Labor Pains In Colorado

I didn't think it was the minimum wage on which you could support a family in a two bedroom appartment...I've always seen it as the least amount of money you can pay teenagers Do people honestly think that the point of it is to be the minimum amount you can raise a family on?It seems to me that amount would be significantly higher than what the current miminum wage is. If you raise the minimum wage to be that amount, I think it'd mess up a lot of stuff. But I don't think that's the point of it.

You could spin anything that you don't want some other parents to do into being a punishment for their children."ZOMG! You're letting your neighbor punish their children by sending them to sunday school and not letting them play video games all day!? What's wrong with you?" Then the minimum-ness of the wage you're not getting doesn't matter. And actually, maybe if the mimimum wage was lower, somebody could afford to employ you... But if they gotta pay you enough to afford a two-bedroom appartment, I could see why nobody would want to hire. People should think about the consequences of their actions. Bailing them out every time they don't doesn't promote that.

---

Adding in a reply to Message 52 so we don't get cross-posted: Hell no. Just because Dude A was too stupid to cover his dick and get educated doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to afford to hire Dude B. That could work. Or we could promote the idea that people shouldn't rely on the mimimun wage to raise their families on. Of course. How could a hamburger cost a dollar if you gotta pay the kid $20/hr to flip them? I'm not willing to pay $5 a tomato at the local farmers market because the kids stocking the shelves there are getting paid $20/hr. Too, if every Wal*Mart employee had to make $20/hr, then 1) they're be less people emloyed, and 2) everything wouldn't be so cheap. And then it just cost more to buy all the shit you need to raise a family!Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

see Message 51

I think that's 'cause you said they were "unable to work"... but whatever. Minimum wage is typically reserved for "unskilled" positions. Really? Where?'Round here, those people go on unemployment or disability instead. You might outta think about moving... They do; at the ballot. For the record, I'm not promoting the elimination of minimum wage. I just think its silly to consider it something to raise a family on. 20 hamburgers you got for free and made in a building with no overhead... Sure, but "$20/hr" is just a place holder for some amount needed to raise a family on... And by "efficient" you mean "employs less people".

Fine:Just because Dude A was too stupid to cover his dick and get skills doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to afford to hire Dude B. ...then you're a moron. For being a moron. And science and engineering. The fact that it was being sold to me made me realize that it wasn't exactly how it was being promoted. But yeah, after graduation when the real world hits you, you realize that there's a lot more to it than being handed a degree and then being handed a job. In fact, almost nothing is handed to you. You have to go get it. People need to learn this fact. Well yeah, that makes sense. There's not a whole lot going on out there. Oh, you'd be suprised... Yeah, and the 'unfortune' is going to land at the feet of the people who are relying on minimum wage to support their family. I guess I can understand why they're not stoked about it, but I still don't see that as a reason to raise minimum wage.And too, there's the moral hazard of correcting people's mistakes by removing the consequences - which is what this looks like to me.

Yes, children are affected by the mistakes their families have made. We can't just whisk all the poor kids off to Disney World. Life isn't fair. No, flipping burgers at Wendy's has never been intended to be a job that will allow you to live a confortable life. Why do you think it is or should be?The point is, though, that raising minimum wage because it isn't high enough for somebody to raise a family on isn't fair to both the employers and the employees who want to have position that aren't relied on for raising families. I'm not even against raising it: i think its silly to consider it something to raise a family on. Wait, what? Seriously, I'm not getting this point. Too, we could promote the idea that minimum wage isn't supposed to be something you capable of raising a family on. Arguing that the minimum wage sucks because it isn't enough to raise a family on is counter-productive, in my arrogant opinion.

I don't think it needs to be gotten rid of. Tho I think it could be gotten rid of. There should be some protection for workers, but it could be done other ways if people wanted to.

I don't think a high minimum wage helps those goals. The ones teenagers do. I certainly wouldn't say: lets force your employer into paying you enough to raise your family on even though your job isn't worth it. Too, the economy can't be allowed to go throught the floor because some people can't raise their families. But the lowness of those wages serves other functions that raising the minimum would hurt. They could get help from their friends and family and/or go on government aid. At worse, your family will be raised by someone else. We can't make this a place where there are no losers. People need to accept that.

Honor? Where's the honor in forcing someone pay you more than minimum wage for something as superfluous as bagging groceries?

Yeah, but it also drives inflation. The price of goods will have to be increased to compensate for the rise in the cost of the workers making them. Well here's the actual numbers:

quote:

---

Jan 1, 1978
$2.65 for all covered, nonexempt workers

​

Jan 1, 1979
$2.90 for all covered, nonexempt workers

​

Jan 1, 1980
$3.10 for all covered, nonexempt workers

​

Jan 1, 1981
$3.35 for all covered, nonexempt workers

​

Apr 1, 19904
$3.80 for all covered, nonexempt workers

​

Apr 1, 1991
$4.25 for all covered, nonexempt workers

​

Oct 1, 1996
$4.75 for all covered, nonexempt workers

​

Sep 1, 1997
$5.15 for all covered, nonexempt workers

​

Jul 24, 2007
$5.85 for all covered, nonexempt workers

​

Jul 24, 2008
$6.55 for all covered, nonexempt workers

​

Jul 24, 2009
$7.25 for all covered, nonexempt workers

​

History of Federal Minimum Wage Rates Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938 - 2009 | U.S. Department of Labor

---

So it has gone up significantly. There was a ten-year gap there...You could compare that to how much inflation has caused prices to rise and/or the value of the dollar, or whatever, and figure up if its due for another bump or not if you really cared about it that much. To me its about protecting the worker from bad working conditions, not about providing them with the means to raise a family. But it also costs me more to produce those goods now, so I'll have to raise the prices accordingly. Too, it doesn't promote an environment where people stive to better themselves if the minimum they can make is good enough already. Also, people who are at the very bottom of the skill-set, or those who aren't capable of bettering themselves, are going to fair worse as the least of the jobs are taken up. Then you're not looking. The "textbook" analysis is about finding the equilibrium between the demand for labor and the supply of workers: Minimum wage - Wikipedia Dude, I included other options besides that right there in the text you quoted. Its better than allowing them to neglect them to death. Raising the minimum wage to family raising levels would cause more problems than it would solve. You kinda are... Its not. What makes you think it is? What percentage of the people who decided to have a child lost?

Did you actually do the math for that? Yeah, well how much are elevator operators making these days? How much do you think hotel rooms would cost if they all still had elevator operators that were making enough money to raise a family on?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : missed a word