Miami archbishop: raise the minimum wage [CC]

[Ridgerunner]

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.

High income workers spend their money as well. So your argument would also support a “benefit the rich” program, like Obama’s. Do you really intend that?

The CBO does not consult me, of course, but it seems odd to me that we spend a lot of time on this. At very best, it’s doubtful that a change in the minimum wage will have a NET benefit to those in poverty who are dependent on those wages.

But in all of this, it seems to me the best way to raise wages is to improve the demand for labor. The labor participation rate keeps going down and people wonder why wages aren’t improving. Unfortunately, the administration in power does everything to suppress hiring. If the demand for labor is slack (which it very much is) then raising the minimum wage is “pushing on a string”.

I realize this is anecdotal, but the other day I was on the road and stopped for a burger at a drive-in. Every last car hop there was a guy in his twenties; the most highly demanded workers in industry or construction…when there is a demand at all. I have never seen that before, but it doesn’t surprise me.

It isn’t just the low wage workers either. It is very evident to me that much of the middle class is slipping, and the competition for the kinds of business middle class people own and/or work at is ferocious. Seems like the winners in all of this are the big and the conniving. It wasn’t always this way. My guess is that this is happening because so very many are not working at all or are working part time. What is the “real” unemployment rate now? Isn’t it something like 15-16%? That’s Depression-level.

And during the Depression plenty of businesses did not fire everybody, and kept on going, just at a reduced level. If unemployment was between 15 and 25% at various times, that meant that 75-85% of people were employed. And the stock market rallied during it as well, and some did quite well because of it. But nobody did as well as he could have because there were all those people who didn’t have any income at all and couldn’t support the local paint store or grocery or barbershop or whatever.

In my opinion, that’s where we are; in the Obama Depression, and all this talk about raising the minimum wage coming out of Washington is just one more diversionary tactic. It sounds benevolent, but when people don’t have jobs at all, and more might lose them, there’s no good in it.

 

[stinkcat_14]

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?

Because I think my students work too much and not to pay tuition, but to buy cars, cell phones, etc.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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.

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/

It’s not my study. Go to the URL if you’re interested. On the poverty level wages, workers are usually not single. The study was apparently talking about an average situation where the worker had a family of 4 depending on him, that is, himself, his wife, and 2 children. But I’m no expert in this field, and can only use the data that these studies come up with. I’m not expert enough to challenge their findings. Anyway, I don’t think raising the minimum wage is the way to go, even though I believe there is a real problem with low wages. I know the minimum wage would be a horrendous burden for me to bear. Just the idea of where it would force me to live is chilling. But it’s been nice exchanging ideas with you, and hope to talk with you in the future, no matter which side of the issues we fall on. Peace.

 

[Tomdstone]

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.

Since that is the poverty threshold, I would be in favor of the federal government mandating that the minimum wage be raised well beyond that, say to $18 per hour at least. I am not in favor of having people work at immorally low wages such that they cannot afford to feed their family. Starvation of working families is morally wrong and the federal government is our hope to prevent that.
The CEO of McDonald’s makes tens of millions of dollars while his workers and their families are left in poverty and starvation. I know of someone who was fired from a job because he was starving hungry and had a bite to eat without paying, although he may have intended to pay later, I don’t know.

 

[freeRadical]

It’s not my study. Go to the URL if you’re interested. On the poverty level wages, workers are usually not single. The study was apparently talking about an average situation where the worker had a family of 4 depending on him, that is, himself, his wife, and 2 children. But I’m no expert in this field, and can only use the data that these studies come up with. I’m not expert enough to challenge their findings. Anyway, I don’t think raising the minimum wage is the way to go, even though I believe there is a real problem with low wages. I know the minimum wage would be a horrendous burden for me to bear. Just the idea of where it would force me to live is chilling. But it’s been nice exchanging ideas with you, and hope to talk with you in the future, no matter which side of the issues we fall on. Peace.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics disagree with you. The study used the poverty threshold of a family of four and then applied that standard to all hourly workers. That is very misleading. They are implicitly assuming that all hourly workers have a spouse and two kids to support. That is simply not true.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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:

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.

True, But there are families of 5, 6 and 7, too. Plus, as I recall, a family of 3 is under the poverty level, and a family of 2 is just slightly above the poverty level, so the figures may be more accurate than your first take on it. I am not familiar with what assumptions those in the field use to produce their statistics, such as whether they count part time workers or workers living at home, but I’m guessing others in the field would not stand for their fudging the figures, so their should be some discussion of various studies somewhere out there in cyberspace. If you find out, please let me know. I’ll do the same.

 

[freeRadical]

Since that is the poverty threshold, I would be in favor of the federal government mandating that the minimum wage be raised well beyond that, say to $18 per hour at least. I am not in favor of having people work at immorally low wages such that they cannot afford to feed their family. Starvation of working families is morally wrong and the federal government is our hope to prevent that.
The CEO of McDonald’s makes tens of millions of dollars while his workers and their families are left in poverty and starvation. I know of someone who was fired from a job because he was starving hungry and had a bite to eat without paying, although he may have intended to pay later, I don’t know.

That is the poverty threshold for an hourly worker that his a spouse that doesn’t work and has two kids. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the majority of people making at or below the minimum wage are young and not married. The poverty threshold for a single person is much lower than a family of four. The poverty threshold for a single person is actually below minimum wage.

 

[freeRadical]

True, But there are families of 5, 6 and 7, too. Plus, as I recall, a family of 3 is under the poverty level, and a family of 2 is just slightly above the poverty level, so the figures may be more accurate than your first take on it. I am not familiar with what assumptions those in the field use to produce their statistics, such as whether they count part time workers or workers living at home, but I’m guessing others in the field would not stand for their fudging the figures, so their should be some discussion of various studies somewhere out there in cyberspace. If you find out, please let me know. I’ll do the same.

I told you. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the United States Census Bureau. I don’t get what you’re saying here. Are you saying that all families of 3 are below the poverty level? There are different poverty thresholds depending on your age, marital status, and number of kids. The majority of people that are making at or below the federal minimum wage are young and not married. The poverty threshold for a single person is less than the minimum wage.

 

[JamesCaruso]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics disagree with you. The study used the poverty threshold of a family of four and then applied that standard to all hourly workers. That is very misleading. They are implicitly assuming that all hourly workers have a spouse and two kids to support. That is simply not true.

I’m not sure that is what they are saying. Maybe it’s not all, but on average. Or maybe some other factor is involved. I wouldn’t be so quick to assume the study and the BLS are talking about the same thing. If I get time, I’ll look further into it, but I’ve learned not to trust my first glance over what people spend years studying.

 

[freeRadical]

I’m not sure that is what they are saying. Maybe it’s not all, but on average. Or maybe some other factor is involved. I wouldn’t be so quick to assume the study and the BLS are talking about the same thing. If I get time, I’ll look further into it, but I’ve learned not to trust my first glance over what people spend years studying.

If that article is implying that all or most families of 3 are under the poverty level, they are flat out lying and deceiving. The BLS report I cited is a report they put out every year about the characteristics of minimum wage earners. That report says that most people who make at or below the minimum wage are young and not married. Also, it says that only 5.5% of the of hourly wage earners made at or below the minimum wage in 2011. The poverty level for a single person, under 65, is below the minimum wage. Since most people that make the minimum wage are young and single, that means most of the people making minimum wage are above the poverty threshold. I also pointed out the fallacy of using the poverty threshold for a family of four and applying it to all hourly wage earners, which that article does.

 

[JamesCaruso]

If that article is implying that all or most families of 3 are under the poverty level, they are flat out lying and deceiving. The BLS report I cited is a report they put out every year about the characteristics of minimum wage earners. That report says that most people who make at or below the minimum wage are young and not married. Also, it says that only 5.5% of the of hourly wage earners made at or below the minimum wage in 2011. The poverty level for a single person, under 65, is below the minimum wage. Since most people that make the minimum wage are young and single, that means most of the people making minimum wage are above the poverty threshold. I also pointed out the fallacy of using the poverty threshold for a family of four and applying it to all hourly wage earners, which that article does.

I don’t know. But about the first thing you said, it is true that a family of three where the only wage earner is at minimum wage, is under the poverty level. Because the poverty level for three is about $19,000, and the minimum wage is around $15,000, but I don’t think that is what you were meaning.

 

[freeRadical]

I don’t know. But about the first thing you said, it is true that a family of three where the only wage earner is at minimum wage, is under the poverty level. Because the poverty level for three is about $19,000, and the minimum wage is around $15,000, but I don’t think that is what you were meaning.

That wasn’t what I was meaning. However, let’s talk about what you just posted. I agree, if the only wage earner in a family of three is earning the minimum wage then they are below the poverty level. The question how many of them are actually earning the minimum wage? According to the BLS, only 5.5% of hourly workers earned at or less than the minimum wage. Of that 5.5% the majority were young single people. So, it’s dubious to claim that most families of 3 are supported by someone earning the minimum wage.

 

[JamesCaruso]

That wasn’t what I was meaning. However, let’s talk about what you just posted. I agree, if the only wage earner in a family of three is earning the minimum wage then they are below the poverty level. The question how many of them are actually earning the minimum wage? According to the BLS, only 5.5% of hourly workers earned at or less than the minimum wage. Of that 5.5% the majority were young single people. So, it’s dubious to claim that most families of 3 are supported by someone earning the minimum wage.

I don’t think I said that most families of three were supported by the MW. That is hardly possible.

 

[freeRadical]

I don’t think I said that most families of three were supported by the MW. That is hardly possible.

That’s what it seemed like we were implying.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

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

But inflation causes revenues to go up every month and year and minimum wage increases are scant by comparison. Since businesses get more money (revenue) as a result of inflation, they can afford to increase minimum wage earners by increasing it only by the inflation rate.

 

[jimmy]

I am curious what is a just wage that will support a family. I would like to see someone live off of 10 bucks an hour. Is it possible? How about 15 bucks an hour? I wonder what would happen to the prices of goods if everyone was forced to pay 15 per hour. What would a big mac cost?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am curious what is a just wage that will support a family. I would like to see someone live off of 10 bucks an hour. Is it possible? How about 15 bucks an hour? I wonder what would happen to the prices of goods if everyone was forced to pay 15 per hour. What would a big mac cost?

I don’t know, but we could have the same effect if this government did not so vigorously suppress employment and encourage job competition with illegals. Nothing quite like “demand pull” to improve wages.

When it comes to the Big Mac, one might also have concern about the fact that four companies control about 95% of meat production in this country. Presently, they’re very competititve with one another. But that’s about “market share”, and they’re presently willing to keep prices fairly reasonable in order to gain/defend market share. But that will not necessarily always be the case, and the pricing power they wield is total. Had a Canadian bank not come to the rescue of Pilgrim’s Pride a few years ago, there would have been no “market share” wars on poultry at all.

Also regarding the Big Mac. The national cattle herd is at the lowest it has been in 60 years. That was due to extremely low prices in 2007-2009 which caused ranchers to “cull down” to severe levels and caused not a few to go bankrupt, combined with droughts in the three top producing states in 2011 and 2012. (Tx, Ok, Mo). Recovery in poultry and hogs is quick. In cattle it’s not, and especially if, as now, there’s little rebuilding going on. Some of that lack of herd rebuilding is due to government policies that have made ranching less rewarding than it used to be. Obamacare is very hard on the self-employed, and carries an additional tax on capital gains as well (breeding stock sales are capital gain). In addition, while losses, like in 2011 and 2012 can be severe, occasional receipts, as is presently the case, can be very high, easily pushing some ranchers (temporarily) into the “soak the rich” category for the various Obamataxes.

Big Macs are made (in my belief) from beef from cull cows and surplus Holsteins (can’t milk Holstein steers, and their quality is low) While ranchers have flooded the market with “cheap beef” in the form of cull cows in the last few years, that culling is slowing to a crawl now.

 

[estesbob]

But inflation causes revenues to go up every month and year and minimum wage increases are scant by comparison. Since businesses get more money (revenue) as a result of inflation, they can afford to increase minimum wage earners by increasing it only by the inflation rate.

However they pay more for goods and services because of inflation. IMO there shouldnt be any minimum wage at all.

 

[JamesCaruso]

But inflation causes revenues to go up every month and year and minimum wage increases are scant by comparison. Since businesses get more money (revenue) as a result of inflation, they can afford to increase minimum wage earners by increasing it only by the inflation rate.

And raising their wages would seem to be their moral duty since inflation affects workers and owners alike. The disparity between workers (wages) and owners (profits) is truly, in some respects, a moral issue.

Notably, in this Thursday’s gospel it reads:

Look here, you rich people: Weep and groan with anguish because of all the terrible troubles ahead of you. Your wealth is rotting away, and your fine clothes are moth-eaten rags. Your gold and silver have become worthless. The very wealth you were counting on will eat away your flesh like fire. This treasure you have accumulated will stand as evidence against you on the day of judgment. For listen! Hear the cries of the field workers whom you have cheated of their pay. The wages you held back cry out against you. The cries of those who harvest your fields have reached the ears of the Lord of Heaven’s Armies.

You have spent your years on earth in luxury, satisfying your every desire. You have fattened yourselves for the day of slaughter. You have condemned and killed innocent people,a who do not resist you. James 5

I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to apply this gospel to wage/profit disparity, especially as corporate profits hit record highes while worker wages hit record lows. thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/03/1270541/corporate-profits-wages-record/#

 

[johnnyt3000]

Where is the moral choice? Do you really believe it is between helping or not helping? If that’s what you think then you have no real understanding of the economic issues involved. Every action has consequences and raising the minimum wage has several. It is surely true that, for the people who keep their jobs, they will now be making more money, but it is equally true that raising the minimum wage also reduces the total number of jobs available. As you raise the cost of labor you increase the likelihood that low wage jobs will be replaced by automation or simply eliminated. The choice is not as simplistic as you suppose, between doing good and not caring. If you make the charitable assumption that most people really do want what is best then there is no basis for supposing that those who oppose raising the minimum wage are selfish, sinful people. They may in fact be mistaken, but that is error, not sin.
Do you pay him enough to live on? You pay him a small amount to help you out but you surely don’t pay him enough that he could live outside of his home, do you? Why not? Why do you assume it is someone else’s responsibility to subsidize his work?
Why should we assume that it is the responsibility of McDonald’s and Bunkey’s Car Wash to pay their employees more than their jobs are worth? You don’t pay your neighbor what he needs so how do you justify passing that responsibility to others? You cannot resolve this problem by focusing solely on the needs of the poor without taking into account how your actions will affect the rest of society.

Raising the minimum wage eliminates jobs so even as some people are better off because their jobs now pay more, others lose jobs entirely because businesses cannot economically justify the higher wage.

The point I’m trying to make, however, really has nothing to do with which of our perceptions of the impact of raising the minimum wage is correct. It is simply this: there is an up side and a down side and determining whether the pluses outweigh the minuses is not a moral consideration, it is an economic one. It is therefore not something the bishops should weigh in on.

Ender

Amen to that:thumbsup:, but the bishops can have a take on issues like this.