BF2S Forums Why don't we just set the Minimum Wage to $10/hour?

Jenkinsbball wrote:

Minimum wage as it stands is isn't cutting it. It's been like, what?, 8-10 years that this amount has been in place, and in that time gas has tripled in price per gallon, as well as basically everything else rising due to inflation.

It's all a politicians game. They're the ones to blame.

dude, it hasn't been that long, minimum wage 10 years ago was $4.25

Harmor wrote:

The lower median hourly wage was from Waiters and Waitresses:

Code:

Occupation Title        Employment  Median Hourly   Mean Hourly   Mean Annual
Waiters and Waitresses   2,274,770      $6.83          $7.84        $16,310

of which only 10% of them are making $5.64/hour or less. 

Source: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes353031.htm

That is because they only claim enough tips to hit the minimum so that the employeers doesn't have to shell out the difference.  If the claimed all thier tipps, the bartenders alone would move the average over $15 and hour.

P.S.  My wife is a restraunt accountant with over 100 waiters and waitresses.  She has to call out people when they don't claim enough, and what do you know, as soon as she points a finger, the average claims go up for a couple months before the employees get greedy/lazy and go back to thier old habits.

Last edited by KnowMeByTrailOfDead (2006-11-09 07:59:07)

go ahead and raise it, but force them to wear a scarlet MW on their shirt if they're over 20 so i can point at their sorry asses and laugh my sorry ass off

minimum tip is $2 barring something going wrong for kr@cker, i usually tip in the 20-30% range as opposed to the 15-20%, still though if i get something for $8 and you get $2 out of me just for putting my plates down and picking them up when im done that's pretty good.

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-11-09 08:03:29)

I looked at the minimum wage changes, and so far we have been in the longest period, save for one (which is either a tie or surpassed by now), in which we have not raised the minimum wage.  It has been 10 years since the last one, and quite a bit has changed since then.  Specifically around the gas prices range.

apollo_fi wrote:

Why not replace minimum wage with 'Guaranteed Minimum Income'?

Instead of attempting to set minimum standards of living with wage control, the state would provide every adult citizen with a 'salary' sufficient to provide basic accommodation, food and communications.

Now, someone will probably list the 10 obvious reasons why this is a bad idea. The reasons why this is a good idea are less obvious... but they're there & they're valid.

Social Reform supports long-term economic growth.

Pug wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

Why not replace minimum wage with 'Guaranteed Minimum Income'?

Instead of attempting to set minimum standards of living with wage control, the state would provide every adult citizen with a 'salary' sufficient to provide basic accommodation, food and communications.

Now, someone will probably list the 10 obvious reasons why this is a bad idea. The reasons why this is a good idea are less obvious... but they're there & they're valid.

Sweet, we should all quit our jobs and live off the government's paychecks.

Oh, since I'm not working I don't have to pay taxes...and neither does anyone else.

Great idea.

Oh yeah, I'm sure you would give up everything you have so you can scrape by on canned foods in a one room apartment just so you don't have to work. Some life. Oh yeah, did I mention you'll be bored out of your mind? You can't afford anything for entertainment, even cable, and you can't aford to go to bars or out to any event unless it's free. Sounds like the high life to me!

This opinion that supplying a safety net means there is no incentive to work is absurd and reflects utter stupidity.

Edit: Oh, and for some practical evidence, why isn't everyone in Europe quitting their jobs and living off of government paychecks? I know Ireland and others have gaurenteed income.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-11-09 14:48:45)

jonsimon wrote:

Oh yeah, I'm sure you would give up everything you have so you can scrape by on canned foods in a one room apartment just so you don't have to work. Some life. Oh yeah, did I mention you'll be bored out of your mind? You can't afford anything for entertainment, even cable, and you can't aford to go to bars or out to any event unless it's free. Sounds like the high life to me!

This opinion that supplying a safety net means there is no incentive to work is absurd and reflects utter stupidity.

Edit: Oh, and for some practical evidence, why isn't everyone in Europe quitting their jobs and living off of government paychecks? I know Ireland and others have gaurenteed income.

At least with minimum wage something is earned.  The minimum wage...which no one will work for...is the safety net.  What you are proposing is that people don't have to work anymore to earn a check.  Is it so hard to get a job?

So just as it's utter stupidity to sit around and collect the minimum safety net check, it's stupidity to sit around saying people can't work at minimum wage (or how hard is it to do a labor job/file/etc).  And yes, there are idiots out there for continue to collect unemployment/welfare/etc that abuse the system simply because they won't work.  I know someone who turned down a $15k payment because it would affect their disability payments (although it didn't affect his tennis).

You're just talking about changing the terms, which are...some people don't have to work, and paying more tax.  My wife doesn't work...she should get the minimum safety payment.  Or wait...probably not because she's married to me...so I'll divorce her, and we'll still live in the same house...so I'll still get the payment...

Of course it could work somehow...but at least it's an exchange of services with minimum wage...

I haven't looked lately, but isn't the tax rates a lot more in Europe?

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

Why not replace minimum wage with 'Guaranteed Minimum Income'?

Instead of attempting to set minimum standards of living with wage control, the state would provide every adult citizen with a 'salary' sufficient to provide basic accommodation, food and communications.

Now, someone will probably list the 10 obvious reasons why this is a bad idea. The reasons why this is a good idea are less obvious... but they're there & they're valid.

Social Reform supports long-term economic growth.

where is your articles that back this up??

Articles? Try economics. Like the news knows jack squat about economics. HA! The suggestion makes me laugh.

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Social Reform supports long-term economic growth.

where is your articles that back this up??

Articles? Try economics. Like the news knows jack squat about economics. HA! The suggestion makes me laugh.

economics has proven tax cuts, not tax increases, stimulates the economy.


WIKI says:

"Tax cuts in the United States
In the United States in recent decades, most "supply-siders" have been Republicans (though the largest individual tax cut was initially proposed by President Kennedy), and President Ronald Reagan signed tax cuts into law, in the belief that cutting the tax rate would stimulate investment and spending, with overall beneficial effects -- including increased tax revenues. While it took some time, these tax cuts arguably stiumalted a double in total tax revenues, from five hundred billion to one trillion doallars. In fact, there are some who credit the Reagan tax cuts with the eventual surpluses of the 1990s [1] Democratic Governor Bill Richardson in recent years has supported tax cuts to spur job growth. The most recent tax cut derived from President George W. Bush. Critics of this tax cut argue that it has produced a wide disparity between the rich and the poor, but others say that this gap has occured more because 1) there are so many poor immigrants still coming in to this country with no professional skills and little education and 2) the importance of a college education is growing dramatically, and those without it can't compete in a global economy. These others would say that the Bush tax cuts helped the poor the most, as the largest income tax rate drops were given to the those with the lowest incomes."

In economic terms increasing the wage rate substantially will technically create a large amount of unemployment.

Pug wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

You're assuming everyone has the choice to work. Those that cannot find jobs are just SOL, right? There are not as many jobs as there are people seeking them and they are not all in the same places as prospective workers. Frictional and Structural unemployment gaurentee this.

Your friend isn't eligible for uneployment, why don't you tell the feds so you don't have to support his lazy ass? Or are you just a hypocrit?

If you want to you can implement it so that your wife is not eligible even after you divorce her, your point has nothing to do with the validity of gaurenteed income, only possible implementation.

Yeah, they are higher, but so is the amount reinvested in the economy, and their economies are supporting long-term growth. Plus they don't have the most expensive standing army in the world, which, coupled with the monumental debt, consumes all our income tax dollars. Meanwhile their higher income taxes go towards their welfare, fancy that.

Higher taxes are good if the government is capable of supporting long term economic growth with them.

First, apologies for the first post.  Sarcasm wasn't the best choice.

Show me someone who can't get a job.  Can they not handle a shovel?  Can they not wait a table?  Can they not work as a temp in a temp agency?  As per frictional and structural unemployment - ever heard of the unemployment check?

Go back and read my post.  "I know someone who would not accept a $15k payment...".  He is not a friend, therefore am I a hypocrit?  And, guess what, he didn't get the $15k payment...so he chose not to get paid...a crime?  No, but it is an example of how social programs need to be policed.

And the example about my wife has to do with policing the system you are proposing, which will be funded by higher taxes yet again.  Policing is needed to keep those who shouldn't get paid get nothing.  Minimum wage is easier to police then a minimum safety payment.  So is the increased cost of police this worth it?  I would believe that it would be easier to commit "not working" fraud than other social programs in place.  Of course, there would be a few hundred thousand new government jobs to police the system...

As for Europe: are you willing to sacrifice your generation's standard of living and possibly the next two generations for long term growth?  Would you vote for that?  Do you think it would pass?  Isn't that a pipe dream?

The US economy has consistently outperformed Europe's.  Not everywhere, but usually it's stronger...current spending isn't a problem unless there's a massive problem with lack of economic growth.

In a sense, I'm asking you if it's any different than a minimum wage?  I believe it's a variation which has enforcement issues as well as no exchange of value for service provided.

Let's look at illegal immigration though - a low minimum wage decreases immigration.  Raising the minimum wage increases the number of illegals who are willing to work for less than minimum wage.  Safety net income ensures that someone doesn't have to work a minimum wage job.  Therefore, not many will be working minimum wage jobs.  These vacant jobs will be worked by more immigrants.  These illegal immigrants will not be paying taxes, yet supporting the social programs (road maintenance, police, fire, etc) will not be funded by as much money...therefore increasing taxes.  Plus the tax base has become smaller because less taxpaying citizens are working.

Unemployment checks are not forever, anyone who experiences long-standing frictional or structural unemployment, or does not fit the requirements of unemployment because they are just entering, or re-entering the workforce are excluded. It's not just about ability.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say, but what I understood was that the person you know passed up a job for unemployment. If so, he is not eligible for unemployment, because he is not actively seeking work.

It's silly to debate or speculate upon the hypothetical costs of policing the hypothetical implementation of a proposal without first agreeing on the necessity, plausibility, and possibility of taking action. There are simply too many what ifs and hypotheticals.

The US economy also never had to deal with two world wars of heavy destruction, nor did it have to rebuild all it's industry. We've had an advantage over Europe for now, but as the oil dollar slips our economy is as well. Meanwhile, Europe has been growing in strength.

As for immigration, it's good for America. A stronger workforce and increased tax revenues are important for America as a nation. The opinion that illegal immigrants are not taxpayers is a myth. They pay sales and payroll taxes and those with fake SS numbers DO pay income taxes, because it is witheld by the employer. The truth is illegal immigrants are forced by circumstance to pay the majority of taxes, and collect none of the benefits, such as tax returns or refunds and social welfare programs like unemployment. The only reason they are here is because inflation and exchange rates in their home country justify the costs. Immigrants are the future of our nation and our social security, they could fund gaurenteed salary without being elligible.

kr@cker wrote:

so many of these "tax cuts for the wealthy" arguments fail due to the facts that:

A) the "obscenely wealthy" have and still do pay proportionately more taxes than any other group
B) everyone that pays taxes, that's everyone, got no less than 3 tax cuts during bush's first term alone


how about defining obscenely wealthy?
how about explaining what's so bad about developing a product that makes everyone's life easier and making a profit off of it?
at what point does a profit become too high?

you may want to look at the net worth of your last dem candidate for president compared to the net worth of W before you keep shouting that he's a fat cat

Tax cuts for the wealthy fail because the wealthy invest in positional goods, that is, they invest in goods that raise their position on a class scale. As the wealthy raise their position, the mean and likely the median rise, in other words, the middle class must invest in positional goods, like housing, as well, to retain their status. None of which stimulates economic growth as intended. Conversely, tax cuts to the poor are invested in more essential consumer goods, and raise the poor closer to the mean, stimulating economic growth.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-11-09 19:18:11)

jonsimon wrote:

Unemployment checks are not forever, anyone who experiences long-standing frictional or structural unemployment, or does not fit the requirements of unemployment because they are just entering, or re-entering the workforce are excluded. It's not just about ability.

Qualifications to be a Walmart greeter?  Qualifications to lift a shovel?  Qualifications to answer a phone?

PS. "Frictional unemployment" = unemployment between jobs, "structural unemployment" = shortages of talent in a certain category.  Frictional is temporary and not permanent by definition.  And structural means someone has to find a new skill/job category because their expertise is no longer in demand.  I understand the terms but they are not relevant.  Because...

Unemployment checks do run out, because they force people to find work instead of living off of what they have saved.  It's supposed to be temporary.  That is how it is designed to work - go get a job.  Can't find work in your field? Change fields.  Can't take that paycut? Move to a smaller house.  Having trouble making ends meet?  Well you work and get supplement welfare payments.  No jobs where you live?  Move.  All this is already in the system.  It boils down to whether you believe people have the right to earn money without providing any service back for it.  A safety net = no service is required.

jonsimon wrote:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say, but what I understood was that the person you know passed up a job for unemployment. If so, he is not eligible for unemployment, because he is not actively seeking work.

Yes.  The guy I know was getting DISABILITY checks...not unemployment.  Different set of rules, but its an example of how easy it is to exploit a flaw in the system.  If you earn more than a certain amount during the year, then the gov't will stop paying disability checks.  It a state/employer paid benefit here.  So, the $15k he would earn would cost him about $5k because he'd end up paying taxes...because disability payments are non-taxable but the $15k in income is.  Stupid loophole right?  But that's how it works...not relevant to our discussion though.  I'm just not a big fan of employing more people to "police" flawed government programs.

jonsimon wrote:

It's silly to debate or speculate upon the hypothetical costs of policing the hypothetical implementation of a proposal without first agreeing on the necessity, plausibility, and possibility of taking action. There are simply too many what ifs and hypotheticals.

Yet you have no problem proposing these ideas without considering the results of what you're proposing.  When faced with an actual example you are unable to argue anything but "well its only a hypothetical".  You're entire argument proposal is hypothetical.  And I guess there are absolutely no drawbacks to this idea, only benefits...right?

jonsimon wrote:

The US economy also never had to deal with two world wars of heavy destruction, nor did it have to rebuild all it's industry. We've had an advantage over Europe for now, but as the oil dollar slips our economy is as well. Meanwhile, Europe has been growing in strength.

The war was like 60 years ago.  Absolutely relevant.  I guess Europe was in a rebuilding year in 2005? 

And I guess that if oil gets more expensive Europe won't be affected? 

True Europe has been growing...but you know what?  Europe is like 25 nations that have about equal GDP output of the US (by the way GDP includes the deduct for military spending and debt amongst other things).  What's wrong with having ONE country have about the same GDP as 25?  OOOOO...we might drop on the economy leaderboard from extremely high GDP to an almost extremely high GDP?  It's wrist slitting time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … age_of_GDP

US = 27%
Sweden = 51%
Norway = 45%
UK = 37%

Sure, they're getting a lot...would it work here?  Isn't you're argument that we can't afford what we're up to?  How come our tax rates are lower, and standard of living is roughly the same?

jonsimon wrote:

As for immigration, it's good for America. A stronger workforce and increased tax revenues are important for America as a nation. The opinion that illegal immigrants are not taxpayers is a myth. They pay sales and payroll taxes and those with fake SS numbers DO pay income taxes, because it is witheld by the employer. The truth is illegal immigrants are forced by circumstance to pay the majority of taxes, and collect none of the benefits, such as tax returns or refunds and social welfare programs like unemployment. The only reason they are here is because inflation and exchange rates in their home country justify the costs. Immigrants are the future of our nation and our social security, they could fund gaurenteed salary without being elligible.

Wow...you were doing pretty good until this one.  Here are the flaws in this paragraph...you should read up on some of this:

1) Illegal immigrants do not pay payroll taxes.  If an employer has a green card employee, then yes, they are required to withhold payroll taxes.  However, a green card employee is a legal immigrant, or someone who has applied to become a naturalized citizen is under the same rules.  The definition of an illegal immigrant is someone who does not have a green card and is not in the application process.

They are paid cash, do not report their wages to the gov't, nor does the company so it doesn't pay either.  If the wages aren't reported, there's no tax.  It doesn't increase payroll tax revenues.

2) Another note on green card workers - they are required to be paid minimum wage by law.  Ever notice you always see stories about minimum wage versus illegal immigration cropping up?  It's because you can pay illegals below minimum wage...raising the minimum wage limit = a larger gap between $0 to the minimum....

3) Illegals are not required to file a tax return because they haven't signed up for a green card, and the government doesn't know they exist.

4) Sales tax collections will not increase.  More illegals come into a region to work jobs.  People who already are working those jobs are displaced because a cheaper workforce comes in.  New jobs aren't created in this process.  Therefore the population in the region remains the same...except they are paid less so less money is spent in the local shops = less sales tax.

5) LEGAL immigrants are a good way to increase the tax base.  Illegals do not fund social security because they are not paying anything but sales tax on what they buy.

6) They are here working illegally because companies are willing to pay them below minimum wage, and are willing to incur the light fine they get when they are caught.  Since the wage is higher here than where they are...if $3.50 an hour is worth it...then they're here.

7) "They don't get any of the refunds".  Do you know what a tax refund is?  Its a refund of the money you already have paid the government.  In other words, you gave the government your money...they held it for a while until you filed your tax return...and then paid it back without interest.  That is not a benefit...it's called getting your money back and you need to change your withholding on your paychecks...which by the way are not given to illegals because they are paid in cash.  Don't believe me?  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf  See line 73.  If the amount your total payments are more than the tax you owe, this is the amount you overpaid...aka your refund.

Last edited by Pug (2006-11-09 23:47:00)