What is a decent living wage ? Chicago workers on strike..

4/26/2013
What do you think is a decent minimum wage ? Me I say $12.00 hr.
Chicago workers went on strike over wages..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/chicago-low-wage-workers-strike_n_3149755.html
Cheers..Joe...

Higher than it is now.

O.k. Let's get people angry and start a war or words. Ready? Here it goes.

There should not be a federal minimum wage at all. People should earn whatever the market decides their services are worth. It is irrational to set a federal minimum wage when the cost of living across this country varies WIDELY not only from state to state, but within states.

I am not suggesting that we should tolerate workers being exploited--simply that a federal minimum wage is not workable and benefits only people who live in the more economically challenged (read: poorer) regions of this country. Each state should set a reasonable minimum wage. But if we must have a federal minimum wage, it should be as low as possible--lower than the current $7.25, in my view.

A $12 minimum wage is completely unreasonable in my view at the federal level. People with absolutely no skills or experience are not worth $12 an hour and employers will not hire them if that is the required floor. And while burger flippers at the big chains and other workers with limited skills and education would benefit from such a generous wage, who would ultimately bear the cost? Why consumers, of course. How happy would a $15 happy meal be, and how many individuals would flock to the Golden Arches were that the price? More to the point, how would a $12 minimum wage impact our already incredibly skewed (in)balance of trade?

Of course, we can take a page from the Latin American playbook of old (and not so old) and simply raise wages to keep unions and workers happy while simultaneously printing ever larger quantities of currency, fueling hyperinflation and a never ending spiral of currency devaluation. (Oh, wait, we're already doing that . . . minus the hyperinflation thus far due to the world-wide recession.)

Lets pull all the stops: nationalized healthcare for all, a living minimum wage of $20 an hour, bailouts and freebies galore for companies that contribute well to politicians in power (green energy anyone?), $10,000 per child tax credits (it's only Monopoly money, remember), and fund it all by soaking the rich and getting corporations to pay their "fair share" (passed along as price increases to all, but, again, it's only Monopoly money, so who cares as long as "right thinking" people keep getting re-elected.

The market should set wages, not federal bureaucrats whose primary concern is buying votes. Anyone who disagrees should take a nice, long vacation to, say, Greece or Spain or some other "progressive" haven and live with the natives for three months or so AFTER the tourists leave town. Come to think of it, Cuba is closer by. Go there and see what "right thinking" progressives (the "C" word has been banished and those who still use it labeled as haters, "tea baggers" or, worse, Republicans) for the kinder, gentler "P" word (alas, the leopard has not changed its spots--just re-labeled them as "beauty marks" to better attract its prey for a closer look at the new and improved predator).

Now I'll move to my foxhole and wait for the artillery shells to start falling. (As you load the shells, I'd just like to note that it's my middle sister's fault as she called for watchers to weigh in and I NEVER disappoint my middle sister.)

Aw Phooey!

When you put it that way, I find I have to agree with you.

You really are a lawyer, aren't you Little Bro. Ever think of running for office?

Annie

No, big sister. I can't run for office. Law school was completely wasted on me in that regard. The Rs don't want me 'cause I'm too far left. The Ds don't want me 'cause I'm too far right, and the Is don't want me 'cause I'm too much of a traditionalist and am registered as an R since I turned 18. (I'm also not the prettiest pony in the stable, which might otherwise trump the other objections.)

There is no room in politics for a reasonable person--with or without tongue planted in cheek. So I'll just have to devote my time to teaching, writing--and annoying my wife, friends and sisters.

5/11/2013
Victor...
Here in Santa Fe NM the minimum wage to start
is $12.50 per hour, because cost of living is high but not compared
to NYC where I came from....Cheers Joe....

Joe,

And that's just fine with me. Santa Fe and New York City should set the minimum wage based on the cost of living for their citizens--it is perfectly reasonable that they do so. Of course, cowardly politicians hide behind Washington's skirts and too often avoid doing so in order not to alienate the local business community.

When states do stupid things, it leaves us with the option of moving to non-stupid states. When Washington D.C. does stupid things, it leaves us with the option of leaving the country, which for this patriot is not an option. I welcome people unhappy about the federal minimum wage to move to San Francisco, Santa Fe or anyplace else they think they will get a better deal. That's what the Founding fathers intended and what today's politicians ignore as the only true inconvenient truth in politics Al Gore will never write about.

With or without minimum wage, exploitation continues. Employers want to hire at the lowest possible wage. Employees want to work for the highest possible wage. That's the way it is, however there are exceptions. I remember one in particular and that is IBM. They never had a union simply because they treated their employees fairly with good benefits and good wages. Some companies required unions to get them a decent wage and benefits, i.e., healthcare.
As Victor pointed out, the market determines the wage.
On the flip side, when someone is unemployed with no benefits, he/she will take whatever job available at any price. Unfortunately that often sets a trend. Exploitation of the needy is not a fair way to do business. When times are good, competition determines wage and benefits. When times are bad, crumbs are dished out. That is one reason for minimum wage demands.

Victor D. Lopez wrote:

No, big sister. I can't run for office. Law school was completely wasted on me in that regard. The Rs don't want me 'cause I'm too far left. The Ds don't want me 'cause I'm too far right, and the Is don't want me 'cause I'm too much of a traditionalist and am registered as an R since I turned 18. (I'm also not the prettiest pony in the stable, which might otherwise trump the other objections.)

There is no room in politics for a reasonable person--with or without tongue planted in cheek. So I'll just have to devote my time to teaching, writing--and annoying my wife, friends and sisters.

Victor just proved my point...

I've always said, "Anyone smart enough to do the job in politics is smart enough to not want the job!"

Don,

Right on!

I say directly tie the income of the top level executives to the lowest paid employee in the company. Say that the highest paid executive's income is capped at 100 times what the lowest paid employee earns. And then pass a law that forbids corporations from passing the cost of doing business along to their consumers. There's nobody in this country who can't live quite well on a half million a year, so let's get the pay ratio back down to some kind of realistic level. What everyone wants us to believe is that the wealthy create jobs, and that's just isn't so. People buying products create jobs, and if we put the billions of tax dollars we are currently giving corporations and wealthy into the hands of middle class and lower class workers, they'll spend it, which will create a demand, which will lead to job creation. Trickle down voodoo supply side economics don't work, because once you insert greed into the equation, the trickle down stops.

And I don't like the minimum wage idea either. I prefer that everyone be paid a fair living wage, and that all workers, full time, part time, sometime, be eligible for insurance, overtime pay, and all of the other benefits. If a man is willing and able to work, he deserves to be paid enough to live on.

E. Don,

I hear you.
Glad to see you here.

I pretty much agree with you Don. The problem with wages in recent years is that without the union power, wages and benefits have deteriorated at the worker level while growing exponentially at the executive level. Since the workers are in the majority and contribute to local economies, businesses and GNP, it is to the benefit of the nation for worker incomes to rise as executive incomes rise since theirs is the result of the worker efforts.

Of course, the desire for ever more profit leads the manufacturers to Bangladesh where they can exploit workers without restraint or complaint and therefore escalate their incomes and profits ever more. Thus, we have fewer jobs here and "exorbitant demands" are blamed. Safety and a living wage are not exorbitant in a developed, wealthy economy.

Of course our workers can't work at the wages paid in Bangladesh. They did in the past - children, the sick and malnourished, feeble men and women and healthy ones for 12 hour days in heinous conditions for seven days a week. We became more civilized over time and learned that we could have a stable economy and economic growth and still (with the growth of unions) treat workers respectfully.

However, because some industries never get the message, minimum wages were established. There is such a thing as a "living wage." It is usually pegged to the cost of living in a particular community. Businesses should have the opportunity to create their own wages and benefits system to attract the best workers in competition with other opportunities; however, they don't all behave that way. Thus some system to protect workers has to be implemented - the rotten apples direct the legislation. When there is no competition for employees, it is an "employer's market" and wages and benefits sink.

I wrote before but feel it's worth repeating about a factory that was the main employer in a small town ruined by the down economy. The owner of the factory that had built it from scratch mortgaged and sold all that he owned to keep paying the workers and keep the factory open in hopes of new contracts when it looked pretty bleak. He said he could not live better than those who made his lifestyle possible when times were so difficult as he worked to bring in new business instead of closing. Eventually, pay had to be decreased, but no one was let go. Fortunately, it has a happy ending. They did attract new contracts and gradually the factory grew back to its original capacity and more. Now, that's what I call the American ideal.

Good post DK. My brother-in-law, now deceased, did something similar. He refused to lay off people and borrowed extra money to keep them employed. His motto and mine was that if you take care of your people, they will take care of you. When times are bad or there is an emergency, the employees are there for you. Just as they remember the bad, they also remember the good.