Will Bush veto the minimum wage bill?

[RegBarc]

He should veto it, but I don't think he will. While I am not a fan of minimum wages to begin with, I don't see them ever going away. So realistically, keeping them in the control of states better reflects the cost-of-living needs of the residents rather than the Federal government doing so.

He knows that there would most likely be a veto override, and will focus his veto efforts on the stem cell bill.

[aindik]

He pretty much said the day after the election that this was one of the things he was going to "work with the Democrats" on because they won.

[RegBarc]

He pretty much said the day after the election that this was one of the things he was going to "work with the Democrats" on because they won.
The thing I was worried about, though, was that the increase was effectively more than $2.00/hour. I would have thought he'd blown a stack, assuming compassionate conservatism doesn't kick into the 5th and final gear.

[jgickler]

I think the Senate will water down the bill some, and it will take quite a while for it to get to the President's desk, if it ever does. My guess is that in a few months we may have a bill that includes a gradual raising of the minimum wage, but it will be a lot different from what the house has passed this week.

[Martin Tupper]

The thing I was worried about, though, was that the increase was effectively more than $2.00/hour. I would have thought he'd blown a stack, assuming compassionate conservatism doesn't kick into the 5th and final gear.
Well, when you wait 10 years to make an adjustment, that adjustment tends to be rather dramatic. It averages to about a 3.5% per year increase.

[RegBarc]

Well, when you wait 10 years to make an adjustment, that adjustment tends to be rather dramatic. It averages to about a 3.5% per year increase.
I don't think it was waiting 10 years to make an adjustment nation-wide; like the federal Constitution, the federal minimum wage law established the basement "price" of employment. States have done their own jobs of adjusting to meet cost of living standards.

Places and people like Mississippi business owners will have issues with this.

[Martin Tupper]

I don't think it was waiting 10 years to make an adjustment nation-wide; like the federal Constitution, the federal minimum wage law established the basement "price" of employment. States have done their own jobs of adjusting to meet cost of living standards.

Places and people like Mississippi business owners will have issues with this.
...because they haven't had an adjustment in 10 years.

Sure, some states were ahead of the curve with their minimum wage increases and some weren't. The latter enjoyed 10 years of stagnant minimum wages.

If sudden increases in the minimum wage are a problem, we could automate the process with small annual increases (either fixed or tied to inflation, cost of living, etc.)

[aindik]

...because they haven't had an adjustment in 10 years.

Most of them have.

The people earning minimum wage today are not the same people who were earning the minimum wage 10 years ago. Many of them were six and seven years old ten years ago.

[BrettStah]

Courtesy of George Will:


Most of the working poor earn more than the minimum wage, and most of the 0.6 percent (479,000 in 2005) of America's wage workers earning the minimum wage are not poor. Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum lives in families with earnings below the poverty line. Sixty percent work part time, and their average household income is well over $40,000. (The average and median household incomes are $63,344 and $46,326, respectively.)

Forty percent of American workers are salaried. Of the 75.6 million paid by the hour, 1.9 million earn the federal minimum or less, and of these, more than half are under 25 and more than a quarter are between ages 16 and 19. Many are students or other part-time workers. Sixty percent of those earning the federal minimum or less work in restaurants and bars and earn tips -- often untaxed, perhaps -- in addition to wages.

Two-thirds of those earning the federal minimum today will, a year from now, have been promoted and be earning 10 percent more. Raising the minimum wage predictably makes work more attractive relative to school for some teenagers and raises the dropout rate. Two scholars report that in states that allow people to leave school before 18, a 10 percent increase in the state minimum wage caused teenage school enrollment to drop 2 percent.
Entire column is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010301619.html

[BrettStah]

My thoughts... the cost of living varies wildly from state to state, and city to city. Why not have each state and/or city mandate a minimum wage? Since Hurricane Katrina, newly-hired burger flippers in the New Orleans area are earning $9-12 an hour, well above the minimum wage. I'm sure that this has been true for awhile in other places too, such as Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, etc.

Personally I don't think we should have minimum wages at all - as Mr. Will says in his column, labor is a commodity, and "governments make messes when they decree commodities' prices".

HOWEVER...

If we are going to have a minimum wage (at the federal, state, and/or city level), I think it should be set up in such a way as Martin suggest... have it go up with the rate of inflation (and aindik, if there is no inflation it would never go up! :)), so that it gradually is increased to keep the same purchasing power.

[Martin Tupper]

Most of them have.

The people earning minimum wage today are not the same people who were earning the minimum wage 10 years ago. Many of them were six and seven years old ten years ago.
They referred to the business owners that Reg said would have an issue with this.

[RegBarc]

They referred to the business owners that Reg said would have an issue with this.
That's because the business owners set their wages (when specifically talking about those that hire at minimum wage) to be reflective of the minimum wage. They are told a minimum purchase price, and instead of letting the market sort it out, follow the minimum purchase price. It's price controls all over again.

[Martin Tupper]

That's because the business owners set their wages (when specifically talking about those that hire at minimum wage) to be reflective of the minimum wage. They are told a minimum purchase price, and instead of letting the market sort it out, follow the minimum purchase price. It's price controls all over again.
And if there wasn't a minimum purchase price?

[RegBarc]

And if there wasn't a minimum purchase price?
The market would determine the fair cost of hiring people/fair wage to be paid for a service rendered in that bracket.

It happens every day in jobs that aren't anyway near minimum wage jobs.

[Martin Tupper]

The market would determine the fair cost of hiring people/fair wage to be paid for a service rendered in that bracket.

It happens every day in jobs that aren't anyway near minimum wage jobs.
And it happens everyday in jobs that are near minimum wage jobs. Not all burger flippers make minimum wage. Many employers exceed minimum wage in order to be selective in the quality of unskilled employee they hire. Minimum wages don't change the law of supply & demand, they simply fix the minimum asking price.

[aindik]

And it happens everyday in jobs that are near minimum wage jobs. Not all burger flippers make minimum wage. Many employers exceed minimum wage in order to be selective in the quality of unskilled employee they hire. Minimum wages don't change the law of supply & demand, they simply fix the minimum asking price.

They lock out of the labor market those people who are not (yet) worth the minimum asking price. They also encourage employers to cut benefits, worsen working conditions, and replace labor with technology (i.e. downsize).

They also reduce the wages for those jobs that are exempt from the minimum (because there are now more people willing to work those particular jobs, being locked out of other jobs by the law).

[Turtleboy]

Bring on the illegal immigrants!

[RegBarc]

And it happens everyday in jobs that are near minimum wage jobs. Not all burger flippers make minimum wage. Many employers exceed minimum wage in order to be selective in the quality of unskilled employee they hire.
And if there was no minimum wage, the market where minimum wages are plentiful would have an explosion in competition to keep the workers who were earning close to or at minimum wage.

[Tralfaz]

And it happens everyday in jobs that are near minimum wage jobs. Not all burger flippers make minimum wage. Many employers exceed minimum wage in order to be selective in the quality of unskilled employee they hire. Minimum wages don't change the law of supply & demand, they simply fix the minimum asking price.

The minimum wage doesn't just change the wage of those making the minimum. You're correct, not all burger flippers make minimum wage. In fact, most don't. However, when you raise the minimum wage 50 cents, everyone in that type of work gets a 50 cent bump. The employer than increases his prices to offset the new wages. Soon most prices for many other things (clothes, groceries, etc.) are increased (regardless of inflation costs). The minimum wage worker doesn't have any more disposable income than they had before the increase, because everything they used to purchase now costs more. Folks making $30,000 and up now also have higher costs than they had before. Everybody loses when minimum wages are increased.

[Martin Tupper]

And if there was no minimum wage, the market where minimum wages are plentiful would have an explosion in competition to keep the workers who were earning close to or at minimum wage.
Huh? How does the minimum wage change the level of competition for workers? If an employer wants to hire better employees than his competition, or reduce the turnover rate of his employees, he will be inclined to pay more, not less. The minimum wage doesn't change that.

[Martin Tupper]

The minimum wage doesn't just change the wage of those making the minimum. You're correct, not all burger flippers make minimum wage. In fact, most don't. However, when you raise the minimum wage 50 cents, everyone in that type of work gets a 50 cent bump. The employer than increases his prices to offset the new wages. Soon most prices for many other things (clothes, groceries, etc.) are increased (regardless of inflation costs). The minimum wage worker doesn't have any more disposable income than they had before the increase, because everything they used to purchase now costs more. Folks making $30,000 and up now also have higher costs than they had before. Everybody loses when minimum wages are increased.
Except the increased costs of goods and services caused by an increased minimum wage are borne by the entire public. So a 40% increase in the minimum wage are not accompanied by 40% inflation of goods and services. Not even close.

[Martin Tupper]

They lock out of the labor market those people who are not (yet) worth the minimum asking price. They also encourage employers to cut benefits, worsen working conditions, and replace labor with technology (i.e. downsize).But the profit motive already encourages all of those things.

They also reduce the wages for those jobs that are exempt from the minimum (because there are now more people willing to work those particular jobs, being locked out of other jobs by the law).

To what job are you referring?
Locked out by law?

[thevargasgrl]

I believe the minimum wage SHOULD be increased since some states have laws that state their own minimum wage cannot be higher than the national minimum wage (Georgia is one). Right now I work at a job that pays more than minimum wage but most jobs that I would be able to get (as a student in college with little experience besides retail and clerical) pay minimum wage. I cannot afford to pay my rent if I make minimum wage, so I stay in a job that treats me like crap and has not given me a review or raise in well over a year, despite the fact that I am trained in every program and prodedure save for one or two at my job.

[Pablo]

I believe the minimum wage SHOULD be increased since some states have laws that state their own minimum wage cannot be higher than the national minimum wage (Georgia is one).
These states SHOULD change their minimum wage laws. Given the different cost of living in different parts of the country, having the same minimum wage in every state makes not sense. This sounds like these states' politicians were too chicken to take the heat for (not) raising the minimum wage, so they turned it over to the federal government.

[aindik]

But the profit motive already encourages all of those things.

The profit motive motivates business people to pay for labor what labor is worth. That could be with wages, with benefits, and with improved working conditions versus their competition. Artificial floors in wages will reduce other things that might attract an employee to a job. That employee, despite his higher wages, may not be any better off because other things in his job might be worse (or he might get layed off).



To what job are you referring?
Locked out by law?

All jobs that are exempt from the minimum wage. Included are certain restaurant jobs and certain jobs at places of employment with fewer than a certain number of employees.

Persons whose skills are not worth the minimum wage are locked out of jobs that require the minimum wage. As the minimum wage rises, there are more people whose skills are worth less than it, competing for the same jobs that are exempt from the minimum wage.

[Martin Tupper]

The profit motive motivates business people to pay for labor what labor is worth. That could be with wages, with benefits, and with improved working conditions versus their competition. Artificial floors in wages will reduce other things that might attract an employee to a job. That employee, despite his higher wages, may not be any better off because other things in his job might be worse (or he might get layed off).Employers will still want to attract better employees than their competition. They will still be forced to provide better wages, benefits, and/or working conditions in order to do so. A minimum wage doesn't change that.

Being laid off because of a minimum wage is highly unlikely. The private sector doesn't engage in make-work programs. They hire people because they need work done. If they can do without an employee at $7.25/hr, they could have done without him at $5.15/hr too.

All jobs that are exempt from the minimum wage. Included are certain restaurant jobs and certain jobs at places of employment with fewer than a certain number of employees.Waiters and waitresses make at least minimum wage. They do typically have a lower wage than non-tipping jobs, but if their tips don't bring them up to the minimum wage, the employer must pay the difference to bring them up to minimum wage.

Persons whose skills are not worth the minimum wage are locked out of jobs that require the minimum wage. As the minimum wage rises, there are more people whose skills are worth less than it, competing for the same jobs that are exempt from the minimum wage.I still don't understand, what are these non-minimum wage jobs to which you are referring? If an employee doesn't possess the prerequisite skills to mop floors or flip burgers, he definitely doesn't have the skills to wait tables.

[JETarpon]

Being laid off because of a minimum wage is highly unlikely. The private sector doesn't engage in make-work programs. They hire people because they need work done. If they can do without an employee at $7.25/hr, they could have done without him at $5.15/hr too.

Are there no more movie theater ushers because the need for them is any less than it was before, or is it because it was just no longer worth it to the movie theaters to employ them? Is the need for window washers at gas stations actually less than it used to be? Or is it just not worth it to employ them any more?

Somewhere along the line the amount the employers had to pay people to do those jobs became more than what those jobs were worth to the employers. Obviously, for those jobs, yes, they could do without them at 5.15/hour, so those jobs are already gone. But what jobs out there will NOT be worth 7.25/hour to the employer and will just go away?

[Martin Tupper]

Are there no more movie theater ushers because the need for them is any less than it was before, or is it because it was just no longer worth it to the movie theaters to employ them? Is the need for window washers at gas stations actually less than it used to be? Or is it just not worth it to employ them any more?

Somewhere along the line the amount the employers had to pay people to do those jobs became more than what those jobs were worth to the employers. Obviously, for those jobs, yes, they could do without them at 5.15/hour, so those jobs are already gone. But what jobs out there will NOT be worth 7.25/hour to the employer and will just go away?
Ultimately, it was the customers who decided whether those jobs were worth the extra money. If people felt strongly about the services of ushers and window washers, those people would go to establishments that continued to employ them. But the general public didn't feel strongly about them, so regardless of what they were being paid, those positions were unnecessary overhead and would have eventually been eliminated anyway.
Private companies are not in the "make-work" business. If it isn't crucial to the daily operations and doesn't add value to the customer, then it will eventually disappear.

[pseudonym]

Are there no more movie theater ushers because the need for them is any less than it was before, or is it because it was just no longer worth it to the movie theaters to employ them? Is the need for window washers at gas stations actually less than it used to be? Or is it just not worth it to employ them any more?

Somewhere along the line the amount the employers had to pay people to do those jobs became more than what those jobs were worth to the employers. Obviously, for those jobs, yes, they could do without them at 5.15/hour, so those jobs are already gone. But what jobs out there will NOT be worth 7.25/hour to the employer and will just go away?

Many states have already raised the minimum wage. Are there examples of jobs in those states that have disappeared, but that still exist in states that have stuck with the lower federal minimum wage?

[aindik]

Ultimately, it was the customers who decided whether those jobs were worth the extra money. If people felt strongly about the services of ushers and window washers, those people would go to establishments that continued to employ them. But the general public didn't feel strongly about them, so regardless of what they were being paid, those positions were unnecessary overhead and would have eventually been eliminated anyway.
Private companies are not in the "make-work" business. If it isn't crucial to the daily operations and doesn't add value to the customer, then it will eventually disappear.

Maybe whether people care about windowwashers is a matter of degree. IOW, they care enough that it's worth it to pay someone $4 an hour to wash windows, but they don't care enough that it's worth it to pay someone $7.50 an hour to wash windows.

[Martin Tupper]

Maybe whether people care about window washers is a matter of degree. IOW, they care enough that it's worth it to pay someone $4 an hour to wash windows, but they don't care enough that it's worth it to pay someone $7.50 an hour to wash windows.
Then an enterprising gas station owner, might subsidize the cost of a window washing to encourage more people to fill up at his station.

And those people who still won't pay, or have the cost buried in the price of a gallon of gas, can walk up to the Pep Boys clerk making $7.25/hr and ask him where they keep the Windex and the squeegees.