Congress OK's minimum wage boost

[nevadamedic]

First increase in 10 years approved as part of measure to fund Iraq war; Bush expected to sign it.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Congress passed the first increase in the federal minimum wage since 1997 late Thursday as part of the measure for supplemental funds to fight the war in Iraq.

President Bush is expected to sign the measure, perhaps as soon as Friday.

Merrill slashes employee sick day allowance
The minimum wage portion of the legislation provides for a increase - over a two-year period - to $7.25 an hour from the current $5.15. The last time lawmakers increased the federal minimum wage was in 1997.

A minimum wage hike would directly affect 5.6 million workers currently earning less than $7.25 an hour, according to the labor-backed Economic Policy Institute.

The hike also could increase the wages of another 7.4 million workers who earn just above the current federal minimum, the group said.

"The minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for more than 10 years, but now - finally - Americans across the country will get the raise they need and deserve," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a leading proponent of the increase, said in a statement.

"Certainly, the increase we've passed today is only the first of many steps we must take to address the problems of poverty and inequality," Kennedy said.

Currently, 28 states and Washington, D.C., have a higher minimum wage. A number of those states have indexed their minimum wage to inflation.

The increase - a promise made by Democrats when they won control of Congress last fall - came after a five-month odyssey that included parliamentary differences between the majorities in both chambers, differences over the size of tax breaks for small business, and a debate about the future of the Iraq war.

The increase was part of the original Iraq supplemental measure passed by Congress last month, but vetoed by Bush because it contained timelines for troop withdrawals. The new measure does not contain timelines.

The Senate Finance Committee had originally proposed small business tax breaks of $12 billion while the House approved a much smaller $1.3 billion package.

A deal was finally brokered between House and Senate Democrats, giving $4.8billion in tax breaks for small business.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/24/news/economy/minimum_wage/index.htm?postversion=2007052422

I side with the Dems on this one. I think the minimum wage should be higher, im thinking like about $8.00 at least.

[Hobbit]

The minimum wage is an idiotic regulation that interferes with the free market. It doesn't give anybody a raise, it just drives inflation and gets a lot of people laid off because employers are not willing to pay them more than they're worth.

Imagine for a minute that you need a job. You can't find anybody willing to pay you $8/hour because you're either still in high school or you were too stupid to finish. Well, what you do is you find a job that pays less than $8/hour and try to work you way up. Uh oh, the federal government has decided that being paid less than $8/hour is cruel, so that means you're just unemployed.

Besides, the minimum wage is nothing but a vote-buyer. Otherwise, they'd just slave the minimum wage to inflation, but if they did that, they wouldn't be able to drag it out every few years for votes and inflation would spiral out of control.

[LOki]

I side with the Dems on this one. I think the minimum wage should be higher, im thinking like about $8.00 at least.Same mistake, the difference is only degree.

The minimum wage should be $0. It is the intellectually honest, economicly valid, and morally right thing to do.

[stephanie]

Same mistake, the difference is only degree.

The minimum wage should be $0. It is the intellectually honest, economicly valid, and morally right thing to do.

Yeah but........that won't get you votes...

[stephanie]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/24/news/economy/minimum_wage/index.htm?postversion=2007052422

I side with the Dems on this one. I think the minimum wage should be higher, im thinking like about $8.00 at least.


:laugh2:

[Gaffer]

Minimum wage is set by the market. In my area most places pay between $7 and $8 an hour to start, more if there is a shortage of workers. There is no need of a minimum wage, its just a vote getter for democrats as mentioned above. And a political ploy to get infation up so the dems can blame it on Bush.

[Doniston]

First increase in 10 years approved as part of measure to fund Iraq war; Bush expected to sign it.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Congress passed the first increase in the federal minimum wage since 1997 late Thursday as part of the measure for supplemental funds to fight the war in Iraq.

President Bush is expected to sign the measure, perhaps as soon as Friday.

Merrill slashes employee sick day allowance
The minimum wage portion of the legislation provides for a increase - over a two-year period - to $7.25 an hour from the current $5.15. The last time lawmakers increased the federal minimum wage was in 1997.

A minimum wage hike would directly affect 5.6 million workers currently earning less than $7.25 an hour, according to the labor-backed Economic Policy Institute.

The hike also could increase the wages of another 7.4 million workers who earn just above the current federal minimum, the group said.

"The minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for more than 10 years, but now - finally - Americans across the country will get the raise they need and deserve," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a leading proponent of the increase, said in a statement.

"Certainly, the increase we've passed today is only the first of many steps we must take to address the problems of poverty and inequality," Kennedy said.

Currently, 28 states and Washington, D.C., have a higher minimum wage. A number of those states have indexed their minimum wage to inflation.

The increase - a promise made by Democrats when they won control of Congress last fall - came after a five-month odyssey that included parliamentary differences between the majorities in both chambers, differences over the size of tax breaks for small business, and a debate about the future of the Iraq war.

The increase was part of the original Iraq supplemental measure passed by Congress last month, but vetoed by Bush because it contained timelines for troop withdrawals. The new measure does not contain timelines.

The Senate Finance Committee had originally proposed small business tax breaks of $12 billion while the House approved a much smaller $1.3 billion package.

A deal was finally brokered between House and Senate Democrats, giving $4.8billion in tax breaks for small business.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/24/news/economy/minimum_wage/index.htm?postversion=2007052422

I side with the Dems on this one. I think the minimum wage should be higher, im thinking like about $8.00 at least. Since all they are doing if federalizing what is already happening in the various states,I am not opposed but I don't think it should have been combined with the war funding bill.

[5stringJeff]

Same mistake, the difference is only degree.

The minimum wage should be $0. It is the intellectually honest, economicly valid, and morally right thing to do.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

The minimum wage, in real life, works to cut the number of jobs at that wage.

[5stringJeff]

I don't think it should have been combined with the war funding bill.

I totally agree. If it was such a great idea, they should have passed it on its own merits, instead of making it a part of the supplemental "emergency" war bill! :mad:

[Little-Acorn]

Brings back an old cartoon I saw a while ago. A manager of a fast-food place is talking to his crew, about 8 people. He says, "I have good news, and I have bad news."

"The good news is, a new Federal law says I have to pay you more."

"The bad news is, I can't afford that, so two of you are fired."

Our modern liberals count on people not knowing things like this, to get votes for passing such laws anyway. They clearly don't care about the actual results of such laws.

We get the government we deserve.

[shattered]

Brings back an old cartoon I saw a while ago. A manager of a fast-food place is talking to his crew, about 8 people. He says, "I have good news, and I have bad news."

"The good news is, a new Federal law says I have to pay you more."

"The bad news is, I can't afford that, so two of you are fired."

Our modern liberals count on people not knowing things like this, to get votes for passing such laws anyway. They clearly don't care about the actual results of such laws.

We get the government we deserve.

That's pretty much how it works.. That extra money has to come from somewhere...

[loosecannon]

I totally agree. If it was such a great idea, they should have passed it on its own merits, instead of making it a part of the supplemental "emergency" war bill! :mad:

If that had happened the supplemental budget would not have been able to pass on it's own merit.

If the bill passes at all it will be the minmum wage portion that carries the supplemental.

You should be more careful what you ask for.

BTW, shouldn't we be abolishing overtime pay as well, and child labor and reinstituting the 6 day work week and guaranteed vacation time?

I mean seriously if you oppose the workers rights ideology why not just abandon them all? It would be better for corps!!!

We need to get americans back in the feilds picking lettuce for $4/hour. Get with it!

[Hobbit]

Since all they are doing if federalizing what is already happening in the various states,I am not opposed but I don't think it should have been combined with the war funding bill.

Then it should be left to the states. There's no need to federalize anything that's already happening on the state level. In fact, our Constitution forbids it. That's right, according to the 10th ammendment, the federal government is barred from creating a minimum wage except in the case of persons employed by the federal government.

Besides, different states are different, and if you really do believe in minimum wage laws (first, take macroeconomics 101), let the states set them individually. The cost of living is far lower in Arkansas than in California.

And while I'm on the subject, I keep hearing "It's impossible to raise a family of four on minimum wage." Well, you know what, it's impossible to purchase and maintain a yacht on a middle-class income, so middle-class people choose not to purchase yachts. If you're still working minimum wage, you need to build up some marketable job skills and make sure you can AFFORD a family of four before going about getting one or live with the fact that you're going to be broke for a LOOOOOOONG time.

[loosecannon]

That's pretty much how it works.. That extra money has to come from somewhere...

actually that is pretty much the opposite of how it works. Middle class and lower class wages drive the economy. Give people cost of living increases to keep pace with inflation or watch the economy slowly crumble.

I spose none of you would want to see cost of living increases denied for social security, and the balance of the non minimum wage earners?

What about Congres do they get cost of living increases?

Because minimum wage has not received a cost of living increase in more than a decade.

How sweet of ya'll to deny it only to the poorest people in our nation.

[loosecannon]

Then it should be left to the states. There's no need to federalize anything that's already happening on the state level. In fact, our Constitution forbids it. That's right, according to the 10th ammendment, the federal government is barred from creating a minimum wage except in the case of persons employed by the federal government.

Besides, different states are different, and if you really do believe in minimum wage laws (first, take macroeconomics 101), let the states set them individually. The cost of living is far lower in Arkansas than in California.

And while I'm on the subject, I keep hearing "It's impossible to raise a family of four on minimum wage." Well, you know what, it's impossible to purchase and maintain a yacht on a middle-class income, so middle-class people choose not to purchase yachts. If you're still working minimum wage, you need to build up some marketable job skills and make sure you can AFFORD a family of four before going about getting one or live with the fact that you're going to be broke for a LOOOOOOONG time.


OK, there was a lot of truth in that post, I'll even rep you.

But your basic resistance to minimum wage at a state level is dead wrong thinking.

[5stringJeff]

BTW, shouldn't we be abolishing overtime pay as well, and child labor and reinstituting the 6 day work week and guaranteed vacation time?

I mean seriously if you oppose the workers rights ideology why not just abandon them all? It would be better for corps!!!

We need to get americans back in the feilds picking lettuce for $4/hour. Get with it!

I don't believe it's the federal government's place to set the price of labor. That includes minimum wage laws.

Child labor laws are different. They shield children from the short-term monetary incentives of leaving school early. I'm in favor of them.

Six day work week... frankly, it ought not be the federal government's decision whether a person voluntarily works five or six days a week.

[Hobbit]

Actually, such things as enforcing the work week, granting vacation time, overtime pay, etc. are not laws in many states. Here in Georgia, overtime pay laws are written such that the employee may forfeit his overtime pay (in writing, signed). Same goes for vacation time. You can even work more than 5 days a week, if you want. These policies are, instead, instituted by the companies that do the hiring to provide incentive for good workers to work there instead of down the road. Only people who just can't get a job at one of the good places go work 6 days a week for minimum wage, but they still prefer that to unemployment. You put far too little faith in the market to provide good competition.

[loosecannon]

I don't believe it's the federal government's place to set the price of labor. That includes minimum wage laws.

Child labor laws are different. They shield children from the short-term monetary incentives of leaving school early. I'm in favor of them.

Six day work week... frankly, it ought not be the federal government's decision whether a person voluntarily works five or six days a week.

why would child labor laws or safety standards, or the rights of union organization etc be different?

[loosecannon]

You put far too little faith in the market to provide good competition.

The market maximizes competition.

That is why our blue collar jobs are moving to China for $10 a day labor.

And our white collar jobs to India for $30/day wages.

The problem with that level of competition is it is one sided. A race to the bottom for workers worldwide.

Meanwhile the top 5% are making a killing. Is this the kind of world/economy you want? One of increased polarization between the billions at the bottom and a few million at the top?

[Hobbit]

OK, there was a lot of truth in that post, I'll even rep you.

But your basic resistance to minimum wage at a state level is dead wrong thinking.

Well, I believe more in the free market than many people, and while I disagree with the minimum wage in all forms, I wouldn't have such a problem with it if Congress didn't try to federalize it. Let the states decide. Heavily conservative areas, such as the plains states and the deep south, will likely cease to have a minimum wage or will keep it very low. Heavily liberal states, such as Massachussetts and California, will likely have high minimum wages...like they do already. If you think minimum wage is a good idea, then you can live in a state with a high minimum wage. If not, you can live in a state with low or no minimum wage. That's kinda how it was when this country was founded, and I'm all for going back to it.

[Hobbit]

The market maximizes competition.

That is why our blue collar jobs are moving to China for $10 a day labor.

And our white collar jobs to India for $30/day wages.

The problem with that level of competition is it is one sided. A race to the bottom for workers worldwide.

Meanwhile the top 5% are making a killing. Is this the kind of world/economy you want? One of increased polarization between the billions at the bottom and a few million at the top?

Those markets that we're outsourcing to have different standards. India doesn't have workers rights bills like in the U.S. and China pretty much has slaves. That's why Congress has the power to enforce tariffs, in order to level the playing field and allow the free market to work the way it's supposed to.

[loosecannon]

Those markets that we're outsourcing to have different standards. India doesn't have workers rights bills like in the U.S. and China pretty much has slaves. That's why Congress has the power to enforce tariffs, in order to level the playing field and allow the free market to work the way it's supposed to.

so now you like the regulation of tarrifs, OK.

And that regulation levels the playing field, OK.

And the free market works the way it was supposed to.

But those tarrifs are violations of the NAFTA, CAFTA treaties as well as our agreements with the WTO.

Globalization expressly opposes those tarrifs as anti capitalistic. And as barriers to free trade.

As would most economists. Based on definitions.

There can not possibly be fair of free markets in a world dominated by one reserve currency. Nor in a world in which massive interventionary policies are NGO driven. Nor where wages and living standards are so disparate.

The standards are one sided so as to drive down wages to a common bottom.

[Dilloduck]

so now you like the regulation of tarrifs, OK.

And that regulation levels the playing field, OK.

And the free market works the way it was supposed to.

But those tarrifs are violations of the NAFTA, CAFTA treaties as well as our agreements with the WTO.

Globalization expressly opposes those tarrifs as anti capitalistic. And as barriers to free trade.

As would most economists. Based on definitions.

There can not possibly be fair of free markets in a world dominated by one reserve currency. Nor in a world in which massive interventionary policies are NGO driven. Nor where wages and living standards are so disparate.

The standards are one sided so as to drive down wages to a common bottom.

Our "global" agreements such as NAFTA,CAFTA, WTO will kill our sovereignty.
Our membership in the UN, World Bank, etc should be enough evidence for us.

[Yurt]

NM:

Surpised you agree with "minimum" wage. What is your minimum?

Minimum wage is a joke. Sure it sounded good when I was 17,18, but in the real world of economics it is a joke. Here in SLO/Cali the prices of local business have gone up. My car wash place went up, so I said to the guy (manager who I know) whats up with the prices. He said minimum wage just went up. Of course the prices did not match the wage hike, so he was partly full of shit, but, extrapolate that wage increase over X workers and it does become a problem. Why? Because everytime you have a wage hike, you have a price hike.

Think about it. When I was 17 the minimum wage was $4.25. The same wage today gets me "essentially" the same goods. Because the business owners need to increase their price to match the wage they pay their workers.