Miami archbishop: raise the minimum wage [CC]

[chrisb]

I would be interested in see who knows the history of the minimum wage in America and what it was originally instituted to do?

President Wilson was in office when it was originally proposed.

If Catholic Leadership champions the rising of the minimum wages they would be foolish.

 

[Tomdstone]

Slave Wages

Wage slavery refers to a situation perceived as quasi-voluntary slavery,[1] where a person’s livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate.[2][3] It is a pejorative term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor by focusing on similarities between owning and renting a person. The term wage slavery has been used to criticize economic exploitation and social stratification, with the former seen primarily as unequal bargaining power between labor and capital (particularly when workers are paid comparatively low wages, e.g. in sweatshops),[4] and the latter as a lack of workers’ self-management, fulfilling job choices and leisure in an economy.[5][6][7] The criticism of social stratification covers a wider range of employment choices bound by the pressures of a hierarchical society to perform otherwise unfulfilling work that deprives humans of their “species character”[8] not only under threat of starvation or poverty, but also of social stigma and status diminution.[9][10][11]

Similarities between wage labor and slavery were noted in ancient Rome by Cicero,[12] while the pervasive practice of voluntary slavery in medieval Russia indicates the previous historical coexistence of slavery and voluntary choice.[13] Before the American Civil War, Southern defenders of African American slavery invoked the concept of wage slavery to favorably compare the condition of their slaves to workers in the North.[14][15] With the advent of the industrial revolution, thinkers such as Proudhon and Marx elaborated the comparison between wage labor and slavery in the context of a critique of societal property not intended for active personal use,[16][17] while Luddites emphasized the dehumanization brought about by machines. The United States abolished slavery during the Civil War, but labor union activists found the metaphor useful. Lawrence Glickman finds that in the Gilded Age, “References abounded in the labor press, and it is hard to find a speech by a labor leader without the phrase.”[18] You can read more at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

In 2011, 28.0 percent of workers earned poverty-level wages ($11.06 or less an hour). - See more at: stateofworkingamerica.org/fact-sheets/poverty/#sthash.pEP1Ygfm.dpuf

So, does this mean that 28 percent of American workers are working at slave wages? Probably. This is another reason why we must depend on the federal government to raise the minimum wage. It is not right for a worker to be paid slave wages, while his boss is making millions of dollars.

 

[JamesCaruso]

So, does this mean that 28 percent of American workers are working at slave wages? Probably. This is another reason why we must depend on the federal government to raise the minimum wage. It is not right for a worker to be paid slave wages, while his boss is making millions of dollars.

There may be better ways to attack the problem. I’d hate to see 500,000 people put out of work as the CBO estimates.

 

[Tomdstone]

There may be better ways to attack the problem. I’d hate to see 500,000 people put out of work as the CBO estimates.

Experts say tht the CBO report is inaccurate. Low income workers spend their money and it therefore provides a boost to the economy, creating jobs and causing unemployment to decrease.

 

[JamesCaruso]

So, does this mean that 28 percent of American workers are working at slave wages? Probably. This is another reason why we must depend on the federal government to raise the minimum wage. It is not right for a worker to be paid slave wages, while his boss is making millions of dollars.

In principle, I don’t care how large the gap is between the owner or CEO of a company and its workers, so long as the workers receive a living wage. That’s not wealth redistribution, that’s just fair play. There are few things I want my Federal government to do. One is to protect me from enemies foreign and domestic. Another is to provide a national judiciary system. Just about everything else I feel I can trust my state to do. I like the competition this would give rise to between the states. If people don’t like what their state is doing they can vote with their feet and move to another state. With the Federal government we are stuck with whatever program they come up with, and there have been and are some real doozies. Not only that, a Federal government for over 300,000,000 people has to be uncontrollably large to handle all the things it is currently trying to handle, and so, enormous inefficiencies, ineffectiveness, waste, and fraud are the result. The states and local authorities are in a much better position to closely oversee their affairs, find better solutions to their problems, and achieve efficiencies impossible at the Federal level. I don’t know what got me off on that tangent. Oh, and did I mention the corruption that naturally follows with so much concentrated power?

 

[pnewton]

Experts say tht the CBO report is inaccurate.

The Congressional Budget Office** are** the experts tasked with making nonpartisan economic analysis. There is no one more expert. But then, in economics, it is a very inexact science. I would say look are where these “expert” critics come from and see if they have any partisan ties before questioning the acknowledged experts in a field.

 

[markomalley]

The Congressional Budget Office** are** the experts tasked with making nonpartisan economic analysis. There is no one more expert. But then, in economics, it is a very inexact science. I would say look are where these “expert” critics come from and see if they have any partisan ties before questioning the acknowledged experts in a field.

I find it funny that the same “experts” who discount the projected unemployment statistic fully embrace the “lifted from poverty” statistic.

I am impressed with how they are able to do so without sticking their tongues in their cheeks and how they are able to maintain a straight face while doing so.

 

[pnewton]

I find it funny that the same “experts” who discount the projected unemployment statistic fully embrace the “lifted from poverty” statistic.

The thing is, economics is inherently difficult to predict. Maybe these critics are right. What is wrong though is setting them as experts in opposition to the actual experts at the CBO. This is the logical fallacy of appeal to false authority. Whether the numbers would prove true, worse, or better, the principle of increased unemployment is very likely true and should weigh in any decision Congress makes.

 

[estesbob]

Experts say tht the CBO report is inaccurate. Low income workers spend their money and it therefore provides a boost to the economy, creating jobs and causing unemployment to decrease.

Which “experts”? Where is there study? What is the use of the CBO is we reject their reports when they don’t come to the conclusion we want them to?

How can you spend a minimum wage increase of you lose your job because of it.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I find it funny that the same “experts” who discount the projected unemployment statistic fully embrace the “lifted from poverty” statistic.

I am impressed with how they are able to do so without sticking their tongues in their cheeks and how they are able to maintain a straight face while doing so.

In general, people seem to embrace the part of the report that confirms their biases. If you are against increasing the MW, you tend to take the 500k job loss at face value and downplay the number lifted out of poverty. You see that quite frequently in threads like these.

 

[estesbob]

In general, people seem to embrace the part of the report that confirms their biases. If you are against increasing the MW, you tend to take the 500k job loss at face value and downplay the number lifted out of poverty. You see that quite frequently in threads like these.

So what is the proper ratio of people who lose their jobs to people who are lifted out of poverty to make this worthwhile.

 

[stinkcat_14]

So what is the proper ratio of people who lose their jobs to people who are lifted out of poverty to make this worthwhile.

That is a really a preference question for which there is no real right or wrong answer. In my set of preferences, the answer would depend on who is it that is unemployed and who gets lifted out of poverty. If the people who lost their jobs were college students who had to downsize to a dumphone and take the bus, then I would be inclined to favor a MW even with the lost jobs.

 

[estesbob]

That is a really a preference question for which there is no real right or wrong answer. In my set of preferences, the answer would depend on who is it that is unemployed and who gets lifted out of poverty. If the people who lost their jobs were college students who had to downsize to a dumphone and take the bus, then I would be inclined to favor a MW even with the lost jobs.

So we just roll the dice and hope for the best? What economic theory supports the idea that making it more expensive to hire people creates jobs?

 

[stinkcat_14]

So we just roll the dice and hope for the best? What economic theory supports the idea that making it more expensive to hire people creates jobs?

I am not sure there is any economic theory that suggests making it more expensive to hire people creates jobs. The real debate is whether increasing the minimum wage costs jobs. For example, one theory is that employers may have monopsony power that allows them to keep wages low. A minimum wage takes away some of the bargaining power in this case with no cost to the number of jobs. Other economic theories suggest that the MW is so low, that nobody works for it anyway, so raising it from an absurdly low level really does not have much of a negative impact.

 

[estesbob]

I am not sure there is any economic theory that suggests making it more expensive to hire people creates jobs. The real debate is whether increasing the minimum wage costs jobs. For example, one theory is that employers may have monopsony power that allows them to keep wages low. A minimum wage takes away some of the bargaining power in this case with no cost to the number of jobs. Other economic theories suggest that the MW is so low, that nobody works for it anyway, so raising it from an absurdly low level really does not have much of a negative impact.

It has a negative impact on the employer who either has to raise his prices or cur staff-or both.

 

[freeRadical]

Slave Wages

Wage slavery refers to a situation perceived as quasi-voluntary slavery,[1]** where a person’s livelihood depends on wages**, especially when the dependence is total and immediate.[2][3] It is a pejorative term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor by focusing on similarities between owning and renting a person. The term wage slavery has been used to criticize economic exploitation and social stratification, with the former seen primarily as unequal bargaining power between labor and capital (particularly when workers are paid comparatively low wages, e.g. in sweatshops),[4] and the latter as a lack of workers’ self-management, fulfilling job choices and leisure in an economy.[5][6][7] The criticism of social stratification covers a wider range of employment choices bound by the pressures of a hierarchical society to perform otherwise unfulfilling work that deprives humans of their “species character”[8] not only under threat of starvation or poverty, but also of social stigma and status diminution.[9][10][11]

In reference to what I bolded above, don’t we all earn “slave” wages? We all depend on wages to live do we not? The article you referenced even mentioned it’s a pejorative term used to criticize what some people see as economic exploitation. It seems to me that it’s a political term, not an economic one.

In 2011, 28.0 percent of workers earned poverty-level wages ($11.06 or less an hour). - See more at: stateofworkingamerica.org/fact-sheets/poverty/#sthash.pEP1Ygfm.dpuf

I don’t know where you get your data from but, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 5.2% of all hourly paid worker made at or below the federal minimum wage in 2011. Also, according to the United States Census Bureau, the poverty level for one person, under 65, was $11,484 in 2011. That equates to about $5.52 an hour, assuming a 40 hour workweek for 52 weeks a year. I don’t where you get the idea that $11.06 an hour is a poverty-level wage.

bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm
census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/

 

[freeRadical]

Poverty Level Wages

Another useful dimension of the wage structure to analyze is the proportion of workers earning low, or poverty-level, wages. Figures 4E and 4F stateofworkingamerica.org/subjects/wages/?reader page 192] present these trends by gender and race/ethnicity, respectively. The measure presented in these figures is the share of workers earning equal to or less than the “poverty-level wage,” the hourly wage that a full-time, year-round worker must earn to sustain a family of four at the official poverty threshold. The poverty wage was $11.06 in 2011 (in 2011 dollars), based on the official poverty level for a family of four in 2011 of $23,010. The poverty-level wage is roughly equal to two-thirds of the median hourly wage.

Women are much more likely to earn poverty-level wages than men. In 2011, 32.0 percent of women earned poverty-level wages or less, significantly more than the share of men (24.3 percent). Overall, 28.0 percent of workers, more than one in every four, earned poverty-level wages in 2011.

I don’t know why people use the poverty level for a family of four in these discussions. The majority of people who earn at or below the minimum wage do not have a family, they are single. If you use the poverty level for a single person, under 65, then the wage rate is around $5.52. Also your article does not mention how many families of four are below the poverty level.

Also that last line is misleading:

Overall, 28.0 percent of workers, more than one in every four, earned poverty-level wages in 2011

Okay, 28% of hourly workers made below the poverty wage for a family of four. How many of those workers were people that had a family of 4 to support? It’s misleading to use the poverty threshold for a family of four as a standard and then say that 28% of workers made below that poverty threshold. The workforce is not made up entirely of families of four.

 

[freeRadical]

So, does this mean that 28 percent of American workers are working at slave wages? Probably. This is another reason why we must depend on the federal government to raise the minimum wage. It is not right for a worker to be paid slave wages, while his boss is making millions of dollars.

No, it means that 28% of hourly workers made below $11.06 in 2011. He used the poverty threshold for a family of four as his standard of what a poverty level wage is. It’s misleading.

 

[freeRadical]

Here is some information about the characteristics of minimum wage workers in 2011, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

In 2011, 73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Among those paid by the hour, 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.2 million had wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers. Tables 1 through 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage. The following are some highlights from the 2011 data.

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. **Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 23 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over. **(See table 1 and table 7.)

About 6 percent of women paid hourly rates had wages at or below the prevailing Federal minimum, compared with about 4 percent of men. (See table 1.)

About 5 percent of White hourly-paid workers earned the Federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 6 percent of Blacks and about 3 percent of Asians. Among hourly-paid workers of Hispanic ethnicity, about 5 percent earned the minimum wage or less. (See table 1.)

Among hourly-paid workers age 16 and over, about 11 percent of those who had less than a high school diploma earned the Federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 5 percent of those who had a high school diploma (with no college) and about 2 percent of college graduates. (See table 6.)

** Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely than married workers to earn the Federal minimum wage or less **(about 9 percent versus about 2 percent). (See table 8.)

Part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were more likely than full-time workers to be paid the Federal minimum wage or less (about 13 percent versus about 2 percent). (See table 1 and table 9.)

By major occupational group, the highest proportion of hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage was in service occupations, at 13 percent. About 6 in 10 workers earning the minimum wage or less in 2011 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and serving related jobs. (See table 4.)

The industry with the highest proportion of workers with hourly wages at or below the Federal minimum wage was leisure and hospitality (22 percent). About one-half of all workers paid at or below the Federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, primarily in restaurants and other food services. For many of these workers, tips and commissions supplement the hourly wages received. (See table 5.)

The states with the highest proportions of hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage were Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas (all between 8 and 10 percent). The states with the lowest percentage of workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage were Oregon, California, Washington, and Alaska (all under 2 percent). It should be noted that some states have minimum wage laws establishing standards that exceed the Federal minimum wage. (See table 2 and table 3.)

** The proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less declined from 6.0 percent in 2010 to 5.2 percent in 2011**. This remains well below the figure of 13.4 percent in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)

In conclusion, hourly paid workers than make at or below the federal minimum wage tend to be young and not married. Furthermore, the proportion of hourly paid workers earning the federal minimum wage or less declined from 6 percent in 2010 to 5.2 percent in 2011.

Source: bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm

 

[freeRadical]

That is a really a preference question for which there is no real right or wrong answer. In my set of preferences, the answer would depend on who is it that is unemployed and who gets lifted out of poverty. If the people who lost their jobs were college students who had to downsize to a dumphone and take the bus, then I would be inclined to favor a MW even with the lost jobs.

Why would you be inclined to favor a minimum wage, with or without job losses, when you told me that you are against a minimum wage to begin with?