NJ referendum on raising minimum wage. Opinions?

[kamn]

So I'll say it again, minimum wage increases may be needed to bring it in line with truly being minimum, but the problem isn't forcing a "livable" wage (what qualifies as livable is up to debate, I've heard people who swear that having a smart phone is an essential rather than just a phone, cell phone or landline) but getting all the people currently on unemployment to be working.

Minimum wage should be enough for a person to live while doing a (full) job.

That means enough money to buy the basic for 2 people (child):
-rent
-bills
-food
-transportation
-one luxury item a year

Anything less than this, and it is no longer living, it is serving. Bare in mind that this is the absolute minimum, and realistically it should be somewhat above this.
The luxury item does not mean a cruise ship. It means a phone or a playstation, or a visit to grandma on the other coast. Enough that over the year, the cost dissipates to pennies, while still providing some form of purpose or temporary goal for the person. Without said purpose, one has no end in sight, and will very quickly sink to despair.

[wolfie]

When minimum wage is low, its the government that pays for it as a result by making up the shortfall through social programs.

Right now, your taxes are paying for that wage gap instead of the companies employing the workers in question. That's okay with you?

Exactly! Right now, WalMart (and other) full-time employees are receiving food stamps and other social support. Even if raising the minimum wage caused companies to cut staff (and how much CAN they cut staff, when the cash desks are already short-staffed even with pulling people off the floor?), is it truly better to have 10 people working at WalMart and needing top-ups from our tax money in order to survive, rather than having 7 working at WalMart earning enough that they wouldn't need to depend on social programs, and the other 3 fully dependent on social programs?

[Andara Bledin]

Exactly! Right now, WalMart (and other) full-time employees are receiving food stamps and other social support. Even if raising the minimum wage caused companies to cut staff (and how much CAN they cut staff, when the cash desks are already short-staffed even with pulling people off the floor?), is it truly better to have 10 people working at WalMart and needing top-ups from our tax money in order to survive, rather than having 7 working at WalMart earning enough that they wouldn't need to depend on social programs, and the other 3 fully dependent on social programs?

This is the part that really flummoxes me.

People are against a reasonable minimum wage because people might get fired over it (despite history showing that employment is utterly unaffected by minimum wage raises) but seem to have no concept of the fact that when people aren't making enough to survive on, they get money from the government. Money paid in by everybody else who is making a wage they can live off of.

Congrats. Instead of the corporations whose bosses make millions annually taking a cut of a few hundred grand to ensure their work force isn't starving, the cost has now been shifted to everybody else.

Yeah. That's a whole lot better.

[smileyeagle1021]

Here in Vegas:
Union Electricians make $40.76, 1st year Apprentices start at $18.34 with percentage based increases every year until they finish their 5 year program.
Union Ironworkers make $40.82, Apprentices start at $24.52. Once again, with percentage based increases until they complete their 4 year program.
Union Carpenters make $34.60 ( I don't know what apprentices start at)

I know a few union workers, and trust me, they have gone through a lot of training to get into those positions. It may be paid training, unlike college that you pay for, but they have worked their asses off to better themselves and learn that trade. One does not walk into a union office say "I want to be an electrician" and walk out with a set of tools and a $40.76 wage.

Also, an interesting article I found, I normally read this site for their social issues rather than economic, but found this interesting article to be timely
minimum-wage-republican-nonsense/
and wouldn't you know, about halfway through they state

That being said, there is discussion about the amount of the increase from $7.25 to $15/hr, a more than 100% increase. There is significant evidence that a sustained and consistent increase in the minimum wage does not effect the unemployment rate, and will not ultimately hurt those the policy is trying to help. An increase, however, to $15/hr might hurt those it is trying to help.

So, even the liberal economists are saying that a slow and gradual increase will be beneficial, but that the pie in the sky everyone gets a good life just for living ideal would actually hurt the very people it is supposed to be helping.

[crashhelmet]

I know a few union workers, and trust me, they have gone through a lot of training to get into those positions. It may be paid training, unlike college that you pay for, but they have worked their asses off to better themselves and learn that trade. One does not walk into a union office say "I want to be an electrician" and walk out with a set of tools and a $40.76 wage.

You're right. They don't start at $40.76 an hour. They start at $18. 34 an hour. Which is $38,147.20 a year. Every 6 months after that, assuming they're not fucking up in their job, they get a raise until they complete the apprenticeship program. My brother-in-law and 2 of my nephews are in the union. Do you know what brand new apprentices do? They push a broom. They push a broom for $18.34 an hour.

Also, an interesting article I found, I normally read this site for their social issues rather than economic, but found this interesting article to be timely
minimum-wage-republican-nonsense/
and wouldn't you know, about halfway through they state

So, even the liberal economists are saying that a slow and gradual increase will be beneficial, but that the pie in the sky everyone gets a good life just for living ideal would actually hurt the very people it is supposed to be helping.

Anything better than stagnation is beneficial, so yes, a gradual increase is beneficial. Nobody is saying we need to be able to give them the money to live the good life. Just enough to be able to support themselves and some portion of their family on a single income.

[HYHYBT]

if minimum wage was returned to what it is supposed to be (jobs either for those who don't strictly need the income or for whom it will be a temporary position), how exactly would that be indentured?

Well hold on, now, why do you claim that's what it was originally intended to be?

I feel as if there must be a filter blocking out some of what I type... have I not said multiple times now that the minimum wage probably is not realistic and probably does need to be adjusted?

No, we can see that fine. Is there some filter blocking YOU from seeing what people are actually asking about your posts, and how that response doesn't address the actual question, much less answer it?

[Gravekeeper]

my shift to fiscal conservatism has had much more to do with living in an area where the liberal fiscal policies failed us utterly... despite the stimulus we still have high unemployment, despite all of the federal government's meddling we have high unemployment, despite all of the administration's promises of a better tomorrow, we still have high unemployment. Almost all improvements we've had have come from individuals who have gotten tired of waiting for a governmental solutions and have pulled themselves up and have been kind enough to pull others up with them.

Are you kidding? Do you not know ANY of your own politics or economic situation? Nevada was in the shitter before the stimulus with high unemployment and on the verge of a disaster in regards to losing more jobs and having more families slide below the poverty line ( Something the stimulus prevented btw ).

Nevada's largest industry is tourism. Guess what people don't do in a recession? Another big one is construction. Guess what else doesn't happen during a recession? Those two sectors had the highest job losses when the recession hit losing a combined 180,000 jobs. Nevada's economy was uniquely weak to a recession because its economy was based on two industries that grind to a halt during an economic downturn. Hence they flipped from being the fastest rate of job growth in the country with one of the lowest unemployment rates; To being the worst when the recession hit. Because the economy was held up by tourism and the growth pushed up by constant construction.

So because Obama can't magically fix that and change your entire state's industrial base this is the liberal's fault? On top of that, your state legislature had to force your asshole governor to even accept the unemployment package. He didn't want it because it forced Nevada to extend and expand social programs and support. Oh and because he thought it would threaten Nevada's "sovereignty". So that "pulled themselves up" bullshit was part of the contract of what Nevada had to agree to do in order to receive the unemployment stimulus money to begin with.

Here's the spending break down for Nevada:

Total Awarded: $2,883,420,456

Energy / Environment: $1,103,176,07
Education: $620,615,396
R&D / Science: $347,869,909
Transportation: $312,799,697
Infrastructure: $204,460,873
Housing: $86,125,859
Health: $56,461,659
Public Safety: $52,088,983
Job Training / Unemployment: $44,226,135
Family: $32,180,065
Other Programs: $23,415,807

Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the country, yes, but it was triggered by a recession vs an economy largely based on tourism and construction. Which caused a huge spike in job loss for Nevada. The unemployment rate has been falling slowly but consistently since the stimulus. But with that kind of industrial base it will take some time to recover.

So you're seriously going to sit there and tell me you got almost 3 billion dollars but its the liberal's fault it didn't magically bring in tourists during a recession?

Christ, man.

Also, an interesting article I found, I normally read this site for their social issues rather than economic, but found this interesting article to be timely
minimum-wage-republican-nonsense/
and wouldn't you know, about halfway through they state

So...what? That level of increase isn't realistic. We said that pages ago. You're arguing against a position no one is holding and acting like its a valid counterpoint. You can barely keep your own story straight from post to post.

[mikoyan29]

What is the problem with an electrician (or plumber or some other skilled trades) making $40/hour? So they don't go to college....big deal. They still have to go through some sort of training program to get where they are. Yes, it's more than I make and I actually went to college but in the long run, it's not a big deal to me. They provide a skill that someone else is not providing.

As for the living wage...in the long run because those people get food stamps, it is yet another case of us subsidizing people that really don't need (in this case WalMar and not the people). But I will have to agree with the people that said it should be a gradual increase and not a sudden doubling.

[HYHYBT]

Another thing about plumbers, at least the kind that do repairs: in order for experts to be available when they're needed, they must make enough when on a call to cover when they're not.

[Gravekeeper]

What is the problem with an electrician (or plumber or some other skilled trades) making $40/hour? So they don't go to college....big deal. They still have to go through some sort of training program to get where they are.

In order to be a plumber or other such trades person, you need both training and an apprenticeship. Typically 3-5 year apprenticeship working on the job plus in class training and qualification exams to get your license. You have to put in something like 9000 hours of on the job apprenticeship training.

There's a lot of trades people in my family. I'm the only nerd. -.-

[crashhelmet]

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with those that go into blue collar trades, like electrical, plumbing, construction, etc. making a great salary.

I was trying to point out the fact that the time and money we spend on a college diploma doesn't guarantee us great salaries or better salaries than those that don't goto school.

We can't get high and mighty because we're educated. There are plenty of others out there doing far better than us with less of an education, or a different method achieving it.

[mikoyan29]

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with those that go into blue collar trades, like electrical, plumbing, construction, etc. making a great salary.

I was trying to point out the fact that the time and money we spend on a college diploma doesn't guarantee us great salaries or better salaries than those that don't goto school.

We can't get high and mighty because we're educated. There are plenty of others out there doing far better than us with less of an education, or a different method achieving it.

A college degree is only a predictor of success, it is not a guarantor (gah..right word?) of success. A person with a college degree is more likely to make more money than someone without one but as pointed out, that's not always true. the right college degree helps in alot of cases.

It's funny, there was an article about this very thing in the Washington Post a while ago. Many college graduates are taking up the trades and getting upturned noses at that until they inform someone what they can potentially make. They can also point out that's its hard to send your house to India or China and any repairs have to be done here.

[Hyena Dandy]

Just another thing... What if someone wants to better themselves in a way that DOESN'T necessarily lead to a job? There's lots of degrees that, really, you're only supposed to take because you WANT TO KNOW THINGS.

Isn't there a difference between 'Bettering yourself' and 'Job skills'? Plenty of really good things are not useful in most workplaces.

[HYHYBT]

Very true.

[Chromatix]

I have an alternative suggestion - alternative to both pay ratios (see other thread) and minimum wages. It runs entirely counter to how the US is currently set up, but it could work in countries that already have a functioning welfare system.

1) Scrap the minimum wage.

2) Provide a "national income" to every citizen, as an equal share of some percentage of the total tax take, which is *NOT* means-tested. Children's shares go to their parents.

3) Include necessary medical and rehabilitative care for sick, injured, elderly and/or disabled persons as part of a national health service, on the same level as doctors and hospitals currently are in most civilised countries.

The net effect of those three steps is that people will find work if it makes financial sense to them. They don't have to worry about losing their "unemployment benefit" if they try out a job; any wages from the job are on top of their national income, rather than replacing it.

Employers, meanwhile, are free to set wages at whatever level will attract suitable workers, bearing in mind (from an American perspective) that people will no longer be so desperate to have a job, any job, or they'll starve - so fair wages will be expected, or it won't be considered worth the time.

Of course, this *could* be combined with enforced pay ratios...