$10.10 Minimum Wage -Should Congress Pass It? Opinion ?

5/6/2014

                  I just read theirs a war on Capitol Hill, big business is raging a war on
                  $10.10 increase, spending millions on Congressman ! My opnion they're
                  wrong, people do need to make a decent wage, I read yesterday an 
                  article on waiters who make only $2.35 Hr., just because they get tips.
                  What is your opinion ?

                  http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/06/news/economy/companies-against-minimum-wage/index.html
                                                         Cheers.. Joe..  

Because people will always be exploited by employers if they have the opportunity, there needs to be an advance in the minimum wage.  The minimum wage also sets other benefits and is the baseline from which decisions are made. 

Of course there's a big crush to fight it in Washington. Anything supported by the administration is a reason for the conservatives to pour in the money to fight it.  Pretty disgusting for those working three jobs to keep their family fed, sheltered and clothed.  Those fighting it have no idea how the world lives outside their bubbles.  They are just bent on protecting their goodies at the expense of those who barely survive.  Disgusting.

5/6/2014

               I read this yesterday, it's disgusting that a waitress or waiter
               make only $2.13 an Hr. just because they get tips, what if the
               cheap customer doesn't leave a tip ?

http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/05/news/economy/tipped-worker-minimum-wage/index.html?iid=HP_River
                                                   Cheers.. Joe

5/6/2014

                      DK.....  

                                         Cheers......Joe .. 

All their claims are built on sand.  Kill jobs?  What jobs?  Corporations are holding onto their cash and not providing jobs - at any price.  Send jobs overseas?  That horse has already run.  Make goods more expensive?  Well, cut profits a smidge.

Isn't it interesting that there is plenty of money to spend fighting a raise in minimum wage and funding campaigns but not enough to create jobs and pay a living wage.

At one time I was opposed to setting a minimum wage feeling that it would hurt free enterprise.  If one is willing to work for a low wage, so be it, however I have changed my mind.  When there are no jobs and people become desperate, they will work for whatever they can get.  That doesn't mean they willfully accept the low wage, but rather that they have no other choice.  The problem is with the employers who are not in the creating jobs business.  Some employers want good people - qualified and dependable and are willing to pay for what they get.  That is not true of some and it is the "some" that is getting the deserved attention.  Exploitation is a dirty business.  There should be no reason for a law to be passed to give people a decent wage, but the greed factor requires it.
As for waitresses getting a pittance, that is despicable.  It smells much like Wal-Mart's method.  Pay the employees bare minimum forcing the employees to apply for government aid.  Good government would work to change that.  A minimum wage appears to be the weapon available.
Tips were for exceptional service and not a requirement by the customer.

You just reminded me of something, Abe.  Low wages that put people into the government social services system means that taxes are subsidizing big industry - again.  Instead of the corporations and businesses paying a living wage, the people working for them qualify for government assistance - that's taxes - the taxes I pay.

The U.S. citizens continue to pay for corporations to quadruple their earnings and profits, pay stupendous salaries and bonuses to the top tier of male executives while the taxpayers subsidize them and struggle to survive.  Those are the situations that people must begin to recognize before nothing is left but minimum wage workers in a service industry with real jobs overseas.

Good points, DK.  Perhaps someone should suggest that when they ship the jobs overseas, they should send the workers along with them.

Some members of Congress oppose a raise in the minimum wage. I understand that opposition. When wages go up, cost of doing business goes up, prices go up. A higher minimum wage equals automatic inflation. No argument there.

But. The same Congressmen who vote to suppress the increase will receive and will accept without protest a cost-of-living increase of about $2800 next January. Divide that by the number of hours they actually show up for work, and...Oh, well, you get the idea.

I get it.  I wonder when the U.S. citizens will get tired of it and throw the bunch out.  Any work is done by the staffers anyway.  Even if they show up all they do is read what the staffers prepare and then perhaps vote on something.  They might get a briefing by staffers so they know what's going on.

Beyond the staffers, the next get something done people are the much maligned federal workers who show up every day and do their jobs in spite of their bosses changing with every election.

If the entire Congress was fired, the administration staff could also be reduced since much of their time is spent in "liaison" with Congress.  In fact, staffers could go to and just leave their job to the civil servants. 

All the money saved from negative campaigning ($billions) should still be collected since the rich are so willing to part with it and then put it into programs to create infrastructure jobs for the people that really want to work.

I'm sorry about the negative bits that go along with a $10 minimum wage.  I think the wealthy can absorb it and the rest of us at least will earn a little more with a new baseline.   In some states they have their own minimums that already match and exceed the federal one.  So, the impacts are not as widespread as the lobbyists would have one believe.

I agree with Al that an increase in minimum wage means an increase in costs as well. However, I think a person's moral, integrity and his/her ability to be positive is affected directly by receiving a larger paycheck. Even if it is still scratching out of living paycheck to paycheck.

An across the board minimum wage may not be fair.
If one looks at cost of living, as do job applicants, it is a large consideration in accepting a job offer.  Cost of living in LA, SF or Atlanta is much different than in other rural locations.  Having said that, if it is the only way to get the increase approved, then it may be a good thing.  In the long term, it may self-adjust.  People will be drawn to areas where the wage is high and the cost of living low giving them a substantial increase in living allowance.   One finds that in social services.  People will move to locations where they receive the greatest benefit.
Americans at one time were on the move.  Some of this was employer related, moving employees from one location to another.  Where at one time it was customary to stay in one’s home area, children left home and moved away for a career or for economic reasons.  
I can give a personal example:  It became necessary to leave my home area if I was to have peace, meaning that if I was to stay married and protect my wife from the constant criticism/harassment by religious groups.  After discharge from the USAF, I still had a reserve obligation.  I was in the Active Reserves where I met a man in my unit who worked for IBM and was being transferred to Chicago from Harrisburg, PA.  He wanted me to come and work with him.  He could not make me a job offer since that may obligate the company to pay my move.  Being verbally assured that there was a job available, I packed up and moved to the Chicago area, living in Wheaton, Illinois and traveling daily to South Chicago at the Illinois Institute of Technology campus where the office was located.  Doing a good job, I was promoted and transferred to Washington, DC.  The company picked up the tab.  From DC I was promoted and transferred to Boston.  IBM’s moving and Living policy was great.  From Boston, I was promoted and transferred to New York where I found a home in Peekskill and traveled daily by train to NYC.  We often said the IBM meant, “I’ve Been Moved”.  Sometime later the company changed its policy and no longer made as many employee transfers.  I suppose it was cost related.  The experience of moving included change of culture and Cost of Living.  I felt constantly in transit.  Perhaps that experience led to my “Wander Lust” – my desire to move and experience new areas and cultures that took me to Canada, Greece, Germany and the Middle East.  Cost of Living was keenly felt.  I don’t believe that Americans are as inclined to move as in former times.  They find a home, make friends and want to remain in one location where they can settle down and raise a family.

joefrank wrote:

5/6/2014

                  I just read theirs a war on Capitol Hill, big business is raging a war on
                  $10.10 increase, spending millions on Congressman ! My opnion they're
                  wrong, people do need to make a decent wage, I read yesterday an 
                  article on waiters who make only $2.35 Hr., just because they get tips.
                  What is your opinion ?

                  http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/06/news/economy/companies-against-minimum-wage/index.html
                                                         Cheers.. Joe..  

It seem everybody in America wants to like as good as a Doctor. It cost much to get a medical education, and a lot of hard word to become a doctor. A person who has not worked hard in High School, and drops out wants to live the good life. That person is only worth what a company will pay them. Assume that person gets a job putting in one bolt at an auto plant. He is paid $47 per hour, and gets medical etc.
The person has not made himself worth $47 per hour...He is worth $2.00 per hour.
My true feeling is; If he has not prepared himself to make $47 per hour, he should go out and open his own company, and see how unfair it is of his workers to demand $47 per hour.
The higher the wage, the more things will cost. We should have no wage laws. If people don't like $2.00 per hour, they should prepare to be worth more, or open their own business.

Before unions and wage laws people worked for nothing just as they do in undeveloped countries today.  People still work for nothing in this country and qualify for social services - additional pay from taxpayers instead of the businesses that benefit from their labors.

The system is not self-correcting because of the corporate greed.  Certain industries pay exorbitant wages and bonus payments because they earn from the risk of their customers.  The elite at the top of the global corporate industrial complex pay each other and compete for each other's top tier employees who work no harder than people at that level elsewhere who make rational incomes.

I work in an industry that is "self-regulating" - that of the freelance writer.  There is no set wage.  Thus only a few top journalists make a living wage while the rest compete for very low pay for the hours and effort and education backgrounds that go into a journalism career. 

Self-regulating wages created the major disparity between what women and men are paid for the same work and backgrounds.  Laws have attempted to correct this disparity with little success.

Who has the right to tell a company what they have to pay? When people put up their money (which they earned) they run all the risk. If workers don't like what a company offers, they don't have to take the job. Why do you think big business has gone over seas? A company is started to make money. A worker has no investment. If the worker is unhappy with $2.00 per hour...go back to school, and raise the value of your labor...or eat cake. What does the American labor force think they are worth more than
the labor force in China? Do Americans think they are better people than those in China? Americans need to rethink what they are worth on the labor market. One company (I don't recall the name) was in business for 50 years. It's workers kept demanding more, and more pay. The owners said hell with it, and closed their business...they did not move it, they closed it...now you have 1200 workers wondering, what happened? People are stupid. The work force in America is stupid. I say, "Remove the wage laws. Labor does not warrant a big house, two cars, and all the toys. labor in England wanted free medical...they got it. The higher tax to pay for the medical comes out of the pocket of the labor force. Eat cake.

I had a front row seat on the electronics jobs that were sent to Korea when it was an undeveloped country in the late 70's.

They sent busses to the country to pick up the girl children (who were worthless) and bring them to the plant dormitory where they were housed in barrack like facilities without privacy for 30 days of the month before they were bussed back to their families for a day's visit.  They worked 12 hour days, seven days a week.  The were paid $1/day that most sent back to their families since all their expenses were paid.

This was the same for the Adidas factories and the clothing factories.  That is not the lifestyle we want for our daughters.

dkchristi wrote:

Before unions and wage laws people worked for nothing just as they do in undeveloped countries today.  People still work for nothing in this country and qualify for social services - additional pay from taxpayers instead of the businesses that benefit from their labors.

The system is not self-correcting because of the corporate greed.  Certain industries pay exorbitant wages and bonus payments because they earn from the risk of their customers.  The elite at the top of the global corporate industrial complex pay each other and compete for each other's top tier employees who work no harder than people at that level elsewhere who make rational incomes.

I work in an industry that is "self-regulating" - that of the freelance writer.  There is no set wage.  Thus only a few top journalists make a living wage while the rest compete for very low pay for the hours and effort and education backgrounds that go into a journalism career. 

Self-regulating wages created the major disparity between what women and men are paid for the same work and backgrounds.  Laws have attempted to correct this disparity with little success.

You open a big business, and let the workers tell you how much you have to pay them...they don't give a damn if you go broke...they will just move on to the next job, and make more demands. Americans think they are to good.
maybe if our kids had to work for $1.00 a day to eat, they just might be worth something....they want everything for free. My grandfather used to say of lazy people, "They think the world owes them a living." IT DOES NOT.
Here is what God says in the Bible; "He who does not work, neither let him eat."

You sound angry.  I know many hard working people who don't make enough income to feed their families and they did not have the opportunity to get better educations.

I know many people with great educations that cannot get work today.  They are not lazy.  They want to work.  Many do go to lesser work than before the recession.

The U.S. citizens are the most productive in the developed world.  They work longer hours and accomplish more in those hours than any other developed nation. They take fewer vacations. 

Every day I see hardworking people on roofs and on highways in 95 degrees and 95 degree humidity. 

I work many hours at my journalism for very little pay. If I didn't have my earned income from 51 years in the workforce, my journalism would not pay my bills.  Yet, I am working very hard to produce a good product.

I don't really know any lazy people.  Even the mentally incompetent that stand on corners "will work for food" will work just as they indicate.

Many people have mental issues and yet they work too.

Most of the people I knew in the factory town where I was raised stayed with their same job for their lifetimes or until they were laid off.  The same holds true for those in the earlier automotive industry.  The people I see changing jobs are those who are actually mobile - the high paid executive class moving from one $billion job to another - they share them like a club.

Some jobs require moving.  My career was based on the grant applications I wrote and for which I received funding.   When the grant money for that subject dried up, I often had to move to take on another grant.  It was expensive to move and not a choice.

The subject of employer and employee is one that has two sides and seldom will they agree.
If you have been an employer, you can understand what it takes to keep the business alive and pay your employees.  If you were an employee, you know little about the running of the business and expect to be paid for the work you do. 
It is a two way street.  How an employer treats his employees is most often reciprocated when times get tough.  I could give examples, but don't think it would make much difference to this debate.  I have been both employer and employee. 
An analogy.  You say to a stove: "Stove, give me more heat and I'll give you more wood."  We know it can't work that way.  When you produce, you should get what you deserve.  When employers provide what is deserved, they have good and reliable employees.  When employees are too demanding and will produce only when they get what they feel they should have, they lose.  
Unions came into being when employees were taken advantage of.  In IBM, unions didn't exist since the company provided the employees with good wages and good benefits.  Unions are required when the employer exploits his employees.  Making demands without producing, doesn't work.  If you apply for a job, you are told what to expect in pay.  If you accept that, you can't then demand more.  On the other hand, if you have no choice and need a job, you accept reluctantly what they are willing to pay and will not be satisfied nor will you produce the quality of work that you are capable of.
No easy solution.  A reasonable minimum wage is a good thing, however it should be governed by the area in which you live.  What one should earn in LA doesn't equate what one should earn in Peoria, Illinois.

I agree with Abe. It has to be a two way street. "Take care of the company, and it will take care of you."
If a company is having hard times, the labor should be willing to reduce their work hours. If a company is doing good, they should be willing to give some to the labor force. They both have to work the the good of each other.  I know very few do this.

Where my brother works the employees have been on several non-paid "furloughs" so that all can remain employed - a cooperative agreement between the non-union workers and the management.

Unfortunately, today's global corporations show no consideration for employees thus they either take it or don't work. 

Small businesses are most likely to work toward mutual benefit.

I think profits should be shared.  If a corporation does
well.  Share the profits either by giving a bonus or by raising the minimum wage.

I know this.  Since GWB, everyone I know who has a job has not has a raise in pay for this many years.  That is because the big corps think they do not have to address the workers.  They are the winners and have many slaves who work for next to nothing.  I worked many years for the minimum wage of 5.00 an hour.  I brought home about 120.00 a week.  Our house and land payment 900.00 a month.  The mortgage holders lived in hope every month that we would not make the payment.  We ate soup and fished at the creek for meat.  We never applied for government help. 
I worked my behind off to have the wetland business that I started.  Mixed my own potting soil, and there really is no way to describe the work I did to make that business work.  Before GWB, I was making 75,000. a year.  He and the banks destroyed me.  I would never vote for a republican in my lifetime. 
Angry...you bet!
Love,
Betty

I think this is the thing that is needed right now. People not getting raises, but the cost of living still increases. Inflation continues, but income stays flat, while the companies' profits are rising.