Idea for solving minimum wage issue (What do you think?)

[ecstatic]

I'm watching this panel on C-SPAN and they are debating the effects of raising the minimum wage.

Here is what I think would be a good solution:

What if each state set up different categories of jobs and set up an appropriate minimum wage for each type of job?

That rate would take into consideration the unique cost of living and tax system for that state (on average), also, it would take into consideration the skill and education level required.

For example, should cashiers be paid the same amount as someone who sweeps the floor? Or should someone in retail be paid the same amount as someone who washes dishes?

What about traditionally "teen" jobs versus jobs where adults are more likely to work (or even senior citizens)?

Might not a generic overall change in minimum wage negatively affect those lower wage workers who are already making $7.00+ / hour?

[Eric J in MN]

1. I don't understand your question about janitors vs. cashiers.

Are you saying cashiers deserve more than janitors, or vice versa?

[ecstatic]

2. Not necessarily... I'm just addressing the fact that some jobs really are easier than others

Maybe I'm wrong or out of touch, but I think about my teen brother who is already making about $7.00 and hour. If the minimum wage changes to say, $10.00, then he will get an increase in pay, which is good--but then the issue raises of whether he should be upped to $12.00/hour to account for the pay difference based on skill level. :shrug:

[hfojvt]

30. depending on your state of residence

he is already making more than minimum wage. Federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Many states have already raised their minimum wage to more than that. So Missourians are getting a minimum wage increase even if Congress and the pResident do nothing.

On the other hand, Congress raising the federal minimum wage to $6.5 is not going to affect your brother or others living in states with higher minimum wages.

[SanCristobal]

3. I'm pretty sure the Soveit Union tried something like this.

It's called the worst economic system ever devised. Seriously, my states government hasn't been able to balance it's budget in years, and you expect them to be able figure out appropriate wages for every different job? Their general incompetence aside, imagine the lobbying nightmare this process would create.

And yes, and overall minimum would likely hurt the $7 an hour crowd.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. "And yes, and overall minimum would likely hurt the $7 an hour crowd. "

You make that assertion based on what evidence?

[SanCristobal]

12. It's a price control,

and as such it has an overall negative economic benefit. The minimum does one (or more) of three things; raise prices, lowers job availability, or lowers corporate profit. Considering the likelihood of companies voluntarily lowering their profits, the first two options are far more likely.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. ah yes the eco 101 theory

Sorry but reasonable increases in the minimum wage have no such negative effect. Google the research.

[SanCristobal]

17. Thats only true because

the minimum has been below the natural wage for years. As soon as that changes, it goes from doing nothing to causing harm.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Google the research.

Increases in the mimimum wage would have the effect you describe under very strict conditions: 'ceritas paribus'; the only problem is that this is the real world and not a thought experiment and all other variable are not held constant. When folks have gone out to study the effects of increases in the minimum wage, they found that they couldn't find any effect negative or positve on economic activity that could be attributed to the wage increase. Reasonable increases in the minimum wage, for example to keep it in line with inflation, have no impact on overall economic activity.

[Union Thug]

25. I posted this below, but here it is again..

http://www.wslc.org/columns/06apr.htm

"It’s never been clearer than today that higher minimum wages do not increase unemployment. Ironically, we have the Bush administration and this Republican Congress to thank for that. Their shamefully historic neglect of the federal minimum wage -- mired at $5.15 an hour for eight years and counting -- has led many states to pick up their slack. The result is a national patchwork of minimum wages, which have repeatedly demonstrated no negative economic impact of raising the lowest legal wage..."

[Union Thug]

16. Historically, the min. wage hasn't negatively impacted the economy... n/t

[ecstatic]

22. Well my take is that some small businesses are already doing the right thing w/ respect to wages

Small businesses that, even though they are not required to, pay $7.00/$8.00/hour when they could just as easily stick with the minimum wage. A blanket increase in wages to $8/$9/hr would then put those small businesses in the position of having to pay $10+/hourly to maintain the value/worth/attractiveness of the position.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. It is probably true that unreasonable increases

would have a negative impact. But we are not talking about unreasonable increases, we are talking about bringing the minimum wage back into parity with the inflation rate since the last increase.

The situation you mention, the impact on workers earning slightly more than the minimum, occurs whenever the minimum wage is increased: workers making a bit more than the minimum have a reasonable expectation that their wages willl go up proportionately. And this does not just affect the sainted small business, it effects every business small, huge or otherwise. As I and others have said over and over again - the research has been done and the research is repeated every time the minimum wage is increased, and the research indicates that there is in fact no measurable negative effect on the economy.

[mdmc]

4. I like the fact that you are working toward solutions

but this idea is not my cup of tea.

Peace and low stress to you, and keep looking to help the working folks. :yourock:

[eallen]

5. "Skill and education level required" don't determine a job's economic value.

That's reversing cause and effect. People may acquire skills and education in pursuit of jobs that pay well. But there are jobs that require a lot of education, that don't pay all that well, and other jobs that pay better, without requiring as much education. Having the legislature determine pay levels for various jobs is a bad idea. It would just produce misallocation of labor resources. As would trying to adjust for need (teen vs. aged) via payscale by job type.

The economic savvier way to address these issues is directly, not through the labor market, eg, a negative income tax that provides everyone a minimum income, that perhaps based on age. The labor market would then adjust from the conditions that creates. The minimum wage is a second choice. Up to some point, it increases the total amount of money going to those who work at lower wage levels. Legislation directing pay scales? That's just a bad idea.

:hippie:

[Deja Q]

7. Not everybody can do what's economically valuable...

We need teachers, scientists, and artists too.

(Indeed, the legal industry is one hell of a bubble... and I'm sure some repubs wish all 300 million of us could be executives. Then we'd have no financial worries at all.)

As goes the adage: "Live to work, don't work to live." I know that's the cozy mindset of a previous generation, but they usually had more sense to begin with...

[Union Thug]

13. Reality Check - "education level" is not a great indicator

I've seen it many times...people coming into a job who check the 'some college' box out performing Masters and PhD coworkers. I can think of several, very specific examples right off the top of my head. For hiring decisions, I would look at past performance before education level. Ask me about our PhD level training manager, sometime. Yeah.

Anyway - wages will not be won in the congress or senate. Our political representatives are mostly rich and horribly out of touch with what it means to be a worker in this country. Wages, esp. for the working class, are won by a show of force via organizing and dialectic. Don't expect too much voluntary help from the rich out of the kindness of their collective black hearts. "Aint gonna happen"

Keep in mind as you think through this that raising the mininum wage has never negatively impacted the economy. There was a good article from the Washington State Labor Council that addressed the question: http://www.wslc.org/columns/06apr.htm

[napi21]

6. I'm listening to that panel too. There's really only one member

who is somewhat against increasing the MW, and even HE said the effects would be miminial.

When I got my first job the minimum wage was $1.15/hr. There was however another BIG difference back then. It was customary for every employer to give each employee apay increase each year. There were no statements in the workplace like "You've maxed out", and executivessure weren't earning800 times what the average worker was either!

Why is it OK for stockholders to EXPECT the stock price to go up all the time, and the Executives EXPECT their compensation pacakge to increase every year, even gov't workers rely on their pay to increase with inflation, butGOD FORBID we discuss the average workers???????

[ecstatic]

20. good point about yearly increase

Of course that might lower the job security of low wage workers.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. A solution to exactly what problem?

The only problem I know of in this area is that the minimum wage is held as a political hostage whenever the Republicans are in power in congress and is allowed to deflate in value. Thus we have a 1997 valued minimum. That problem can be easily fixed by using a COLA as is done for SS benefits. Doing so would take away the political gamesmanship around the issue.

[jmowreader]

10. Your examples are all retail jobs

Let's change this around a little bit because fundamentally it's not bad.

Unskilled labor--anything you can be trained to do in a couple of hours, or less--$6 per hour
Anything handling money or food--$6.50 per hour (cash handlers are often bonded or their credit is checked, and food handlers must receive physical examinations before being allowed to work)
Any job that was advertised as requiring "experience"--$7 per hour
Jobs requiring special licenses--$750 per hour
Jobs with frequently-varying work schedules--$7.50 per hour
Jobs handling hazardous materials--$8 per hour
Any job in the $7.50/hour bracket or above that is advertised as requiring more than two years' experience: $1.00 additional per hour. For over three years required experience: $0.50 per hour for each requested year of experience.

This makes janitorial service a pretty cool place to start because any cleaning product that actually works is hazmat. Even d-limonene, the most benign of all effective cleaning agents, is hazardous--National Fire Protection Association says slight health hazard, moderate fire hazard--and they get it from orange peels. (It is also a very good cleaning agent and one I really recommend.)

I read an employment ad in the local paper. They were looking for someone to drive a truck around Fayetteville delivering some kind of petroleum product--heating oil, I think. I didn't read the ad too close because I don't have a CDL with a hazmat endorsement...but these guys wanted to pay someone with five years experience and a Class B CDL with hazmat and air brake endorsements $5.50 per hour.

[ecstatic]

18. I like this, and also since it costs way more to live in NY or CA then in GA

then the pay schedules could start out $3 or more dollars higher in those states. I don't know... But that truck ad was crazy!!! :crazy:

[Zensea]

11. This would be a bureaucratic nightmare

This is already being done on one level since waitresses don't make the same minimum wage as others.

Every state with different standards?
That would be a fine mess.
Plus all the cost of determining who is in what category, the fights in the legislatures over determining who fits into which category, how much each category should get paid. Every type of employer would want their category of employing to be the one that gets paid the least. Lawsuits over discrimination, over whether one job should be valued less than another.
etcetera etcetera.
This is exactly the type of idea that Republicans complain about Democrats coming up with.

Bad idea.
Better to treat all citizens at a level of basic equality.

[aikoaiko]

14. I always thought an under-18years age minimum wage and over 18 years minimum wage

might be a reasonable compromise to deal with those folks who complain about paying kids too much money.

Legally, we already treat minors differently in many ways anyway.

[SanCristobal]

19. Another thing about this.

Do you really want republican controlled state gov's deciding minimum wage for all jobs?

[bidiboom]

23. One other aspect of raising the minimum wage

will be that more companies will start hiring illegal workers. They often work for less than minimum wage and can't complain.

(Just in case disclaimer: I support raising minimum wage)

[Warren Stupidity]

29. Which is why we should have a legal guest worker program.

But I digress.

Why should capital be free to roam the planet while labor is chained and shackled by nation states?

[leftofthedial]

24. I think the best way to ensure a fair, liveable minimum wage

is to index the MAXIMUM wage to the minimum wage

For example, any income in excess of, say 40 times the minimum wage, would be taxed at a 100% rate.

The capitalist piggies would raise the minimum wage so far, so fast your head would spin.

[Union Thug]

26. I agree with you. Capital is a key component of the economy and should not be horded

by a very few.

If you want a robust economy, keep the capital flowing and ensure that bulk of it is in the hands of those that will actually keep it in play in real terms (as opposed to libertarian think tank fantasy worlds).

[Warren Stupidity]

28. I agree.

Lets see: 40 x 7.50 = 300. $300 an hour is $12,000/wk is 624,000/yr. Seems like a plan.

[leftofthedial]

31. better yet, 40 times $15 gives the capitalist over a mil

and the worker a somewhat liveable wage.


anyone making more in an hour than the basic worker unit makes in a week is immoral.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. No. Minimum wage should be a liveable wage. Period. nt

[LWolf]

33. Other.

Leave the minimum wage right where it is. Instead:

No one who makes less than $30,000 a year has to pay state or federal taxes.

Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare. No more exhorbitant insurance costs, prescription costs, etc..

A massive WPA-type federally funded building of public housing. Not "projects," where masses of the underclass are housed in substandard housing, but small buildings in middle and upper class neighborhoods. A "project" against community segregation. Rent controlled housing for anyone under that $30,000 a year.

A massive investment in public transportation systems.

With the $$ savings to those with low income in housing, transportation, taxes, and health care, their current $$ will go farther.

Next:

Repeal NAFTA/CAFTA in favor of fair trade agreements. Eliminate outsourcing, and bring jobs back to the U.S..