106 Comments - Vote Quimby! - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 10:38 am: Bad thing. Not that more money for poor workers isn’t good, but it’s a fallacy to think people can live on $280 (net wages at 40 hours) a week. Minimum wages are set so employers can take a chance on people and see what they offer. If they succeed, any smart owner will give them a decent raise. If they don’t, any smart good employee will find someone who will. If there aren’t any decent jobs, then move! - Levois - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 10:42 am: It certainly is a good thing for those who are already working but it’s a bad thing for government to continue to raise the price floor for entry level workers. Employers should be able to pay the wages they can afford and if gov’t continues to raise that floor then it would make it harder for an employer to hire more people. Indeed I’d be concerned they’d cut some jobs because they can’t even afford minimum wage. - Steve - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 10:43 am: Wages increase because of gains in marginal productivity not because a politician passes a law.Illinois just became a little more uncompetitive.No wonder Texas now has more Fortune 500 company headquarters. - Vote Quimby! - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 10:44 am: I know all those HQs are FULL of people making minimum wage…. - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 10:44 am: Bad Thing. It is one thing for someone who is full time, but student workers/Summer workers should not be raised. They are forcing cost of goods to go up. - BandCamp - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 10:44 am: I agree with VQ. Just another political play. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 10:48 am: Minimum wages are so 20th Century. When governments do something, they shift burdens from one category to another. When they do something that no longer works, then they end up making most people lose, and few people win. Doing nothing is better than raising minimum wages. It isn’t a matter of not liking those who earn less than others. It isn’t a matter of liking rich over poor. It is a matter of doing something that helps people over doing something that doesn’t. If you really want to help lower wage earners, then drop this obsolete idea right now. Proponents of minimum wages should return to college and discover the EITC. The EITC works because it gives workers real incentives to earn and returns to them their own money. We have lots of studies that point out how the EITC works and how minimum wages no longer work. Maybe when Roosevelt was president minimum wages worked, but not anymore. It is an industrial age, pre-WWII government tool that hurts more than helps. Time for it to be permanently retired - along with the hackneyed GRT tax idea. - Bill - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 10:49 am: It is a good thing. Why shouldn’t employers share the profits with the people who do the real work? Fat cats take realy good care of themselves at the expense of theoir employees. The working people need the gov’t to force employers to pay at least a decent minimum. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 10:51 am: As Steve said, wages should be based upon productivity and the value of the work, not upon the whims of politicians. The minimum wage increases in Illinois have been arbitrary and not based upon sound economic policy. As said above, Illinois is less competitive than it was last month. - The Curmudgeon - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 10:53 am: It creates even greater incentive for employers to wink at illegal aliens in the work force (they’re not going to demand minimum wage) and provides even less chance for young people to get those entry-level summer jobs. Why should Giant Megacorp. hire Michael or Jennifer at $7.75 an hour while they learn how to show up on time and be responsible? They can get Miguel or Juanita for $4 (or, better still, hire a subcontractor and maintain the fiction that they know nothing about illegals in their store/kitchen/hotel/factory, etc.) Even the ones that don’t hire illegals will want full time people for these prices. Legislators with kids should know about this… except there are always jobs for kids whose folks have clout. The remedy? Two-tier wage scale: Minimum wage A for persons over, say, 23… Sub-Minimum wage - Ghost - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:00 am: It is a good thing. It sets minimial poverty levels for work. I agree it is not an ideal situation, but the market has proven unreliable in regualting itself. ALl employers seek to set their earnings, salary/profits, by paying the minimium they can to employees in order to max what they can take out themselves. Most employers, especially the small employers, treat the line workers as fungible. They do not care if somone quits because they know there is a steady stream of people needing work. Its not unlike the payday loan industry with 150-1500% loans. When we leave it to people to regualte themselves they seek to build themsleves by predatory acts. Socially we are not at a stage where we do well with market or self controlled regualtion. Thus there is a need for the gov to step in to keep exploitation to a certain threshhold. - Dr. Skeeter - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:10 am: I agree with VMan. 50 cents an hour is darn good wage, if that’s what the market will bear. If it is good enough for Indonesia, it is good enough for the U.S.! Who are we, as a civilized society, to say that human dignity requires at least a minimum amount of money for an hour’s labor? Let the market rule! - Union Guy - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:17 am: In the current race to the bottom, minimum wage stops employers from completely exploiting workers. In addition, the minimum wage stabilizes wages in the poor communities at a level more consistent with wealthier communites. - jerry 101 - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:19 am: Van Man’s right, these people should just be happy to have a job. I mean, maybe they should consider paying their employers for being so nice as to grant them the opportunity to work! Of course it’s a good thing. And if you are running a business and can’t afford to pay people $7.75/hr, then you aren’t very good at running your business. You should be run out of business. - wordslinger - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:22 am: Does any labor organization, say, the SEIU, try to organize the lower paid workers at the fast-food franchises? In the city at least, those jobs are no longer the province of high school and college kids like they were when I was younger. I suspect those workers have more clout than they realize. It would be interesting to see the effect of a one-day walkout by the Chicago McDonald’s workers. Who would the restaurants get to fill those jobs save the ones who are already doing them? - Vote Quimby! - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:26 am: ==if you are running a business and can’t afford to pay people $7.75/hr, then you aren’t very good== or whatever arbitrary number the government deems you should pay. If you’re successful at $5.75 and then the government determines your workers are worth $1 an hour more, does that make you a bad businessperson? - Ignorance - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:32 am: Neither WalMart nor McDonald’s have paid the min wage in a long time. Mom and Pop stores do. When you raise the min wage you liberals, you help those corps. Doesn’t bother me, I like McDonald’s and WalMart. One other thing, raising the min wage causes a contraction in the job market that hurts one demographic far more than any other - young African-American males. But you guys are in the pockets of the unions, and they know if you raise the min wage, you put the squeeze on companies they compete with and make it harder for them to compete with Union shops. If you have such control over wages, why not just make the min wage equivalent to a middle class salary? If you have the power to do that, and it doesn’t harm the economy as you claim, it is criminal not to do it. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:35 am: “Ignorance” try to argue your own case without an excessive over-reliance on fantasies about why the other side thinks the way it does. Thanks. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:36 am: And that goes for everyone else. Thanks. - Steve - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:37 am: With an economic slowdown in Illinois,the timing of the minimum wage hike couldn’t be worse.Some businesses can absorb it,some can’t.Those that can’t will lay off workers. - NimROD - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:38 am: Bill said: It is a good thing. Why shouldn’t employers share the profits with the people who do the real work? Fat cats take realy good care of themselves at the expense of theoir employees. The working people need the gov’t to force employers to pay at least a decent minimum. Are you serious? Do said workers also share in the risk as though they were business owners? This is the same argument that Caterpillar’s labor union made to management several years ago. The problem was, when it was pointed out that if the company lost money the workers would also have to share in the loss by paying out their share, they wanted no part of it. If you want the benefits of ownership then quit your job, start a business and take the risk yourself. Hourly workers are not entitled to anything but an hourly wage in exchange for the work the provide. - Ghost - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:47 am: NimROD but they are entitled to a “fair” wage in exchange for the work they provide. We long agao banished slave labor and indetured servitude as a bad way to interact with each other. The “market” developes various methods of exploiting people for the benefit of the “owners”. Governemtn steps in to work a balance and protect people from exploitation by establishing min afetry standards and salaries. The fact that you own a business does not grant you a right to be a predator forcing those desperate for work to operate at a below substinace wage for your profitability. The “but you can exploit people to” argument does not fly very far. 7.50 an hr is 15k a year. This is a fair starting point for wages in the US. - NimROD - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:52 am: “And if you are running a business and can’t afford to pay people $7.75/hr, then you aren’t very good at running your business. You should be run out of business.” Since this is another ‘compassionate’ move in order to help the poor minimum wage workers, can we agree that $7.75 is not a living wage and the compassionate thing would be to raise the minimum to $25.00 per hour for any job, regardless of skill. Since it is just an arbitrary number and businesses have an unlimited supply of money why stop at $7.75? It’s not like the increased payroll would have to be made up by increasing prices or decreasing the number of employed since numbers are arbitrary and it’s not like it is a zero sum game anyway….. Have any of you actually been in business for yourselves? Just where exactly do people THINK this extra money comes from? Remember, small businesses can’t sweep funds or issue bonds for whatever lunatic, pie-in-the-sky fantasy comes down the pike. They actually have to account for the money they spend. If the government mandates it, they will: a) raise the price of goods and services b) do the same job with fewer workers c) go out of business and release ALL of their workers. As we all know, no one wants to pay one dime more for anything that they don’t have to. Price your goods too high and you are either non-competitive or you drive down demand, which in turn drives down PROFIT which it turn forces you to hire fewer workers. This isn’t rocket science but people need to stop looking upon business like it is an endless font of capital. That is what corrupt state governments are for. - montrose - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:53 am: I am always amazed by the strong libertarian streak that runs through the comments on here. The minimum wage increase is a good thing. The reality is, the government regulates a wide array of areas. It is a reasonable role for government to play to ensure the well-being of all members of society and protect individuals being taken advantage of. We all know that the market does not act on pure rationality. Many “irrational” acts - such as taking advantage of employees rather than paying them what they are worth - happen in the market place. In that same vein, the arguement of “if you do not like what you are getting paid, than get another job” is nice soundbite, but we all know it is not that simple for everyone. I am not arguing that all employers are “fat cats” raking in millions at the expense of the workers. I am saying that setting a wage floor makes sense, and adjusting that wage floor from time to time to attempt to keep up with the cost of living (which the minimum wage is no where near) makes sense as well. - Belle - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:53 am: It’s good for the minimum wage workers and bad for anyone who will have to pay more for the company product. These costs are never absorbed by the business. They pass them along to everyone. And then we are back where we started… - VanillaMan - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 11:54 am: If minimum wages worked, they why can’t a country just set their minimum wage to $30.00 a hour and watch the riches roll in and their economy boom? Minimum wages are obsolete political industrial age throwbacks and everyone knows it. They are being used by politicians for political reasons, not sound economic ones. They aren’t being used by politicians to actually help anyone. If proponents of helping the working poor really wanted to help the working poor, they would create a 21st Century idea for the global market and stop pretending. Proponents of the minimum wage know it doesn’t work, but have no other ideas besides demanding a government solution to a non-government problem. - Dr. Skeeter - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:01 pm: Vman wrote: “If minimum wages worked, they why can’t a country just set their minimum wage to $30.00 a hour and watch the riches roll in and their economy boom?” You and others seem to be deliberately distorting the purpose of a min. wage. As I noted ironically above, the purpose is that in a civilized society, human dignity demands some minimum wage. Whether that number is $3 or $5 or $10 is open to debate, but there must be some number where people say “No. This is not tolerable. We are not a third world country, and we demand that employers pay $x per hour.” Nobody suggests that people making the min. will have a middle class lifesystle (other than those on the right who toss that idea out to mock the very idea of a min wage). The goal is to choose a wage that comports with basic dignity and will provide SOME reasonable wage level. We are not Indonesia. We are not a Third World country. We demand better than those places. - montrose - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:02 pm: +++Proponents of the minimum wage know it doesn’t work, but have no other ideas besides demanding a government solution to a non-government problem.+++ That is a broad over simplification. First of all, for those making the minimum wage, it works quite well. Second of all, to say that those in favor of a minimum wage increase care only about that particular soultion and no others is just not true. There are many solutions - increased skill-based training, economic development tools, etc. - that need to be put into place to address this complex issue. To be pro-minimum wage increase is not to against all other solutions, both inside and outside of government. - Gregor - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:02 pm: Adam Smith doesn’t give a spit if people can live or not. Minimum wage was established because the vaunted Market Forces do not in fact work perfectly for all. Employers are driven to always pay the very least for labor that they can. The extreme of which was grabbing people off their own land and shipping them here in chains to work for nothing. The vaunted free market has replaced slavery with the nearest equivalent: undocumented immigrants that work for a fraction of the minimum, without benefits or safety regulations or restrictions on the hours they can work. And if they want to complain or protest, or try to negotiate a higher rate, or better conditions, all the employer need do is pick up a phone to get them arrested and deported. Yeah, great system we have here, a land of equal opportunity. So the free-market arguments do not sway me. People that complain about minimum wage are never the ones trying to live off of one. The employers are the ones that want something for nothing. We need a universal standard and one that is enforced equally for all. - Truthful James - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:11 pm: The polarization in this discussion is amazing. Most are arguing from truism and fantasy. Look at your Ma and Pa retail stores. The Landlord is squeezing on the rent. The County hugely increases the property taxes, passed through to each tenant. A buck increase in the minimum wage increases FICA paid by the employer and the employee and Medicare paid by both and the FUTA, paid by the employer. The net is that the employee sees only ninety two cents and the employer pays out an additional $1.10. You may notice that the inventory isn’t whisking off the shelves in this economy and that is a ton of dead money invested. Walmart squeezes its suppliers and gets goods way cheaper so they can offer lower prices. S what the minimum wage likely does is eliminate one employee (out of three, perhaps) and forces Ma or Pa or Kid to work longer hours a “owners’ wages”. Or it sends the employees into the Gray Market where they get paid his original salary plus the raise in cash (no reporting to the state) and the the employer can do it because it saves his half of the tax bill. Avoiding the most regressive of all ‘taxes’ — FICA and Medicare on a weekly basis means something. The Gray Market may alos help out by enabling the family to obtain welfare and Medicaid. The Gray Market causes unemployment figures to be unreliable, and — if you work it out — lowers reported sales figures (saving the owner Sales taxes,) Probably lowers reported income as well. The lower recorded sales (punched out as zero on the cash register is the only way that the the employer can generate the cash wage. And by the way, the Gray Market is where the illegal aliens reside. In other words it distorts the economy across the Board. And that is the way it is at the bottom of the economic ladder. At the bottom end the employee no longer - NimROD - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:17 pm: “As I noted ironically above, the purpose is that in a civilized society, human dignity demands some minimum wage. Whether that number is $3 or $5 or $10 is open to debate, but there must be some number where people say “No. This is not tolerable. We are not a third world country, and we demand that employers pay $x per hour.”” So this is about symbolism? This is exactly what is wrong with this country in general and this question in particular. By your own admission, minimum wage laws are essentially nothing but a half-baked effort to assuage the conscience of people who feel guilty about working hard and earning more. My god….have we slipped this far? Does hard work , effort and drive mean nothing anymore? Should we just level the playing field for all and forget about self-determination? I’m sorry, but I will never support politicians who wants to play Robin Hood with business and penalizes those who strive to get ahead. It simply goes against everything I was raised to believe. I do not seek to ‘mock’ the minimum wage laws, I will state straight out that they are bogus. This is America; you have a myriad of choices other than government handout, subsidy or unfunded mandate. If this belief makes me a right-winger or uncivilized, than so be it. I accept the characterization. - Dr. Skeeter - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:18 pm: Well put, Truthful. Let Ma and Pa pay 50 cents an hour, since doing so will hurt the gray market and will stop illegals. That’s a fine solution you have there to the “gray market” problem. Let me add one more point in support of Truthful: If we allow employers to pay 50 cents an hour, that will pretty much end illegal immigration. When U.S. wages and standards of living here are worse than in Mexico, why come to the U.S.? They will stay home. Problem solved. That’s it. I’m seen the light. I’m with Truthful. - Excessively rabid - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:21 pm: “I am always amazed by the strong libertarian streak that runs through the comments on here.” It’s hard to pay much attention to government, at least in this state, WITHOUT developing a strong libertarian streak. It also leads to frequent use of the terms “charlatan,” “buffoon,” and “demagogue.” The less a government like this tries to do, the better. - Master of the Obvious - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:23 pm: The SJ-R did a piece on Doug Knight and his expanding business in their July 1 paper. The article recognized Knights Action Park as a business that made over $1,000,000/year, and notes the residual benefits he will receive being linked to the McArthur/I-72 intersection. And now Doug Knight gripes because he has to pay another .25 an hour more to employees. Incredible. Mr. Knight may have to do with only making $950,000 this year. If he is the poster boy for being against the minimum wage increase, its pretty hard to feel sorry for him and his “loss”. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:24 pm: Those posting here favoring the minimum wage are saying things that I heard years ago from a professor who never knew what it was like to work for minimum wage and simply repeated what other political studies professors have repeated since the New Deal. When did the minimum wage actually work as intended? 1952? When was the last time proponents of the minimum wage actually checked to see if this obsolete idea works as they claim? 1972? Instead of claiming that everyone is heartless if they don’t support the minimum wage, try updating your position of support for the working class by supporting the EITC. It has been around about 25 years, and has been working since that time. But some of you people haven’t really looked beyond what you were told in college by these regurgitating professors schooled back in the 1960-1970s, have you? If you did you would be bold enough to drop this crazy old New Deal idea and embrace something that works. The success of the EITC is one of the reasons the minimum wage wasn’t raised - folks recognized what worked and what didn’t. Dragging the minimum wage into the political arena in 2008 is like dragging the GRT tax out of retirement into today’s arena. It is disingenuous. If you really cared about the working class, you would support what works for the working class - the minimum wage doesn’t. Get over it. - Dr. Skeeter - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:29 pm: VMan, What is the daily wage in Mexico? Indonesia? Do you really think tax rates make the slightest difference to people making $1 a day? The Earned Income Tax Credit is nice, but it works as part of a solution and is not in itself a solution. People seem to have this fantasy that somehow the U.S. is inherently superior to the Third World — that what happens there cannot happen here. That’s true to a degree, but only because we have a society and, yes, a government that will not permit us to slip to those levels. - Truthful James - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:32 pm: “Skeeter’s am a’humming on the honeysuckle vine…” At 50 cents, Ma and Pa are going to find no takers. Or if they do, the loss from disappearing inventory will be more than the minimum wage. Believe it or not, the one thing that the legal minimum wave has done is drive the Gray market up to that point. If Ma and Pa can’t afford it they are going to be one of three things: a) working by themselves; b) trying to find a buyer for their business — discounting the inventory — willing to work that hard; or c) selling below cost until they can liquidate it, because they sure can’t replace it item for item — now that is a downward spiral. I’ve run a small beauty supply business, and thank god we found b). How about you? - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:37 pm: Steve - Maybe in Bizarro World, minimum wage workers receive regular raises in direct response to increased productivity. In my world, owners reward minimum wage workers with pay raises in response to fears or threats that they’ll be leaving, or along a regular scheduled pay raise schedule based on seniority, and completely independent of productivity. Your argument — that the market is so fluid and “smart” that it adjusts to compensate everyone based on productivity — would be a great argument for ABOLISHING the minimum wage if it were true, but it is not a sound argument for keeping the minimum wage frozen in place. As to the question: Someone’s got to raise the minimum wage first, whether regionally, nationally, or internationally; so, ultimately all minimum wage increases are unilateral. Moreover, business groups have been Crying Wolf over minimum wage increases as long as we’ve had a minimum wage. If they really wanted to reduce wage costs, they should be squeezing health insurance industry profits, not minimum wage workers. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:38 pm: Minimum wage increases = Cost increases Cost increases = Price increases Hurt most by price increases?–> Minimum-wage employees - Vote Quimby! - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:42 pm: A classic case: pitting the ruthless, rich old Mr. Burns-ish business owner against the poor, starving, huddled-masses-yearning-to-breathe-free proliteriate. Here’s what I think we agree on: (1) A full-time, minimum wage does not provide a decent standard of living for Americans as we live today. (2) Immigrants are swarming to this country because they can live here on LESS than the min wage AND send money home to their families. (3) These immigrants are working jobs Americans can’t/don’t want to do for $7.75 an hour, but the immigrants will do it for much less (in many cases). What does this truly say about our society? - reasonable 1 - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:44 pm: I can’t believe some of you are debating a quarter………..:( Businesses do need to turn a profit, however, people have to live as well. 10.75% sales tax, $15 per bag to travel, almost $5 for gas, property tax hikes, tax increases in general, etc……, I get that, but a quarter? Especially when most minimum wage paid employees don’t have health insurance!!! - Vote Quimby! - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:49 pm: To: Master of the ‘obvious’ — I’m sure that $1 million is in gross sales, not net profit. To: ‘reasonable 1″– its more about the principle of random numbers than the actual money. And when did minimum wage earners make enough to worry about the carry-on bag tax? - Truthful James - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:56 pm: reasonable 1 Sorry, I don’t deal with non sequiters Quimby It says several things. First most illegals are being paid close to the minimum wage. Sending money back hurts the economy because it stops dead the velocity of money. Second, the illegals are living eight or ten to a one bedroom apartment all over ChiTown and paying cash rents. Ma and Pa are working, an abuelo takes care of the children. Notice that the family structure remains intact through all this. Third, I have already dexribed the Gray market in which our people are working. They know how to game the system. Fourth, without the illegals employers would have to pay the market clearing wage and raise prices a bit. We, with discretionary income, would still buy. The most importn thing is to keep the bottom rung employment open for our citizens and legal immigrants so that they learn about work. - Sweet Jane - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:57 pm: “If you have such control over wages, why not just make the min wage equivalent to a middle class salary?” This is a good idea. Why _shouldn’t_ everyone make enough money to live on? Why shouldn’t fair wages that people could actually live on just be considered one of the costs of doing business? Pretending that anyone can live on an hourly wage of $7.75 is a joke. “The market will take care of it” goes both ways. The market will take care of a business owner who doesn’t want or can’t afford to pay a fair wage to its employees - s/he will go out of business. Why should it always be the workers who are expected to bear the brunt of negative market forces? By the way, the market doesn’t have such a great track record lately (i.e., the glorious subprime mortgage mess, corporate bailouts & removal of tax liabilities in the face of increasing corporate profits & rising CEO salaries, etc.), so I’m not sure that people should still be touting it as a solution to any of these issues. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 12:57 pm: Sorry, I got a little cryptic in the last post. Labor is a commodity. It has value based upon its scarcity and its importance to production. Therefore, chemical engineers are more valuable than ditch diggers. Major League Baseball players (whose work creates thousands of other jobs) make millions while teachers make low-to-mid five figures. Those who work for others, trade their labor and their expertise for pay. If the pay does not meet the laborer’s standards, he may choose to seek employment elsewhere. If the laborer’s value and scarcity are high, the employer will pay enough to hire. If the laborer’s price is too high, the employer may seek someone else for the position. It is a trade into which both parties enter willingly. The employer does not force the laborer to work for him. The laborer is not beholden to the employer. Their working arangement is a contract to which both agreed freely. It really can’t work otherwise. - Dr. Skeeter - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:11 pm: Truthful, You claim that a U.S. business would find no takers at 50 cents an hour. Why not? People work for rate or less in some countries. Why not here? - Just a guy - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:14 pm: Raising the minimum wage above the national level is bad protocol. This is not being performed to make a livable wage and therefore is pure pandering. A livable wage given for minimum skills (the rational for creation of minimum wage) is just plain goofy-logic. And speaking of logic ~ the way I see it, I just effectively got a $0.25/hour decrease in wages. I work for a great employer, but let’s face it, they will NOT be raising my salary to match a raise in minimum wage. Truly this state becomes a worse place to remain with each passing policy of political meandering. Good Day and Good Luck. - Dr. Skeeter - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:14 pm: Fan of the Game, You write: “It is a trade into which both parties enter willingly. The employer does not force the laborer to work for him. The laborer is not beholden to the employer. Their working arangement is a contract to which both agreed freely. It really can’t work otherwise.” Are you claiming that the children working in sweatshops in Indonesia and the rest of the Third World happily enter into that agreement? How about the adults. Do you agree that the situation is fair and reasonable, and should be copied in the U.S.? Should we take our labor laws from the Third World? - Are you for real? - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:17 pm: Dr. Skeeter- Are you for real? In the countries where the populace is “surviving” on $.50/hr, the standard of living is a BIT lower than here in the US. Or perhaps you live in some parallel universe where bread is only $.05/loaf, and movies still cast $.10. - DuPage Dave - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:20 pm: My opinion of Vanilla Man has gone way, way down today. To begrudge some poor schmoe an extra 25 cents an hour… wow! - Anon - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:24 pm: Small changes to the minimum wage are a tiny little blip on the economy. But people need to understand that the market always wins. If the minimum wage increase pushes the cost of labor of an individual or a group beyond its value, the market will adjust to take that excess value being transfered to the minimum wage recipients away from them. Maybe by layoffs, maybe by the employer demanding more of them, maybe by their employers going out of business, maybe by outsourcing to the next state or the next country. And anyone who thinks that “fat cat” employers are currently exploiting workers by paying them less than they are worth and also thinks that those same aren’t going to get the value they want for the pay they give is switching premises in mid-stream. - reasonable 1 - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:27 pm: To “Quimby”-those were just examples of much bigger and better things to complain about. To “James”-it’s not my fault you didn’t follow my comment. P.S. Use a dictionary. - The Horse - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:30 pm: it is BAD BAD BAD it makes it harder for entrepeneural startups to get started and to keep going (that sounds so much better than mom & pop shops).. thats who it hurts the most. it causes compression with labor dollars, hurting those in the middle. top paid professionals still earn their top end $’s, but the range from top to bottom gets smaller. My starting rate for entry level clerks and support staff has gone up, but the top rate for experienced staff in those jobs has not. It makes illinois even more uncompetitive as a place to do business. ( hardto believe that that is possible) it does not impact areas where wages are well above the minimum to start with, only areas that are already depressed. It does not improve standard of living. Minimum wage earners still… go to school, or get some entry leel experience and move up/move on, or spend the increases they earn paying the increases in the cost of cigarettes or an extra 6 pack. ok I feel much better now… - Dr. Skeeter - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:31 pm: Are you for real, That was my point. A lot of people here seem not have a problem with that reduced standard of living — you among them, apparently. - Captain America - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:38 pm: The minimum wage should be and always should have been indexed to cost-of’living increases based upon a market basket index in particular geographic areas. Many Republicans believe in trickle-down (”p_ss down” economics, but for some reason are opposed to trickle-up economics for the least well off in our society. I much prefer the generous COSTCO approach to emplyee compenstion and benefits to the Wal-Mart “begger thy employee” philosophy. - Steve - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:42 pm: To Yellow Dog Democrat: With the recent increase in the Cook County sales tax plus the minimum wage increase:why should consumers go out of their way to shop in a place like downtown Chicago when they can go somewhere else? No one has said markets are fluid but they are a lot more fairer than politicians deciding things. - Truthful James - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:43 pm: Skeeter – Silly question. Becuase other work is available for $7.00 cash wages That doesn’t mean that you might not get a passerby to empty the wastebasket for half a buck. It takes him three minutes. That is 10 bucks on an hourly basis. Come on and answer my last question. I ran a small store in the past. You? - wordslinger - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:43 pm: The quarter aside, I’m fascinated by the abstract Student Union debate on the utility of any minimum wage at all. What’s tomorrow: Do the individual states have the right of secession? I’ve got a flash for you folks; the minimum wage, along with Social Security, unemployment insurance, the SEC, FDIC, NLRB, and assorted other New Deal programs were part of a whole and have been around for 70 years. Tried and tested, people seem to like them. I think they’re sticking around. They were all passed for reasons: to save capitalism from its failures and excesses, and as a bulwark to Fascism and Communism, which were on the march here and around the world. I think by any economic or social measure, the people of the United States are better off with the New Deal market interferences. For the laissez faire adherents among you who long for the unfettered blessings of the market, I recommend “Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945,” by David Kennedy. The Good Old Days weren’t all so good. The New Deal saved capitalism and democracy and paved the way for the incredible standard of living even the “poor” among us enjoy today. That ain’t so bad. That’s my 25 cents worth. - Vote Quimby! - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:49 pm: ==those were just examples of much bigger and better things to complain about== And here I was staying on topic. Since that’s gone, I’ll give the last word to wordslinger… excellent retort. To further expand the debate, how about this question: would the 25 cents an hour be put to better use paying for medical coverage for these workers? - Dr. Skeeter - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:50 pm: Truthful, Why do you think that is? Does the existence of a minimum wage and of labor laws have anything to do with the fact that other work is available at $7 per? - VanillaMan - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:56 pm: I am not opposed to anyone earning more money. I am opposed to anyone embracing an obsolete solution when there is a better solution out there. I am not opposed to the poor. And people who are poor are not schmoes. Take a look at what works. Today the EITC works and the minimum wage does not. Raising the minimun wage is nonsensical because it no longer works. It is wrong to milk this for political reasons, which is what a lot of people are doing right now. What’s next? Bringing back bi-metalism or the gold standard? The minimum wage is like one of those old tried and no-longer-true government solutions. It might make for some votes for some politicians somehow disconnected from economic reality, but sincerely concerned over the working class, but I see the mininum wage as a device to divide classes and play class politics over something that belongs in the history books, not in today’s global US market. Move forward. Help people. Dump what no longer works for what does. This is what I support. - observation - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 1:58 pm: As I read the comments, I am wondering how many commenters other than Truthful have owned and operated a business that employed between 5 and 15 people? It is all well and good to provide philosophical input about how little $.25/hour means to the bottom line until one sees it on an accounting spreadsheet. It just doesn’t effect that businesses wages, FICA, FUTA, SUTA, etc., it also means that other costs go up at the same time. The vendor who delivers office supplies, the printer who prints marketing brochures and letterhead, even the store from which you obtain your toilet paper - each of these vendors will increase the prices of their products because they also must pay the extra $.25 an hour. It’s absolutely amazing to see the trickle down effect. And anyone who has operated a successful small business knows that there are only so many times you can cut corners while still providing quality service/products at competitive prices and remain profitable. Speaking of which, to Jerry 101 who stated: “and if you are running a business and can’t afford to pay people $7.75/hr, then you aren’t very good at running your business”. Using this statement is essentially saying that trucking companies should just eat the higher fuel prices without passing the costs on to consumers otherwise they aren’t running their businesses efficiently. Hmmm. Try using that line the next time you are at the grocery checkout. - Truthful James - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 2:01 pm: Skeeter – Sorry, no. I used $7 as an off the wall example. I do believe there is a market clearing price of labor. The minimum wage may or may not mimic this. It would be the same in the absence of labor laws. If the minimum wage and the labor laws were effective there would be no Gray Market. - Dr. Skeeter - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 2:08 pm: Truthful, Actually, I think the gray market proves my point. Without government regulation, wages would fall. If they fall to a certain point, things would better in Third World countries (or nearly as good) so the “gray market” would disappear. If labor laws don’t make a difference, then how do you explain the fact that in countries without effective wage laws — Mexico, Indonesia, etc. — the average wage is far lower than in countries that do have wage and labor regs? And, in answer to your question, I am part owner of a general contractor [not full time for me], so I know a bit about wages, etc. So, what’s the story? Why do people in Indonesia make far less than in the U.S.? - montrose - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 2:12 pm: +++Proponents of the minimum wage know it doesn’t work, but have no other ideas besides demanding a government solution to a non-government problem.+++ +++Today the EITC works and the minimum wage does not.+++ How is the EITC NOT a government solution? Adjustments to the tax code are about as government as one gets. I think this reinforces my point that the government plays a vital role in making sure the “invisible hand” does not squash people. There is no silver bullet when it comes to this role. Minimum wage is one tool, EITC is another, job readiness training is yet another. I am all for the EITC. I have in the past on this blog said one of the most important policy issues on the table that Illinois has failed to implement is expansion of the state-level EITC. What I think is fascinating about the EITC vs. minmum wage arguement is that raising the minimum wage requires engage of the private sector in the solution, while EITC does not - it is all government. - anon - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 2:16 pm: Most people who go into business do so, generally, to make a good living. In order to make a good living, you have to reduce the costs of doing business AND increase the benefits of doing business. These people become employers. Most people who do not go into business do not have the ambition or the tolerance for risk, but they still want to make a good living. They are not concerned with the costs of business, but certainly with the benefits of it. These people become employees . . . or musicians. - Bob - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 2:19 pm: With the prices at Knights, every little bit helps. If a child is less than 48 inches, it’s $18.95 to enter the park. A child over 48 inches is $23.95 for the day. It would cost a person making minimum wage a full days pay to spend the day at the park. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 2:21 pm: My opinions are: The minimum wage and EITC aren’t mutually exclusive. I’ve never understood why people think there is (or must be) some correlation between minimum wage and living wage. An increase in the state Minimum Wage of 25 cents is like throwing a stone in the ocean and saying you’ve raised sea levels. Technically you have, but it isn’t going to be very noticeable on a day-to-day basis. - Kevin Fanning - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 2:23 pm: ===An increase in the state Minimum Wage of 25 cents is like throwing a stone in the ocean and saying you’ve raised sea levels. Technically you have, but it isn’t going to be very noticeable on a day-to-day basis.==== Great analogy. - The Horse - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 2:46 pm: montrose: it is a government solution, it is one that is focused on the folks who should be beneficiaries of increased wages, and isone that accomplishes income redistribtion gains more effectively. - Anonamous #3562 - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 3:05 pm: I would rather have an increase every year little by little, instead of waiting 10 years. After 10 years, there is a huge raise in the minimum wage. Honestly, I don’t think it is fair to business or minimum wage employees. Right now it seems pretty high, so maybe it shouldn’t be increased as much. But it should basically be inflation adjusted every year. But… that makes too much sense. And it takes a political football away from the politicians, particularly liberals in my opinion. Simply because the success of constantly increasing wages would take away their reason to exist. So, set the minimum wage to REAL inflation, not core, and have it go up (or down in the case of deflation) every year. - zatoichi - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 3:05 pm: I like Steve’s stone analogy, but in a small pond those stones add. Noticed that McDonalds raised their prices immediately after the last minimum wage increase. Costs keep going up. Min wage is just one more item. At our company, we have customers discussing moving products from us to other states because we have to raise our prices. Locally, our social service agencies often have people working at minimum wage or only slightly higher since the state is so supportive in their rates. If someone feels Knights is not playing fair, put up the money, be a competitor, put in the years, and beat them or simply do not go there. Wonder what Knight’s liability coverage costs? - Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 3:15 pm: I’d like somebody on the opposing side to point to studies showing that increasing minimum wage also increases unemployment. Lots of philosophy, very little facts today. - Justice - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 3:15 pm: Minimum wage is a bad thing as it does not offer an incentive to those receiving the minimum wage and it penalizes the employer. It is our way of ‘feeling good’ while ignoring the fact that we are rewarding people for doing the absolute minimum. Get rid of the minimum wage and let everyone compete for the job through better performance. Industry rewards effort while minimum wage encourages mediocrity. - downhereforyears - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 3:16 pm: Totally against it! I think we all realize that there are people in minimum wage jobs that, because of there skills, are worth more….but that doesn’t mean that that person who is in a job that’s only worth 7.25 an hour should be paid more. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 3:30 pm: Is $0.25 a small pebble? Possible, but those small pebbles add up. Right now, Illinois’s minimum wage is 33% higher than the national standard. About 15 states use the federal minimum ($5.85). Forty-three states have minimum wages lower than Illinois’s. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 3:31 pm: Also, today’s question wasn’t about your feelings on the minimum wage in general. Re-read the question, please. - Anon - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 3:34 pm: ===An increase in the state Minimum Wage of 25 cents is like throwing a stone in the ocean and saying you’ve raised sea levels. Technically you have, but it isn’t going to be very noticeable on a day-to-day basis.==== But if you do raise it by enough to be noticeable, the market adjustment will be painful. Remember what happened when OPEC overpriced oil in the 70’s. It took a massive and painful combination of inflation and recession to bring the economy around to the place where oil was priced right again. If you overprice unskilled labor to a similar extent, you will get a similar amount of dislocation to bring the price of labor back to its value relative to everything else. And no one will enjoy that, least of all the class of workers who minimum wage is supposed to benefit. But the market always wins. - Dr. Skeeter - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 3:37 pm: - Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 3:31 pm: “Also, today’s question wasn’t about your feelings on the minimum wage in general. Re-read the question, please.” In response: Cheap political ploy. I thought that was obvious. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 3:43 pm: ===I’d like somebody on the opposing side to point to studies showing that increasing minimum wage also increases unemployment.=== According to the National Center for Policy Analysis: “Employment Policy Foundation analysts say increasing the minimum wage will be an additional barrier to work for the over 40 percent of workers in the lowest income quintile who report no work in the preceding year. Workers with less than a high school diploma make up 40.8 percent of workers earning the minimum wage or below. The unemployment rate of these less educated workers was 6.5 percent in November 1999, more than twice the rate of individuals with a high school diploma and no college education — 3.2 percent. With a proposed minimum wage increase of 19 percent over three years, their unemployment rate will likely increase to 8.3 percent and deny an additional 217,000 access to job experience opportunities. Similarly, the youth unemployment rate is likely to increase from 10.1 percent to 11.9 percent.” http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/min/pd011400f.html From the Employment Policy Institute: “Specifically, a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 0.9 to 1.1 percent decline in retail employment and a 0.8 to 1.2 percent reduction in small business employment. These employment effects grow even larger for the low-skilled employees most affected by minimum wage increases. A 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 2.7 to 4.3 percent decline in teen employment in the retail sector, a 5 percent decline in average retail hours worked by all teenagers, and a 2.8 percent decline in retail hours worked by teenagers who remain employed in retail jobs.” http://www.epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=98 - Say WHAT? - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 3:48 pm: Bad thing. Too much government involvement. Its silly to raise the minimum rate to garnish favor with some, while hurting business owners. Not all are fat cats. Some are struggling hard core right now. Reminds me of the scene from the Wizard of Oz. “Pay no attention to the investigation behind the curtain!” “No taxes on people - just fees!” “Look! A minimum wage increase!” - downhereforyears - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 3:54 pm: Rich….little testy today? - Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 4:01 pm: Nope. Just disappointed that so many people are going off-topic. - JonShibleyFan - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 4:08 pm: Really, Fan. A conservative think tank thinks minimum wage increases are bad. Well knock me over with a feather. Interestingly, many of another commenter’s anti-minimum wage (and pro-EITC)comments appear DIRECTLY cribbed from another right wing think tank, the National Center for Polict Analysis, right down to the “why not $30″ comment. Bravo, you’ve got the Google. To the question: For workers - $.25 per hour is ten bucks a week. Not going to put steak on anyone’s table, but with gas prices creeping up, it’s something. For businesses: it is likely to increase griping on the part of Chambers of commerce, the IMA, etc. From an actual business standpoint, it will be difficult to gauge in the short run. Though…it is $10 per employee. For political theater: BINGO! - Excessively rabid - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 4:10 pm: OK, back to topic. Bad idea. Different reason: It’s another example of state government neglecting its duties in favor of involving itself in something that for better or worse is already being done by the Federal government. Other examples: the Canadian flu vaccine and arguing with the DoD over where the fighter planes go. These people need to quit grandstanding, pass a reasonable budget with actual revenue to support it, and maintain the state’s infrastructure. But fat chance. - montrose - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 4:11 pm: As long as we are throwing out biased think tanks - from the Economic Policy Institute: Does the minimum wage cause job loss? A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates). Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as to studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment. Finally, a recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses. New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 4:14 pm: JSF, Just giving Rich what he asked for. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 4:15 pm: I should have asked for a neutral study. - observation - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 4:18 pm: After rereading the question, I believe increasing the minimum wage unilaterally is a bad thing and while I do not have specific factoids, I do have recent real life experiences. I personally know three college students who have lost their retail jobs on 6/30. The retailers are reducing the workforce because the monthly sales quotos set by the corporate offices have been unmet due to the economic slump and the minimum wage was increased. These are kids who are trying to save as much money as possible for college to keep the need for financial aid to a minimum. Unless they can find jobs quickly and for the last remaining 6 weeks of Summer before returning to classes, they are likely to have to tap even more into the Pell Grant well to make up the difference. So in these three cases, not only did the minimum wage have an impact on unemployment, but it is likely to result in an additional outflow of tax dollars for college expenses. All of this made me wonder how much the minimum wage increase has cost. The Gov’s. press release claims that the min. wage hike will benefit nearly 650,000. Using that as the base at 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, then that means that just the increases since 2004 have resulted in an additional $4.03 billion in wages. In the words of Everett Dirksen, “A billion here and a billion there, adn pretty soon you’re talking real money.” - montrose - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 4:20 pm: ++I should have asked for a neutral study.++ To be honest, those are really hard to find. - one for the road - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 4:32 pm: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Employment_Policies_Institute - VanillaMan - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 4:32 pm: I googled the National Center for Policy Analysis and searched their database for “EITC”. It gave me a report opposed to the EITC! I don’t know if it is a right wing think tank, or what it is, but since it has been written that I cribbed from this group, I thought I’d take a look. You must be making this stuff up. I don’t see where this “right wing think tank” writes what I’ve blogged today. Are you serious? I wouldn’t accuse a fellow blogger of being a phoney like I was accused of being. If there are publications out there that I am remembering regarding my support for the EITC over minimum wage, I am remembering it - not otherwise. We all do what we can to have a constructive dialogue. It isn’t right to make up a plagarism charge like that. - Truthful James - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 4:33 pm: Rich — there is no neutral study. “If I weren’t so well informed, I would be bigoted.” I have argued with prominent economists for several business cycles, that this whole area is improperly analyzed because of the failure to properly analyze the Gray Market. And they admit there has been no good studies on this area. All published data ignores it. We get gross numbers thrown around which put its size in economic terms as from 10 to 20 percent of reported GDP. As an add on to our eonomy, that’s a heckuva lot. The problem is similar to quantum mechanics and the measurement of mass and movement at the same time. You can do one and not another. If the mere announcement of a measured, market clearing wage level were done - -without the force of law and the costs of enforcement, one could live with that. The Gray Market workers know wpproximately where that is. At the lowest decile the wage paid is probably slightly greater than the economic worth of the job. The employer makes an initial investment in the training of the individual. He expects to see the employees work up to the worth equal to the wages he is paid. This process continues. The employee is given a raise and more responsibility, There is another training and workout period. He demonstrates his worth and more and qualifies for a raise now commensurate with his abilities. But to make a legally enforceable minimum wage is another matter. I admit my evidence is anecdotal, because it referes to my business experience alone. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 4:46 pm: I am hearing calls for change, but when this conversations began, it seems that minimum wage proponents had no interest in any changes. Why is that? We cannot have a meaningful change of course in this country when one suggests change at the risk of being politically attacked as a heartless individual. I made it clear that I favor a level of assistance, yet no longer a minimum wage believer. I want effective assistance, not a feel-good blathering of political tripe. “Is unilaterally increasing the state’s minimum wage a good thing or a bad thing? Explain.” Some bloggers are disinterested in discussing the reasons that support the minimum wage. Couldn’t they make the case? Our governor pushes for it - a major polical party pushes for it - is this some kind of sacred cow? Instead of defending the minimum wage and the politics behind it, lets try to find a great way to assist the working class, OK? The EITC is excellent and effective. BTW, it was strongly opposed by those who support the minimum wage at the time it was first implemented. Today nearly all support the EITC because it works better. So, raising the state’s minimum wage is not a good thing. It is ineffective to most workers, a black eye to Illinois when competing for global business, (not that the actual wage difference is a problem, but that such ham-handed government obsolescence is - obsolete), and plays politics when none should be played. - DuPage Dave - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 4:46 pm: The Employment Policy Institure is dedicated to fighting minimum wage increases across the country. Go to their web site and check it out. The nation’s capitol is full of allegedly non-partisan “institutes” that produce pre-packaged research that “proves” the point that the institute’s funders wish to be proved, which is the oppposite of real research. This is just one of that bunch. We need a minimum wage as much as we did in the 1930s. It is about human decency. It is the same reason we have laws preventing child labor. Because, frankly, “the market” gave us child labor and extremely low wages that pit one hungry person against another. This is a truly dispiriting discussion to read today, Rich. I had no idea so many of your readers think the way they do. This is Illinois, after all, not Mississippi. - Dr. Skeeter - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 4:59 pm: “We cannot have a meaningful change of course in this country when one suggests change at the risk of being politically attacked as a heartless individual.” In response: We call ‘em as we see ‘em. Don’t want to be called heartless? Don’t advocate a policy that will provide the U.S. the same economic as Mexico. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 5:00 pm: ===I had no idea so many of your readers think the way they do.=== Commenters, not readers. - Truthful James - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 5:33 pm: My only problem is with the generosity of many of your commentators who wish to assign money (mine) and some sense of guilt (theirs) as a beneficence to third parties, Generosity by fiat without self sacrifice is fairly easy. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 5:35 pm: ===Generosity by fiat=== Fiats are issued by dictatorships, not republics. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 5:41 pm: Interesting. Most of us seem to think almost most minimum wage earners work 40 hour weeks. I doubt it. Many of us think that minimum wage earners work primarily at McDonald’s. I doubt it. McDonald’s tends to pay market rates, so they probably aren’t paying minimum wage except where its also the market rate. Some of us think that 25 cents an hour is several stones in a small pond. Many of us seem to think that the question of whether there should even be a minimum wage is still a subject open to debate. I haven’t heard any proposals on abolishing the minimum wage, either at the state or federal level, at any time during my adult life. Maybe I just missed them, or those men and women aren’t as smart as us. Good, bad…it’s 25 cents…3.3%. It’s there, it’s gonna be there, get over it. Much ado about very little. - Truthful James - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 5:54 pm: ===Generosity by fiat=== Fiats are issued by dictatorships, not republics. /////////////// Not quite so, Rich. See below. But in any event in my usage meant sardonically — as if no other point of view counted. The commentators were speaking as though they had the authority to do so. I am using the second definition below. Ftom Encarta: fiat - official sanction: a formal or official authorization of something - arbitrary order: an authoritative and often arbitrary command - wordslinger - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 6:28 pm: To the issue then: According to the U.S. Department of Labor, among the states, 32 mandate a higher minimum wage than the feds; ten the same; three less; five none at all. Where federal and state law differ, the higher wage prevails. Ergo, 32 offer higher, 18 the same. I don’t think Illinois’ extra quarter is going to put us at a competitive disadvantage with other states, or prompt the movement of Fortune 500 companies. Who are these giants of industry who base their corporate headquarter location on a 25-cent difference in the minimum wage? Microsoft? Google? Washington state offers the highest minimum wage in the union. Wait til Bill Gates hears about this! Mississippi, here I come! Give me a break. By the way, thrifty corporate barons overwhelmingly have picked Manhattan as the choice for Fortune 500 headquarters. Must be a cheap place to do business. Twenty-five cents an hour is $40 a week, and that’s what it is. No question. It’s half a tank of gas to the worker. It could squeeze some Mom and Pop operations. I sympathize. But it means millions to McDonald’s and others whose whole business model is based on thousands of low-paid, unskilled workers. I don’t sympathize. Mom and Pop want to see their employees excel and will gladly pay for higher, profitable productivity. It builds their business. McDonald’s just wants to churn an endless stream of low-wage workers through dead-end jobs. That’s their right. I’ll take it with fries and a shake. But spare me the razzle-dazzle, hocus-pocus-dominocus dark economic theories and the hiding behind Mom and Pop. As Steve said, the minimum wage is not a living wage, and a bump is a pebble in the ocean. It’s quite a cramped or cynical view of economics and business to think two-bits is anything more than two-bits. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 6:32 pm: ===Twenty-five cents an hour is $40 a week=== $10 a week. And that’s assuming full time - wordslinger - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 7:00 pm: Rich, my math was wrong. A lousy ten bucks a week, at best. Steve, I’ve been shocked about the whole debate. Didn’t see it coming. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jul 7, 08 @ 10:26 pm: WS, the woods are full of anti-government folks here. No surprise to me. Perhaps they should start a think-tank or Institute. - Mike - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 7:42 am: I’m not sure whether raising the minimum wage is a good thing in general. There is some research to suggest that decreases the overall number of minimum wage jobs available. That said, I definitely think it’s better that states set their own minimum wages rather than have one national minimum for everyone. A good wage in Arkansas is much different from a good wage in Illinois (at least Chicago). Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.