about the debt.

 

First, ThinkProgress is not a valid source. In the "about" section it used to describe itself as "a forum that advances progressive ideas and policies", now they claim to be nonpartisan but then in the very next line state they are "progressive" - in other words, partisan.

Its the media mouthpiece for the Center for American Progress, a blatantly political organization.

Any thread based on a proven completely biased (and frequently misleading) source is immediately discredited.

 

thank you!

- - - Updated - - -

do you have any competing numbers or sources or are you just upset fox news doesn't have an article claiming it's not true?

 

I believe socializing the minimum wage is much simpler.

 

Unless its a gun rights issue and has some traction in the forum, I do not waste time debunking any ThinkProgress articles. TP has already been discredited so many times it rarely shows up here anymore. Its the same situation with using Sean Hannity as a source. Certain sources are just plain propaganda.

Simply throwing out the "fox news" rant doesn't work either, its childish and pointless.

If you really want to talk about the minimum wage, make your case using objective data.

 

what was the question? i don't mind exploring the opposition.

 

i didn't realize one sentence was a rant? but so far all youve said is that 2 of my 4 sources are from a generally left leaning website, not that the numbers are false or anything i said is wrong youve just decided to tell everyone you don't like thinkprogress.org well that's just great now that youve told everyone that u can leave

as ive told republicans on this site before i don't know what nutjob sources your kind consider true I know you like FOX a news channel who's viewers are actually less informed than people who watch no news at all. Other than that you have too give me a list of approved right wing sources. Just because something supports a left wing argument doesn't mean it's untrue

 

It's not me who is 'hurling' anything? Why don't you respond to each of my comments which you quoted? Prove to me, for example, that if the minimum wage was $100/hour, that after all other wages for all other workers is equitably adjusted up, that those earning $100/hour would not be on the bottom rung of all wages, earning the 'minimum wage'?

 

Employers and workers should be free to decide upon any mutually agreeable wage. Threatening the use of force against someone for paying too low a price is unjust on it's face. It's unjust to initiate force.

 

+1. Unfortunately, that's why fast food workers want to begin using union thuggery tactics, because they believe it's their best chance to get what they want.

 

The belief being spread that the cost of everything would go up because of a higher minimum age is predominately a myth. The "cost of living" does not increase because of labor costs incurred by a minimum wage increase but instead it goes up because of inflation caused by the expansion of the money supply in excess of the increase in the amount of goods and services being produced.

What we would typically see are enterprises compressing their compensation scales over time to maintain labor costs at between 20% and 30% of gross revenue based upon the standard business model as opposed to raising prices to accomplish this change that only affects their lowest paid workers. This does take time to ensure that no one's wages are reduced by the changes in the business plan.

 

As a general point it's quite apparent to me that most expressing negative opinions about a "liveable" minimum wage have never written a successful business plan. Wages are just a component of the business plan that must be accounted for like any other expenditures. To fund expenditures you need gross revenue (sales) and the business plan establishes what your gross sales need to be to fund the expenditures and how to achieve those gross sales (plus more for profit).

If I sell four widgets per hour and the employee compensation costs "one widgets" worth of gross income I can double the employees compensation to "two widget's" worth if I increase sales of widgets to eight widgets per hour without any increase in the price of the widgets. As the business owner it's my responsibility to create a marketing plan that will sell enough widgets to fund the employee compensation.

People keep crying about the "cost of labor" while ignoring the employer's responsibility to come up with a business plan that generates enough gross revenue to fund that compensation. Simply selling more is the best way to fund higher compensation for the employees. Provide a better product, provide a less expensive product, provide better service, improve your marketing strategy, or do whatever it takes to increase sales and that's the employer's responsibility to figure out. Increasing gross sales is unquestionably the way to fund higher employee compensation without increasing the costs of the product or service provided.

 

Simple answer, that's great for the workers, but I'm not buying a $12 crappy hamburger or a 20 dollar large meal, and not many will. They will lose their job. If you are trying to support a family off minimum, face it, you (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up somewhere.

 

Regarding the bold above, if you were a good company manager, you would keep wages the same and double revenue. If you could actually 'double' revenue anytime you like then why not? Further, you are assuming the same quantity of employees will produce twice the quantity of products and this is not going to happen? Lastly, if you double the worker compensation and double the revenue you maintain the same gross profits but this requires your workers to produce twice as much product as before and I suggest this would be a disaster.

Selling more does not solve any wage problem unless you can maintain profits which means your expenses must always be less than your income. If you increase the per unit cost then you must also increase the per unit price or you erode profits and jeopardize the business...

 

The government needs to create another Cabinet Post; I Want Department

Americans can simply contact this office, very easy on-line, and just type in whatever it is they want. For example, type 'I want $25/hour' and starting on their next pay check they receive $25/hour. However, if this same person types 'I want a $5 hamburger' it will probably tell you that you're SOL so get used to paying $12.

Why won't presidents and politicians tell Americans if they want more in life that they need to take personal steps to achieve more...because these people are potential voters and lying to them is easy.

Why won't presidents and politicians create better education, clean up crime and ghettoes and gangs, and work closely with the private sector...because they are incapable of this which is why they lie.

Why do politicians and their sheep keep harping about these things...it gives them perceived fame in the media outlets...BUT never ever does it solve a single problem!

BTW; if we type in 'I want better government' it tells me this is an oxymoron and to stop wasting my time fantasizing something that ain't going to happen...

 

if the federal government did not lie every year about the true inflation rate more companies and the government agencies would be paying people more...most employers pay raises based on the reported cpi index...which the fed says is about 1.2% to 3% annually....

 

A question that can be asked is, if the minimum wage were higher, would there still be adequate demand to employ all these people?
And what effect does a higher wage have on unemployment. If a much higher wage would only lead to a small increase in unemployment, it might be worth it. Whereas if a small wage increase will lead to a large increase in unemployment, it may not be worth it.

There are other potential strategies to deal with low wage problems in an economy other than raising the minimum wage.