freeman3 wrote:GA,
I think $15 is a fair minimum wage for an adult because that's about what it takes to live in most places in US if you work 2,000 hours. It could be adjusted for less expensive areas of the country. And you could allow for lower wages for workers under 25. And you get more skills so you're not just barely making it. But forget $15 where has any Republican politician advocated for...any raising of the minimum wage? I mean, come on.
I think you are losing sight of what they're talking about: which is entry-level jobs. The kind of jobs that have traditionally been done by teenagers, retired people, people looking for a second job for a bit more money, etc, or people willing to start out low and work their way up to a better job in the company. "Adults" are taking over these jobs in large part because they arrive with little education and few marketable skills. Sure, you can always find an out-of-work Middle Manager or college graduate flipping burgers, but that is not the norm.
You get more skills? One would hope so, and therefore, with increased employee worth, employees would normally get raises for their increased value to the job. So if these skills are the kind that make you a better worker and eligible for a better job, what's the beef (if you'll excuse the pun)? With more skill and more effort, you are normally going to earn more and move on to better jobs. And that's the way it should be. You shouldn't get a sudden bump in pay because the government says so (and I'm not talking about tax cuts). What about the employees who have been on the job for a few years, have put in the time and effort and now earn that $15/hr, only to now find out that
everybody gets it automatically, without doing any more than they did the week before?
Pay is usually a matter of supply, demand, and risk. I remember how it was some 15 years or so ago when there was actually a lack of people to take entry-level jobs. Businesses not only advertised like crazy, but offered base pay way over what was the prevailing wage. After awhile, the job vacancies decreased. The point here is that the market drove wages, not some Central Committee, deciding by fiat.
I mean, since when did we switch our outlook to "equal outcomes" instead of equal opportunities? If you don't like your pay, get a better job if you can't score a raise. Get some education. Get better skills. That's how it was for me, and how it has been for most of us.
If you have a family and the best you can do is a minimum wage job, then perhaps you should have thought about not having a family until you could afford one. Easy to say, right? Maybe, but it's the right thing to say. That is what we should be telling people, rather than buying them off with "hey, no problem. We'll make the employers pay you more. You're entitled, after all! Why worry about more education and skills, anyway? We'll just keep jacking up the minimum wage for you. You deserve it. And thanks for your votes."
Nothing wrong with people striking for better pay, or asking for raises. But demanding that government mandate a wage is an appalling tactic and I think the minimum-wage people are being severely misled by special interest groups (advocate groups, unions, the Democratic Party, etc.) that are behind this.
When the minimum wage starts rising, so will business costs, as they always have. Business are in the business of making money. If there is less earnings, businesses will find ways to recoup: price increases, fewer employees, fewer working hours per employee, etc. You don't get something for nothing. In addition, income tax liability will likely increase for these people, as will their payroll deductions. They'll be lucky to see more than a few dollars net increase. But for the advocate groups, unions, and Democrats, it's still money in the bank. Their voting bank, anyway.