The Democrats do something...intelligent?

[Dis]

The thing about businesses laying off workers is bull****. I have worked at the bottom rungs of the ladder (okay I admit I have never worked fast food). Companies always run the bare minimum number of employess they can to get buy. In the case of my company, it means I have to do a lot of overtime, because we don't have enough help. But my point is my company would never fire the workers we already have. They simply cannot afford to, because then they would have no one to get the job done.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
True. Poverty can be relieved by giving better services, as education and FREE HEALTHCARE, not the second car or the plasma TV screen

I'd rather see universal healthcare than a minimum wage increase. Good idea.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You'd be amazed at how few people that can 'get the job done'.

And are you saying the only option for these small businesses is to go under? Especially if they are scraping by and the owners are working 70 hours a week in order to make a profit?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I'd bet that most of the people making minimum wage are already receiving some form of government assistance. This just shifts the burden of supporting them towards their employers and away from taxpayers - resulting in unemployment (not to mention harm to those businesses). The correct solution is increased welfare spending to support these people, because it's better for them to be at least working while they consume more resources than they produce than for them to not work at all and consume those same resources. (The alternative, letting people starve, is unconscionable.) Moreover, it allows people at the bottom to get a foot in the job market.

Kuci:

While I can see your point, I disagree with it. The employer should have the burden since they are the ones that require the help. The minimum wage is too low to ask for someone to work full-time on. 7.25 is a bit more reasonable.

And I gotta believe even the majority of small businesses make enough to be able to support the added couple bucks an hour. If its a small force (two people), the change should be insignificant. If its a large force, then they must have a big enough business to afford the increase.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
@Kuci:

While I can see your point, I disagree with it. The employer should have the burden since they are the ones that require the help. The minimum wage is too low to ask for someone to work full-time on. 7.25 is a bit more reasonable.

And I gotta believe even the majority of small businesses make enough to be able to support the added couple bucks an hour. If its a small force (two people), the change should be insignificant. If its a large force, then they must have a big enough business to afford the increase.

Well, its kind of why it should be done in the middle of a BOOM period, rather than what we've got now. Too many small businesses are not going to be able to cope with the crap-along economy we have at present. During a boom period, the increase won't hurt as much... well, until the next bust, but they'll perhaps be more prepared for it.

Though if we coupled it with tax cuts to small business, it could work well. I have no problems with raising the min wage if you drop the tax burden on small business (and make sure it is for small business and not some mega-millionares).

[Kuciwalker]

While I can see your point, I disagree with it. The employer should have the burden since they are the ones that require the help.

What? The employees require the help. The obligation to help these people is society's, not their employers'. Society should foot the bill, not require the employers - who are already doing a lot just by giving these people jobs - to pay up.

[Dis]

Should we never increase the minimum wage again then?

The only reason I advocate it is because it has been so long. I wouldn't recommend doing it often. As the economy isn't growing that fast to make up for it. I felt clinton did it too often, but in hindsight, that is good. As the republicans have a stranglehold on the goverment right now. And we aren't likely to get an increase until the next decade the way things are looking right now.

[GePap]

The 1997 raise did nothing to hurt job growth. Why would a new raise do anything more negative than the '97 raise?

As for your assumption that most people making minimum wage get some government assistance, is most likely wrong.

Also, a bit outdated snapshot of Minimumwage laws by states:

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

[Flubber]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Right, because 5.15 an hour is SO much.

Its not but in a good job market it becomes almost irrelevant anyway. In Calgary, Burger King is already paying starting employees $11 per hour ( yes Canadian but the gap to the US dollar isn't that much any more)

Oh and due to a LACK of available workers there will be 6 Burger Kings that will be closed on Sundays-- I have seen similar but lesser reduction in hours of operations for other restaurants

[Kuciwalker]

Raising the minimum wage is just trying to help the poor by biting the hand that feeds them.

The 1997 raise did nothing to hurt job growth.

Right, because a data point from the middle of a huge economic boom couldn't possibly be anomolous.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

While I can see your point, I disagree with it. The employer should have the burden since they are the ones that require the help.

What? The employees require the help. The obligation to help these people is society's, not their employers'. Society should foot the bill, not require the employers - who are already doing a lot just by giving these people jobs - to pay up.

Why not go to a socialist goverment then? Pay the employees nothing, the goverment will take care of us.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Imran: I like that idea. It gives those at the bottom more money to spend on the goods and it allows the small businesses to keep their workers, and maybe even save businesses on the edge from toppelling into the red.

[Datajack Franit]

They simply cannot afford to, because then they would have no one to get the job done

What about a boatload of Mexican immigrants, doing the job (illegally) for half the cost, and giving a further incentive for their compatriots to emigrate?

[Verto]

Companies who can't afford to pay an increased minimum wage should trim the bonuses and golden parachutes they give their CEOs, etc.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dis
Should we never increase the minimum wage again then?

Well, for the most part. We do want to ensure that we aren't subsidizing what are really unprofitable businesses too much (by providing support to their low-paid employees) when significantly more growth could be achieved just by letting them go under.