Obama Minimum Wage Proposal Should Be Supported

Obama has proposed raising the minimum wage to $9/hour. This is below a living wage, but it better than the current minimum. It would help workers and business owners both. We can call our congressmen expressing support for the idea, and maybe even tell them the wage should be higher.

 

Only a union thug could support that inflationary idea.

 

Why do you think there is no living wage, in any sovereign country right now?

 

It would be nice if the minimum wage returned to the level it was during America's great economic boom of the 50's and 60's, adjusted for inflation eroded buying power..

But people oppose even jumping it to $9. Going higher to the proper level would be a freakout for the Right, but it would spur the economy.

 

Please do elaborate.

 

Why didn't it spur the economy during 1974, or 1977 or 1989 or even 2009?

 

In the months of 2009 and 2010 after the 2009 MW increase, US GDP growth jumped from -5.3% to -0.3% to 1.4% to 4%. A whopping 11 percentage point jump. Whether the MW had anything to do with it is debatable but the economy sure went up quick at that time, so "didn't" might not be the correct word.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

 

From 2009 - 2010, the economy was losing all sorts of jobs. The economy lost almost 1 million jobs between those two years alone. Are you sure it wasn't just the government spending contributing to the increase in GDP?

Correlation does not equal causation...

 

the minimum wage wasn't inflationary nor did it hurt corporate profits in the 18 states whose minimum wage is higher than the fed rate.

Course those states with minimum wages below fed rate or have no minimum wage at all, are economic powerhouses like
tennesse, alabama, georgia, louisianna, mississippi, minnesota, south carolina.

Hmmmm. seems empirical data does not support the contention that increasing the min. wage is deterimental in any significant fashion and in fact is positive for the economy.

Funny how all the empirical data on republican's economic and tax non policies, seems to show that they don't work very effectively.

Maybe they should go back to St. Ronnie's approach, that is if they can stomach a 300% increase in the national debt.

 

I hadn't speculated on what caused the increase in GDP, I simply noted that the economy was "spurred", and don't necessarily rule out the minimum wage as a possible contributing factor (among other possibles) Do you ?

 

There is plenty of inflation everywhere, especially in corporate profits.

Compare the unemployment in States like New York, California and Illinois (States where the state minimum wage is above the federal minimum wage), and then compare the unemployment in any of the states you have mentioned. Then once you've done that, try to attempt to make the same claims you are making now.

I'll wait.

The problem is you haven't done any research, and claim what you are spouting is empirical data.

 

If you didn't make a speculation based on GDP, then why did you even bring it up. The economy didn't 'spur.' Unemployment got worse. All that happened was Government spent money, that is what contributed to the increase in GDP. It had nothing to do with the minimum wage increase, as people were losing their jobs faster than they could even spend the wage increase they weren't getting.

According to people like you, this isn't suppose to happen.

 

If there's no living wage, how are people living? Should they not be dead?

 

I'd have to admit, I never gave it much thought...

 

Maybe you should tell us what your definition of YOUR word "spur" is. it sounded to me like you were saying the economy didn't improve. But it sure did, with a big increase of 11 % points in GDP growth. And that's why I brought it up. And now for the second time.

Also, I see no evidence from you that the minimum wage increase would have had nothing to do with the increase in GDP growth. Got any ? If so, let's hear it.

 

A 'spurring' economy in my definition would be an economy where unemployment is shrinking, inflation is low, the currency is getting stronger, consumer/business confidence is growing and where people are producing. None of that is going on in the economy, not by a long shot.

If you are basing a spurring economy on GDP increasing, then you're using GDP as a phony metric. You might as well base the economy on how well the stock market is doing, while you're at it.

 

Knoxville, Tennessee is the "most recovered" city in America. I don't know where you're getting your stats from, but it isn't reality.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/30/us-usa-cities-recovery-idUSBRE8AT08R20121130

 

You didn't address the second part of my post. Go back and look at it again. Maybe you missed it. Are you in a hurry ?
(Evidence pertaining to minimum wage)

 

A lot of people are going to get mad at me for this, but I'm going to say it any way. I want the GOP to propose a $12 an hour minimum. Lets make it possible for people to afford gas again. Screw Obama's agenda up good. If they can afford $5 a gallon gas and higher food costs, because they got a real boost in wages, the economy will recover and they will tell the wind and solar people to take a flying leap.

 

Who would have greatly benefited from a minimum wage increase? Almost no one. Barely anyone made the minimum wage then, barely anyone makes it now. The only type of jobs which earn the minimum wage are low skilled service sector jobs. You can look at the amount of people who were losing their jobs in these sectors. It's clearly that none of these employees benefited from a wage increase. From the BLS:

Service-providing:
2009: 112318
2010: 112166

Private service-providing:
2009: 89764
2010: 89676

Electronics and appliance stores:
2009: 515.7
2010: 522.3

Food and beverage stores:
2009: 2830.0
2010: 2808.2

Grocery stores:
2009: 2479.0
2010: 2460.5

Specialty food stores:
2009: 213.7
2010: 211.4

Health and personal care stores:
2009: 986.0
2010: 980.5

General merchandise stores
2009: 2966.2
2010: 2997.7

And the list goes on...

So if you're losing jobs in sectors which would have benefited the most from a minimum wage increase, how exactly can you contribute the increase in GDP to the increase in wages? You can't.

 

EVERYONE benefits from a minimum wage increase, with the small exception of a few very large companies who employ lots of minimum wage workers (but even they benefit from the increase in disposable income and the associated increase in sales$$$$). I once worked in a KMart. After employees got paid (in the store) they got a shopping cart and went right to shopping in the store. The bigger their paycheck, the bigger the sales$$ for the store.

Also. minimum wage increases don't only affect minimum wage workers. The increases cause increases in higher wage jobs as well, since these then show up as lower wage (relatively) than before the increase.

 

If someone earns well above the minimum wage -- say $12 dollars an hour -- and the federal minimum wage increases to $9 dollars an hour, how exactly does this person benefit? This person is not going to get a raise simply because some service sector employee got a raise. The $12/hr person would only be effected if that wage was dangerously close to the minimum wage.

Why do you keep using anecdotal evidence to try to prove a point? Seriously. It's unverifiable, tainted by bias and is only a sample of one. That is hardly enough evidence to convince another that your points are valid.

Do you know what the operating cost was for the store? Do you know what the revenue streams were? Do you know any of the financials involving the Kmart branched you particularly worked at? So who is to say that the cost wasn't offset elsewhere. Until you come up with these answers, your anecdotal claims are just that.

No... No it doesn't. You just made that up...

 

Living wage = a made up term by the left to advance the idea that the poverty line is a real thing.

They define poverty in America as anybody that doesn't have two tv's, a computer, a cell phone, two cars, and a bedroom for every occupant of the home.

Poverty in America is equivalent to the middle class in all but 5 countries in the world.

It's a damned joke.

I was 5 years old when we got our phone.
I was 6 when we got our first TV.
We never had cable or the internet or a computer or even a VCR the entire time I was growing up.

What we did have was a set of encyclopedias.
The Book of Knowledge,
A globe,
A Bible,
Several rifles and shotguns
A hell of a lot of tools.

Nobody actually needs two tv's or two cars.
Nobody actually needs internet access in the home. Try the library.
Yes, you need a cell phone because the pay phone no longer exists. I have no problem with that. And it's replacing the personal computer to boot.
At least one gun.
Tools to maintain your home and car, and the knowledge of how to do it, especially if you are poor.
Encyclopedias and science books for the children to browse through as they grow up. These are the most valuable for child development and aspirational encouragement.

 

Ulysses S. Grant advocated for a living wage in 1870. He was a Repub President in case you don't know that.

A true revenue reform can not be made in a day, but must be the work of national legislation and of time. As soon as the revenue can be dispensed with, all duty should be removed from coffee, tea and other articles of universal use not produced by ourselves. The necessities of the country compel us to collect revenue from our imports. An army of assessors and collectors is not a pleasant sight to the citizen, but that of a tariff for revenue is necessary. Such a tariff, so far as it acts as an encouragement to home production, affords employment to labor at living wages, in contrast to the pauper labor of the Old World, and also in the development of home resources.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29511&st=living+wage&st1=

I'll bet you can sell ice to an Eskimo. But do you really think that these people would buy your version about how they were living the middle class life?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...style-depression-actually-lasted-SIXTIES.html

 

I see you confuse republican labels with conservatism. It's an easy mistake to make. I once did it myself. Such a phrase used in a speech doesn't make it the origination of a current idiom in any case.

As for the article about appalachia, seriously? I said today's, not yesterday's, poverty. That article is 50 years old. And those kids clothes look suspiciously new in several of those photo's. Go get a couple of clues.