$ 7.25 does seem a tad low

[c1ue]

Re: $ 7.25 does seem a tad low

So why is it that the overwhelming majority of people that "sell their time" in the economy (and that's almost all of us) get paid more than the minimum wage?

I don't think that the minimum wage is a cure-all, but I do think that not everyone can or even should be a petroleum industry worker, or a bankster, or whatever specialized bit of employment which permits an above average wage.

Ultimately our society does not function exclusively or even primarily due to the labor of the highest paid - the sanitation worker is just as vital a role as the executive.

Under this view - the minimum wage functions much like rent control.

It isn't that rent control is a good thing - but in the context of rentier ownership (and property taxation schemes like Prop. 13), rent control is a way to balance out the landlord/renter relationship.

In other nations, it is possible to work minimum wage jobs and being a functional member of society. In Japan, for example, the 800 yen/hour grocery store clerk in Tokyo gets a corporate apartment - since there is no way this person could possibly pay rent otherwise.

In the US - it is possible in the non-urbanized areas.

However, in the urbanized areas, minimum wage isn't even close to livable. Can you heat even a modest apartment in the freezing Canadian winter on CAD$12/hour?

[dcarrigg]

Re: $ 7.25 does seem a tad low

Are you sure of this?

I'm saying since mexican minimum wage is US$5.10 per day.

That was a rather glaring oversight on my part. I'm humbly sorry for it. The truth is, I don't know much about what happens across the border, and I read the data table wrong. It seemed to jive with what I heard from rwjr here, who operates a business in Mexico and said most people were paying $6/hr. But I was way off here.

You called yourself the resident Mexican in the thread I link to above. I for one am glad you're here to set the record straight.

[dcarrigg]

Re: $ 7.25 does seem a tad low

But in this case it would seem more like 10/90 does it not? "90%" of us get paid more than the minimum wage...not just the 10% that are in positions of influence. If businesses (employers) have so much power, why is it that the vast majority of the 90% of us that are not in a position of influence are being paid more than the minimum wage?

By asking my seemingly dumb questions I am trying to get iTulipers to think critically about the minimum wage.

Let's assume that a minimum wage is a good thing.

Now, how do we decide what is the correct level for that minimum wage? Is the inflation adjusted $7.75 that EJ charted in another post on this thread the "right number"? How about the $9.00 proposed by the President? If $9.00 is "better" than $7.25 (or $7.75), then why isn't $12 even better still? How about $18.00?

Let's take another approach. Most Federal Governments, including that of the USA, publish poverty guidelines. Let's suppose we use those statistics and make a law that the minimum wage in each jurisdiction ensures that the income of every family is above the poverty line. Isn't that what the minimum wage is trying to do? Would that eliminate poverty, or the need to measure it forever?

Well, median US wage was $12.67/hr in 2011. I'm assuming that many of the 70 million workers making that or less would receive some knock-on effect bump off of an increase at the bottom. Even if not, there somewhere around 30 million workers making between $7.25 and $8.99 per hour that would see a wage increase. It's nearly a third of the population. That's not a change to sneeze at. That being said, it's still fair to debate the relative merits of doing this.

I just think that your 90% number of people making more than minimum wage is not the right way to think about it. If 10% of people are making minimum now, that's not the issue. If closer to 30% are making $9 or less, all of these people will see some increase in income. Far more people would be affected by this than you are portraying.

We've been through this a bit before in this thread.

[metalman]

Re: $ 7.25 does seem a tad low

That was a rather glaring oversight on my part. I'm humbly sorry for it. The truth is, I don't know much about what happens across the border, and I read the data table wrong. It seemed to jive with what I heard from rwjr here, who operates a business in Mexico and said most people were paying $6/hr. But I was way off here.

You called yourself the resident Mexican in the thread I link to above. I for one am glad you're here to set the record straight.

El norteamericano lee los datos de salario mínimo a toda prisa y se equivoca en un factor de diez. Inconscientemente, él piensa que México está poniendo al día económicamente con Estados Unidos. Él está enamorado de la idea de México alcanzando a los Estados Unidos. Él no tiene en cuenta el hecho de que vive en un país que es mucho más rica que la de México de que el salario mínimo en su país es diez veces el salario mínimo en México. México nunca se pondrá al día. Esta es la triste verdad. El pueblo mexicano se merece algo mejor, pero una historia de maldiciones corrupción del gobierno de la nación.

[dcarrigg]

Re: $ 7.25 does seem a tad low

El norteamericano lee los datos de salario mínimo a toda prisa y se equivoca en un factor de diez. Inconscientemente, él piensa que México está poniendo al día económicamente con Estados Unidos. Él está enamorado de la idea de México alcanzando a los Estados Unidos. Él no tiene en cuenta el hecho de que vive en un país que es mucho más rica que la de México de que el salario mínimo en su país es diez veces el salario mínimo en México. México nunca se pondrá al día. Esta es la triste verdad. El pueblo mexicano se merece algo mejor, pero una historia de maldiciones corrupción del gobierno de la nación.

Si, yo soy uno gringo estupido.

[ocelotl]

Re: $ 7.25 does seem a tad low

Si, yo soy uno gringo estupido.

Por principio de cuentas, aquí no se desdice a nadie en las afirmaciones referentes a la propia personalidad. En segundo lugar, la afirmación del moderno Oscar Wilde, aunque amarga, tiene mucho de verdad. En lo personal opino que gran parte se debe a los cambios en materia de política económica y laboral que se dieron desde le principio de la era populista en 1970. Hasta esas fechas se tiene documentado un crecimiento franco y real en las percepciones promedio de la mayoría de la población y un avance significativo en el PIB por habitante.

Debido al desequilibro de las finanzas públicas y económicas causadas por lo que en este país se puede denominar "La docena trágica" (los gobiernos despilfarradores y populistas de Luis Echeverría Álvarez y José López Portillo) pasamos de un nivel de endeudamiento público del 20% al 95% del PIB, una inflación del 3% al 90% anual y un verdadero desgarriate en la capacidad industrial instalada en el país por el proteccionismo comercial impuesto durante esos y anteriores gobiernos.

El último aumento real del salario mínimo (arriba de la inflación) se dio por decreto en 1982, pero la falta de productividad y competitividad que aquejaba a l economía mexicana, aunada con la inflación galopante hicieron que ese incremento se esfumara en cuestión de meses. Las políticas de austeridad y restricción de los siguientes tres gobiernos (Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado, Carlos Salinas de Gortari y Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León) resultaron en una pérdida del poder adquisitivo del salario mínimo del 75%. Simplemente se aumentó menos de lo que creció la inflación en México.

En mi opinión, si aspiramos a corregir el desequilibrio causado por ese abandono de los preceptos constitucionales al respecto incluidos en el artículo 123 de nuestra constitución, se debe empezar a pensar que el salario mínimo debe de crecer al menos en un porcentaje equivalente al crecimiento nominal de la economía en su conjunto (inflación mas crecimiento publicado del PIB) para que se recupere el poder adquisitivo de la población en general. También debemos eliminar la mayor parte de los subsidios que existen y que solo esconden los costos reales de muchos bienes y servicios que usamos. ¿Cómo es posible que el precio del pasaje en el transporte público en la Ciudad de México se mantenga en MXN 3.00 (menos de un cuarto de USD) mientras en San José de Costa Rica es de 500 Colones (cerca de un USD)?

[lektrode]

Re: $ 7.25 does seem a tad low

ok.... while i never got beyond 1st year french, did live in LA for just long enuf to unnerstans some spanish, so was able to 'cipher dc's prev reply - and thank the digital gods at goog - but can we type in anglais, por favour?
;)

To begin with, here belies not anyone in the statements relating to the personality. Second, the assertion of the modern Oscar Wilde, although bitter, has a lot of truth. Personally I think that is largely due to changes in economic policy and employment that occurred from the beginning it was populist in 1970. Until that time we have documented a frank and real growth in average perceptions of the majority of the population and a significant advance in GDP per capita.

Because of the imbalance in public finances caused economic and so in this country can be called "The tragic dozen" (profligate governments and populist Echeverria and Jose Lopez Portillo) had a level of public debt from 20% to 95% of GDP, an inflation rate of 3% to 90% annually in real desgarriate industrial capacity in the country by trade protectionism imposed during these and previous governments.

The last real increase in the minimum wage (above inflation) was given by decree in 1982, but the lack of productivity and competitiveness that afflicted the Mexican economy, coupled with rampant inflation caused this increase to vanish within months. Austerity policies and restrictions of the following three governments (Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado, Carlos Salinas de Gortari and Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León) resulted in a loss of purchasing power of the minimum wage of 75%. Just was increased less than inflation in Mexico grew.

In my opinion, if we want to correct the imbalance caused by the abandonment of the constitutional provisions in this regard contained in Article 123 of our Constitution, should begin to think that the minimum wage should grow at a rate at least equal to the nominal growth the whole economy (inflation plus GDP growth posted) to recover the purchasing power of the general population. We must also eliminate most of the subsidies that exist and that only hide the real costs of many goods and services we use. How is it possible that the fare on public transport in Mexico City remains at £ 3.00 (less than a quarter of U.S. dollars) while in San Jose, Costa Rica is 500 colones (about USD)?

the most outrageous part of the whole debasement of our money, apparently to provide subterfuge/politcal cover for this crime by the 'federal' reserve, and their enablers in the political aristocracy - is that it (currency debasement) wasnt supposed to happen, according to The US Constitution????

and/but since it IS happening, maybe we need a constitutional amendment to do same in The US???

since the beltway bozos dont have the guts to simply pass a budget that honestly accounts for their spending problem
(read: using the treasury to buy votes)

[littleshark]

Re: $ 7.25 does seem a tad low

Is there any chance that no minimum wage means more people may actually have jobs, acquire skills, and maybe prices for goods and services are in turn much cheaper? Is it possible that lower wages may increase the standard of living if prices of goods and services are lower because companies can produce cheaper? The answer can't just be that prices will go higher anyway and the companies will keep all the addtl profits via increased margins (unless it's a cartel, which maybe we're becoming, but not there yet.) Maybe a minimum wage that is too high means more unemployment and more people living off the govt while sitting on their asses not being productive.

[lektrode]

Re: $ 7.25 does seem a tad low

.... Maybe a minimum wage that is too high means more unemployment and more people living off the govt while sitting on their asses not being productive.

methinks thats precisely their (the lib-dems/admin) plan!
while bankrupting us with medical services/insurance costs...
and then, blame it on 'fatcats in business' (when its really the fatcats at ground zero in lwr manhattan)
can hardly wait for the annual 'hate on the oil biz' chorus to krank up....
guess that will happen right after the gun control choir is thru, since the gay marriage (chin) music is all but concluded.

adding: its only somewhat HILARIOUS that its 'all about states rights' all of a sudden, when back last year, the fed rules trumped AZ's immigration policies - even more hilarious that they think they're entitled to having it BOTH ways, whenever, where-evah and for whomever they happen to be 'speaking to' as it suits their political posture du jure....

reminds me of this movie scene

[BadJuju]

Re: $ 7.25 does seem a tad low

I stopped working because I just don't really see the point. What's the point in working when things are so unstable and the future even moreso?

[lektrode]

Re: $ 7.25 does seem a tad low

I stopped working because I just don't really see the point. What's the point in working when things are so unstable and the future even moreso?

apparently thats what they're thinking in greece....

i'm just pissed that i didnt live to the limit of my credit rating a few years back, too...
then i could have a nice big expensive car, complete with the $3500 wheel and exhaust pkg, get a free place to live, free food AND have my med insurance paid for....

[Milton Kuo]

Re: $ 7.25 does seem a tad low

Is there any chance that no minimum wage means more people may actually have jobs, acquire skills, and maybe prices for goods and services are in turn much cheaper? Is it possible that lower wages may increase the standard of living if prices of goods and services are lower because companies can produce cheaper? The answer can't just be that prices will go higher anyway and the companies will keep all the addtl profits via increased margins (unless it's a cartel, which maybe we're becoming, but not there yet.) Maybe a minimum wage that is too high means more unemployment and more people living off the govt while sitting on their asses not being productive.

While it's possible, I don't think it's likely. The various athletic shoe companies moved all of their manufacturing to Asia many years ago and I don't recall ever seeing any substantial cost savings. In fact, if you don't buy the absolute lowest end junk, you'll find that the prices for the Asian-made shoes are about as expensive as American-made shoes (I'm using New Balance as a point of reference because they're the only company I know of that makes athletic shoes in the U.S.)

Getting rid of a minimum wage in the U.S. would create just that many more jobs that "Americans won't do." If we get rid of the minimum wage, we should also get rid of the minimum house price. You know: the program that has received trillions of dollars from Bernanke and the GSEs? Then, when wages aren't totally consumed by the cost of housing, maybe the standard of living might improve, although I doubt it.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: $ 7.25 does seem a tad low

I stopped working because I just don't really see the point. What's the point in working when things are so unstable and the future even moreso?

You're still quite young and companies are more likely to want to keep you around since you're less expensive to employ, especially from a benefits perspective. That's a certain measure of stability there for you. Also, you'll gain knowledge and experience working that should allow you to earn a higher salary (and thus save more) fairly quickly.

The accumulation of wealth is an extremely important facet of how you control for an uncertain future. I'm not sure if you're literally not working but you're taking substantial risk in not building up some sort of safety net for yourself.

[BadJuju]

Re: $ 7.25 does seem a tad low

Ah, yeah, I understand. I just don't really see the point anymore. Don't really have much hope for anything these days.

[littleshark]

Re: $ 7.25 does seem a tad low

While it's possible, I don't think it's likely. The various athletic shoe companies moved all of their manufacturing to Asia many years ago and I don't recall ever seeing any substantial cost savings. In fact, if you don't buy the absolute lowest end junk, you'll find that the prices for the Asian-made shoes are about as expensive as American-made shoes (I'm using New Balance as a point of reference because they're the only company I know of that makes athletic shoes in the U.S.)

Getting rid of a minimum wage in the U.S. would create just that many more jobs that "Americans won't do." If we get rid of the minimum wage, we should also get rid of the minimum house price. You know: the program that has received trillions of dollars from Bernanke and the GSEs? Then, when wages aren't totally consumed by the cost of housing, maybe the standard of living might improve, although I doubt it.

I don't think there should be jobs that "American's won't do." That's part of the problem. If there continue to be jobs that "American's won't do" then how does it end? There shouldn't be jobs like that. Any job, even the most menial teaches responsibility, accountablilty and some type of skill, giving you knowlege to achieve the next stepping stone. Why can't a day laborer who cuts shrubs eventually not own his own landscaping company? If he's otherwise on welfare sitting at home playing video games, that certainly does less for society as a whole. There are tons of examples like that.

I don't disagree that if the govt is going to bail out banks, that you can justify that the little guy should get something as well, and the minimum wage is something that can be raised to do that. But it's still not productive, and two wrongs don't make a right. But I'll tell you something, even though I disagree with the whole concept of minimum wage, the poor are sure going to need it, because when Obamacare kicks in the poor are going to really take it on the chin. It becomes a big circular reference with the govt in the middle.