Where are the Other 39 States?
Where are the Other 39 States?
USA Today’s story about states raising their minimum wages begs a question: why aren’t more following? It is terrific that 11 have done so since 2004 — but where are the rest of the states?
Surely they aren’t expecting the feds to raise the minimum wage anytime soon. The Bush administration has refused to consider serious minimum wage legislation, while Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) has tried to eliminate the minimum wage for 7 million people. This, even though economic data shows that corporate profits are rising, while wages are stagnating.
California is a good example of a state that needs to explain why it hasn’t raised its minimum wage recently. The Los Angeles Times reports today that while CEOs at California’s largest 100 public companies saw their compensation rise by almost 20 percent from 2003, the average California worker saw his or her pay rise by less than 3 percent — barely keeping up with inflation. That has at least something to do with the fact that, in 2004, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed minimum wage legislation.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why don’t we make the minimum wage $20/hour? Then all workers will have lots of money.
May 31st, 2005 at 2:17 pmOr Tony we should lower it to 20 cents a day! Then the businesses will flourish tee hee!
May 31st, 2005 at 2:20 pmHow many people do you employ, Tony? Whatever you make, son, you would probably be homeless or in a slum if you lived in the Bay Area or NYC.
May 31st, 2005 at 2:24 pmJustin,
Tony asks a valid question. You made no attempt to answer the question. Rather, you offered sarcasm. Makes me think you don’t know…..
May 31st, 2005 at 3:10 pmA valid question? You must be joking? He didn’t as a serious question. And therefore, it required what it got, sarcasm.
May 31st, 2005 at 3:24 pmAnd you should look up the definition of “valid” as it applies to logic.
May 31st, 2005 at 3:25 pmSJS, why isn’t it a valid question? I think it is. Do you have an answer?
May 31st, 2005 at 3:40 pmBecause we are talking about a minimum wage, which could better be called a “living wage” and as I said, you would have a hard time living decently with a family of four on less than $20/hr in some areas and could live like a king on $7.50/ hr, if there was a jhob you could find in other areas. The country is bigger and far more diverse than your hometown, Tony. And arguments are valid, cogent or sound. Questions could be “valid”, I suppose, but I think legitimate would be a better word, and your question is not legitimate. No one is proposing that we raise the fed minimum to $20 and you know that. You would be happy if we removed any requirements at all. We know that. So the first question posed by Justin is legitimate, right?
May 31st, 2005 at 4:00 pmSJS, so you don’t support a minimum wage of $20. What exact amount do you support? How do you determine the amount? Where in the Constitution does it grant Congress the right to set a wage floor?
Justin’s question is legit. The effects of lowering the min. wage that far would be:
May 31st, 2005 at 4:13 pm-at most .5% of all US workers (those currently making minimum wage) could have lower wages (some of those would stay the same, though, if their output was actually worth the min wage)
-consumer prices would drop due to lower labor costs
-employment would increase due to lower labor costs
-at most .5% of all US workers (those currently making minimum wage) could have lower wages (some of those would stay the same, though, if their output was actually worth the min wage)
-consumer prices would drop due to lower labor costs
-employment would increase due to lower labor costs
Actually, none of this is true. In most cases, employers pay the minimum they can get away with paying, no bearing on what the employees are “worth” (which is a philosophical question anyhow). Businesses which cut labor costs will rarely pass the savings onto the consumer. And the economy will suffer as a result of lowering the minimum wage because less people will be able to afford to spend money.
May 31st, 2005 at 4:38 pmYou know what I say to all you strict constitutional constructionists?
Original Passage:
“I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
And a rewrite:
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
And it’s a good thing too because he also wrote this:
Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least.
Thomas Jefferson, in the Virginia Bill number 64, 18 June 1779
Flexibility and progressitivity, loose constructionism, is a good thing.
Or you get what Franklin warned about, which some would say we already have.
This is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism … when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
Benjamin Franklin in a speech to delegates to the US Constitutional Convention prior to the final vote.
May 31st, 2005 at 4:50 pmGary,
You are dancing around the issue, as is Justin.
May 31st, 2005 at 4:52 pmTony asked a valid question. Try answering it.
Progressitivity? Sure, why not?
May 31st, 2005 at 4:54 pmWhen inflation and the cost of living reaches that point, $20 is just fine. It’s not a “valid” or even legitimate question, but there’s your answer.
May 31st, 2005 at 4:56 pmSJS, that’s what the amendmend process is for.
May 31st, 2005 at 4:57 pmSJS-cost of living as defined by who? HHS? So non-elected HHS people could say the cost of living is $5000/family of four, or $50,000/family of four, and adjust the wage accordingly? Gimme a break.
Also, as you said earlier, “cost of living” varies according to location. So a federal minimum wage makes no sense whatsoever.
May 31st, 2005 at 5:00 pmIt’s a minimum, not a cap. States can go higher if necessary, just not lower.
May 31st, 2005 at 5:03 pmLook, Tony. A few of you want to be governed by a document written over 200 years ago and taken literally today. The rest of us don’t think it’s any more than a guideline, like a minimum wage, if you will. It’s a not a cap. It’s a baseline. I am glad that we have found the key, the connection to the wingers, be they libertarian or religious right. Your reverence for the literal, as interpreted by you, words of people who lived long ago. At least you aren’t a Bible thumper.
“I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature…..Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion?To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world.”
Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia
May 31st, 2005 at 5:10 pmGary, even if the company kept the leftover money as profit, the profit gets re-invested to grow the business (or start another business), which results in more jobs. So either way, there are more jobs or lower consumer prices.
May 31st, 2005 at 5:11 pmSJS, if we don’t interpret the Constitution literally, why do we need a Constitiution at all? Why don’t we have laws just based on current majority vote?
May 31st, 2005 at 5:13 pmThe SCOTUS interprets the constitution for us. Interpretation is somewhat of a subjective exercise, as we have seen, whether it be the Bible, or the Constitution. The SCOTUS has never held that the 2nd amendment guarantees the private ownership arms. Did you know that? Yet, you are still buying and owning them.
May 31st, 2005 at 5:18 pmFonzi, meet Ponzi. Now you know who built the other pyramid schemes.
Gary, even if the company kept the leftover money as profit, the profit gets re-invested to grow the business (or start another business), which results in more jobs. So either way, there are more jobs or lower consumer prices.
May 31st, 2005 at 5:20 pmThe minimum wage is fundementally anti-freedom:
Person A is willing to work for Person B for $4.00/hr. Person B is willing to hire Person A for $4.00/hr. So they freely enter into a contract to mutually benefit one another.
The gov’t comes along and says Company B must pay at least $5/hr. Company B has lost the freedom to pay a wage that Person A would accept. Since Person A’s work is not worth $5/hr, Company B does not hire them.
So if you are pro-minimum wage, you are anti-freedom. No arguing that.
I’m sorry there are so many anti-freedom posts here.
Why are you anti-freedom?
Are you proud to be anti-freedom?
If so, why not wear a T-shirt and and wave a sign saying you are anti-freedom?
May 31st, 2005 at 5:23 pmSJS, aha, so now your are saying we should be ruled by unelected life term judges? No thanks.
May 31st, 2005 at 5:25 pmraising minimum wage will have no effect in the long run except increase inflation. Sure, those paid minimum wage get paid more, but those costs are passed on to make the products and services they buy more expensive.
All the money saved by anybody (grandmothers and rich fat men alike) becomes less valuable.
Want to raise all boats? then invest in education and infrastructure to help workers improve productivity. That leads to a standard of living increase for everybody thats real and long lived.
May 31st, 2005 at 5:32 pmNo, Tony. I am not saying that. That’s what a real Republican said, Dwight D. Eisenhower. You are a greater danger to this country than any communist right now in our history. Ike also implied that. I am saying it.
May 31st, 2005 at 5:51 pmI am anti-freedom. I want certain predator’s freedom to be restricted, totally in some cases.
May 31st, 2005 at 5:53 pmYou keep harping on the Constitution; I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Consequently no powers are exercised by the Federal government except where such exercise is approved by the Supreme Court (lawyers) of the land.
I admit that the Supreme Court has in the past made certain decisions in this general field that have been astonishing to me. A recent case in point was the decision in the Phillips case. Others, and older ones, involved “interstate commerce.” But until some future Supreme Court decision denies the right and responsibility of the Federal government to do certain things, you cannot possibly remove them from the political activities of the Federal government.
(…)
Incidentally, I notice that everybody seems to be a great Constitutionalist until his idea of what the Constitution ought to do is violated–then he suddenly becomes very strong for amendments or some peculiar and individualistic interpretation of his own.
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm
May 31st, 2005 at 5:56 pmNo one has addressed Tony’s valid question. If it is good to raise the minimum wage, why not raise it to $20 per hour?
No one has the guts to answer.
May 31st, 2005 at 7:01 pmWhat Tony & BS are espousing is just the same tired old version of voodoo economics as practiced by Reagan, which by the way led to record deficits, and “trickle down” economics as practiced by Bush 1, which by the way led to some more giant deficits, and Bush 2’s, “let’s feed the rich and corporations because they’ll invest in more jobs”, which they didn’t, which by the way also led to GIANT RECORD DEFICITS.
May 31st, 2005 at 7:40 pmWill you only be content when you have starved out everyone, and then you can own everything, and then you won’t have to look at those pesky poor people. Damn them them anyway, for being like that. They are being poor just to piss you off, I know they are. Heck, there’s opportunity enough that everyone, all250 million or so of us, should all be millionaires already for gosh sakes. Why the heck do people need a wage enough to feed their kids? Kick’em out on the street and make them get a job for chrissakes, there are so many of them and you can’t beat the pay. Buttsnot & Tony, come back when you can be serious.
I did answer, Buckshot. Pull yourself up by your own footie pajamas with the flap around back and look for it.
May 31st, 2005 at 8:18 pmBuckshot and Tony,
Head on over to this site, if you dare…
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/05/dont_cry_for_us.html
They have a digital cluebat for you.
May 31st, 2005 at 8:59 pmAl,
You didn’t answer the question either.
May 31st, 2005 at 10:45 pmDear god. I was sarcastic for a reason. What Tony proposed is ridiculous. The economy can’t sustain that. Conversely I also made a ridiculous statement. 20 cents a day (while fine for Tony and Buckshot) is also not viable in a North American economy. I simply reversed the logic. I am absolutely apalled that Tony’s question was treated as legit while mine which used the same yet converse logic was treated as irrational by Tony and Buckshot.
June 1st, 2005 at 1:27 amOk I take it back. Tony did say my statement was legit. But it’s not and here is why. The minimum wage was put into place for a reason. That was to protect workers from sweat shop scenarios. Tony you can make all the arguments you want about business acting according to the worker’s “worth” but we all know about human nature and the tendency for greed (Anyone remember Enron? How about World.com?). The simple truth is that companies will pay whatever makes them the most money. If it’s legal to pay workers 20 cents a day then so be it. However this affects workers who are trying to get ahead in life (RIGHT BUCKSHOT?) becuase they can’t afford to pay their own bills (they can’t right now either) yet alone the sky high price of health care and education. If that trend continues the entire economy will collapse because the workers (ie consumers) won’t have the purchasing power to by a loaf of bread, not to mention high end technology.
June 1st, 2005 at 1:40 amP.S. (sorry for all the posting) .5 percent of 300 million people is 1.5 million people. It’s nice that you can write so many people off Tony.
June 1st, 2005 at 1:51 amJustin,
You never did answer Tony’s question. If it’s good to raise the minimum wage by a quarter (or whatever) why not raise it to $20/hr?
Why can’t you stay focused and answer the question? Is it that hard?
June 1st, 2005 at 2:15 amFocusing on the elephant’s ass won’t help you find the trunk, or see the entire beast, BS. But even you know that. I already told you, if the cost of living increases and value of the dollar as a result of inflation and other “market forces” (that invisible hand that is giving you the finger) decreases, you could need a $20 per hr. minimum wage. I will excerpt from Mike Huben’s tried and true method’s :
A classic libertarian roll-back-the-clock argument, that sounds good at first because none of us directly remembers it. Libertarians do usually remember and criticize some of the more prominent non-libertarian features of that period, such as unequal protection under the law for blacks and women. However, they seem to overlook a lot of other important things.
Yes, the Federal government had a much lighter hand then. However, state and local governments had a much greater influence. There is not one class of positive duty or obligation in the US today that did not exist 200 years ago at state or federal level.
All the biggies were there except income tax. The equivalent of income tax was property tax (on all possessions) or head tax by many states. There was involuntary conscription, eminent domain, etc. As a matter of fact, things got much better when powers of states were interpreted to be restricted by the US constitution (much later.) Powers such as state religious authority.
Also, society was organized quite differently before the industrial revolution spread to the US. Our “nation of shopkeepers” was actually a nation of farmers. The means of production were controlled primarily by the workers (who were the owners of the farms and shops.) Government of that era would be as out-of-place today as the tarriffs and scientific knowledge of that era.
June 1st, 2005 at 7:22 amAnyone interested in no longer dealing with these fools, Buckshot and Tony, but interested in learning the logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies in their (I use the term loosely) “arguments” should visit this site.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#theft
June 1st, 2005 at 7:27 am“Dear god. I was sarcastic for a reason. What Tony proposed is ridiculous. The economy can’t sustain that. Conversely I also made a ridiculous statement.”
. . .and. . .
“The simple truth is that companies will pay whatever makes them the most money. If it’s legal to pay workers 20 cents a day then so be it. However this affects workers who are trying to get ahead in life (RIGHT BUCKSHOT?) becuase they can’t afford to pay their own bills. . .”
That sounds like a legitimate address of the twenty dollar question, buck, doesn’t it? Or are you looking for a particular response to rebutt? Just curious, ’cause I thought he DID address the question. What exactly do you mean? You lost me.
June 1st, 2005 at 9:36 amJustin- Not all 300 million citizens work. There are only 123 million wage and salaried workers as of 2004. 520,000 make the min wage. See http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm. Many of those would continue to make that wage if their output is worth that.
June 1st, 2005 at 9:57 amIf wages are not to be determined by free market supply and demand, how should they be determined? Citizen majority vote? Gov’t bureacrats appointed by the politburo?
June 1st, 2005 at 9:59 amSJS, actually, in your example you are being pro-freedom. Jailing the predator preserves the life and liberty of potential victims.
June 1st, 2005 at 10:04 amWhat the hell are you talking about Tony? What worth. What are YOU worth? Tell me the “worth” of someone flipping burgers. What about the “worth” someone who mops the floors? You don’t seem to get it. People can be greedy sometimes. If we lowered the minimum wage… (China doesn’t have one! Neither does Indonesia! Let’s be like them!) We can expect to see sweatshops popping up everywhere. Don’t believe me. Look at China and Indonesia. AND DON’T TELL ME THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE AMERICAN IT MAKES YOU MAGICALLY DIFFERENT. Most of the companies exploiting these people ARE American.
June 1st, 2005 at 10:15 amBtw Tony. Your link doesn’t work. Where’s the proof?
June 1st, 2005 at 10:17 am#23
“So if you are pro-minimum wage, you are anti-freedom. No arguing that.”
“I’m sorry there are so many anti-freedom posts here.”
“Why are you anti-freedom?”
“Are you proud to be anti-freedom?”
“If so, why not wear a T-shirt and and wave a sign saying you are anti-freedom.”
Tony, you should be ashamed of this posting. I sure would be.
June 1st, 2005 at 10:22 amAlso. Wages are determined by market forces. Within a limit. The minimum wage is exactly that. The MINIMUM someone should be paid so that they can afford housing and food and medical care. Oh wait… Do I see a link? If there was subsidized medical care then the minimum wage can be lower? Gasp! And then that can lead to a to a more productive economy? Wow. I never knew that everything was connected that way!
June 1st, 2005 at 10:22 amHere’s the link again:
June 1st, 2005 at 11:23 amhttp://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm
Justin, again, who decides what is the minimum $$ that would support “acceptable” health care, food, and housing?
June 1st, 2005 at 11:26 amI dunno. Do a government study and find out. :)
June 1st, 2005 at 11:31 amTony also your link just shows the characteristics of the minimum wage class. Who tend to be young. It doesn’t prove any of your points. Also I never said I had all the answers and I refuse to pull numbers out of my a** unlike some people.
June 1st, 2005 at 11:35 amA dozen more people have posted, and none have even attempted to address Tony’s valid question…if the government is to determine a minimum wage, why not make it $20/hr?
No one is answering. All I see are vague, impulsive, sarcastic non-answers. Not a very good showing by you “progressives”. Why is it so hard to address a simple question that cuts to the very heart of the matter?
June 1st, 2005 at 11:49 amSt. Jimmy- Why should I be ashamed?
June 1st, 2005 at 1:21 pmAsked and answered. Next question.
June 1st, 2005 at 2:28 pmbuckshot,
Address the fact that Exxon/Mobil, United Defense and General Electric et al. suck off the system at a rate far more detrimental to the fiscal well-being of our government than the poor ever could. Your displeasure (since your not angry or bitter) would be much more useful if you directed it in the right place.
June 1st, 2005 at 8:00 pmSince Buckshot has forgotten how to read and comprehend I will spell it out in clear and precise terms. Raising the minimum wage to $20/hr is unfeasable because the economy cannot support it. Thus the very statement itself is ridiculous. Tony might as well have said $100/hr. Buckshot also doesn’t seem to get the idea of inflation (prices go up over time) or the concept of a reasonable balance between the people and the economy.
June 1st, 2005 at 8:26 pmYes, they are confused about their understanding of Adam Smith. I doubt either of them has read, and comprehended the totality of his writings. Like all libertarians, they cherrypick a bit here, a bit there to come up with theory that has yet to be put into practice but reveres the “free market” like a deity. In his other posts Buckshot states:
“Wolves, Cons & ripoffs come in both Dem & GOP clothing. The GOP has no monopoly on ripping people off.”
Only the “free market” is pure. Libertarians, left to their own devices, will be saints. governments are the root of all evil. Kooks, huh?
June 2nd, 2005 at 12:24 amJustin,
Yes, you are correct. Because it would be unreasonable. Thank you.
June 2nd, 2005 at 1:41 amJay,
Since you mentioned Exxon, let me tell you about the oil spill, from first hand experience. Virtually everyone in Valdez was absolutely OVERJOYED at the opportunity to make $17 per hour with lots of overtime. Exxon dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into the cleanup.
There was MUCH TALK of erecting a statue of Joseph Hazelwood, the drunken captain who first ran the ship on Bligh Reef, and then drunkenly roared back and forth, using full power, tearing huge rips in the hull, increasing the leakage. (smoking cigarettes the whole time, in the fumes)
So many people were rescued from financial calamity (there was a vicious recession here at that time) that they absolutely WORSHIPPED Joseph Hazelwood.
I am not kidding. He is STILL viewed in Alaska as a savior of many, because of the tremendous amount of money he put into the hands of working Alaskans.
Now I know that is hard for you to digest, but believe me, every word is true. Things are the way THEY ARE, not the way you want them to be.
If it were put to vote, Alaskans would overwhelmingly support another GIANT OIL SPILL, if they could go work on cleanup. I’m serious.
June 2nd, 2005 at 1:58 amSt Jimmy- Interesting to note you never disagreed with my statement. Can I assume that you are pro-minimum wage? If so, you are anti-freedom.
Don’t worry, you are free to have any opinion you want, and there are lots of anti-freedom people around for you to associate with. I’m sorry you are anti-freedom, though.
June 2nd, 2005 at 9:53 amBuck,
June 2nd, 2005 at 10:52 amYour Exxon story, while interesting doesn’t address the question Jay asked. But that’s also off topic. Perhaps you guys can debate this privately.
Justin,
Sometimes the debate takes you down a different road, why so important to stay on topic?
June 2nd, 2005 at 11:01 amFair enough
June 2nd, 2005 at 11:34 amNow I know that is hard for you to digest, but believe me, every word is true. Things are the way THEY ARE, not the way you want them to be.
Buckshot needs to learn to listen to himself more.
June 2nd, 2005 at 11:49 amSJS, actually, in your example you are being pro-freedom. Jailing the predator preserves the life and liberty of potential victims.
Comment by Tony
Well at least we agree on some things, Tony, but I am a little surprised that you and Buckshot advocate the prosecution and incarceration of Bush and most of this administration. No matter. I hear he is going to be impeached. Viva la Revolucion!
June 2nd, 2005 at 12:50 pmSJS – they had a “Revolucion” in Cuba, why don’t you go live there?
June 2nd, 2005 at 12:55 pmMark D. So how should the minimum wage be determined?
June 2nd, 2005 at 12:56 pmI’d rather invite Castro to come here, Tony, and personally bring you one of his fine cigars, loaded with poison and explosives. As to your other question, the minimum wage should be set at a level designed to simulate the aggravating sound of fingernails being dragged across a blackboard, so as to get you to move to Mexico, for you, well… not sanity, you lost that some time ago. How about our sanity. Yeah, that’s it.
June 2nd, 2005 at 8:20 pmDonald
…Unfortunately, many business owners are unprepared for the success that their business brings…
March 19th, 2008 at 11:28 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 2:02 amYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 6:58 pmgovernment grants and loan
Hey. I just dropped by. I’ve gotta say, you have you have a good site. You can see my government grants for the disabled website sometime and let me know what you think.
April 8th, 2008 at 6:12 pmworkers compensation lawyers
Finding the right attorney can sometimes be difficult, like anything in life there are good ones and bad ones.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:17 pm