Washington state’s minimum wage went up to $7.93 yesterday — an automatic cost-of-living adjustment — $2.78 higher than the federally mandated minimum wage of $5.15/hour paid just across the Idaho border. And according to an AP story in today’s Seattle Times, that’s great for minimum wage workers like James Randall, a University of Idaho student who lives in Moscow but delivers pizza 30 hours a week in Pullman.
“It’s kinda hard to make ends meet,” Randall said. “I’m just glad the state of Washington has tied the minimum [wage] to inflation. That way it’s advantageous to everyone.”
But of course, this article was written by a professional journalist, and thus there must be two sides (and usually only two sides) to every story. If our state’s higher minimum wage is good for workers on both sides of the border, then it must be bad for businesses here in Washington, right?
Yeah, well, so one Pullman business owner “thinks” while another supposes that it will “catch up to me eventually,” and that’s enough for the AP to spin the other side of the story. Of course there are tons of academic and government reports studying the economic impact of minimum wage hikes here and elsewhere, but why bother with hard facts and numbers when one can report anecdotal suppositions to back up your thesis?
Hmm. Well if this whole debate amounts to little more than a thought experiment, how about this angle: if a higher minimum wage is bad for Pullman businesses because it squeezes profits and forces prices higher, what kind of impact does it have on Idaho businesses who can’t attract and retain qualified employees like Randall while paying them only two-thirds the wage available just across the border? Workers are just as mobile as customers after all, so you think maybe WA’s minimum wage law is forcing wages up in Idaho towns all along the border? So wouldn’t that relieve some of the economic pressure on businesses in WA border towns?
Of course, I could do a little research to find some studies that back up my thesis, but I’m striving for journalistic professionalism here, so I wouldn’t want to stray from pure conjecture and supposition.
In fact, there is pressure on Idaho to raise its minimum wage and tie future increases to inflation, and just such a bill made some progress in the Idaho legislature last session.
Idaho’s minimum wage has been at the federal level of $5.15 an hour for about 10 years. A state bill to increase the wage to $6.15 an hour — and mandate yearly increases tied to inflation, like in Washington — died in an Idaho House committee this spring because some lawmakers feared it would lead to higher prices, increase unemployment rates and reduce incentives for low-paid workers to improve themselves.
That’s right, because we all know that, um… it’s not the employers who choose to pay a sub-subsistence wage that are at the root of the problem, but rather the lazy workers who choose to take these low-paid jobs. I mean, if we pay people like Randall a living wage, he’ll never have the incentive to improve himself. He’ll just drop out of college and deliver pizza for the rest of his life.
Yeah. Right.
first!
I wonder what the wage level should be to entice American workers into nasty jobs. I think a lot of illegal immigrants take those jobs because no American wants to do the work. Certainly the minimu wage, even in Washington, is not enough to get those jobs filled by American citizens rather than those who enter the country illegally.
What always emerges from minimum wage discussions is the “why not make it 20 bucks” or “why not abolish it”. It’s a dumb arguement.
The minimum wage should not be SO high as to be a disincentive to hire, but not so low as to lock in bread winners at below poverty levels. Even at WA state levels, the minimum wage doesn’t pose a barrier to employment.
That said, I like the idea of “wage supports”, ie, the minimum wage might be 6 bucks, indexed to inflation, while the federal gov’mint pays three bucks to the worker, so that employers don’t have to pay a lot more and workers don’t have to live in poverty. The subsidy would ratchet down as the wage of the employee rises, so that folks making 14 bucks an hour would get only a couple of cents wage support.
WINGNUT VERSION OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS RUN AMOK
Rangers at Grand Canyon National Park are forbidden to estimate the canyon’s age, and the park now officially seels a book claiming the canyon was created by Noah’s flood, as a result of pressure from Bush appointees.
http://tinyurl.com/wm36l
sells, not seels
Who makes minimum wage? Should that pimple faced 15 year old get $10.00 for flipping burgers. Where is the incentive? And do you actually think that the increase in minimum wage won’t be passed on to consumers? Why don’t we look at it this way, according to the BLS 3 of every 4 legal workers who make minimum wage work in the food preparation industry (ie Fast food, restaurants etc.) Do you think that the price of a hamburger isn’t going to raise, since the cost of flipping that hamburger has increased (Heather this may go into a supply and demand topic, so try and follow closely). It is true that waiters and waitresses make an appalling low wage. But why are they in that job? Union Plumbers can make up to $49 per hour
http://www.lni.wa.gov/prevaili.....-03-06.pdf
An RN over $26.00
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes291111.htm
The WSP just lowered their hiring qualifications, same with many police departments statewide. The common thread of all of these jobs? There is a shortage and there are programs that will pay for a person to get into these jobs. Why should we continue to raise the minimum wage? Why don’t we, instead, raise the workers to a level where they aren’t working for minimum wage? The answer to lifting people above the poverty line isn’t raising their wage. It’s raising their skill level so they can work for a livable wage. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day etc….
Another interesting point, is that many people who are on welfare or make a very low income, aren’t willing to relocate. In fact, many people relocate to Seattle, because of their liberal welfare programs. Let’s get people off of welfare and raise their wage by offering them the training and the skill set to work. Not by increasing their wage for flipping hamburgers.
Will,
So your idea is to have government “make up” what the states’ minimum wages don’t pay. If we say $15 per hour or better is above the poverty line, and an employer pays $8.00 per hour to his/her workers, then the Feds should “kick-in” another $7 per hour to bring the workers up to the magic $15 figure. Is that what you propose? Would overtime wages be included in the proposal?
@3 Your suggested system of federal wage supports already exists, Will. Except you omitted the fact that states contribute to wage supports, to. That’s because states generally have to kick in roughly 50% matching funds for welfare and Medicaid programs.
Here’s how it works.
Labor, like all other components of economic output, is a cost. Labor is not free, any more than material or capital is free. The cost of labor, at a minimum, is the cost of sustaining the worker who performs the labor.
When employers choose (and are permitted) to purchase labor below cost, i.e. pay wages less than workers’ minimum subsistence needs, then someone else has to pick up the balance of the cost. That “someone else” usually is government. In fact, taxpayers are providing nearly half the annual income of every worker in America employed at the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour.
Therefore, a below-subsistence minimum wage doesn’t reduce labor costs; it simply shifts some of those costs from businesses to taxpayers. Viewed from this perspective, every cent of government assistance provided to low-income workers is not welfare but business subsidies.
The answer to the wingnut argument of “why not $20 an hour? or $50 an hour?” is that raising the minimum wage to the subsistence level (or at least closer to it) reduces federal welfare costs and shifts labor costs back to businesses, where they belong. It also reduces the practice of subsidizing, with taxpayer dollars, uneconomic enterprises that are inefficient and/or producing goods and services the free market doesn’t want, which couldn’t survive in the market if these goods and services were priced at their actual cost. In other words, raising the minimum wage makes the economy more efficient.
@6 If customers are unable or unwilling to pay enough for a Greasy Burger to cover the cost of producing it, why should it be produced? Above all, why should taxpayers subsidize part of the labor cost of production?
@6 How do you propose to “raise their skill level”? By cutting student financial aid, raising interest rates on student loans, and cutting back public investment in schools and public colleges — like Republicans are doing?
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Union fireman speaks with forked tongue.
@7 “So your idea is to have government ‘make up’ what the states’ minimum wages don’t pay.”
And this isn’t the Republican program? That’s exactly what freezing the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour for 10 years has done, albeit indirectly by shifting labor costs from business to government-supported welfare programs.
Or are you suggesting that workers sleep under bridges and eat at food banks so employers don’t have to raise wages to minimum subsistence levels?
Fireman @6,
And yet, despite WA’s high minimum wage, a McDonald’s double cheeseburger is still only a buck.
Hmm. I guess the economics that drives pricing is pretty darn complicated.
Anyone living on a fixed income or dependent on Social Security ought to look at any raise of the minimum wage as a tax against their benefits. Of course the costs are paid by the consumer, not the business owner, which penalizes those who are on a fixed income. This is just one effect.
If the democrats were so concerned why did they not index the minimum wage when they had both houses and the Presidency in the early 90.s ..
Could it be they like playing we are the party for the poor , and lets keep them that way so we can keep using it as a politcal ploy ..
Maybe not , but the pros and cons are easily seen why raising the minimum wage can have consequences that hurt everyone . And if you are indeed trying to support yourself and others , why it helps to have it raised .
But failing to allow small businesses to have some kind of tax relief when the wage is raised is unfair to everyone .
Roger @ 11,
Actually, I was just asking Will from some clarification on his proposal. That’s all.
The State-Mandated Nursing Home Wage Trap
Why are nursing homes perpetually short of workers? Why do nursing homes experience astronomical turnover in their workforce? Why do we constantly see news stories about abuse and neglect of elderly nursing home patients by workers who never should have been hired in the first place?
Because state policies lock nursing homes into paying minimum wage.
Medicaid accounts for over two-thirds of all nursing home revenues in the United States. Except for a handful of church-subsidized denomination-affiliated nursing homes, it’s essentially impossible to be in the nursing home business without participating in the Medicaid program.
While Medicaid payment schemes vary from state to state (although all must comply with broadly written federal guidelines), they all have one feature in common: They force nursing home operators to ruthlessly contain costs.
In Washington, nearly 400 nursing homes have Medicaid contracts with the state. Under the complex payment scheme outlined in state statutes and regulations, these are NOT cost-plus contracts; nursing home owners can LOSE money if they do not keep costs at a bare minimum. In fact, the Medicaid payments often do not even cover minimum costs, which is part of the reason why nursing home charges to private-pay patients are so high: They have to subsidize the Medicaid patients who make up the majority of most facilities’ patient load.
This system guarantees that nursing homes will pay only minimum wage for the dirty, backbreaking, shift-work job of caring for nursing home patients. This work is physically arduous because nursing home workers — called CNAs (certified nursing assistants) — must lift and turn patients. Back injuries among these workers are commonplace. They also must clean up after incontinent patients.
Who wants to do this work for minimum wage? People with criminal records and recent immigrants who can’t get any other job, that’s who. And that’s what nursing homes get — the dregs of the labor pool. And they leave as soon as they can get a better job. Not necessarily a better-paying job; they will even leave for another minimum wage job that is less dirty, less backbreaking, or doesn’t require them to work nights, weekends, split shifts, and rotating shifts.
The state is not only complicit in this system; the state’s method of paying nursing homes for services provided to Medicaid-eligible patients is absolutely the author, driver, and arbiter of it! Nursing home administrators’ hands are tied; they can’t pay their help more than the law requires them to, because if they do, the state won’t reimburse them for the extra labor costs and they’ll quickly go bankrupt. The profit margin (called “return on investment”) allowed to the nursing homes is razor-thin to begin with — it’s little more than what the money invested in the nursing home would earn in a bank account.
The only way to reform this pernicious system that exposes helpless, elderly nursing home patients to the worst people in the labor pool and results in perpetual turnover in nursing homes (which means essentially all the workers are inexperienced and poorly trained) is to reform the way the state compensates nursing homes for their labor costs. In a word, the state has to pony up more, which means spending more on the Medicaid program — already the largest single “social program” expense in the state budget. What happens in nursing homes — the abuse and neglect of defenseless patients — is a direct result of the penury of the legislature and state bureaucrats in paying what it takes to maintain a workforce in the nursing homes of half-assed quality. I’m not talking about gold-plating here, I’m talking about bringing the nursing home workforce up to the minimum standards required by decency in a supposedly civilized society. The state’s forcing of wages down to the minimum wage level in an entire industry is short-sighted and counterproductive in the long run.
@13 And how are these folks NOT paying for the government subsidies of labor costs shifted from consumers and businesses to taxpayers?
Ummm…a lot of people on a fixed income are minimum wage workers, although their’s isn’t so fixed. If you work 40hrs per week making federal minimum wage, you monthly take home before taxes or healthcare deduction is ~$850 per month. And most of minimum wage jobs don’t guarantee 40hrs per week, let alone sick time paid.
The teenagers making spending cash is the flimsiest of all arguments against minimum wage. Only in affluent areas are the sbux and mcD’s of the world employing a majority of teens working there. Go to the poorer areas and there aren’t so many teens working.
@13 Let’s be clear about something. Under GOP borrow-and-spend policies that eschew tax collection and put government subsidies of businesses’ labor costs (and profits) on the taxpayers’ credit card, what you get is a thing called the Inflation Tax. There is no way government can spend without cheapening the currency. That’s like trying to get an apple to fall up.
And whooooo gets hurt the worst by inflation? Retirees living on fixed pensions and savings, that’s who. Inflationary deficit-spending policies destroy savings and pension incomes.
While a lot of ink is spilled on this issue by left- and right-wing think tanks quoting cherry-picked data, there are really only a handfull of emperical studies by academics on the effects of minimum wages (Card and Kruger being the first and best-known), and even those are open to the legitimate criticism that they are not really controlled experiments.
The existing studies do agree that the effects of the sort of minimum wages that are common in the U.S. (low enough to only affect a small percent of the workforce) are small. Washington, with the highest minimum wage in the U.S., is of course an outlier, so one couldn’t confidently say that existing studies cover our case.
should read “there is no way the government can deficit-spend without cheapening the currency.”
Roger,
Are you on a fixed income, pardner?
@14 For the same reason the Republicans didn’t index the Alternative Minimum Tax during the 10 years they controlled Congress. It’s costly.
[Insert Technology Co. name here here]
Memo: Re imposed wage increase
Attn: All hiring managers
An immediate hiring freeze is now in effect.
Due to the imposed wage increase recently implemented, we can no longer afford to employ workers in Washington State. Contingency plans have been in place and effective immediately, we will now outsource 90% of all entry level positions, help desk, call center, floor production and administrative services off shore. We regret these steps had to be taken, but the climate for business here in Washington has become too expensive. All employees hired within the last 90 days will not be kept over and a transition of the above functions will occur over the next 90 to 180 days.
#14 mick
Like the GOP is the party of moral values…when are they going to ban abortion again? They had control of US congress, the WH, a majority of governorships over the past 6 years.
What about attempts to raise minimum wage the GOP blocked when they were in control of the house for a DECADE…maybe that’s why….but you’re right it was the democrats and Clinton’s fault from 12-14 years ago.
Speaking of the Alternative Minimum Tax, one thing the GOP — which has controlled all 3 branches of government for the last 4 years — has NOT done is made any effort to index the AMT.
And Bush, of course, has known all along that the AMT would effectively repeal ALL of his tax cuts that went to the middle class within a few years — while leaving his tax breaks for millionaires largely untouched.
It’s one of the biggest scams perpetrated by the lying Bush crooks on America’s voters. And when said voters figure it out — man, are they gonna be pissed!
Goldy and Roger,
Many companies will offer tuition reimbursement. Community colleges offer a myriad of programs to help low income persons get those skills. Working as a part of an apprenticeship program. Hell, Les Schwab offer some damn good pay, if you are willing to meet grooming standards and work hard. What we have done, is actually require people to work and repay their debts. How hard is it to actually apply for a job? Hell, Starbucks offers a whole bunch of benefits. So does Les Schwab, Securitas and a whole bunch of blue collar working companies.
Become an EMT
http://www.seattle.gov/fire/em.....ob_EMT.htm
In many places the actual cost of initial EMT certification is less than $500. Work your way and become a Paramedic. Many private ambulance companies offer a career path to follow.
Once again, why is it that we should pay people more, for doing a job that doesn’t require that much? You want programs? Many volunteer fire departments will pay %100 of the cost for initial EMT certification after 1 year of being an active volunteer firefighter. That is usually about 30 hours a month.
Police? Just apply. No college needed. In fact, you will get paid for going through the program.
http://www.cityofseattle.net/p.....efault.htm
http://www.wsp.wa.gov/
Want to be an RN or a Scrub Tech? Join the military. Your personal beliefs prohibit you from joining? Then get your own ass off of welfare.
Again, there are programs and financial aide for those who are willing to work. Bitch all you want about this stuff being cut, but there are plenty of companies that will pay for employees to go to college. There are plenty of programs out there. Hell, in Georgia, the state will pay for your tuition to any state college if you graduate high school with above a 3.5 gpa. In Texas, the state will pay for a 4 year degree, if you reside in Texas for 2 years before entering into the military, and keep your residence there throughout your career. Why doesn’t Washington offer that? How long have the Dems been in control of the State Government? Bitch all you want about the Federal Programs, but where are your precious democrats here in the good ol Blue State of Washington?
25 In the interest of accuracy, I should point out that the Democrats held the U.S. Senate (by 1 vote — Cantwell’s) during the first 2 years of Bush’s presidency. The GOP didn’t win control of BOTH houses of Congress until the 2002 election.
28 Of course, we also should not forget there were enough conservative Democratic senators to assure support for the Republican agenda in the Senate even though the Democrats held a nominal majority.
22 Yes.
Rabbit,
Redistribution is more than alive and well right now…Your cannard about the “middle class” is bogus. Tell me what income range is middle class? What is Rich? You tell me and I’ll come right back with the % of taxes paid by these groups. Redistribution happening right now!
18 Good point. According to the BLS, only about 25% of minimum wage workers are teenagers. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2002.htm And we can safely assume some of these teenagers are supporting themselves; not all teens live with parents. Some don’t have parents.
Roger @ 16.
Sorry, I know a number of RN’s at nursing homes that make $40,000 plus a year. You need to differentiate between an RN, a CNA and a LPN. One reason why there is turnover, is because the CNA and LPN’s are going to school to become RN’s and make more money.
Oh yeah, and many Nursing homes call 911 to have the fire department turn over large patients or help them off the john.
By the way, once again you are blaming the state… When was the last time the Republicans controlled anything in this state? Sounds to me like you Dems aren’t living up to your own beliefs.
20 “The existing studies do agree that the effects of the sort of minimum wages that are common in the U.S. (low enough to only affect a small percent of the workforce) are small.”
But for the affected workers, the effects are large.
@ 7
Not exactly. The Federal mim. wage oughta be raised regardless.
Lib, the idea is to reward work by shifting the “subsidy” paid to the working poor from other programs that pay more for folks NOT to work to a program (like a wage subsidy) that is only paid if a person HAS a job.
Lots of low-income folks tend to LOSE certain benefits (like childcare, for one) when entering the workforce. The idea is to make sure work PAYS while at the same time not making it entirely on the backs of employers.
That’s why I’m hesitant to support so-called “living wage” rules proposed. They assume that every employer can afford to pay it, which is not always the case.
@ 7
The majority of folks on minimum wage are classified as “bread winners”, not teenagers. In WA state, teenagers are allowed to be paid less than minimum wage.
Union Fireman is making a lot of good points here. Education and training are key to all this, and right now there isn’t nearly enough being done to steer the people in that direction who really need it the most.
On the other hand, there are a lot of forces at work to make people think they aren’t worthy to be anywhere but the bottom of the food chain. This is pretty much institutionalized, to benefit the desires of the CHEAP LABOR CONSERVATIVES(tm) Roger speaks about, and to make sure there are enough poor people to provide a comparative definition of what it is to be rich.
Rog @ 8
Well, I see what you’re saying, but it’s not the same as what I’m saying.
Taxpayers DO subsidize poor folks for what they can’t/don’t earn in the private sector. But, our current system CANNOT be considered on that rewards work, can it? If a person can get better benefits on assistance than on the payroll, that’s wrong. We should put the $$$ for subsidies into the pockets of the wage earners themselves, and invest in people, not government programs.
@27 “Many companies will offer tuition reimbursement.”
Get real! How many minimum wage employers offer tuition reimbursement? Can you list any?
@ 37
What Union Fireman needs to come to grips with is that no matter what, somebody is ALWAYS going to have to do certain jobs in America. Not everyone at Burger King is going to be upwardly mobile. SOMEBODY has to flip the burgers, and I think those folks should have a shot at a decent living.
@39
The US military
@31 Maybe the reason the “rich” (pick a definition) pay 80% of the taxes is because they receive 80% of the income and own 80% of the property?
And, it’s not like the “rich” shouldn’t help pay for the government that makes private property possible, defends their private property with police and military forces (people who have nothing to lose don’t need these services or benefit from them), provides a system of laws and courts to enforce private property rights, provides huge public subsidies to educate their workforces and transport their goods, and provides direct subsidies to their businesses.
The whole wingnut argument seems to boil down to giving the rich tax relief simply because they pay taxes. Followed to its logical conclusion ad absurdum, they apparently believe nobody should pay any taxes.
Roger,
US Army National Guard
http://go.washingtonguard.com/payforedu/index.html
And paid training for non combat MOS’s that have civilian counterparts
41 Just as I thought. The wingnut argument is: If you’re poor, and want to get an education so you don’t have to work for below-subsistence wages your entire life, you’re supposed to join the military and risk getting killed in Iraq.
We don’t ask or expect that of the children of the well-to-do, so what gives you the right to ask or expect it of the children of the poor?
As an alternative to telling young people who were unfortunate enough to be born to poor parents that they have to serve in the military and fight in Iraq, why not just require employers to pay a living wage?
Creep.
44 Just as I thought! I ask a wingnut to name a minimum wage employer who offers tuition reimbursement, and two of you respond, “Enlist in the Army …”
Fucking wingnuts. Why don’t YOU enlist in the Army? Instead of being armchair patriots, why don’t you get off your asses and walk the talk? And add another degree to your collection in the process? If collecting degrees is the sure-fire ticket to affluence you guys claim it is, you should ALL aspire to acquire FOUR (count ’em — (4) four) degrees like the deadbeat, child support evading, bet welshing Redneck claims he has. (Notice I said “claims he has,” not “has.”)
Roger,
What little respect I had for you, you just lost. That comment was a slap in the face to many of the American Servicemen and women who are doing their job. Many of which didn’t come from a poor family. My kid brother volunteered for his 2nd tour over there, and will be coming back in a few months. He didn’t have to go, he volunteered…. Twice.
You are right though, men and women who join the military risk being killed in Iraq. So do firemen, policemen, and paramedics. Garbage men have a pretty dangerous job too. How about those fishermen and crabbers. And loggers. Can’t forget about the long haul truckers who are at risk for getting into a serious accident. Hell, be a lawyer and you run the risk of heart attack because of the stress. Dentists have a very high suicide rate. Tell you what, let’s just pay everyone to stay at home, and not work, because no matter what you do, you are at risk for dying.
Oh yeah, and I am a vet. I served honorably, jackass. And guess what, I am not on welfare and don’t need a job. But there are many who do.
How bout scholorships? or student loans? And what is wrong with the military? It’s volunteer…
And many companies do offer tuition reimbursement, tied to performance. The better you do in class the more that is covered. There are plenty of avenues to getting a college degree OTHER than gov’t handout.
And correct me if I’m wrong here, where is it guaranteed that everyone gets a college degree?
Unlike you, I don’t look to the gov’t to bail me out or run my life. I take that responsibility for myself.
Once again you show your true intellect, name calling.
By the way, this rightwing canard that education is the solution to low wages is bullshit. Just because 25 million people get computer science degrees doesn’t mean 25 million people can get $90,000-a-year IT jobs. Producing more computer science degrees doesn’t create a single new IT job. In fact, there’s an unemployed computer science graduate on every street corner. There are plenty of other occupations with high educational entry requirements that are overstaffed, too. A few years ago, there was even talk of a doctor surplus.
The truth is, the economy just can’t place all the people our educational institutions are churning out. That’s why you see Ph.D.s working as waiters and retail clerks.
By the way, one of the worst fields to go into that requires an advanced degree is law. Our country is grossly overpopulated with lawyers, and according to ABA statistics, over half of all lawyers leave the occupation. Either because of job dissatisfaction, or because they can’t make a living, or both.
Education is important, but it’s not a panacea. Our economy couldn’t absorb a 100% college-educated workforce (or anything close to even 50%). What happens is, as more people have gotten degrees, the hiring criteria for jobs that formerly didn’t require a degree have been raised to require a degree — but those jobs don’t pay better. The increasing educational level of our workforce (as a result of college becoming more accessible to the general population since World War 2) simply has the effect of freezing out workers lower down on the totem pole.
And then, of course, there’s sexism and ageism. You can have all the degrees and experience in the world, but there are still plenty of employers who refuse to hire you if you’re a woman or if you’re over 40.
Not to mention racial and ethnic discrimination. The fact it’s illegal doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
For some good analysis check out this:
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/h.....l#comments
47 What makes you think I want your respect? God, you are arrogant and self-absorbed.
47 ” … firemen, policemen, … paramedics … [g]arbage men … fishermen … crabbers … loggers …”
Don’t make minimum wage. Last time I checked, crabbers were making anywhere from $250,000 to $1 million a year (or more) in a good season.
Correction. Many paramedics do work for minimum wage, or not much over it, although I wouldn’t call that a “dangerous” job. Unpleasant job, to be sure, but what is dangerous about it? But I would agree that privately-employed paramedics, i.e., those working for ambulance companies instead of fire departments, are underpaid and deserve better wages.
Rabbit refuses to answer the question. What is rich? What is poor?
@31 Maybe the reason the “rich” (pick a definition) pay 80% of the taxes is because they receive 80% of the income and own 80% of the property?”
Reality for Rabbit, AGI numbers…..
Top 5% AGI pay 31.18% of income taxes
Top 25% AGI pay 64.86% of income taxes
44 Do you really think a kid can enlist in the Army and be guaranteed a “non-combat MOS”?
@56
A little thing called HIV.
Roger,
Once again you miss the entire point of the argument. Blue collar jobs, like plumbing, nursing, carpentry, painting, ems, police, dispatcher (911). These are all jobs that have a shortage and all have programs (both private and government) that will assist people in getting these jobs. But what do these people have to do? They actually have to get up and work.All of which can pay very well, and considerably more than just a livable income.
@33 And most of the work in nursing homes is done by who? The lowly (and low paid) CNAs. And I’ve never met a nurse who wanted a nursing home job. Hardest work and lowest pay in the profession. For nurses, the nursing homes are jobs of last resort.
@33 “Oh yeah, and many Nursing homes call 911 to have the fire department turn over large patients or help them off the john.”
Sounds like bullshit to me. I’ve never heard of it happening. Nor did I ever see it happen when I worked in a nursing home for minimum wage in a college town where students looking for jobs outnumbered the available jobs by about 100-to-1.
Roger at 55
And there is usually no education requirement, other than EMT, to get a start in those careers you deluded ball of fur.
Roger @ 62,
Well aren’t you special. When was that? 20 30 years ago? When was the last time you rode in a fire engine to a nursing home? Me? Last week we had 3 of those same calls.
@50
“By the way, this rightwing canard that education is the solution to low wages is bullshit”
Better than your solution of welfare and minimum wage.
Education does not guarantee a job. Note to Roger, there are no guarantees in life. Better to put oneself in position to be hired with education than to become a ward of the state.
47 “Tell you what, let’s just pay everyone to stay at home, and not work, because no matter what you do, you are at risk for dying.”
No, what we’re actually doing is telling everyone to stay home and not work by taxing the shit out of wages while giving a free ride to inheritances, capital gains, and other unearned income. Our tax system is tilted too heavily in favor of investors while imposing heavy disincentives on workers, which is why no one in this country works one day longer than necessary to become financially independent.
48 “Oh yeah, and I am a vet. I served honorably, jackass.”
Are you assuming I’m not, and didn’t? I served a 13-month combat tour in Vietnam. Your combat tour was where … ?
@66
“which is why no one in this country works one day longer than necessary to become financially independent”
Way to insult those out there who work, contribute, volunteer etc not because they have to, but because they want too. ( very large number I’m sure )
Geez rabbit, someone mix up your meds today?
A few months ago, I had lunch with a bunch of twenty-somethings from work, and the topic of conversation meandered to talk about a new “watering hole” that had opened. The major complaint of one of these folks was that the new drinking establishment had a lot of military folks in the place. Here in Pierce County, there are LOTS of military dudes around. There is a lot of disdain towards the military here, most of it coming from affluent young people who never had to deal with anything harder than choosing which private university they would attend.
These elitist young snobs (many of whom have multi-millionaire parents and will inherit a lot of $$$) look down their noses at those who serve in the military. The ironic thing about many of them is that they support GWB and the Iraqi mis-adventure (as long as it’s the riff-raff that serve). What many of these youngsters fail to realize is that the military is a good place for some kids to get a start on life, particularly when they aren’t fortunate enough to be born into money as these snot-noses were.
I don’t think anyone should criticize those that go into the service as a way trying to get a start in life. It really irritates me to see arrogant jerks criticizing the military, particularly when they’ve been born into a life of privilege.
Roger,
So what is your solution? Every potential solution that I have named, you can’t accept any part of. Is your solution to raise the minimum wage to (Insert amount here) and control the costs of goods? Is your solution to tax the highest wage earners in Washington even more, to fund social programs and keep people on welfare? When does the responsibility of the Government end, and the responsibility of the people begin (insert the yearly income here). And finally, with control of the Governors office and the state legislature, for so many years, why haven’t all of these been enacted earlier by all of you dems?
56 Hey, Roger…think about trying to defibrillate someone in a puddle of water.
hey Union Fireman – it’s a crime to pretend you are a veteran – better be careful or your ass might end up in jail with any number of your other republican pals
Actually, to play devil’s advocate a bit…I have a nephew who signed up with the AF National Guard and is in training to be a “pararescueman”–sort of a combination paramedic/paratrooper/commando. After he’s trained, he gets to be on call for a few years to go off at a moment’s notice anywhere in the world to get some poor souls out of where they shouldn’t have gotten to in the first place. When his commitment is done, he’ll slip into a civilian gig as a firefighter. Got a really hefty signing bonus, and for someone his age it’s lots of adventure. Granted, it’s not what I’d recommend my son or daughter do, but his branch of the family is pretty conservative and oriented to military service anyway. At least his primary job function will be to save people rather than kill them.
27 “Once again, why is it that we should pay people more, for doing a job that doesn’t require that much?”
Well if you want to get philosophical, why should we pay people ANYTHING for flipping houses or stocks? And WHY on God’s Green Earth should we pay CEOs $50 million a year for losing money for their shareholders, turning out defective products, and laying off employees? And why should anyone get paid millions of tax-free dollars for being born to rich parents? By your logic, inheritances should be outlawed.
Roger,
So what is your solution? Every potential solution that I have named, you can’t accept any part of. Is your solution to raise the minimum wage to (Insert amount here) and control the costs of goods? Is your solution to tax the highest wage earners in Washington even more, to fund social programs and keep people on welfare? When does the responsibility of the Government end, and the responsibility of the people begin (insert the yearly income here). And finally, with control of the Governors office and the state legislature, for so many years, why haven’t all of these been enacted earlier by all of you dems?
@57 How much of the income do the top 5% and top 25% get? How much of the property do they own?
“In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38% … in 2003, the top 1% paid over 34% of the nation’s federal income tax, while the wealthiest 10% bore 66% of the total tax load.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D....._of_wealth
Looks to me like lower-income taxpayers are subsidizing high-income taxpayers. If taxes were equally distributed, the top 1% would pay 38% not 34% of the taxes, and the top 10% would pay 71% instead of 66%. I would say the top 1% are undertaxed by 4%, and the top 10% are undertaxed by 5%.
@59 How many paramedics get HIV on the job if they follow proper procedures?
Roger,
In the past 6 months 6 Paramedics have come down with MRSA, a potentially fatal form of staph that is resistant to Antibiotics. These medics, ironically treated patients with the same form of MRSA. However, thanks to the DEMOCRATS in the State House, these medics will have to pay out of their own pocket the treatment of STAPH. Note all followed proper procedure. These 6, where in one department.
And I have followed proper procedure and had human feces, vomit and blood thrown at me by patients. How about you? Are you willing to roll the dice with HIV, MRSA, Hep C, Cancer? Not all of which are 100% covered by proper procedure or by the state as presumptive.
So what is your solution? Every potential solution that I have named, you can’t accept any part of. Is your solution to raise the minimum wage to (Insert amount here) and control the costs of goods? Is your solution to tax the highest wage earners in Washington even more, to fund social programs and keep people on welfare? When does the responsibility of the Government end, and the responsibility of the people begin (insert the yearly income here). And finally, with control of the Governors office and the state legislature, for so many years, why haven’t all of these been enacted earlier by all of you dems?
@60 Let’s talk about plumbing, because I have a friend who is a plumber. His parents put him through college and he has a degree in music, which is utterly valueless in the job market. So he went to a technical college under a government-subsidized program to learn plumbing.
He has been a non-union plumber for, I would say, about 30 years now. You would think that after 30 years of hard work in a dirty and physically arduous trade, he would have a nice house, a nice car, and retirement savings by now. He doesn’t. What he has is a bad back, a working wife whose wages are needed to help support their family’s modest lifestyle, and a lot of questions about how he’s going to survive when he can’t work anymore. He would not be able to support his family without a working wife. They do not live in a fancy house or drive fancy cars. He recently told me he has no pension and no retirement savings — he can’t afford to save.
Oh, it’s easy to say “he should have been a union plumber.” Unquestionably, he would have done better financially. But admission to union apprenticeship programs is strictly limited. Far more people apply than can get in.
For those of us born into non-wealthy families, who didn’t have our way paid through college by affluent parents, and didn’t inherit a family business or a fortune accumulated by someone else, and who therefore have to WORK for a living — well, trades are one way to go … IF you have the aptitudes and physical ability to do that kind of work. But in virtually every trade, it makes a big difference whether or not you belong to a union.
And, of course, rightwingers HATE unions. Even blue-collar Republicans who themselves enjoy union wages and benefits seem to oppose the idea of anyone else being allowed to improve their own lot by belonging to a union. They want to eliminate unions, including their own. All I can say is, it would serve ’em right if they got their wish, and their union wages and benefits went away.
The core of my argument is there’s a maldistribution of income and wealth between owners of capital and labor, that is not based on merit or risk-taking but results from manipulation of the economic and poltiical systems by those with the most wealth (and therefore power) for their own benefit.
60 Oh … and I know as much (or more) about “getting up and working” as you do.
64 “When was that? 20 30 years ago?”
Try 40.
Roger,
Why won’t you respond to this?
So what is your solution? Every potential solution that I have named, you can’t accept any part of. Is your solution to raise the minimum wage to (Insert amount here) and control the costs of goods? Is your solution to tax the highest wage earners in Washington even more, to fund social programs and keep people on welfare? When does the responsibility of the Government end, and the responsibility of the people begin (insert the yearly income here). And finally, with control of the Governors office and the state legislature, for so many years, why haven’t all of these been enacted earlier by all of you dems?
65 “Better than your solution of welfare and minimum wage.”
First of all, I support welfare reform. Our country’s experiment with welfare was a failure, and Clinton’s welfare reform did get people out of welfare and into jobs. Note I said “Clinton’s welfare reform.” The Republican “solution” to welfare was kick people off welfare and leave them to fend for themselves. That never worked, and still doesn’t.
Before proceeding further, though, let’s straighten out some wingnut myths about welfare.
1. Most people on welfare were children too young to work.
2. Kicking people off welfare hurts these children, who are essentially defenseless, and have no say in who their parents are or what their circumstances are.
3. The vast bulk of welfare spending was on the Aid for Dependent Children program. Except for SSI (which goes mostly to older adults with work histories) and food stamps (much of which went to children on AFDC), there was very little welfare provided to adults without children, and virtually none to employable adults.
4. In all the decades of the AFDC program’s existence, its cost never exceeded 3% of the federal budget.
5. Corporate welfare amounts to 5 times what is spend on welfare benefits for needy individuals.
6. Most adult recipients of AFDC payments were single mothers who had young children requiring constant supervision and care.
7. Most of these recipients also had one or more “barriers to employment” that would prevent them from getting and keeping a job without intervention and support. Some lived in rural areas where no jobs were available. Others lacked transportation to get to a job. Many lacked even rudimentary job skills, and needed at least some minimal training or education before they would be able to get and keep a job. A huge hurdle for many was the available and cost of child care; in some cases, child care costs for their children exceeded what they could earn in the jobs potentially available to them.
I should also point out that this country is full of fathers, some of whom earn good incomes, who shirked their financial responsibilities to the children they helped bring into the world. Before the creation of expensive child support enforcement bureaucracies in every state, the voluntary compliance rate with paying child support was barely above zero. Many young men who got their girlfriends pregnant thought the whole idea of paying child support was a joke — and it was, until the goverment began aggressively enforcing child support. Now, if they’re asked to pay even a token amount, they scream that they’re being raped by the government. In short, all you testosterone-overladen male humans who overpopulated the planet with young humans think the females of your species should bear 100% of the financial burden of supporting YOUR mutal children. And you think they should do it by working in $5.15-an-hour jobs. Some of you think they should do it by working in $2.13-an-hour jobs so their bosses can get even richer. And if you’re a Republican, you expect them to pay $500 to $1000 a month for child care with no help from you or the government so they can work for $2.13 or $5.15 an hour. And you expect them to raise God-fearing kids who stay in school and don’t get in trouble with the law even though mom is working two or three jobs because you male humans think the members of your species with dicks shouldn’t have to pay anything to support your children unless you get custody of the children.
I have friends who work in government child support offices, and all I can say is, when you rightwing assholes go into their office to bitch about the child support garnishment on your paychecks, 99% of the time, the first words out of your mouths are: “I didn’t ask her to go on welfare …” Well, my friends would like you to know that she wouldn’t have to if you fucking cheapskates came into the office on your own and said, “How much do I owe, and where do I make the payments,” instead of trying to weasel out of your moral, legal, and financial obligations to your own flesh and blood.
So, what is workable welfare reform?
1. Transition people off welfare into work.
2. Provide the job training, child care assistance, and other things necessary to enable people to work.
3. Pursue economic policies that create jobs so people CAN support themselves and their families by working.
4. Support family-wage policies so people can live on what they earn, instead of trying to undermine and reduce wages.
5. Create incentives for working and disincentives for welfare by rewarding instead of penalizing welfare recipients for trying to work. (A serious shortcoming of the traditional welfare system.)
6. After people are off welfare and in the workforce, continue to provide government support as needed for things like rent, food, and child care assistance so they can afford to work and aren’t forced out of the workforce because working costs more than they earn.
7. Reduce dependency on welfare programs by ending the free ride for non-custodial fathers and enforcing child support obligations so that dependent children are supported by both of their parents instead of by one parent and taxpayers.
Regarding item (3), in times of economic recession when people can’t get jobs because employers aren’t offering work, saying that people should “get off welfare and go to work” is just empty talk. No one can live on nothing. When there aren’t enough jobs to go around, what are people supposed to do? Starve? Should vulnerable children who didn’t choose their parents live on the streets or sleep in cardboard boxes under bridges because their parents are unsuccessful or unlucky?
And, of course, none of this addresses the question of what to do about families and individuals who can’t support themselves because of illness, injury, handicap, mental illness, or unemployability for other reasons such as age, infirmity, drug addiction, etc.
When you ask “conservatives” how to solve these problems, they don’t have much to say. They’d rather pretend these problems don’t exist. Out of sight, out of mind.
@80
And of course those folks are republicans right?
Becuase only republicans are rich, business, land, portfolio owners, correct?
Check your own backyard Rabbit.
83 Minimum wage should be set at an amount equal to the worker’s minimum subsistence needs so that taxpayers don’t have to subsidize the labor cost of enterprises that aren’t economically viable in order to keep them in business. If an enterprise can’t charge a high enough price for its products or services to cover the costs of producing them, it should go out of business. A below-subsistence minimum wage allows these businesses to sustain their uneconomic activities by cost-shifting from customers to taxpayers.
88 I never said that.
@76 Well… your stats are from 2001 with respect to “wealth ownership” and 2003 for tax share…. might be the difference there.
In any case, taken from right below what you quoted from Wikipedia
“With the installment of progressive taxation, in 2003, the top 1% paid over 34% of the nation’s federal income tax, while the wealthiest 10% bore 66% of the total tax load. The trend continues down the income scale to where 25% of income earners paid 84% of the income taxes, and the upper half accounted for virtually the entire revenue (nearly 97%).
So really, nearly 50% of wage earners are paying 3% of the total tax burden……
Also I recommend you read the entry from your link about “redistribution” and all the great examples of success….
Bottom line. The “poor” don’t pay. When there is a “tax cut” it is not for the “rich”, it is for those who pay taxes.
The IRS data does not lie. AGI numbers show where the tax burden lies, and it is not on the “poor”.
88 (continued) You know, all of us liberals would appreciate if you wingnut liars would stop putting words in our mouths and stop telling people what we believe. Many of us served in the military; we don’t support terrorists, our country’s enemies, or violent environmental (or other kinds of) extremists; we’re not appeasers; we don’t coddle criminals; we’re not communists or socialists or anti-capitalists; and we DON’T LIKE the influence of money and rich people over our own party, not to mention your party. Sure there are rich Democrats, although probably not as many of them as there are rich Republicans. Nearly everyone serving in Congress is a millionaire; holding public office has become a hobby for the rich, or at least, the affluent, and is inaccessible to most people who have to work for a living in this country. We’re acutely aware of that, and we don’t like it. Your solution is? More, not less, wingnut economics? That improves life for the average American how?
@91 “Well… your stats are from 2001 with respect to “wealth ownership” and 2003 for tax share…. might be the difference there.”
I don’t think so. Given the fact different data sets are collected separately by different entities or researchers, it’s uncommon to be able to find data for same-year comparisons. The comparison, nevertheless, is valid because given the magnitude of the numbers involved (trillions of dollars) these figures change slowly and you won’t see much difference in the percentages over a two-year span. It’s valid because it’s still an apples-to-apples comparison.
However, if you want to make an issue of it, I would point out two trends:
1. The concentration of wealth in America is growing, not shrinking.
2. The wealthy are paying less, not more, taxes.
This would suggest the percentages, if anything, are even greater than these numbers.
91 “The IRS data does not lie. AGI numbers show where the tax burden lies, and it is not on the ‘poor’.”
Nobody ever said it is. What I said is that the percentage of the total taxes paid by the richest households is less than the percentage of the total income that goes to them, which means taxpayers farther down the income scale are subsidizing part of their fair share. That is, if you set aside progressivity arguments are define “fair share” as a flat-rate tax. In other words, I’m saying that our “progressive” tax system you wingnuts bitch about so much is actually regressive.
If you want wage earners to pay a larger share of the tax burden, then distribute more of the nation’s income to them. There is a serious imbalance between how much of the national output is going to labor versus managers and owners. In addition, the tax system is heavily tilted in favor of income people don’t work for, and heavily against wages. There are very severe disincentives against working in our economic and tax system. Working is something people do only because they have to; and most Americans quit working as soon as they have sufficient non-wage income to support themselves.
@92
Ok so we agree on some things. I would subsitute “special interest” for “rich” people when discussing influence in congress.
My solution for that is tighter term limits. The end to the “career” politician. Back to the citizen legislator.
In terms of improving the life of the average american? In my view that’s not the job of the govt. It’s the job of every american citizen to improve the country, not the other way around.
And then let’s add to the mix:
1. Disappearing health insurance
2. Disappearing retirement benefits
3. Disappearing job security
4. Less competent managements
5. Disintegration of loyalty
6. Disintegration of the work ethic
7. Disintegration of merit-based advancement
8. Bosses who lie to their employees, cheat their shareholders and customers, and commit crimes
9. Downward pressure on wages
10. Increasing demands by management for more skills, higher output, longer hours, and harder work with no increase in pay
11. Disrespect of workers and their role in society
12. Unfavorable tax treatment of wages
In this environment, why the hell should anyone work if they don’t have to?
Roger,
Why don’t you ask your friends in the State Government what the percentage of women who are ordered to pay child support and don’t. Then ask about the percentage of men who are ordered and don’t. What will you find? A high percentage of women ordered to pay, that shirk their duties.
Second, with regards to your minimum wage, does that include all 15 year olds, working part-time and going to school? How about 19 year old unwed single mothers who dropped out of high school? How about the 32 year old level 3 violent sexual predator.
Finally, about your plumber friend. Sounds like he was an idiot. Started off with getting a degree in music. Wonder if anyone in his family asked him what he was going to do with that? Then he couldn’t get into an apprenticeship? Try moving out of the area. Then working all those years getting a bad back, why didn’t he change trades? Electrician for example. Your example only shows that you have to lie in the bed you make.
Why won’t you give a solid yearly income for Minimum wage?
Oh yeah and Roger, why haven’t the dems in control of Washington done anything to better this situation?
I lived in Idaho from 1999 to 2005 and with the exception of Boise and a few other populated areas, and the place is close to third world conditions. I have friends there who still work for $5-8 an hour. They have pathetic lives with little hope for the future. Anyone who wants to volunteer to go, it’s a short drive. Let us know how you like it.
98:
Dems have been in control of congress for 0 days as of yet.
Washington state’s one size fits all minimum wage is a joke. But, it’s what everyone else is doing….
You want to make the minimum wage mean something…..try this.
develope a lower wage for kids under 18yrs old that are working in non-hazardous jobs. instead of calling it minimum wage let’s call it a “learning wage” Build in mandatory wage increases for length of service for the little bastards. If I have to give a ne’er-do-well a mandatory raise after 6 months I’ll fire the moron instead.
Next, for those over 18, pay them the same learning wage for 30 days, then increase their pay every quarter until they are making the state’s mandated minimum wage (within six months to a year). But, make that minimum wage worth something. For the ones with little or no work ethic they will forever be stuck in the learning wage division until they learn how to work. For everyone else there is an incentive to work hard.
Yes, I am well aware that there is some dumb ass redneck apple grower out there that has already found the loophole in this arrangement.
For the record I don’t think that this state’s minimum wage is too high. In fact you can make that the learning wage. I just think that it provides no incentive to work
Roger Rabbit ,
Are you not concerned that if people who are paid minumum wage and are guaranteed to be able to live on that , I assume you mean above a designated poverty level , that it will cause a general decline in the standard of living for the majority ? What motivates many people to succeed and not only have lives that support themselves , but helps others also ? Why be a paramedic if you can live as well being a Wal Mart Greeter .
You mis charactercize reasons why people are concerned about the minimum wage and the over all effect .
If your wrong about why peeople disagree with you , I know your wrong in my case , then you perhaps could be wrong in your views . Your reasoning has already shown to based on perjoritives rather then intellectual honesty . .
Economists differ on the subject also .. The bottom line is what is best for all of us , is it not ? Even if you are a Union member that is a republican .
Also you have some valid ways of getting out of poverty , but to many that are poor , its their surroundings . If everyone you know is poor , the odds are you will never meet that person who has a brother who has an uncle who can get you a descent job . If everyone you know is poor , your perseective is totally different then yours or mine . Most poor people do not even vote , 80 percent of the people in prison have less then an 8th grade education .
The next time you want to shoot down Charter Schools , consider the fact that if most of the people that sit in your class , or maybe all of them consider what they are doing is a total waste of time because their parents , their friends , their relatives never got anything out of trying to be educated , Sometimes its not the teacher , its the son of gun sitting next to you that has a brother who actually got a good job , people in poverty , especially generational poverty actually do NOT know anyone personally that has made it to middle class ! Raising the minimum wage may help , but it sure solves little of the real problem. I guess to return your fire , that is what liberals are good at , giving folks clean needles so they can kill themselves and loved ones slowly .
Well I got side tracked , I guess what I am saying its not just education , its the people you associate with . Left wing or right wing dogmas don’t solve this problem .
Government never has seemed to be able to do anything but watch the problem get worse … Gotta try I know , lighten up and listen for a change .,
Reggie at 100 (sub-minimum wages for teenagers):
We tried it in the 1970’s, more or less. It didn’t work.
As soon as the 1974-75 recession hit, a lot of out-of-work adults complained that they couldn’t get even minimum wage jobs because employers preferred to hire teenagers at the sub-minimimum wage, and then fire them as soon as they turned 18. That was the end of that experiment.
I think that in a way, it is regrettable, because I think a lot more teenagers would be better off if they had to work a summer or two in the strawberry fields or apple orchards in order to buy their I-pod. When I was young, even the rich people made sure their kids had menial summer jobs, if for no other reason than so they would better appreciate the advantages they had. When I grew up, teenagers were ashamed of having a nice car unless they could prove that they paid for it themselves.
But I’m seeing a far different dynamic today: a lot more wealthy parents are insulating their kids from the “real world”, buying them expensive cars and other toys, and then having management-level jobs “arranged” for them when they graduate from college. Yea, I know its been going on since forever, but it seems a lot more obvious (prevalent) now than it was before.
But in the meantime, a sub-minimum level wage job for teenagers would just mean that a teenager who is now making minimum wage flipping burgers would then be doing the same job for half the pay.
103 “But I’m seeing a far different dynamic today: a lot more wealthy parents are insulating their kids from the “real world”, buying them expensive cars and other toys, and then having management-level jobs “arranged” for them when they graduate from college.”
Well, there are supposed to be more rich people nowadays–mind you, that doesn’t necessarily mean fewer poor people–so perhaps that’s more noticeable. The current occupant of the Oval Office is a pretty good example.
The real threat here is that if the trend continues, everything is going to end up being run by inbred, brainless upper-class twits.
97 An old friend of ours started out as a steam fitter (sorta-kinda like a plumber) and eventually rose to management in a mechanical contracting firm. He was also one of Seattle’s better trombone players. Somehow, I perceive a connection…