Thursday’s minimum wage increase directly affects more than 860,000 Texans

John McClelland says:

We need to have a living wage, not just a minimum wage. Nobody can live on what the federal government has proposed. Luckily some companies provide for higher wages than the minimum, but there are still those that do not. Many Texans continue to work two or three jobs and remain in poverty. I have seen statitics showing 22% of Texas children living in poverty. I would propose a living wage of at least $10 per hour. It provides workers with more money to spend, which allows them to become less dependent on the government for services. In the long run, that is more money for everyone.

Scott Doyle says:

Are you going to propose any offset to the ridiculous inflation we'd experience?

Erin Rice says:

John's 22% statistic can be found in the CPPP's <a href="http://www.cppp.org/factbook07/texas_profile.php?fipse=99999">2007 State of Texas Children</a> report, though the statistic itself comes from the 2004 census.

James Scott says:

Yeah, that's a great idea upping the "living wage" to $10. Do people think the money to support wage increases just magically appears out of the sky? So then the employers can't afford to employ enough people at that rate and workers lose their jobs. Do you think someone would rather work for $6.55 an hour, or be out of a job?

Sure, companies can raise prices, but once again, raising prices that much leads to less business, which again leads to employing fewer people.

I do feel sorry for the children, because it's not their fault their parents didn't think enough in advance that maybe they can't support a family of 6 on their minimum-wage jobs.

Scott Doyle says:

Dead serious about inflation, btw. Typically minimum wage positions are in areas directly affecting prices of everyday goods, meaning cost of those would likely rise just the same.

Doyle doesn't foresee a sudden minimum wage increase to be as effective as people would like unless something is done to mitigate that cost for bidnesses.

Robert Brooks says:

Tip your waitress extra this weekend, since they didn't get invited to the party. That includes your carhop at Sonic -- she's getting that sub-minimum wage, too.

To Living Wage opponents: In this country, we have decided that people won't starve to death. Either they can work, or they can live off the government -- and you can hardly blame someone for choosing whichever option gets them the most money. But there's a big difference -- if you have to work for the money, you spend it more carefully than if it's a gift. Don't whine that "those people" should have more character; we're talking about human nature in the real world. So your choice is pretty simple: teach people to work with a Living Wage, or teach them to sit in front of the TV on welfare.

John McClelland says:

Unfortunately, it is always the people who are comfortable with their wages that do not want to help the lower classes. Explain to me why Congress has been able to raise their own salaries thousands upon thousands of dollars each year (because of "cost of living"), but it takes a massive debate and a three year spread to get minimum wage up to $7.25?

And stating that all people are lazy is actually offensive. My mother lost her living wage paid job due to our wonderful economy a couple years ago when the company she worked for closed after 70 years.

She has found being a 50 something female who worked in a warehousing industry, she can only make about $8 an hour with no benefits now. She is neither lazy, nor living off of the government. But I can assure you if she didn't have family to fall back on, she'd be getting the food stamps and whatever other necessary assistance that many other people living in poverty have to do.

Erin Rice says:

If you are making $150 an hour, you're doing pretty damn well. $312,000 a year well. You are, in fact, getting most everywhere, including the grocery store whenever you want, the doctor whenever you need, etc. Not the same can be said of $6.55 an hour.

Rick Yost says:

If you're working a minimum wage job, this is good news. Every little bit helps.

In '83 I chunked a mediocre career in advertising to pursue a more attractive career as a musician. Essentially this means I decided to live broke.
In the next fifteen years or so, I did a great deal of minimum wage toil working around playing gigs. It's real hard to pay for a 'living' with such a wage.

In a way, minimum wage earners are more realistic than those making more. They learn to do without extras- extras the rest of us wouldn't dream of going without.

You don't stand in line for a new ipod, you don't frequent expensive restaurants or clubs, and you don't pay much attention to new car ads.
You can be forced to live in some pretty disgusting and dangerous places. You eat a lot of Top Ramen noodles, a lot of spaghetti, you take the bus when you can, and you visit Goodwill for things like clothes and kitchen items.
And that was me living single with no kids.

Yeah, it's a lot of fun making minimum wage in America.

Rick Yost says:

Think about it... If you're able to take a deep breath, while under the cover of a big tree, holding a piece of bread and a paper cup of water...everything else is a luxury.

We have so much.

Scott Doyle says:

Yost, I sincerely hope the term you were looking for is practical...rather than realistic. Imo, catering to both your appetite and hunger is realistic (mind over matter, after all). Obviously not every night, but denying yourself the pleasure of an attainable good meal means you're doing it wrong.

Erin, I'm pretty sure jtm meant 40 hour work weeks are for peeps who don't exert effort to actually progress. Bare minimum, status quo, etc.

Erin Rice says:

If that's what you intended to say, then I still have to disagree. I know plenty of people who work a 40-hour work week and can still live comfortably and do other things, like live their lives, continue higher education, spend time with and raise their children. They are able to prosper and move forward in work and life b/c of whatever combination of forces working to their advantage.

I'm with xdavidwattsx. Now we're going to attack people who work an honest work week and call them lazy? Sounds a little like <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/16/bachmann-jobs/">Rep. Michele Bachmann's gaff</a> earlier this year (taking, perhaps, cues from GWB). Not the crowd I want to be arguing in.

And, unlike those making $150 an hour, which is probably someone actually salaried or working as a lawyer, minimum wage paying hourly jobs don't usually give workers overtime opportunities, since it costs the employer more than just hiring another employee. As a result, "about 7.8 million Americans — or about one worker in every 20 — held more than one job in June," according to <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25517085/">MSNBC.com</a>. So, in fact, people are working more, probably many of them minimum wager earners. And many of them are still not able to make ends meet.

Jason Rice says:

Back to one of my old topics:

So when are we getting Yost on the bloody ballot? He's relatively photogenic and even when I wanna punch him I don't want to muss his 'do. That' GOT to be worth somethin'

Erin Rice says:

I'm not saying that if you can't make ends meet in this country you shouldn't work another job. You should do what you need to do to make ends meet. But I don't think that should be the goal of our society. I don't think working every waking second of your life is the American dream.

I'm not trying to discount the struggles you've experienced, but I don't think that every person working at minimum wage, or at less than a "living wage," is there by choice. And for many people, if that's where you start, you have to work so much and so hard in a job with little or no upward mobility, that you don't have time to go out and get further education, or to invest time in breaking the cycle for your kids. Some people are able to, and their effort is incredible, but that's not the reality for everyone.

In any case, I'm not going to get into personal arguments about whether I've ever struggled for anything. But I will say this: I've lived a fairly charmed life and I wish that life upon <b>everyone</b>. Hence, this discussion.

(p.s. regarding overtime exemptions for salaried employees: I know, that was my point. It was more of an aside, probably not constructed very well given the hour.)

Scott Doyle says:

I'm curious as to what Clay was getting at. I, for one, welcome our future Chinese overlords.

Erin, only 1 in 20 having a second job ain't bad, imo. That's only 5%. And simply because they held more than one job doesn't mean they had to. I know peeps who have a side business on top of their regular job, bartend on weekends with a 9-5 during the week, etc...and their 9-5 income is quite sufficient for a good lifestyle.

Don't mistake ambition as necessity.

Scott Doyle says:

Easy champ, was simply talking about the 1 in 20 having a second job.

James Scott says:

Once again, where is the magic money tree that all of this extra hourly wage money come from people? Sure congress may have upped their wage - do you really think if they hadn't done that they could subsidize a minimum wage increase to $10?

I'm not saying that it doesn't suck being on minimum wage, but the point is raising it only gives the illusion of helping (or maybe just gives people that do have jobs above minimum wage a warm fuzzy?).

Scott Doyle says:

James, that's far too thought out. Clearly, more money for everybody right now = win. This is America! Act now, and whatever consequences might pop up can be taken care of in the heat of the moment too.

jtm, I have mixed thoughts on that. Obviously I'm of the mind that ambition trumps minimum wage in many cases, but it's not so simple. People who don't have basic tools we learned in elementary school can't just say "hey, I'm gonna discipline myself and get a joerb!". If you have no skill set whatsoever, you're pretty limited.

xdwx, I hold one job just the same. I'm salaried for 40 hours a week but average much more. Doubt I could be successful in this job at only 40 hours...at the very least, I know I wouldn't be satisfied with the quality of my contribution. Can't believe you're getting all wound up b/c an internet person said you may be the status quo - are you really that worried about it?

Scott Doyle says:

If you enjoy what you do, you're simply living. =p

John McClelland says:

Clay,

That debate has nothing to do with minimum wage in this country to be honest, but I will answer your question to see where youd like to do with it.

I do not shop at WalMart if at all possible. Though there are times where in the past months I have had to buy groceries there to save money (and due in part where I live has relatively few grocery stores). I don't buy their merchandise.

I drive a Nissan. Many Nissans, though a foreign brand, are made in America and provide jobs in this country. But if you're trying to say I should buy an American brand, there are just as many American car makers who import their parts from overseas, so there is no difference there.

And yes my clothing is made overseas, probably by someone making 30 cents an hour in China or India. Is it right? No. But many clothing makers have decimated the American textile industry and shut down American plants. It is darn hard to find something "made in the USA". Remember even years ago when Sam Walton was alive that WalMart proudly sold American made products. And then corporate greed took over.

I am also fully aware of what we import to this country. I work for an company who transports the ocean containers. I see all the simple things we could be making here. I also see all the "crap" we export.

So, if you can tell me why these items I answered correlate to our minimum wage in this country, I am listening(reading).

Jason Rice says:

I'm curious. Do you shop at Wal-Mart?

Yep. And the farmers' market and a local butcher and a local car repair shop and a local printer and a local dentist and a local pediatrician and a local hardware store and very few chain restaurants ...

Do you drive a foreign car?

Ford Focus - American. Transmission fell out at 7000 miles. Fine since.

Are your clothes made overseas?

Shirt "Austin Clothing" something or other - assembled in India. Shoes Reebock made in China Female coworkers preclude further details

Ok, Clay. Your turn.

James Scott says:

Exactly momzilla. Higher minimum wage = fewer available jobs. So, instead of 2 people struggling to make ends meet on minimum wage you have 1 person getting by just a bit easier, and 1 person living on the street.

James Scott says:

I guess you're right. Just raise the minimum wage and the free money tree will heal the world with peace and love for everyone. What was I thinking? While we're at it, let's go ahead and put a cap on the price of fuel. Economics/Schmeconomics - let's just start making stuff up as we go.

I bet this might solve that pesky Global Warming epidemic too.

Rick Yost says:

Yes xdavidx, my BS meter is left on all the time.

momzlla- I'm sorry your daughter has had her part-time hours cut while she attends college. (that's a devastating situation) I just think of the entire families out there trying to feed their children working minimum wage jobs. College is out of reach for most of them.

James- I know you're concerned about the money. And I understand. I tell ya buddy, amongst all the limo-champagne-call girl-pomp-n-cocaine-hooplah extravaganzas that are lavished upon the suits in Washington every night that you and I pay for, (I won't even get into the billions wasted on Iraq) I'm convinced somewhere in this country's coffers there IS enough money to do something as simple as raise the minimum wage?

There's enough money in this country's bloated government to make life better for every living American? Not that we'll ever see it!

A leader must be found that will have the balls to do what is good for the American people as a whole, and not just what's good for their own careers or the special interest groups. Then the voters must be sensible enough to give him the job of turning this country around. (Why can't the American people be a special interest group?)

I am reminded of an interesting point that John McClelland made early on: "Unfortunately, it is always the people who are comfortable with their wages that do not want to help the lower classes." It does seem to happen that way.

It's just more pleasant to earn a good living and worry about those that don't, than it is to think of sharing the wealth and have everyone living a bit more equally. That's a disgusting thought!

I don't think anyone wants this to have an adverse effect on the labor market. This is intended to allow those who don't make enough to make a little more per hour. What's so bad about that?
As it was yesterday, as it will be tomorrow, and with or without the word 'change' on campaign stickers, change will continue to happen.
Before this is all over there will be many adjustments, many changes in everyone's life, and much sacrifice by all. We have to come off of our 'get all you can and dump on the other guy' mentality?

I think the upcoming changes will be for the better. But that's just my opinion.

Scott Miller says:

One of the things I love to do when I get home from my 40 hour a week job is to read the discussion that took place during working hours about why raising the minimum wage is such a terrible idea when all those lazy workers need to do is work two or three jobs to try and make ends meet since this is America, after all.

Scott Doyle says:

xdwx, this talk of a living wage being twice what minimum was just a couple of years ago is quite different than systematically raising the min. Sorry, but that's pretty useless info.

Mr. Miller, I sincerely hope you take smoke breaks.

Scott Miller says:

Smoke breaks? Dude, this is America.

Get caught taking smoke breaks and the next thing you know you're out on the street trying to find a job. Even at minimum wage.

James Scott says:

Let's get real about fun with random graphs that show no information about where data came from or how relevant to the issue at hand is. There's no point in even commenting it.

Rick - I understand your thoughts on government waste - I completely agree that there are some things going on that I'd rather my dime not be spent on. I just can't stand the blind misconception that all of a sudden a raise in minimum wage is going to help the entire minimum-wage earning public.

Rick Yost says:

momzilla- I meant no offense. However, we're talking about two completely different takes on 'making ends meet'- two different perspectives.

JamesScott- What should we do? How do we make things better for those who have less than enough?

Or, do we simply say, "Well, this won't help everyone in the group, so let's not do this at all. Maybe someone will think of something better next year. The poor folk can struggle a while longer."

Is this wage increase better than doing nothing? Is there an alternative? I'm not being a smart-axe here, I'm really asking.

(Off topic) Not trying to sound out of touch or campy, but is 'My fellow Americans' just a mantra the President uses, or does anyone really feel such a thing?

Sorry- American attitudes toward America fascinate me.

John McClelland says:

Clay,

I don't buy cheap clothing generally unless it is on a clearance rack at Macys or Kohls. So your statement is assuming. If all clothes were made in America and I had to pay an extra $5 per shirt, so be it. Then I would pay the extra $5 per shirt.

Although your wish will come true soon. Due to the high cost of shipping, a lot of manufacturers are moving back to the United States. But will those plants pay people minimum wage or a living wage?

And let's dispel the myth that a hike in minimum wage is going to hurt small businesses and bring huge retail price increases. It went up 70 cents an hour. So even if your employee is working 40 hours a week that is an extra $28 per employee (which they won't even see all of since it is taxed).

Is a small business's margin that bad that they can't cover an extra $112 per employee per month in overhead? And what could a company do to pay for that extra $112? Tack on 2 cents per widget they normally sell?

For everyone else,

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueg... has some fun figures. Look at Table 1 especially. It puts to rest the argument that min wage earners are part time and teenagers.

John McClelland says:

Ya know Clay, you haven't told us your shopping habits or how you live. Now is your time.

John McClelland says:

Thanks for not answering, Clay. You've proved my point.

Scott Doyle says:

If we're pointing fingers, you never answered <a href="http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008/jul/24/thursdays-minimum-wage-increase-affects-more-86000/#c30676">my question</a> MickyC. Am I to presume you proved mine?