The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I recently read a post regarding Spurlock's show "30 Days" where one portion was dedicated to living on minimum wage and how difficult it was. That being said, I realize there's a large group in our country that advocate raising the minimum wage to a "living wage". This, I felt, was thread-worthy.

As a preface, I'm not an uncaring person. I truly feel for those that don't have very much and work hard for it. Kudos to them for actually working hard and not sucking our country dry by abusing costly social programs.

However, I have to ask: Are those that want the cost of the minimum wage changed to a "living wage" willing to pay the price? Gone would be the days of a $.99 menu, the chains would have to up the prices for the increased wages. Who would feel more comfortable paying $14 for their Big Mac Value Meal knowing they're helping the fry-cook out.

The following is from an NRO Financial write up on the minimum wage:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/kersey200407230852.asp

This doesn't mean that all minimum wage workers are a dead end. Minimum-wage earners typically receive raises and promotions or find more lucrative work without any governmental help. According to economists William Even and David Macpherson, in a report for the Employment Policy Institute, between 1998 and 2002 typical minimum-wage workers saw their wages climb by 10.4 percent within a year of beginning work — and this during a period in which the minimum wage didn’t change.

Moreover, recent Census data show that only 15 percent of workers earning within $1.50 of the minimum wage belong to poor families, while 20 percent belong to families whose total earnings exceed $80,000 per year. The average low-wage worker had a total family income of more than $40,000. Concern for the working poor may motivate many supporters of minimum-wage increases, but the working poor make up only a small portion of those who would benefit from a higher minimum wage.

Minimum-wage jobs play a valuable role in the economy, and their value to workers goes beyond the modest monetary compensation. In many cases these jobs provide a valuable introduction to the working world for teens and young adults who still live with their families. Most of these workers will reduce their hours or leave their jobs as needed for classes and move out of minimum-wage work shortly after completing their education. But even those who must work full-time at minimum-wage jobs gain experience and a work record they can parlay into raises, promotions, or more lucrative jobs.

Nobody wants to work for the minimum wage any longer than necessary. Truth is, most economists contend that increases in the minimum wage lead to at least a modest reduction in job openings available to unskilled and inexperienced workers.

Any thougths?

Yes, why in an economy which has consumer spending as its engine of growth (a fact of life since at least 1970) would you NOT want to put more money into the pockets of an economic group MOST likely to spend that money?
And to beat any counter-arguments to the punch, I do NOT buy the "oh gosh it will cripple small business" when the biggest lobbyists against an increase are Wal-Mart and Target, et al, places that can easily afford to dip into their record profits. Further, if we are so concerned about the plight of the small businessman, it's certainly feasible to compensate them in some way (taxes) for any losses they might incur.

Fios wrote:Yes, why in an economy which has consumer spending as its engine of growth (a fact of life since at least 1970) would you NOT want to put more money into the pockets of an economic group MOST likely to spend that money?
And to beat any counter-arguments to the punch, I do NOT buy the "oh gosh it will cripple small business" when the biggest lobbyists against an increase are Wal-Mart and Target, et al, places that can easily afford to dip into their record profits. Further, if we are so concerned about the plight of the small businessman, it's certainly feasible to compensate them in some way (taxes) for any losses they might incur.

Well, I don't work for WalMart (the devil of retail) or Target (I-don't-like-Toys for Tots-because-Marines-help) and I'm not a small business owner. Just an upper-middle class Joe that doesn't want to pay more for coffee at Starbucks.

I also have a hard time with your statement about putting money into their pockets. I believe in cyclical economics however the trickle-down theory of Reaganomics is far more effective. Additionally, Bush used tax cuts (earned income credit, child tax credit, etc) to put money back in people's pockets. Our federal tax system is meant to benefit those who make very little -- in fact, in recent years lower income tax brackets are getting back more than they've paid. (In my military times I most certainly benefited, so this isn't just heresay.)

And yes, it most certainly would cripple small business. Even with the current generous tax breaks for small business, many can barely afford their first few years of operation with the majority of expense being employee pay. Small companies would have to cut back somewhere, most likely in the areas of employee benefits like larger health-care premiums and fewer perks.

It isn't good for anyone for there to be so many people working so hard to make so little.

cvillehog wrote:It isn't good for anyone for there to be so many people working so hard to make so little.

I understand your point, but are we as a nation ready to pay for it? All commerical good prices would go up astronomically. I just can't stomach paying $14 for a value meal so a fry cook can make the same as an entry level accountant or software engineer.

AZHog wrote:All commerical good prices would go up astronomically.

What are you basing that on? When the minimum wage was $4.25/hour, there were no dollar menus. A "value meal" at McDonald's was around $2. When the wage went up to $5.15, the prices did not change. In the time since then, the price (and portion sizes) of value meals have gone up, with no increase in minimum wage. There are far from concrete facts, just anecdotal observations. The last wage in minimum wage did not cause the massive distruction that was shouted about.

Why not pay most workers enough so that they don't have to rely on those expensive social services? No one who works full time should have to be in a position of needing food stamps, etc. That's just my 2 cents.

Right, but based on a popular opinion a living wage is around $15/hour. That is roughly a 200% increase to the minimum wage, though that differs state by state. So, tack on 200% to commercial items. Simplified, yes. But that's just how simple it is.

AZHog wrote:Right, but based on a popular opinion a living wage is around $15/hour. That is roughly a 200% increase to the minimum wage, though that differs state by state. So, tack on 200% to commercial items. Simplified, yes. But that's just how simple it is.

What is your source on those figures?

This seems like a classic straw man argument. "People say $15/hour is a living wage, and that is a 200% increase which is too much so there should be no change in minimum wage."

What do you think of the fact that minimum wage isn't indexed to inflation at all. So, minimum wage has been effectively going down every year since it was raised.

The figure I've heard mentioned for an increase in minimum wage was a gradual increase to ~$7, which is a far cry from the $15 you are quoting.

The minimum wage makes voluntary contractual agreements illegal. It doesn't create a single job. By definition, it's compulsory unemployment. As Fios has already pointed out, WalMart and McDonalds can afford to pay its employees a newly-hiked rate since they both have deep pockets, but tons of small businesses (including WalMart's and McDonald's competitors) won't be able to do it. He doesn't buy that reasoning; I find it very compelling.

(By the way, while Target may not be all about a minimum wage increase, WalMart most certainly is. Clever CEOs realize who the wage increase would actually hurt, if you ask me. . .)


But hell, since we're not even considering whether or not the redistribution of wealth is even ethical / legal / wise to begin with: Let's make the minimum wage 30 dollars an hour, pour a few martinis, and call it a day. Stop talking 7-15 dollars an hour, you scrooges.


[By the way, AZHog, I don't think that you're presenting the strongest argument against raising the minimum wage. What you've said is not really grounded on any principle, as far as I can tell, and it grants some faulty premises of your opponents. For example, you seem to allow that raising the minimum wage isn't illegal to begin with and that it would have overall positive effects for people in poverty (the bad premises). Then you argue against it by saying that we'll pay more for Wendy's when we go out to eat. It doesn't seem like a good argument to me. ]

Actually, I want to be clear about something, I do not doubt that a raise in the minimum wage would impact small business owners, I find fault with that argument because it is trumpeted time and time again as Reason Number 1 raising the wage is a bad idea. That line is tossed out as if it stands on its own, as if a Congress whose laws are defined more by the loopholes and exemptions than the rules themselves couldn't find a way to mitigate the impact of any potential increase on small business owners.
Further what "trickle down" has accomplished thus far is to concentrate a significant amount of wealth in the hands of a relatively small number of people. I've yet to see any evidence of the supposed benefit of giving money to people who are already wealthy.

That a rise in the minimum wage would impact small business owners is not my Reason Number 1 for opposing it. I oppose it first because it's illegal, theft, unethical, unecessary violent action against peaceful citizens, etc.

In this thread, we've jumped straight to arguments from consequence. Even then, however, I wouldn't oppose minimum wage because it hurts small business as my Reason Number 1. I would oppose it because it hurts the very people that you are trying to help. It makes marginally employable people unemployable, and it makes it illegal for them to sell their labor at voluntarily agreed upon prices.

After that, I'd probably get more into the reality of minium wage laws: how people rarely stay in them for very long, how fluid the American economy actually is by the statistics, and the correlation of teen unemployment with the rise of the minimum wage.

Then maybe we'd get to small businesses. . .but. . .small businesses are not the argument that I'd try to 'hang my hat on' whatsoever.

You are so right FFA. I mean, there are barely any small businesses left after the last wage hike!

The argument that a minimum wage is illegal is utterly ridiculous and entirely beside the point. I assume you pay income tax, right? There are people that run around saying that is illegal too.

Now, if you want to talk about illegal activities by the government, I'm sure we could find some space (probably in Smack) to discuss illegal spying.

It would actually be BETTER for small businesses for working class people to have more income -- because they could then be customers!

cvillehog, the argument that the war in Iraq is illegal is utterly ridiculous and entirely beside the point. I assume you know about Vietnam, right? There are people that run around saying that was illegal too.

The argument that spying is illegal is utterly ridiculous and entirely beside the point. I assume you've heard of hate speech, right? There are people that run around saying that is illegal too.

Just because a government decides something doesn't make it right. I've got reasons for thinking that minimum wage laws are illegal that I think are pretty compelling--I don't buy your "it's entirely ridiculous and beside the point" argument.

But you're right, there should probably be some space for illegal spying on this board as well. I've not really been one to start these threads, though, just one to stick my nose in them in an annoying fashion. (Where's crazyhorse when you ne. . .never mind. . .)

FanfromAnnapolis wrote:That a rise in the minimum wage would impact small business owners is not my Reason Number 1 for opposing it. I oppose it first because it's illegal, theft, unethical, unecessary violent action against peaceful citizens, etc.

In this thread, we've jumped straight to arguments from consequence. Even then, however, I wouldn't oppose minimum wage because it hurts small business as my Reason Number 1. I would oppose it because it hurts the very people that you are trying to help. It makes marginally employable people unemployable, and it makes it illegal for them to sell their labor at voluntarily agreed upon prices.

After that, I'd probably get more into the reality of minium wage laws: how people rarely stay in them for very long, how fluid the American economy actually is by the statistics, and the correlation of teen unemployment with the rise of the minimum wage.

Then maybe we'd get to small businesses. . .but. . .small businesses are not the argument that I'd try to 'hang my hat on' whatsoever.

Actually, I'd like to see statistics detailing the fluidity of the American economy because the Chicago Federal Reserve board issued a paper last year (I'll find it) saying the exact opposite: that, in fact, it has become increasingly difficult to move from one economic class to another, both up and down. The Bush tax cuts (not our topic but a salient point nonetheless) have served to exacerbate that trend, cementing the grip on enormous wealth held by a relatively miniscule part of the population.

FanfromAnnapolis wrote:cvillehog, the argument that the war in Iraq is illegal is utterly ridiculous and entirely beside the point. I assume you know about Vietnam, right? There are people that run around saying that was illegal too.

The argument that spying is illegal is utterly ridiculous and entirely beside the point. I assume you've heard of hate speech, right? There are people that run around saying that is illegal too.

Just because a government decides something doesn't make it right. I've got reasons for thinking that minimum wage laws are illegal that I think are pretty compelling--I don't buy your "it's entirely ridiculous and beside the point" argument.

But you're right, there should probably be some space for illegal spying on this board as well. I've not really been one to start these threads, though, just one to stick my nose in them in an annoying fashion. (Where's crazyhorse when you ne. . .never mind. . .)

Here we are on your third post calling a minimum wage illegal and we still haven't seen any reasons, much less compelling ones.

Additionally, you haven't really addressed the meat of anyone's arguments, so it's kind of hard to any kind of meaningful discussion on this.

If you have such good, well-thought-out views on this issue, let's hear them! Maybe we can all learn something.

Well, cville, I believe that I have given reasons for it being illegal, but I'll flesh them out a bit for clarity's sake.

Person A wants a job done and is ready to pay someone 4 dollars an hour to do it. If someone asks for more than 4 dollar per hour to finish the job, it's no longer worth her time to pay someone else to do it. Person A will simply do the job herself. Person B decides that it's worth his time to do the job for 4 dollars an hour. They agree on the price, person B does his job and person A gives him money for it.

If they persist in this action, one of them (most likely person A) will end up in jail or will be under the threat of violence from the government. (Should person A not desist, pay a fine, etc.)

The two parties were exercising their liberty as American citizens to pursue peaceful actions that would improve their well-being. No person's rights were infringed in the process. Person A decided what to do with her property, coerced no one, and B is happy to make the exchange.

Now the benevolent government steps in and makes this illegal. It restricts their liberty, property rights, and restricts their peaceful pursuit of happiness. The government that makes A's and B's transaction illegal is doing an illegal action in itself. At the very least, its illegal according to our Constitution. It's certainly illegal on any principled understanding of how our government was intended to function.

Back to the relevant example. Person A now doesn't get her job done--or has to pursue a less efficient way of doing the job--and person B, whose skills were only marketable for around 4 dollars, finds himself unemployed. Person C, employed by Acme Co, enjoys the wage since her CEO can afford the wage increase, but this does little to console B whose skills are now undesirable in the marketplace.

Here's a relevant article by Thomas Sowell, an economics professor and writer, that articulates well the problems posed to underprivilidged people through minimum wage laws. It actually hurts the very people the clean-nosed politicians in Washington are pretending to help. For example, minorities are hit worst of all.


As for the other arguments that your claiming I ignored, could you present them for me--because I'm not sure which ones I missed.

* Claiming that it's good because it creates consumers was the main argument I was seeing, but I've yet to see why we don't raise the minimum wage to 30 dollars an hour if that's the case.

* The argument "No one who works full time should have to be in a position of needing food stamps, etc." is something that I can't really argue about since, in order to get to the point where we could redistribute some cash, we'd first have to go to rich people's houses with guns to take it. Besides, government social services are far less effective than the socially conscious actions of private organizations--and the more government "charity" organizations that exist, the less people rely on other places like the Salvation Army, the church, etc.

Also, the more the government taxes to feed itself, the less money people have to give to charities, which also hurts the poor. Dollars that go into the bureaucracy disappear; dollars that go to those who desire to help actually make a difference for far less cash.

There are about 50 other red herrings that we could pursue (I'm horrible at keeping things clear), but I hope that's enough so that I can't be accused of not presenting any arguments nor responding to those arguments that other people give.

You are so right FFA. I mean, there are barely any small businesses left after the last wage hike!

Sorry, I missed this jab from earlier but thought that I would address it really quickly:

There are still plenty of small businesses in the US, and small business is still what drives our economy. But it would be foolish to think that all of the penalties that our government slaps on potential small businessmen doesn't keep many out of business period.

It takes a team of lawyers to start a business, and continual legal help is a huge chunk of many business' budget. Add to that the myriad regulations and laws that make doing business quite expensive and it should be no wonder that centralized organizations like WalMart can dominate an industry the way that they do.

I'm not questioning whether or not small business' can even exist with minimum wage hikes, but if you believe that such laws don't prohibit these businesses from flourishing as they should be able to, I'd like to hear why.

I'm sorry, but your analogies are also straw man arguments. The minimum wage only applies to employees recieving a W-9. If you hired me on a contract basis, we could agree to whatever fee satisfied the both of us, and if the total payment was low enough, you wouldn't even be required to file any paperwork with the IRS.

There is really nothing in your post that I can make any meaningful response to, because it is filled with irrelevant analogies, red herrings and straw man arguments ($5 isn't enough, so you want to argue based on $30??).

You want less social programs? You want stronger families? You want less government "charity"? How about ensuring that people are paid reasonable wages. Obviously the free market has not succeeded in that, because it is not the goal of the free market, but it would still be beneficial to the market.

Additionally, your entire terminology frames the issue in terms that make an increase in wages seem negative from the start. A relatively small increase in the minimum wages, that maybe, just maybe, might get it up to a level consistent with increases in the cost of living, should be called "hikes?" I don't think so.

You want less social programs? You want stronger families? You want less government "charity"? How about ensuring that people are paid reasonable wages. Obviously the free market has not succeeded in that, because it is not the goal of the free market, but it would still be beneficial to the market.

The free market doesn't have a goal. The free market is the collection of voluntary activities carried out by individuals all over the country (and beyond). To say that social well-being isn't a goal of the free market is misleading because the market isn't some entity that sits there emiting goals for itself.

There are plenty of people operating within the market that wish to bring about social welfare through non-coercive redistribution of wealth. The daily activities of the market also increase social welfare over time; the freer the economy, the more social welfare is increased.

Government intervention hurts the formation of strong social forces.


As for the argument that the minimum wage doesn't apply in the example I provided, simply expand what I said. Person A owns a chain of small resteraunts and wants to pay cashiers 4 dollars and hour for those willing to work. If she must pay them more, she is either unwilling to pursue her enterprise or is incapable of doing so. You're telling me that people can in fact do that legally? I don't think what I've said is as much a straw man as you're claiming it is. However, I am no tax expert, so if you insist that what I'm saying isn't reality at all then perhaps I'm mistaken.


Call them small increases, hikes, or whatever--since I'm against raising it at all in principle it doesn't matter to me what language we're going to frame it in. Both you and I (and anyone debating this) frames it in some way.

Why not have a minimum wage of 30 dollars, by the way? I would recommend taking a glance at the article that I linked, because it still seems to me that minimum wage laws hurt those they are intended to help.

Let's take your idea a slight bit further. Let's say person A wants to open a chain of restaurants, and bring in workers from Haiti or some other country and have them work off the cost of bringing them to this country. If the goverment says this is illegal and a minimum wage must be paid, is that an illegal act by the government? Are you saying the slavery and indentured servitude are just fine by you if the free market would support it?

The 30-dollar question is just ridiculous. That would put minimum wage over 60,000 a year. That's almost as much as the median family income in Charlottesville for 2005.

So, what response should such off-the-wall reasoning ellicit? What can I say to the 30-dollar argument that can make it any less off-topic?

And, as I'm sure you know, the minimum wage only applies to nonexempt employees. I don't have any figures, but I am fairly confident that not every small business is made up entirely of nonexempt employees. Someone has to be doing the paperwork, no?

Another edit:
Just incase anyone is curious, the peek for minimum wage was in 1968, when the wage was the equivalent of $8.50 in today's dollars (according to a businessweek article here).

cvillehog wrote:Let's take your idea a slight bit further. Let's say person A wants to open a chain of restaurants, and bring in workers from Haiti or some other country and have them work off the cost of bringing them to this country. If the goverment says this is illegal and a minimum wage must be paid, is that an illegal act by the government? Are you saying the slavery and indentured servitude are just fine by you if the free market would support it?

I can't really answer this because, by invoking Hati, we're now dealing with all kinds of immigration and migrant worker laws that aren't really relevant with minimum wage. This situation is too complex to comment on with a simple 'yes' or 'no.'

The 30-dollar question is just ridiculous. That would put minimum wage over 60,000 a year. That's almost as much as the median family income in Charlottesville for 2005.

So, what response should such off-the-wall reasoning ellicit? What can I say to the 30-dollar argument that can make it any less off-topic?

I don't think the 30 dollar minimum question has been adequately addressed just by saying that it's ridiculous. What principle are you working off of--that people should be guarenteed a wage high enough to keep them on the edge of poverty but not enough so that they can make a good living?

I wouldn't guess that this is how you decide what a minimum wage is, but it's hard for me to tell why we stop at 7 dollars and hour and not 12, 14, 16, 20, or 30 (or higher).

And, as I'm sure you know, the minimum wage only applies to nonexempt employees. I don't have any figures, but I am fairly confident that not every small business is made up entirely of nonexempt employees. Someone has to be doing the paperwork, no?

Even though the example with person A doesn't fit the criteria for minimum wage law, substitute it with McDonalds. The point isn't that some people can get away with not following the minimum wage law--it's that anyone is coerced into doing so, period.


As far as I can tell, we haven't fully addressed the following points:

* How is it that a (even a slight) rise in minimum wage helps (instead of hurts) unskilled workers, given the reasons that I give for it hurting them. (It lifts their labor market right out of the market). In other words, how would you answer my argument that it is forced unemployment?

* On a similar vein, how is this good for small businesses that struggle to survive against competition like WalMart, Target, McDonalds, et. al.? A higher minimum wage would put a higher strain on big-businesses competition. WalMart wouldn't feel the pinch whatsoever even if the minimum wage was as high as 8 dollars an hour.

* Do you not believe that this is an unconstitutional act? Or, perhaps, do you agree that in principle it's unconstitutional but that the effects outweigh a constitutionally based argument?

If you truly believe it's unconstitutional, take it to the courts. Anything less is just rhetoric.

interesting. i see both sides of the story. i've been there, and now i am a small business owner. i've felt both sides, and i can honestly say i've been there, first hand.

i wasn't born with a silver spoon up my ass. i don't have a college education(my own fault). BUT, i made minimum wage at only ONE job my ENTIRE life. i washed dishes at a local restaurant for three months. it totally sucked ass. worst job i ever had, but that is minimum wage... crapshoot work. But, during that three months, i had taken the spare moments i had from washing the china, to learn how to operate the fryer, and that side of the cooking line, instead of taking a break, or smoking a cigarette, like my dishwashing counterparts. i was moved up to fryer cook, and did the same thing watching the saute and grill cooks. after another three months of observing, i was grill cook and head of the line, and in charge of everything that took place in that kitchen for two of the less busy nights of the week, making $7 an hour, a hell of a kick over the $4.25 i started with.

i understand why the minimum wage laws were put into effect. the first year that the law was put into place was 1938, at $0.25 an hour. the country was coming out of the biggest depression it had ever faced. it was a law that was totally necessary at the time, and still serves a purpose, imo. during the same time period(1935), the 40 hour work week was also put into place for the same reasons as the minimum wage act..... to keep employers from taking advantage of employees. things were really, really, really tough at the time. it wasn't like you could just go anywhere and get a job. there were families who were starving, and the man of the house took any job he could get to put food on the table. employers were demanding low wages and long work weeks, or else, your family could go back to being hungry. it was this type of munipulation that the government stepped in to stop. and rightfully so.

which brings us to the present. yes, it is nearly impossible to survive on minimum wage this day and age. so i can see where certain people can say, 'hey i'm being treated wrong here'. but setting it higher, is like giving to those who don't deserve it. i understand a few(50 or so) cents every few years, to keep up with the times and economy. but just doing so to 'help' those who are trying to survive on it is not only assinine, but a slap in the face to those of us who actually worked to get away from it. it's a starting point. nothing more. i do understand business, and understand why i couldn't stand around with my thumb up my ass while i made minimum wage..... BECAUSE IT IS BUSINESS!

i don't pay any of my employees minimum wage. never would. theres no incentive to work hard there for anyone other than myself if i do that. i run a lanscaping/new residential construction business. for the new construction part, most of the work is done through sub-contractors, so there is no need for in house labor. but for the landscape part, i have to keep in house labor. therefore i have to decide what to pay my guys. most companys in the business here in g'ville nc are paying about minimum wage to $6/hr starting for landscaping help. i pay $8. reason being, i watch the other companies, and i know which employees can produce and do a good job. when the time comes, i don't have trouble finding any help, GOOD help not to mention. as a matter of fact they are beating down the door to come to work for me. which is the way i like it. granted, i have to charge more for my jobs, but at the same time, we deliver a better finished product than any of our competitors, so not only is it not an issue at all, its a selling point. and yes, we don't get any of the nickle and dime customers or jobs, but at the same time, i'm not looking for 'those' customers either. you want to pay crap prices, and get a crappy result, by all means, "hire the next guy and don't waste anymore of my time....." well you get the point hopefully. the guys that work for me don't have any special education, or special skills when they step on my job. all i ask is that they bust ass for 40 hours and come to work when they are supposed to. thats it.

sure it sucks being paid MW. it really does. but take a walk in any employer who pays its shoes for a while. they've probably got these employees doing a job that any competent person could do in their sleep. but thats only one of the reasons that certain jobs pay certain wages. imagine hiring the teenager who is supposed to be flipping burgers, but decides to call in sick every other shift, because their freinds are going to the movies or mall and they don't want to miss it. or the crackhead who is supposed to be bagging groceries, but stays on a crack binge every other night instead of askin paper or plastic. you'd want the wages to be less than what they are.

i do feel for the people that have to support themselves or a family on MW. but again, it is only a stepping stone in the walk of life. it should only be temporary, and if you are in this position, you should take every opportuinty to better your situation. if you don't do that, then you SHOULD be wondering and whining about it, imo. everyone made a bed in life, or is making that bed that they have to lie in sooner or later. when the time comes, take it like a man and lie in it. i'll bet there isn't one person here who attended public school in the US that didn't have a teacher or teachers tell them that they didn't want to have to live on MW the rest of their life. sure the class clown probably made a joke about it at the time, but he IS the joke now when you see him stocking toys at target....

would it hurt my small business personally? no. maybe the ones who are competeing with large corporate chains, but that is a risk anyone who decides to go into business for themselves makes. it is SUPER expensive to run a business. between business taxes, employee payroll taxes, business licenses, and insurance cost, not to mention business overhead, it is mind numbingly frightful how much of a companies profits go to someone else before you as an owner actually sees anything in your piggy bank. but if it weren't for the taxes, insurance and other BS, then everyone would be in business for themselves, and thats what makes it that much sweeter when you acheive success as a business owner. is the reward worth the risk involved, is what every business owner really needs to sit down and think about before they decide to do it for themselves.

i personally think, without trying to focus on an indivual group, but the economy as a whole, everything is in place for a reason. people ARE rewarded for hard work. wether you take you lumps as a kid or as you get older, make no mistake about it, YOU WILL TAKE YOUR LUMPS IN LIFE. getting through them only makes us stronger. wether its climbing through the ranks from minimum wage upward, going to colleg for half of your life, or taking a high pay/high risk job, or starting a business, success does not come overnight. if someone making minimum wage 'accepts' it in their own mind, they are only holding themselves back. thats why the saying goes, 'i'm going to work', not 'i'm going to play'...... it's business, whether the minimum wage guy looks at it like that or not, it is ALL business.

FFA, said something earlier in the person A,B,C bit about not being able to pay less than minimum wage. this is completly untrue. there are loopholes everywhere. if you and the person agree on 4 bucks an hour, then you can pay that person 4 bucks an hour as a sub-contractor from now through the rest of time. you would issue that person a 1099 at the end of the year, instead of a W-2, and that person would be responsible for their own income and self employment taxes at that point. its the same way the 40 hr week laws are twisted around. as an employer you can opt to pay a salary, instaed of an hourly wage. then it doesn't matter how many hrs an employee is on the clock for, because a weekly/monthyl/yearly sum has been agreed upon by both parties. many different ways to swim through the loop holes.

of course, i'm not an economical expert, nor i have any degree in business, but it's what i've seen first hand. i'm not rich, don't even consider myself middle class at this point. hell i'd go as far to say that i'm in the upper 'poor' class, instead of middle class. my business is young. it struggles. i wonder where the hell the money is going to come from EVERY month to pay the bills. some days, even weeks i make minimum wage.... or less. others i don't, i make more. i've even thought about giving up, but then i'd be no better than a guy who complains about making MW.

should MW increase? yes. it's been almost ten years, since the last time. the overall cost of living has increased since 1997, the last time it was increased.

should it be raised to the point that anyone making minimum wage should be able to lead a happy care free life? ABSOLUTELY NOT. why do any of the things you are supposed to do to make you better, if you know you can get a job that will pay you and you can get by with out the effort? it doesn't work that way.

go ahead and raise it. if the government is trully concerned with the small business owner, they raise minumun wage, but KEEP THEIR GREEDY FINGERS OUT OF OUR POCKETS.(and those greedy insurance bastards too, they can both kiss my entire )

I have new socks on.

You people are too smart for me. I should root for Pittsburgh, probably.

I think the crucial point here is not that raising the minimum wage is to "help" the poor or to give anyone something for nothing. I believe the point is to keep up with inflation and the cost of living and not make it WORSE for the poor.

I am college educated and have a good job (though, it is admittedly not what I want to do forever) that pays ok and has great benefits. As a matter of fact, even in highschool when I worked in fast food, I made at least a little above minimum wage. The worst paying job I ever had was an internship which paid a weekly stipend. So I can't say I understand what it's like to have to get by at the type of job that would pay minimum wage.

One of the other things that a minimum wage does is encourage people (albeit unskilled people) into the workforce (and off of welfare, etc.).

Imagine you are a mother of two, and you are getting by on your husband's income. It would be really good to be able to work and bring in more income, but you are unskilled (or underskilled) and you can only get the kind of minimum wage job we have been discussing. However, at $125 per week per kid (not an imaginary figure, it's what I pay), daycare costs more than you make a week (even before taxes). Where does that leave you? I'll tell you where, it leaves you on welfare and WIC and medicaid.