Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 21, 2016

As Congress considers raising the minimum wage for the first time since 2009, Democrats have a golden political opportunity to pressure congressional Republicans on an issue that splits the GOP’s base — and highlights the GOP’s worst qualities.

The battle is currently being led by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who have crafted a bill that would raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, up from the current level of $7.25. The bill, titled the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, would immediately raise the minimum wage to $8.20 an hour, then to $9.15 an hour after one year, $10.10 an hour after two years, and tie it to the Consumer Price Index thereafter.

There is a litany of evidence backing up the value of such a proposal. The current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour has lagged far behind productivity growth over the past decades, and falls short of most living wage standards. A worker employed full-time at the current minimum wage would make $15,080 for a full 52-week year, 19 percent below the poverty line for a family of three. As over 100 economists agreed in a June 2013 letter supporting a $10.50 hourly minimum wage, raising the wage “will be an effective means of improving living standards for low-wage workers and their families and will help stabilize the economy. The costs to other groups in society will be modest and readily absorbed.”

Opponents of raising the minimum wage generally argue that such a policy would hurt job growth. “When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) declared in response to President Obama’s call to raise the minimum wage at his 2013 State of the Union address. Contrary to the Speaker’s claim, however, there is little to no evidence that modest increases in the minimum wage actually eliminate jobs.

As strong as the economic case for raising the minimum wage is, however, the political case is even more persuasive. The Harkin-Miller bill has almost no chance of becoming law during the 113th Congress; it will almost certainly be blocked in the Senate, and even if Democratic leadership can round up 60 votes, the bill stands no chance in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. But the GOP could pay a steep price for killing the measure.

Americans strongly favor raising the minimum wage. According to a Hart Research Associates poll conducted in July, an overwhelming 80 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10.10, then adjusting it for the cost of living, as the Harkin-Miller plan proposes. The basic parameters of the bill are supported by 92 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of Independents, and even 62 percent of Republicans.

The poll also suggests that the issue could prove critical in the 2014 midterms. The Hart poll found that 74 percent of registered voters believe that raising the minimum wage in the next year should be an important priority for Congress, and 38 believe it is very important — 51 percent of registered voters would be more likely to support a candidate for Congress who favored raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, while just 15 percent said they would be less likely. Furthermore, 37 percent believe that — should Congress fail to raise the minimum wage this year — Republicans would be to blame. Just 15 percent would blame the Democrats.

In the wake of the Republican Party’s disastrous government shutdown strategy, it finds itself in a very precarious political position — especially on the critical question of whether they are actually interested in what’s best for the country. A high-profile act of obstruction to block a minimum-wage hike — a raise that is supported by four-fifths of Americans, and almost two-thirds of Republicans — would surely compound that problem. If Democrats want to paint congressional Republicans as elitists who are out of step with the needs of average Americans, this is how they do it.

On Friday, the Obama administration signaled its support for the Harkin-Miller bill, and it would be wise to be very vocal about that position. If the White House throws its full weight behind congressional Democrats’ efforts, then the minimum wage could form the backbone of an effective economic pitch for the 2014 midterms.

Photo: Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights via Flickr

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo
  • charleo1

    Economists agree, with the necessary mandated raises in the minimum wage.
    It would be a great boost to an economy still suffering from the hangover it got,
    after the wild night of unabashed debauchery, and malfeasance, at the Captains
    of Capitalism Bash, and Bankruptcy Gala. Which they hold about every 7 to 10
    years, to clear the markets of the riff raff. Otherwise known as Middle Incomers.
    Who’s more prudent approach to the stock market, tends to almost make the
    whole thing start to make sense. A dangerous thing to happen in the world of
    high flying, con men, and flim flam artists. Known by those who worship them,
    as job creators. But, who needs a degree in economics to understand low
    wages soften demand, and soft demand causes people to be laid off. Which
    can cause, among other bad things, lower wages? I can’t remember how many
    people from the Right side of the isle have pointed out to me. That since
    President Obama took office, there has been more people laid off, more people
    falling into poverty, and more people on public assistance, than just before the
    God of Abraham cast down a plague of locust upon the Kingdom of the Pharaoh,
    for enslaving the Israelites. So I ask them, what have you decided should be
    done? Oh, cut taxes, and government spending, and regulations, and food stamps.
    And repeal Obama Care! To which I say, how are you helping the unemployed by
    taking things away from them? How about increasing the minimum wage, so part time Walmart workers won’t need food stamps? Are you crazy!!? It will just increase the the cost of everything. The rich will move out of the Country. And then, we’ll
    all have no jobs at all! You Loony Liberal!

    • foundingprinciples

      Raising the minimum wage results in, among MANY other things, higher unemployment, especially for the poor. What does not get counted in the shoddy “research” (shoddy for myriad reasons) is those who never get hired in the first place, the young ones, the first job, the learning how to work and be responsible.

      • highpckts

        I fail to see the logic in raising the wage and HIGHER unemployment!

        • foundingprinciples

          It is obvious. It becomes clearer in the businesses that need low-wage workers and not so in those who have very few.

          It actually is hard to not understand how one can NOT understand this. Suppose I have a cleaning service, and send out mostly minimum wage workers to clean homes? Then, I suddenly have to pay them more? If I raise prices, I will lose customers. If I keep the prices and pay the workers more, I lose profit. That is exceedingly simple.

          What to do? Maybe I will go out of business, and those people lose their jobs. Or, having to pay the higher wages, I might make it up by laying off some people and making the remaining ones work harder, and they know that if they do not, they will lose their jobs.

          Or, in cases with big companies, think of ways technology can help to replace workers: I saw a McDonald’s, for example, where one had the option of ordering and paying by a machine that was just inside the door: That saves the labor of a person having to take an order, collect the money, input it, etc. Get rid of one or two employees that way.

          How can anyone NOT understand that it can increase unemployment?

          • nana4gj

            Maybe, since you probably charge the customer $60-$70 an hour to clean, you could pay your workeers $10.00 an hour and keep honest workers. Honesty is worth $3.00 an hour more, as is stability, retention of workers. I can’t see how $3.00 an hour will eat into your profits that much.

          • foundingprinciples

            It depends on the business. And people should never be paid more than they are worth. But read my posts above.

          • nana4gj

            I have read them. They are too emotional, jaded, and ideological and rigid and seem to need to be insulting to anyone who offers a differing opinion, so, I cannot give much credibility to your opinions.

          • foundingprinciples

            No, my posts are logical and dispassionate. Left-wingers’ posts are filled with raw emotion, just like the one to which I am now responding, filled with name-calling and meaningless ranting and raving.

            I provided specific numbers and a rationale for why some people should not even get a minimum wage, along with the potential destructiveness of it. Heck, I provided an extensive list!

          • nana4gj

            It would take two hamburgers an hour to pay one person’s $10.00 an hour wage and if there are 4 people working, you need enough hamburgers sold per hour, to make at least $40.00 an hour for wages. That’s 8 hamburgers. Do you think McDonald’s sells 8 hamburgers an hour, or more for that profit and overhead.?

            If you send two people to clean a house for 4 hours, and you charge $60.00 for that, and you pay each worker $10.00 an hour, your labor costs are $40.00 for one house, leaving you with $20.00 net, except, I think the charge for the house cleaning is more than $60.00, and you might have 4 houses to clean that day, no?

          • foundingprinciples

            You have to include the total cost. You leave out the cost of the materials for the burger: Some is thrown away, too. Then, the electrical costs, the insurance, the heating, the general cleaning and upkeep. In all of the discussions by the Left-wingers here, I never see even the slightest concern for those who are actually the job creators.

            Well, say I am for the “evil rich” by mentioning job creators, and go off on a rant about corporate greed.

            Do that to omit the guy who owns the local store and needs it cleaned; the person who saved his pennies to buy a McDonald franchise; your local plumber and painter; and you lawn maintenance person. All these people will be hit by this absurd minimum wage, not the big corporations.

            But Left-wingers think only in terms of the putative “poor,” of course. Screw the people who work hard, people who stay on the job and get past the min wage, people who set up small businesses. F…. them in Liberal-Land.

          • nana4gj

            Costs for all goods and services from everyone in any business have increased and increased, yet the cost for wages has remained the same. That is a finding economists report.

            Increased costs for goods and services must, after all overhead is accounted for, result in enough of a profit to pay wages that are over $7 an hour in the year 2014.

          • foundingprinciples

            Few people stay on the minimum wage. And some people do not even deserve that.

      • JustTheFactsMa’am

        “myriad reasons” Ok, we’re waiting….

        • S Leeds Dayton

          why is it they always use words like “myriad” but then they disappear into the myriad abyss and have nothing substantial to offer..blather, blather, blathering idiots..

        • foundingprinciples

          Here you are!

          The minimum wage reduces employment.

          The minimum wage hurts low wage workers.

          The minimum wage hurts small businesses generally.

          The minimum wage helps unions.

          The minimum wage increases teenage crime rates.

          The minimum wage reduces employment most among black teenage males; the minimum wage hurts blacks generally.

          The minimum wage does little to reduce poverty.

          The minimum wage helps upper income families.

          The minimum wage reduces employment more among teenagers than adults.

          The minimum wage hurts the unskilled.

          The minimum wage hurts low wage workers particularly during cyclical downturns.

          The minimum wage increases job turnover.

          The minimum wage reduces average earnings of young workers.

          The minimum wage drives workers into uncovered jobs, thus lowering wages in those sectors.

          The minimum wage reduces employment in low-wage industries, such as retailing.

          The minimum wage causes employers to cut back on training.

          The minimum wage has long-term effects on skills and lifetime earnings.

          The minimum wage leads employers to cut back on fringe benefits.

          The minimum wage encourages employers to install labor-saving devices.

          The minimum wage hurts low-wage regions, such as the South and rural areas.

          The minimum wage increases the number of people on welfare.

          The minimum wage hurts the poor generally.

          The minimum wage increases inflationary pressure.

          The minimum wage encourages employers to hire illegal aliens.

          Few workers are permanently stuck at the minimum wage.

          • latebloomingrandma

            From what source was this copy and paste?

      • Suralin

        I don’t think we’re going to be able to get out of this morass by lowering wages even further. We are not going to be able to out-China China without crippling our own economic engine in the process. The US is simply too expensive to live in to make that a viable option, even if it weren’t an immoral course of action.

        I say it’s immoral because it would lead to even *more* social stratification between the haves and have-nots, but it wouldn’t actually replace any of the lost “rungs of the ladder” between poverty and the middle class. It would just add a bunch of rungs below the current poverty level.

        *Someone* has to start spending again to get demand going. Conservatives in the US have been adamant that that someone cannot, under any circumstances, be the government. The poor are, well, poor, and aren’t able to spend in the amounts required.

        That leaves the rich, since the middle class has been relentlessly hollowed out. And the rich have been sitting on their money rather than investing.

        • foundingprinciples

          Left-winger distortion. Who said lowering wages even more?

      • charleo1

        That was they said back in 1968. That the youth would never get
        that after school job, if the minimum wage was increased. I was
        16, and they were so desperate for dishwashers, I got a full time
        job, 5 days a week, coming in after school. It’s a sad situation
        we’re in, when the average age of a fast food employee is 29.
        Yes, no longer are these employers looking to the after school
        labor pool. Because people with families to support couldn’t
        afford to waste their time with a dead end, minimum wage job.
        Today it’s what millions have been saddled with, to replace the
        American Dream. Yes they have them. They are very similar, in
        fact to the ones you had. You know, the ones your previous
        generation cared enough to make certain you had the opportunities
        to have. But now, minimum wage is good enough for these kids.
        No skin off your nose. Right Grandpa?

        • foundingprinciples

          I see. One individual case by a Left-winger, and that is evidence that the country should adopt the destructive policy of increasing the minimum wage.

          Liberals can be funny.

          “Grandpa?” By my calculations, you are almost 62.

          • charleo1

            If Liberals can be funny, they can also listen to economists.
            Ideologues can be dense as fence posts sometimes. Shun reality, and refuse to consider the possibility that what they think they know. is wrong, or is partially wrong. Because
            they have looked thru the evidence, selecting only those
            facts that seem to support what they already believe, while discounting others, that seem to suggest a different reality.
            The first reality you’ve probably dismissed, because you
            don’t believe it, but it’s true all the same. Is, Capitalism has
            a tendency to become a bit of a parasite, if not reigned in. And actually starts to feed on it’s host. That is, it tends by
            it’s nature to try to eliminate those things like competition,
            that holds down prices, and creates diversity. It strives for
            the lowest possible wage. But this in turn, tends to slow overall growth. Because widespread low wages, cause
            unemployment. Remember, businesses only respond to
            immediate, or near certain future demand. Lower taxes,
            less overhead, or cheap labor, will not produce expansion
            or jobs. Only more demand for their goods, and services,
            will do that. Now, I want you to think about this next element
            Because, it is at the very heart of why our economy is not working near as well as it could. And, the reason is over the last couple of decades it has has become seriously imbalanced, due to a number of different factors. But one of the major ones is wages have not kept pace with the increased costs of core goods, and services. Or, those non-discretionary items in each person’s budget, they must purchase before anything else. Things such as food, clothing, housing, fuel or, transportation, and utilities like water, and electricity. Now, all other businesses outside of core goods, and services only prosper and expand to meet consumer demand. And that’s directly tied to the number of people that have discretionary income to spend. That’s why increasing the minimum wage in economies with weak demand, has not ever raised the unemployment rate. Because it increases the amount of disposable income, and that in turn increases sales, which then makes the hiring of additional workers necessary. One thing I’ve noticed, and not only in your way
            of thinking. But all throughout the Conservative Right. There
            is this negativity. They claim to believe in market principals
            like supply, and demand. But seem to have no faith in it.
            That somehow supply is no longer attached to demand.
            And you can’t generate demand without more economic
            activity. Doing things such as cutting food aid, is not helpful.
            Will not bring down the deficits. And will actually hurt businesses like super markets. Which do hire a lot of people.
            So is it, do you think a lot of wealthier people are just not
            all that interested in America being a Country like it was.
            Where the rich do very well, but most everyone else does
            okay? Or, is it going to become one of those Countries
            where a few at the very top are rich as Solomon. But, then
            there are millions, and millions more, of really dirt poor Americans just barely surviving? Because that’s the direction
            we’re headed, if we don’t turn things around. And better
            wages, one way or another, have got to be a part of that.

    • sigrid28

      Like charleo1 said.

    • Independent1

      Charle, some thoughts to contemplate from an article written by Representative Fredrica Wilson of Florida as published in the Huffington Post:

      Today, a parent working full-time at minimum wage will simply not earn enough income to cover basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter. Even working a second job and well over 40-hours a week, it’s mathematically impossible for many minimum wage workers to pay for childcare, clothing, and gas. If you doubt these claims, take a look at the “draft budget” that a major employer recently distributed to its employees.

      This is more than an ethical failure. It has serious costs for taxpayers and business-owners. When big employers — many of whom are turning record profits — fail to pay a living wage, taxpayers are forced to step in and make up the difference by paying for extra Medicaid, housing assistance, and food stamps. Our nation’s small businesses pay the biggest price of all: rock bottom wages mean fewer customers for restaurants, grocery stores, clothing shops, realtors, car dealerships, and so on.

      When corporations fail to pay, the economy fails to grow.

      That’s exactly what’s happening now. According to a new study from the Economic Policy Institute, the bottom 60 percent of workers are earning less than they did 13 years ago. According to a recent report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, black Americans — who have earned much higher average levels of education over recent decades — have lower chances of earning a living wage today than they had 30 years ago.

      And so economic growth remains slow. Unemployment stays high. Government debt continues to grow.

      The best way to turn our economy around is to invest in the people who keep it running: Low-income workers. By getting more income into the hands of hard-working people who will spend it, we will create more business for American companies and eliminate much of the need for government assistance.

      • charleo1

        That’s exactly right. And, the thing that’s really amazing, is it’s so
        obvious. You know Bush, and the Republican Wonder Boys got
        together, and handed the top end a big fat tax reduction. Great.
        Because now the downtrodden businessman, could finally have
        a little something to pass down to the common folk. Well, how’d
        that work out? They say fine, but we’ve really got to cut that food
        stamp bill. that jumped way up there, for some reason. Are these
        old farts really going to have to die, before anyone gets a raise?

        • Independent1

          We saw how effective that ‘big fat tax reduction’ was during the Bush years didn’t we!!

          Bush Jr’s 8 years in office were the most lackluster economically of any 8 year period since WWII – and aside from his Dad’s 4 years, job creation during Bush Jr’s 8 years was also the worst of any 8 year period since WWII.

          Bush Jr’s tax cut giveaway to his rich buddies and the resulting 8 years of mediocre economic results, proved without question, that ‘trickle-down-economics’ is just one more fantasy/disaster that Ronald Reagan perpetrated on the American public.

      • foundingprinciples

        Even working a second job and well over 40-hours a week, it’s mathematically impossible for many minimum wage workers to pay for childcare, clothing, and gas.


        Simple: Even today, I buy most of my clothes at Goodwill and thrift stores. I used to use public transportation or a bicycle. Finally, parents often “pool” resources for childcare: Hire a baby sitter for say three children. It varies, but the average cost is $10 an hour; so that would be $3.33 an hour, and it is tax-deductable.

  • highpckts

    No bill that is good for the people stands a chance in the House!!

  • nana4gj

    It seems to be just plain common sense that in the year 2013, almost 2014, an individual and/or family would need at least $10.00 an hour to compensate for the dramatic rise in cost of living for just the basic needs of groceries, utilities, transportation, health care, and a roof over their head.

    If we want people to take more personal responsibility for themselves, we need to do what we can to pay them living wages when they work. This shouldn’t be a political issue. It’s common sense, and because we need government policy to do that, the policy should include mandatory reviews every 5 years to determine if COL requires adjustments to minimum wage. It should not optional or dependent on anyone’s good graces or ideology. It’s economics and common sense.

    Minimum wage should at least provide for the minimum necessities of life.

    • Independent1

      Nana, when Martin Luther King marched on Washington 50 years ago, he was not only pushing for more equality for blacks, he was also pushing to raise the minimum wage to $2/hr in order to help raise people out of poverty. That $2/hr minimum wage MLK was pushing for, when adjusted for inflation, represents about $15/hr today. If anyone just thinks about that for a minute, they ought to realize just how woefully inadequate today’s $7.25/hr minimum wage is; and that pushing to raise it to $10.10 is certainly not unreasonable.

      • nana4gj

        I had no idea and appreciate this history. I remember starting my RN career 50 years ago at $4.00/hr. I finished it 4 years ago at $60.00/hr, so, that would make $15.00/hr not only reasonable but fair and just.

        To have only a $5.00 increase in 50 years is negligence, isn’t it? Especially when goods and services are doing so well and the prices have certainly been adjusted upward.

        • foundingprinciples

          Your $4 an hour then is worth $28/hr in 2009 when you quit, so your income more than doubled. Or, if the values stayed the same, your hourly income increased by $32 at 2009 rates.

          • nana4gj

            All I know is it took me 49 years to go from $4 an hour to $60,000 a year and still did not have a generous cash flow until I completed raising my children. Along with the $60,000 came additional expectations and responsibilities, technology, and more critical skills than what was required when it was $4 an hour.

          • foundingprinciples

            $60 an hour is very good. If one worked 40 hours a week, that is $2,400 a week, over $100,000 a year, nearly $120,000 a year! What the hell are you complaining about?

    • foundingprinciples

      Very few people live on the minimum wage. Half are below 24, and their average household income is about $65,900; those over 24 have a household income of $42,500.

      I suggest that they stay on the job to get raises and get rid of the 200-Channel cable TV hookup.

      • nana4gj

        Where do you get your data? I heard a report last week from an economist who stated that many minimum wage workers are older today and not the typical youth of yore. How do you explain someone unskilled enough to work minimum wage under age 24 with household income about $65,000? and those over age 24 with household incomes of $42,500 at $7.30 an hour?

        They would have to be working plenty of hours to amass that kind of income in either case and would not have time to watch their 200-Channel cable TV hookup, an allegation that leads me to believe that your “data” is purely subjective assumptions and opinions, as is your notion that minimum wage earners sit home and watch 200 cable channel TV all day. Finis.

        • foundingprinciples

          The data I have are only a year or 2 old. You are reading cherry-picked data reported by Leftist sources.

          • nana4gj

            I am not complaining about the salary I earned as a professional Registered Nurse after 50 years in that career. I am suggesting that if someone with a college education and a profession that held the well being of vulnerable sick people as her responsibility was paid $4.00 and hour in 1964, the minimum wage earners were probably earning $1.00 an hour back then.

            I can remember when I was in high school earning $.50 cents an hour after school and weekends and holidays at a major dept store. The household income was considerably more because I lived with my parents, of course, but an adult of any age who is assuming responsibility for themselves, even if still living at home, will never be able to be truly independent at current minimum wage standards.

            I am not going to debate this issue with you any longer because of your poor interpersonal skills, the tendency to insult people’s intelligence and their political ideology or affiliation if it differs from yours. I have concluded I cannot learn anything constructive from you.

        • foundingprinciples

          “How do you explain someone unskilled enough to work minimum wage under age 24 with household income about $65,000?”

          Easy. The income is HOUSEHOLD income. The combined incomes of everyone is HOUSEHOLD! You made the assumption that the minimum wage was the only source of income for the household.

          Turn off your television and find out the truth.

  • Pamby50

    I sure hope the Democrats do it. The Republicans need to be painted in such a negative way.

    • foundingprinciples

      The Democrats will increase FOOD STAMPS, minimum wages, anything to get more votes from the masses by taking from the successful and the productive.

  • S Leeds Dayton

    Um founding principles I hate to disagree with you, but you are wrong wrong wrong. how would raising the minimum affects anyone in a negative way. By doing this it takes people off SNAP &other government assistance. Spending would improve in that sector, due to having more funds.”By increasing workers’ take-home pay, families gain both financial security and an increased ability to purchase goods and services, thus creating jobs for other Americans,” left-leaning Washington, D.C.-based think tank the Economic Policy Institute in a brief supporting minimum wage increases. The average age of people in minimum wage jobs is: 35 not teenagers. 88% are not teens, they are 20 and up. 36% are 40 and up. 56% are women 28% have children. 55% work full time and last but not least on average they earn half of families income. So instead of blathering on, why dont you inform yourself so you don’t look completely stupid!!!

    • nana4gj

      It’s the stock in trade retort, that raising minimum wage would be “bad for business”….Yet, prices get raised over the years and businesses stay open.

      • foundingprinciples

        The businesses then look to technology to replace the workers, resulting in higher unemployment.

        • nana4gj

          It’s dicey enough eating fast food from human operated outlets. Consider the risk of eating foods prepared by automated technology.

          Your argument suggests we need to invest in training minimum wage workers in technology to prepare them for jobs that will pay them a new minimum wage of $15.00 an hour. I doubt computer techs will work for $7 to $15 an hour.

          • foundingprinciples

            No. I went into a McDonalds that had a machine as soon as one walks in the door. On it, one could order the meal and pay by a credit card right there. Then, when one goes up to the counter, there is no ordering, no cashier – just give the guy the receipt and get the order. Saves labor. One more job gone because of a higher minimum wage!

    • John Pigg

      I agree with him.

      Raising the min wage can result in direct cuts to working hours. The people who will most likely be affected negatively are the very people who desperately need an increase in pay. It doesn’t help a low income worker to get an extra dollar an hour if they see they working hours drastically cut, and prices on foodstuffs go up.

      The reason poor people’s situation keeps getting worse is because they have to compete with a subsidized workforce in China. Tariffs would do far more for low income individuals than some measly increase in Min Wage.

      • foundingprinciples

        Yes, and it depends on the economic sector. I do not have the names of the studies, but I came across some last year in which it showed that the putative “research” by the Left concerning how the minimum wage does not increase unemployment was flawed based on two issues:
        1. Some were on upswings in the economy when jobs everywhere were increasing.
        2. They were in certain sectors of the economy. For example, one will not see changes with employment of people in a high-tech firm where out of hundreds, many there are only a couple of people on the min wage, doing some basic cleaning, etc. But if there is a company will mostly low-wage workers (house cleaning services), it will raise unemployment.

        • John Pigg

          I would be interested in seeing those studies if you could find them.

          But I still think it would be far better of a policy to end Free Trade deals with countries that subsidize their local industry. The key to bettering peoples lives is to give them attainable jobs in this country.

    • foundingprinciples

      The minimum wage results in higher unemployment and/or higher costs to consumers.

      Look at it this way: Suppose an employee is bringing in about $6 an hour of profit or the estimated equivalent of that. And the minimum wage is $9 an hour. This is an outside force telling the employer that he has to either not hire this person or lose $3 an hour while he is working; or, it is telling the employee that if the person does not pay you more than you are worth, you CANNOT work for him.

      The mean household income of people who are under 24 and getting the minimum wage is $65,900; 62% are in school.

      The mean of those above 24 is $42,500.

      The hike in the min wage will help suburban teens, not the poor. 3/4 of the people on the min wage live above the poverty line.

      Left-wingers like to portray min-wage people are there being many single mothers. Get this: In the general population, 5.6% of all workers are single moms; in the min-wage population, it is 4%!

      And the idea that poor Americans work is rubbish: 2/3 of individuals below the poverty line don’t work.

      • terrorsaurus

        I don’t know where your facts are coming from, and I know some of them to be flat out wrong. Please support your claims with the studies you mention, I would be interested in hearing a well reasoned argument instead of generalities and hypotheticals.

  • tax payer

    Is $8.20 an hour going to keep a family of three out of Poverty? That’s $15,744 a year not counting overtime. Democrats love it, but not the employers that have to pay more to their employers.