Question re: debate on the minimum wage

[Maeve]

Everything I'm seeing looks at JUST the people making minimum wage--$7.25 per hour. Yes, a high percentage of them are under 25, in entry-level jobs. But what about the people making less than $10 an hour--what we hope will become minimum wage? I know my (50+) husband was offered jobs at $9.75 an hour--not minimum now, but below what the president is proposing. What percentage of the workforce is in that group, and how many are trying to raise a family on that?

I feel like we're only getting half the discussion we should be..(yeah, as if that were new!)

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. not true...Average age of person getting minimum wage is now 29 yrs old.

[ProSense]

2. According to this NYT editorial, it's 35.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024473754

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. Wow...its worse than I thought...sheesh!

[Maeve]

7. And according to the BLS, half of all workers making MW are 16-24

But that is NOT the point. The point is, minimum wage itself is only part of the issue.

My daughter (under 24) makes more than minimum working full-time, but it barely covers her expenses and she still has college loans to pay off. What about the statistics of workers making less than the proposed minimum of $10.10? All--ALL--of them will be affected, too, but by concentrating on just one sector, the discussion gets skewed. We're trying to make life better for a much larger segment of the working population.

[ProSense]

8. Link?

But that is NOT the point. The point is, minimum wage itself is only part of the issue.

My daughter (under 24) makes more than minimum working full-time, but it barely covers her expenses and she still has college loans to pay off. What about the statistics of workers making less than the proposed minimum of $10.10? All--ALL--of them will be affected, too, but by concentrating on just one sector, the discussion gets skewed. We're trying to make life better for a much larger segment of the working population.

What? Who is concentrating on just "one sector"? What does that comment about people making less than the minimum wage even mean?

[Maeve]

10. One sector=making minimum wage or less

Which includes those in food service that depend on tips and have a lower minimum in most states.
As for where I was getting my info on my original statement that a high percentage are under 25, you'll find the BLS link here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/26/mitch-mcconnell/mitch-mcconnell-says-minimum-wage-young-people-ent/

Now, I said that much of the argument over the raising of the minimum wage seems to center on JUST the folks making that wage. that's what is getting fact-checked, that is what I'm seeing in LTE and other editorial page punditry. I'm asking about the larger fraction of the working population making less than the proposed NEW minimum. ALL of those people will be affected by the raise and a much higher percentage of them are over 25, raising families and in need of the lift in income; the spillover effect you pointed out in response #6.

[ProSense]

13. WTH? You're using Politifact agreeing with Mitch McConnell?

There are 2 million federal contract employees earning less than the minimum alone. The notion that only 3 to 4 million people earn less than minimum wage is beyond silly.

The fact is that about 20 percent to 25 percent of all workers earn less than the minimun wage when translated to hourly.

BLS' focus and disclaimer:

2 The presence of a sizable number of workers with wages below the federal minimum does not necessarily indicate violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as there are exemptions to the minimum wage provisions of the law. The estimates of the numbers of minimum and subminimum wage workers presented in the accompanying tables pertain to workers paid at hourly rates; salaried and other non-hourly workers are excluded. As such, the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing federal minimum is undoubtedly understated. Research has shown that a relatively small number and share of salaried workers and others not paid by the hour have earnings that, when translated into hourly rates, are at or below the minimum wage. However, BLS does not routinely estimate hourly earnings for non-hourly workers because of data concerns that arise in producing these estimates.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm

[Maeve]

16. No--you are misunderstanding my point

I don't agree with Chinless Mitch and the idea that I do is in direct conflict with what I have posted. You asked where I got the fact that a high percentage of minimum wage earners are under 25; when I told you, you accused me of agreeing with his conclusions. He's an ass, and the facts are that the number of workers below the minimum wage is understated--it's right there in what you quoted.

You have tried to attack me instead of understanding my point. This is one of the reasons I have just about given up on trying to have discussions on DU. I have been here since 2001. I have been a moderator several times--I don't need to prove my liberal chops to you or anyone. In fact, your posts have PROVED MY POINT--the number of people whose lives will be improved by increasing the minimum wage is vastly under-reported by the pundits and fact-checkers who dominate the discussion outside the blog-o-sphere. I WANT MORE PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT YOU'VE POSTED.

You and I are on the SAME SIDE--we both want the minimum wage lifted, we both want the lower paid worker to have a chance. MY KIDS ARE PART OF THAT. And my husband and I are part of the millions who have benefited by being offered affordable health insurance, as I have repeatedly given thanks for here on DU. We're self-employed and scratching out our own way, helped by the Democratic party--the Repubs don't care for us, since we're not rich, and we know that.

So peace out.

[ProSense]

14. Here is more comprehensive data

Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost
http://s2.epi.org/files/2013/minimum-wage-state-tables.pdf

[Curmudgeoness]

3. I have the same problem with the discussion

of raising the minimum wage. I heard O'Reilly had made the comment that since only 6% of the population was working for minimum wage, he had no problem with raising it....to $10. I found that comment to be ridiculous in that it may be 6% was working for the minimum wage, but I would bet that over half the population is working for under $10. They would all have to get raises as well.

My concerns are that if the minimum wage is raised by $3 an hour, how many people who are not under the minimum will get a raise of that amount? I have to believe it will be very few. That means that your husband would get a raise.....and be working for min. wage at the same time. I make over the $10 amount, but I cannot see getting a raise that would be comparable to what would be required to keep the same standard of living....and I cannot see all the others in my position getting enough to continue the same standard of living we have today. Somehow, this looks to me like something that will hurt a large part of the people we want to help.

[ProSense]

6. That's the

"My concerns are that if the minimum wage is raised by $3 an hour, how many people who are not under the minimum will get a raise of that amount? "

...spillover effect.

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage

Over 600 PhD economists have signed an open letter—initiated by Economic Policy Institute President Lawrence Mishel and Harvard University professor Lawrence Katz—to the president and Congress in support of the Harkin-Miller Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013. Signatories include 7 Nobel Prize winners and 8 former presidents of the American Economic Association.

The letter urges lawmakers to immediately enact a three-step raise of 95 cents a year for three years, which would mean a minimum wage of $10.10 by 2016, and then index it to protect against inflation. This increase would mean that minimum-wage workers who work full time, full year would see a raise from their current salary of roughly $15,000 to roughly $21,000. The proposals would also raise the tipped minimum wage to 70 percent of the regular minimum wage.

“The fact that so many economists support this legislation makes it a no-brainer for Congress,” said Mishel. “Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would restore the value that it’s lost to inflation over the years, giving working families a raise while providing modest economic stimulus.”

President Obama has endorsed the Harkin-Miller bill and is expected to call for an increase to the minimum wage in his upcoming State of the Union address.

http://www.epi.org/press/600-economists-sign-letter-support-10-10/

Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

Dear Mr. President, Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Reid, Congressman Cantor, Senator McConnell, and Congresswoman Pelosi:

July will mark five years since the federal minimum wage was last raised. We urge you to act now and enact a three-step raise of 95 cents a year for three years—which would mean a minimum wage of $10.10 by 2016—and then index it to protect against inflation. Senator Tom Harkin and Representative George Miller have introduced legislation to accomplish this. The increase to $10.10 would mean that minimum-wage workers who work full time, full year would see a raise from their current salary of roughly $15,000 to roughly $21,000. These proposals also usefully raise the tipped minimum wage to 70% of the regular minimum.

This policy would directly provide higher wages for close to 17 million workers by 2016. Furthermore, another 11 million workers whose wages are just above the new minimum would likely see a wage increase through “spillover” effects, as employers adjust their internal wage ladders. The vast majority of employees who would benefit are adults in working families, disproportionately women, who work at least 20 hours a week and depend on these earnings to make ends meet. At a time when persistent high unemployment is putting enormous downward pressure on wages, such a minimum-wage increase would provide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers.

In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.

Sincerely,

- more -

http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/

[Curmudgeoness]

11. I would like to think that the "spillover effect"

would actually work for people making over the new min. wage. I suppose that I am a pessimist, but I can see many employers using this to drag down the average wage for the other workers. I hope that I am wrong, since we have lost enough ground in the middle classes.

Don't get me wrong.....I believe that the minimum wage is abysmal and needs to be raised. I just don't know how this will pay off, and that bothers me. There would be no protection for all the other workers who are over $10 now.

[okaawhatever]

9. Statistically everyone gets a raise. That's what has been shown in the past. That is why all wages

are low right now. The cost of things will go up slightly as a result, but labor is but a fraction of the cost of most things so the workers will still be better off. You say you make more than $10 per hour. I'll bet if you look at the history of pay in your job it will be a certain amount over the minimum wage, say 30%. Employers will give proportional increases. They have since minimum wage started. I'm sure they will all try to put fear in people and claim this won''t happen the same way right wing media fear mongered about people losing jobs over ACA, but you won't find reputable economists backing their claims.

[Curmudgeoness]

12. I do hope that is right.

I suppose a lot of it will have to do with us, the workers, who will have to demand it.

[Igel]

15. Don't know about 50%.

In 2012 median individual income was just under $27000. That included Social Security recipients. And part-time.

If spread over 52 weeks, 40 hrs/wk, then average hourly income was a bit under $13/hr. Don't know the numbers to take out for SS and part-timers.

[JaneyVee]

4. A huge percentage of the workforce is in that group, unfortunately

Congress seems unwilling to act.