Just think of the prices of having to pay a guy putting on the ketchup on your Big Mac? Gas would be $10.50 per gal.
http://news.yahoo.com/22-minimum-wage-c ... 04898.html
http://news.yahoo.com/22-minimum-wage-c ... 04898.html
BMan said:If you go back to the beginning of the minimum wage (.25/hr in 1938), and index it to inflation, it should be...
$4.12 / hour.
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
And guess what: according to the BLS, in 2011 only 2.3% of workers in the United States make the minimum wage (5.2% if you include hospitality workers who theoretically make less than the minimum wage, yet receive the majority of their pay in tips - conveniently left out of the equation).
Those numbers reflect an almost 20% drop in those receiving the minimum from one year earlier, and roughly one third the rate of 1979.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm
Hunter 257W said:BMan said:If you go back to the beginning of the minimum wage (.25/hr in 1938), and index it to inflation, it should be...
$4.12 / hour.
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
And guess what: according to the BLS, in 2011 only 2.3% of workers in the United States make the minimum wage (5.2% if you include hospitality workers who theoretically make less than the minimum wage, yet receive the majority of their pay in tips - conveniently left out of the equation).
Those numbers reflect an almost 20% drop in those receiving the minimum from one year earlier, and roughly one third the rate of 1979.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm
I agree that if you are going to make adjustments to minimum wage over time to keep the buying power of the pay equal, then inflation is the only way to do that.
In conflict to that method of adjustment though, the article states: "If you took the minimum wage from 1960 and indexed it for workers� gains in productivity, it would be $22 an hour today...."
I'm not sure what they mean by "gains in productivity" but I fail to see how that should be considered. If a worker is producing more now compared to 1960 because of gains in technology(what I assume they are talking about), that has nothing to do with that min wage employee getting pay with equal buying power compared to 1960.
Obviously, as others stated, if min wage went up this much, inflation would just drive up the cost of everything we buy proportionally and nobody would gain anything. It's just a way for liberals to appear to be looking out for the poor so they can buy their votes then forget about them as soon as the polls close.
fishboy1 said:Don't forget, that MANY PUBLIC/Gubment and PRIVATE UNION contracts have an adjustment feature tied to the Minimum Wage (among other things).
So that UNION job paying $20-40/hr will get an AUTOMATIC increase proportionate to the increase in the minimum wage. This is AUTOMATIC and has nothing to do with job performance.
ANOTHER socialist/liberal payola for votes scheme paid for by the US citizen.
Wildcat said:Hunter 257W said:BMan said:If you go back to the beginning of the minimum wage (.25/hr in 1938), and index it to inflation, it should be...
$4.12 / hour.
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
And guess what: according to the BLS, in 2011 only 2.3% of workers in the United States make the minimum wage (5.2% if you include hospitality workers who theoretically make less than the minimum wage, yet receive the majority of their pay in tips - conveniently left out of the equation).
Those numbers reflect an almost 20% drop in those receiving the minimum from one year earlier, and roughly one third the rate of 1979.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm
I agree that if you are going to make adjustments to minimum wage over time to keep the buying power of the pay equal, then inflation is the only way to do that.
In conflict to that method of adjustment though, the article states: "If you took the minimum wage from 1960 and indexed it for workers� gains in productivity, it would be $22 an hour today...."
I'm not sure what they mean by "gains in productivity" but I fail to see how that should be considered. If a worker is producing more now compared to 1960 because of gains in technology(what I assume they are talking about), that has nothing to do with that min wage employee getting pay with equal buying power compared to 1960.
Obviously, as others stated, if min wage went up this much, inflation would just drive up the cost of everything we buy proportionally and nobody would gain anything. It's just a way for liberals to appear to be looking out for the poor so they can buy their votes then forget about them as soon as the polls close.
"gains in productivity"
Is total BS used by the liberals to try to push their ways and make it SOUND real.
What they leave out is the MILLIONS of dollars the company put in new technologies that is used to make the "gains in productivity" The workers alone NEVER work harder and longer hours to make that happen by themselves plus the ones that did work longer and harder got PAID OVERTIME.
eightpointer said:Wildcat said:Hunter 257W said:BMan said:If you go back to the beginning of the minimum wage (.25/hr in 1938), and index it to inflation, it should be...
$4.12 / hour.
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
And guess what: according to the BLS, in 2011 only 2.3% of workers in the United States make the minimum wage (5.2% if you include hospitality workers who theoretically make less than the minimum wage, yet receive the majority of their pay in tips - conveniently left out of the equation).
Those numbers reflect an almost 20% drop in those receiving the minimum from one year earlier, and roughly one third the rate of 1979.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm
I agree that if you are going to make adjustments to minimum wage over time to keep the buying power of the pay equal, then inflation is the only way to do that.
In conflict to that method of adjustment though, the article states: "If you took the minimum wage from 1960 and indexed it for workers� gains in productivity, it would be $22 an hour today...."
I'm not sure what they mean by "gains in productivity" but I fail to see how that should be considered. If a worker is producing more now compared to 1960 because of gains in technology(what I assume they are talking about), that has nothing to do with that min wage employee getting pay with equal buying power compared to 1960.
Obviously, as others stated, if min wage went up this much, inflation would just drive up the cost of everything we buy proportionally and nobody would gain anything. It's just a way for liberals to appear to be looking out for the poor so they can buy their votes then forget about them as soon as the polls close.
"gains in productivity"
Is total BS used by the liberals to try to push their ways and make it SOUND real.
What they leave out is the MILLIONS of dollars the company put in new technologies that is used to make the "gains in productivity" The workers alone NEVER work harder and longer hours to make that happen by themselves plus the ones that did work longer and harder got PAID OVERTIME.
$22 bucks an hour for min wage is very unrealistic..but most companies put less into new technologies that expand jobs and more into technologies that cut jobs. I've seen that first hand. Most all of us have. But 22 an hour..thats some serious start pay for sure..haa
eightpointer said:Wildcat...relax Brother..I'm just talking man. Not jumpin your case. Just a conversation man. Relax.