302. FreeToChoose - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:15 PM PT
ChristiPeters
It's of some importance because Elliot claimed that a modest increase in the minimum wage has a small impact on unemployment. I agreed, as did some others. But the impact for increases that aren't modest aren't as small. So we are quibbling about whether a $2 per hour increase is “modest”.
303. elliot803 - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:16 PM PT
Scotus:
"It matters, elliot, because you kept slamming CalGal with your silly assertion that "most people" agree with you when haven't any idea whatsoever that's the case."
No, I didn't. What assertion?
"I don't know of any economists that dispute you, no. But then, I haven't made a claim out of my ass that I can't back up either."
Neither have I. You keep alluding to these supposed claims I have made and failed to back up. What are they? I think you've been reading all sorts of things into my posts that I didn't say. Please read more carefully.
"As for why non-Fray people matter, I'm not even going to answer that."
That's not what I questioned. Of course non-Fray people matter. But why did you specifically exclude Fray people, as if their opinions don't matter?
304. FreeToChoose - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:19 PM PT
But, as usual, whenever Elliot gets involved in a discussion, we end up arguing over minutiae.
Anyone interested in returning to the real subject?
305. elliot803 - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:19 PM PT
Of course, we could now start quibbling over what counts as a "small" or "modest" impact on unemployment.
306. ScotusAntonovich - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:20 PM PT
elliot:
Okay. Never mind.
I don't have time for this.
Just go back and look at some of the retorts to CalGal.
Thanks.
307. CalGal - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:23 PM PT
Diva,
Yes, I think minimum wages should be tied to an area. I'm pretty sure the California minimum wage is higher than the national one. I think a national minimum wage, almost by definition, needs to be on the low side. (This is not me speaking with any particular knowledge, mind you. Just IMO.)
The subject I'm trying to figure out is:
1) Everyone says a modest increase wouldn't affect employment. I agree. But my definition of "modest" is something under a $1.
2) The living wage advocates *start* at pushing for $8, I believe. And that's not anywhere near what I'd call "modest"--at the current rate, that would be a 55% increase.
So I am trying to figure out if it is a given that employment would take a serious hit with a 55% increase in the minimum wage or not. If it is modest, apparently not. But I just don't see that as modest.
And if employment *would* take a hit but overall those on minimum wage would benefit, my next question is: How many of those on minimum wage *need* to benefit to the tune of a 55% increase? Which is why I'm comparing it to the EITC, a more narrowly targeted solution. I'm comparing the two without regard to their likelihood of success in gaining political approval, at this point.
308. elliot803 - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:23 PM PT
FTC:
"But, as usual, whenever Elliot gets involved in a discussion, we end up arguing over minutiae."
No, that would be pseudo. See his recent epic debate with Resonance over whether "lingual" is or is not an appropriate substitute for "language." And with respect to this matter, it is CalGal and Scotus who have been fussing over the use of the term "modest," not me.
309. elliot803 - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:29 PM PT
CalGal:
"So I am trying to figure out if it is a given that employment would take a serious hit with a 55% increase in the minimum wage or not."
No, it is not a given. It may not even be likely. It would depend on all sorts of other factors, like the dollar amount of the increase and the demand for unskilled labor. You keep obsessing over the issue of percentages, which are certainly relevant, but only one factor.
"And if employment *would* take a hit but overall those on minimum wage would benefit, my next question is: How many of those on minimum wage *need* to benefit to the tune of a 55% increase?"
Depends what you mean by "need."
You keep asking these unanswerable questions, full of ambiguous and value-laden terms.
310. CalGal - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:32 PM PT
"You keep asking these unanswerable questions, full of ambiguous and value-laden terms."
And you keep answering them. Do try not to waste your time any further. Or is your quota low?
311. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:44 PM PT
Frankly I don't understand why a dispute over diction -- especially one where relatively interesting information was introduced -- is "minutiae". Bickering over what is a "modest increase" in the minimum wage surely is, though.
312. CalGal - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:50 PM PT
Translated--if *he* cares about it, it's not minutiae.
Pseudo--my question is this: it seems to be accepted that some increase in the minimum wage can be absorbed without any impact on employment. Is it as generally accepted that a 50% hike can be handled as easily? It may be--I'm not arguing about it, I just wanna know.
313. CalGal - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:53 PM PT
Also, I asked a question about monopsody a while back--what are the certain conditions under which an increase in the minimum wage could result in an increase in employment?
314. Raskolnikov - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:53 PM PT
Cal: no one knows what the unemployment effects will be. There hasn't been a wage hike that large before in this country. Maybe a European country has done and has better data. *IF* the elasticity measures that PE discussed earlier *are* linear (just a starting point for a sensitivity analysis) a 50% increase in the minimum wage would get you a 5-15% reduction in demand for minimum wage workers. I think approximately 10% of the US workforce earns the minimum wage, so we are talking maybe a 1% increase in unemployment *if* these numbers are true.
How many need it? The numbers I posted last night indicate to me that roughly half of minimum wage earners would be OK in the absence of an increase.
315. CalGal - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:55 PM PT
Rask,
Thank you.
"There hasn't been a wage hike that large before in this country. "
Well, then, why the hell are you calling it modest!????!!!
316. elliot803 - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:56 PM PT
CalGal:
"And you keep answering them."
No, I don't. No one can meaningfully answer your question about how many "need" a certain benefit until you provide some definition of that term.
317. Raskolnikov - Jan. 29, 1999 - 2:58 PM PT
I said that calling it modest was experiential bias. I would barely notice a dollar an hour wage hike. For me it would mean I could buy a DVD player and a decent bicycle. But for someone working minimum wage, it means they can buy a car or move to a better neighborhood.
318. elliot803 - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:02 PM PT
CalGal:
"Well, then, why the hell are you calling it modest!????!!!"
He didn't call a 50% hike "modest." But in any case it doesn't follow that just because an increase is larger than any previous increase it isn't "modest."
319. Raskolnikov - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:04 PM PT
and what I said was that a modest hike of a buck or two, which is actually about a 39% increase at most, not a 50% one.
320. TheDiva - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:05 PM PT
Jaysus.
321. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:05 PM PT
God, is there some aspect of the minimum wage that hasn't been discussed in the Fray about 200 times before this thread was set up?
Minimum Wage Rates in Selected Countries (expressed as ratio of mandated min. wage to average compensation per hour in manufacturing)
Australia: 46%
Canada: 31%
France: 38%
Japan: 26%
Mexico: 27%
New Zealand: 41%
Puerto Rico: 49%
United States: 26%
I've no idea why I'm posting this information. For the hell of it.
322. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:07 PM PT
Those are 1992 figures, from the BLS, Bur. of Int'l Lab. Affairs.
323. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:08 PM PT
Raskolnikov: What really matters is how much, if at all, the minimum wage exceeds the equilibrium wage rate.
324. elliot803 - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:10 PM PT
I think those numbers are interesting. They suggest the U.S. is at the bottom of the scale in compensating its poorest workers.
325. CalGal - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:13 PM PT
Rask,
Now see, people who bitch about the (g) shouldn't. I was kidding. I saw you mention bias. Also, I agree that there is a difference between 35% and 55%. But 35% is still a big chunk.
Pseudo,
What the hell is the equilibrium wage rate? And does your chart say that the US minimum wage is 26% of what we pay factory workers?
326. elliot803 - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:17 PM PT
Oh, it was a joke. Of course, we should all have realized that.
327. CalGal - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:22 PM PT
Elliot,
And had I used the (g), you would have declaimed how much you hate it.
Your quota back up to acceptable levels yet?
328. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:38 PM PT
The value of the federal minimum wage, in constant 1993 dollars
1950: $4.55
1955: $4.01
1960: $4.86
1965: $5.62
1970: $6.75
1975: $4.80
1980: $5.49
1985: $4.63
1990: $3.77
1993: $4.25
By the way, it's only 5% of the labour force that earns the minimum wage.
329. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:39 PM PT
In 1972, it was nearly $8.
330. PincherMartin - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:40 PM PT
"By the way, it's only 5% of the labour force that earns the minimum wage."
That seems way too low. I thought it was just over 10% of the population that earned minimum?
331. Philistine - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:40 PM PT
How about 1999?
332. Philistine - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:42 PM PT
Message #331 is to Message #328
333. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:45 PM PT
It's 10% of the labour force if you're talking about minimum wage + $1 or so.
334. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 3:48 PM PT
Errata Message #329
In 1972, it was $7 or so.
335. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 4:10 PM PT
Completely ignore previous data.
The federal minimum wage, in current & 1995 constant dollars
1956 1.00 5.60
1957 1.00 5.42
1958 1.00 5.27
1959 1.00 5.24
1960 1.00 5.15
1961 1.15 5.86
1962 1.15 5.80
1963 1.25 6.23
1964 1.25 6.15
1965 1.25 6.05
1966 1.25 5.88
1967 1.40 6.39
1968 1.60 7.01
1969 1.60 6.64
1970 1.60 6.28
1971 1.60 6.02
1972 1.60 5.83
1973 1.60 5.49
1974 2.00 6.18
1975 2.10 5.95
1976 2.30 6.16
1977 2.30 5.78
1978 2.65 6.19
1979 2.90 6.09
1980 &nbs
336. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 4:10 PM PT
1980 3.10 5.73
1981 3.35 5.62
1982 3.35 5.29
1983 3.35 5.13
1984 3.35 4.91
1985 3.35 4.74
1986 3.35 4.66
1987 3.35 4.49
1988 3.35 4.32
1989 3.35 4.12
1990 3.80 4.43
1991 4.25 4.76
1992 4.25 4.62
1993 4.25 4.48
1994 4.25 4.37
1995 4.25 4.25
337. elliot803 - Jan. 29, 1999 - 4:15 PM PT
CalGal:
If you have to rely on your pathetic, overworked <g> to make your intention plain, it's probably not worth saying.
338. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 4:17 PM PT
Percent of all workers, 16 years & over, paid hourly rates, 1996:
at $4.75 -- 2.8%
below $4.75 -- 4.1%
Percent of all workers, over 25 years, paid hourly rates, 1996:
at $4.75 -- 1.7%
below $4.75 -- 2.7%
339. elliot803 - Jan. 29, 1999 - 4:17 PM PT
pseudo: I think you mean 1968, not 1972.
A $7 minimum wage. Imagine that. Of course, the economy was a complete wreck in 1968.
340. CalGal - Jan. 29, 1999 - 4:18 PM PT
And how did you get it so nice and tabular?
Thanks for the info.
341. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 4:18 PM PT
The data in Message #335, Message #336 and Message #338 are from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1997.
342. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 4:21 PM PT
PLEASE IGNORE
Message #328, Message #329 and Message #334.
343. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 4:23 PM PT
Message #340
The Statistical Abstract on CD-ROM has a file transfer to spreadsheet.
344. CalGal - Jan. 29, 1999 - 4:42 PM PT
No, I meant how did you get to post so cleanly?
Also, I am lamentably bad at math. But if I look at those numbers as a percentage of increase, am I correct in saying that the largest increases were in 1978 (15%), 1968 (14%), and 1990 (13%)?
With the last increase (not on your chart), from 4.25 to 5.15 as the largest--21%?
The reason I ask is because I am trying to figure this out--is it the percentage of increase that causes any potential employment decreases, or the absolute dollar amount?
And about the people working for minimum wage--are they spread out throughout all industries, or are there any areas where they are concentrated heavily?
345. thomasd - Jan. 29, 1999 - 5:05 PM PT
In rebuttal of MSIT's ridiculous assertion that net transfer payments actually reversed direction to from poor to rich in the '80's, and to correct the generally unenlightened attitude among Reagan droolers in this thread, I offer the following excerpt by Demetrios Caraley, who cannot in any way be described as sympathizing with professed Republican goals regarding the social safety net, but who also does not feel compelled to distance himself from the facts of the situation (therefore, he backs up my position. Notice, also, how he groups the social policies of the last three administrations together:
"The skyrocketing of the deficit did squeeze out much discretionary spending on domestic programs. Some federal discretionary grant programs that provided aid to city governments directly and thus to the poor indirectly--general revenue sharing payments to local governments--Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) public service jobs, and urban development action grants--were completely eliminated, or "zeroed out" in budget bureau parlance. Others, like community development block grants, economic assistance grants and loans, and mass transit grants for capital and operating expenses, were cut drastically in terms of constant dollars.(37)"
346. thomasd - Jan. 29, 1999 - 5:06 PM PT
345 continued -
"But neither the Reagan, Bush, nor Clinton administrations were, however, able to curb the dramatic growth of entitlement spending on so-called safety net domestic programs for poor people, such as welfare payments, food stamps, Medicaid, child nutrition, and supplemental feeding for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). All the less could they curb entitlement spending for the nonpoor, like Social Security and Medicare. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1985, the 1987 Reaffirmation Act, the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and the Reconciliation Act of 1993, while imposing serious deficit-reduction regimes, also gave special protection to these safety net programs by making them exempt from automatic cuts through across-the-board cuts by a process called sequestration. But more important than that, because few sequestrations ever in fact took place, Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton and their Congresses allowed these programs to grow according to the number of persons who became eligible and with the same or increased benefit levels, while at the same time not putting total spending on those programs under any dollar cap.
Presidents and Congresses during this period also made three conscious, major programmatic increases in spending for the poor: First, Medicaid coverage was extended in 1986, 1987, and 1988 during the Reagan administration and in 1990 during the Bush administration to include poor and nearly poor (incomes under 133 percent of the poverty line) pregnant women and their small children under age six, even if they were not on AFDC. This expansion together with the rapid rise in medical costs generally, forced a major, 327 percent or 63 billion constant 1994 dollar, expansion of spending between 1980 and 1994 for Medicaid."
347. thomasd - Jan. 29, 1999 - 5:07 PM PT
346 concluded -
"Second, the eligibility and maximum benefit level for the Earned Income Tax Credit--a refundable tax credit for persons who work but still earn low incomes--was increased in 1986, 1990, and 1993 during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations so that federal outlays shot up from $881 million in 1978 to $11 billion in 1994 (38), a 1143 percent increase in current dollars and a 591 percent increase in constant 1994 dollars. The Clinton administration's budget for FY 1996 projected a continued rise in outlays for EITC, to $16.8 billion in 1995 and $20.2 billion in 1996, which of course made EITC a target.
Third, in order to move toward every eligible poor child having at least a half-day Headstart slot, the authorization was increased both in 1990 and 1993. Federal outlays for Headstart went up from 625 million in 1978 to 3.3 billion in 1994, an increase of 432 percent in current, and 196 percent in constant, 1994 dollars.
Although the AFDC welfare program that has been a centr7al target for Republicans as well as some Democrats (President Clinton had promised in his 1992 campaign to "end welfare as we know it") federal outlays for AFDC showed only modest growth in real dollars from 1978 to 1994--2.2 percent a year. At about $17 billion in FY 1995 federal outlays, the federal cost of welfare was smaller than housing assistance or food stamps and only one fifth the $89 billion of Medicaid. Even the small increase in federal outlays on welfare was the result of increases in caseload from a rise in poverty and from recessions, and not of any increase in the average monthly benefit per family, which actually dropped between 1975 and 1993 by 33 percent in constant dollars.(39)"
348. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 5:18 PM PT
ThomasD
You aren't very smart, are you? Everything you quote in Message #345 to Message #347 may be true yet it still does NOT AT ALL refute Msit's Message #181, which is not even a particularly controversial claim.
349. thomasd - Jan. 29, 1999 - 5:39 PM PT
Re. 348 -
Pseudopsoriasis:
Notwithstanding the backing and filling I expect to witness by you after this post, I will not deviate from the fact that I was not responding to MSIT's #181, as you incorrectly asserted, but these lines from #172, which defy all rationality:
"As to the declines in poverty rates due to increased social
services and transfer payments, by far the single most
important contribution to increased poverty rates in the
80's was the decline in social services and transfer
payments that occurred as a result of Reagan's social
welfare policies."
"In addition, changes in tax policies, with redistribution
switching directions (changing from rich to poor, to poor
to rich) during the Reagan administration further eroded
the incomes of the poor."
Game, set, match. I win.
350. bubbaette - Jan. 29, 1999 - 5:50 PM PT
Time for a Poll!
Who here has actually lived on minimum wage? That includes paying for housing, utilities, transporation, health care, food and incidentals -- not living at mom and dad's?
I have and I had only myself to support. I have no idea how a person could work full time on minimum wage and support children. As it was, in the winter I heated with the oven in the trailer I rented because the oil folks wanted money up front and I could pay monthly with electricity, and even carry over a little bit of the bill over to the next month. I couldn't afford a phone. I couldn't afford clothing. When it's really cold, you turn the tap on a little before you go to bed so the water lines doesn't freeze. Then you put on a full layer of clothes that you're going to wear the next day to work. In the morning, my ride I'd get up, put on my shoes and wait for my ride wrapped in a blanket. The friend I used to ride with, a divorced middle aged woman with four kids at home used to call me a mole person when she picked me up in the morning cause I'd have a sweatshirt jacket with a hood pulled up under a coat and only the middle of my face showed.
Sure, I didn't work for minimum wage for long -- I got raises, $.25 and hour and shift differential of $.15 an hour for working midnight to 8:00. When I left I was making $3 or $4 and hour over minimum wage ($2.85/hr when I started and $3.25 when I stopped.) It got marginally easier to live on the money, but an illness would set you back for weeks, what with Dr.'s bills and missed hours.
351. bubbaette - Jan. 29, 1999 - 5:57 PM PT
Back in the late 80's, one of the clerical workers where I worked had two kids, worked for a little over minimum wage and couldn't make enough money to move out of the homeless shelter in Richmond. It takes a deposit for rent and utilities plus the first month's rent, and she just couldn't get that far ahead, what with trying to feed her kids from a hot plate.
It costs more to live when you've got nothing. You can't prepare low-cost healthy meals, cause you don't have a refridgerator and chances are if there's a grocery around it carries only prepared food for premium prices.
I know that this is all anecdotal, but it's also the real experience of people living on the lower end of the scale. It seems sort of heartless to me to be talking so glibly about whether the women being thrown off the welfare roles, medicaid and foodstamps can actually support themselves and their children, pay for child care so they *can* work, transportation, food and medical care on a minimum wage job.
352. bubbaette - Jan. 29, 1999 - 6:05 PM PT
So tell me, Tom D., have you ever supported yourself on minimum wage?
353. arkymalarky - Jan. 29, 1999 - 6:15 PM PT
Thank you for your injection of reality, Bubba. I think anecdotal evidence is exactly what is needed to bring it home to people exactly what a raise in the minimum wage really means to the working poor. I have always lived among the working poor and count myself fortunate not to be one of them myself. These people deserve a wage that gives dignity to their employment at least to the point of being able to support a modest but respectable existence.
The news in AR has been reporting the last few days on an elderly couple who was found in such a grotesque state of living that it would literally turn your stomach. What was the purpose of the news report? To shed light on the conditions of the elderly poor? Of course not. The elderly poor are scattered all over AR. It was simply the shock value which made their story newsworthy. But beyond the intended effect of the report, I keep wondering why any individual in this country should live and die, totally neglected, in such condition.
354. bubbaette - Jan. 29, 1999 - 6:29 PM PT
Arky
Back when I used to work for the congressman, he'd get letters from folks asking for help that would break your heart.
One old lady with spidery handwriting said she'd been to the grocery to buy cooking oil, flour, beans, bread, etc., and the rain came through her roof and ruined her flour and bread and she didn't have enough to eat for the rest of the month. She said she'd always wanted to have indoor plumbing, but her land didn't perk and she had to cross over a stream and it looked like she'd have to keep carrying water though she was over 80. In case you think this is a snow-job, the area agency on aging I called to look after her confirmed her story.
Another time, a woman working part-time (all she could find) was being encouraged to take her son out of school to find work at the age of 16 because the social security death benefits for her husband ran out when the child turned 18 and they couldn't live without them. Used to be that you were better off with a dead husband than one who walked out on you, because in the first instance you were eligible for death benefits and in the second case you couldn't get any help without being treated like a piece of scum. At this time, evidently Social Security decided that after age 16, children should become self-sufficient.
Another time
355. Msivorytower - Jan. 29, 1999 - 6:30 PM PT
ThomasD
You are a dunce. The information you posted actually supports my comments more than anything else.
And the idea that tax rates fell on the upper income earners is not in the LEAST bit controversial. Nor is the notion that social services were reduced AS A RESULT OF REAGAN's social welfare policies. Neither of which you've rebutted at all.
Btw, your information on head start and the ADFC programs don't support your defense of Reagan at all, check the dates for the former, and read closely what happened with the latter (no increase in benefits, but increased costs because of an expanding eligibility base - ie, the growing ranks of the poor).
356. ChristinO - Jan. 29, 1999 - 6:30 PM PT
"I keep wondering why any individual in this country should live and die, totally neglected, in such condition."
Because they are obviously too lazy to better themselves, of course.
Okay, heavy sarcasm over for the moment, I'm hearing ya' Bubba. I lived on minimum wage for two of my five years in college. I had the advantage of very cheap housing, excellent public transportation which I could ride for free because I was a student and a heavily subsidized larder because I worked for a restaurant. Because I was going to school full time and because being a theater major required participation in whatever shows were going on I only had 25 hours available to work each week so I was living on roughly $400 a month except in the summer when I could work 40 hours. I still ended up semi-homeless for about two months and had to stay out of school for a semester because I couldn't pay the tuition.
357. MizPhys - Jan. 29, 1999 - 6:37 PM PT
Shit, girl. You was rollin'. I won't get into playing poorer than thou, but thou didn't have it that bad IMO.
358. bubbaette - Jan. 29, 1999 - 6:44 PM PT
Who you talkin to Phys?
359. RyckNelson - Jan. 29, 1999 - 6:50 PM PT
Another story;
In the early eighties before Reagan destroyed the way programs HELPED people I was making $6.35 an hour. I worked a college work study program, which is federally subsidized pay. This was at the U of M.
When my wife and I went to Southern Illinois University at Carbondale and I waited my six months for in state tuition, the story dramatically changed. The program was the same and the population of students was smaller but the pay was now minimum wage. Not the matched pay which the U of M would give, which was the right thing to do. The college in my opinion was stealing the subsidy. But, such were the loopholes Reagan created for this institution. I had to live in a trailer also. I had to get the max of student loans and am going to be paying those for another ten years. 17,500 will be 40,000 when all is said and done. Outrageous! But, that's the price a first ever in my family had to pay to go to college, solely supported. My wife eventually got her first ever jobs and found a reasonable $17,000 a year salary which got us through to the end. But, the raped feeling that one gets for working hard for nothing is a sour bit of life. Then having nothing as well doesn't do well for ones ego. It was a very hard 4+ years. Very hard!!!
If the taxes imposed upon me were at the zero level my life could have been manageable. But, paying for the government and for me with minimum wage was impossible and forced me into a life of debt. It's a horrendous experience to be in deep debt when you know you're too poor to pay it back. And I wouldn't file bankruptcy! It wouldn't exit my obligation for the student loans anyway.
The point is, taxes to minimum wage earners is equal to raping them!
360. MizPhys - Jan. 29, 1999 - 6:51 PM PT
I was speaking to ChristinO. $400 seems like a LOT when I think back on what I lived on during engineering school. I lived in a house with several others and payed $60 a month rent. I had $15 a week to spend on food. This was in 1980. I suppose if CO's experience was more recent that would make a difference though.
I would NEVER question your hard luck credentials. I SAW you in that god-forsaken trailer and the anguish that you went through when your car wasn't running but you were too proud to ask Dad to fix it.
361. RyckNelson - Jan. 29, 1999 - 6:57 PM PT
MzPhys,
I went in 1982 to the U of M and I could get the above stated wages on campus. Could you not find better than $120-$200 a month?
362. CalGal - Jan. 29, 1999 - 6:57 PM PT
While I enjoy reading these stories, and commiserate with all involved, I can't help but think what would happen if someone came in here and said:
"Bullshit. I looked at minimum wage jobs and said no way. I went out and found a better paying job. And that was in the recession of the early 80's."
Who would be the first to scoff at anecdotals?
363. bubbaette - Jan. 29, 1999 - 6:57 PM PT
Phys
Well, it's just one of those things. First supported by parents, then dominated by a husband, I had to prove that I could take care of me. I could, but just by the skin of my teeth.
364. RyckNelson - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:00 PM PT
Don't assume there's a family to FIX anything. This is a very diverse country we live in. The mom and dad with 2 kids that make it togther through all is just a dream to many, many of us. For me that's when I was a child, I am doing fine as an adult though with closing in on over 15 years of marriage.
365. bubbaette - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:01 PM PT
Cal
That may be one of the differences between California and Appomattox Virginia. When I was living on minimum wage, jobs were scarce. I took the furniture factory job for $.15 cents and hour over minimum wage, and moved up from minimum wage plus piece-work and that was the best I could do with no particular skills. In some areas of the state, the unemployment rate is still double digit, and people work at what they can get rather than what they feel they're worth.
366. darkviolet - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:02 PM PT
ChristinO -
Hi!
"I still ended up semi-homeless for about two months and had to stay out of school for a semester because I couldn't pay the tuition."
But if you hadn't been a student, it probably would have been much more difficult to bounce back from living with the stress of thinking you had nothing to look forward to, thinking your condition would not improve before age and entropy deteriorates you life further. I think social policy makers drasticly underestimate how effective a little funding for education and training can be.
367. bubbaette - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:05 PM PT
Ryck
I agree that taxes on minimum wage workers is an obscenity if they're self-supporting. When I think about chosing between heat and food, and what that extra $30 per pay would have bought, it seems criminal. Yet the tax relief has been for the upper income brackets.
The EITC is also kind of a fraud, since you get it once a year instead of weekly when you need it. And single folks didn't get the EITC, only those with children to support.
368. CalGal - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:06 PM PT
Bubba,
I'm sorry, that wasn't my point. And I'm also sorry that you had such a tough time. It sounds incredibly difficult.
I was only pointing out that anecdotal information is either equally valuable or equally besides the point.
369. arkymalarky - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:06 PM PT
Cal,
Like Bubba says, living here with no college degree, your scenario is a non-happening.
370. arkymalarky - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:10 PM PT
Anecdotal evidence in this case is being used to illustrate what living on minimum wage really means, and thus is more relevant than it would be as evidence of the prevalence of poverty, etc.
371. MizPhys - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:12 PM PT
Cal
You weren't saying equally valuable. You were saying that bacause some Hypothetical anecdote might offer contrary evidence, all anecdotal evidence is worthless. As I read it.
372. bubbaette - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:14 PM PT
Cal
The good part for me is that I escaped. I realized that I was going to be miserable and just subsistance living for the rest of my life without a college degree and let go of my pride and made the college/poverty sacrifice to get out. I am *so* very advantaged, though, coming from a family that values education and reading -- I had a built-in impetus. My parents were also able to help a bit, and I even hit-up my older sisters from time to time. What a luxury to have people who believe in you!
373. RyckNelson - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:15 PM PT
Cal brought up the "keep an open mind" to the spectrum of possibilities. I don't see it as 'harsh'.
I like to read a broad picture of life. It helps to keep things in perspective. Don't you all agree?
Did anyone else agree with my post from last night asking if we should ban taxes on the poor and go the graduated scale method. It's out in the political sphere. Maybe, as done here in Minnesota a NEW group of leaders will choose to make things right with the people!?
374. RyckNelson - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:17 PM PT
I'm off to poetry. Check ya all later.
375. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:28 PM PT
ThomasD (Message #349): Your Message #345 was in "rebuttal of MSIT's ridiculous assertion that net transfer payments actually reversed direction to from poor to rich in the '80's", which assertion was not at all addressed by your gurglings. As for decline in social services, I won't cite every statistic, so I will concentrate on AFDC.
According to the Census Bureau, the number of poor families with children in millions were:
1980 4,822
1989 5,308
According to Table 602 of the Statistical Abstract of the United States, the number of AFDC recipient families in millions were:
1980 3,843
1989 3,875
So, we can say that the AFDC "coverage" between 1980 and 1989 fell from 80% to 73%. What about average monthly AFDC payments per recipient family? In nominal dollars,
1980 $288
1989 $383
Now, given that the CPI rose by 50% between 1980 and 1989, the average monthly AFDC payment per recipient family in constant 1980 dollars was
1980 $288
1989 $255
There were similar retrenchments in SSI and Medicare.
376. CalGal - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:34 PM PT
MizPhyz/Arkie:
No, I wasn't saying that just because someone could offer anecdotal information it is all worthless. But had someone come in here and posted that, let us consider how quickly he or she would have been dismissed for trying to prove their point with anecdotes.
And Arky, the story I told could be used to show how easy it is to choose not to live on minimum wage. Which would be no more or less true than Rask's rather cheery story about his time on minimum wage.
I am not criticizing these stories--I am just pointing out that anecdotes are anecdotes either way. There tends to be more support for the right sort of anecdotes. But in the end, it makes no more sense to support a hike based on a tough tale than it does to oppose one based on a positive experience.
Also--and as a side point--there has been very little opposition to the minimum wage or an increase, that I've seen.
I found Bubba's story very moving and I'm glad she told it. I'm sorry if my post was viewed as critical of it.
377. arkymalarky - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:52 PM PT
It's not that, Cal. It's that I think you're missing the purpose of supplying anecdotal evidence in this situation, which I tried to explain in #370.
Of course if it were possible for everyone to get a higher paying job there would be no one to fill minimum wage positions, so that fact alone makes anecdotal evidence showing living conditions among those trying to get by on minimum wage more compelling than the opposite anecdotes would for the other side.
I could fill this thread with heartbreaking stories of working poor families as a teacher, and I know Bubba and MsPhyz could, as well as many others here. What prompted me to post a rl story is the callousness with which I felt some people were approaching the argument against a living wage, especially those who make vague assumptions about what a rise would do to the economy as a whole.
378. ScotusAntonovich - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:59 PM PT
Yeah, I had a min wage job.
In high school.
Also, as a work study in college.
Then, I did what most people do:
moved on to more profitable careers.
That *is* what min wage is *for* you know. Not supporting a family which a *bare* minimum of min wage earners do, don't forget.
379. CalGal - Jan. 29, 1999 - 8:03 PM PT
Arky,
I understood #370. I just don't see that anecdotal evidence of *that* sort is any different than the other.
Also, be fair. There has been almost no callousness here that I've seen. Even FTC was reasonable, given his weird politics. (I think maybe he and Ronski should switch off--Ronski's been holding down the Social Security fort.)
If the increase to a living wage were to reduce employment of the same people it was intended to help, wouldn't there be more stories like Bubba's?
Speaking for myself, I don't think a significant increase--to $8--is a good thing all at once. But that is, as I said, based on my intuition alone--I can't help but think that employers would cut back on their use of minimum wage employees. This may be an unfounded assumption. But if it raising the minimum wage to $8 *did* cause unemployment, would you favor it or not? (I don't mean that sarcastically, either--I imagine there are reasons why one would. I just don't know what they are.)
380. CalGal - Jan. 29, 1999 - 8:05 PM PT
Ha. Okay, Scotty was just a callous bastard.
I don't know what the purpose of a minimum wage is. But I agree that it is unrealistic to expect it to support a family of 4. Did it ever manage to?
381. ScotusAntonovich - Jan. 29, 1999 - 8:07 PM PT
Well, Cal, I've certainly been called worse.
Although I doubt she had me in mind at the time.
382. CalGal - Jan. 29, 1999 - 8:12 PM PT
I know. It's just too funny.
You weren't all *that* callous.
383. arkymalarky - Jan. 29, 1999 - 8:13 PM PT
If you don't see the anecdotal evidence presented above as different from what you posted as an example, then you didn't understand #370. Again, the point is to illustrate the difficulty of living at the current minimum wage, not to indicate the limited range of options for higher wage employment or the number of working poor.
If the people are needed to work they will be paid the wage, especially on the low end, so I see no basis for the assumption that jobs will be lost with a raise in the minimum wage, especially in light of the evidence which has shown that real income has actually shrunk rather than increased. I don't think Burger King hires more employees than it would at a higher rate. They hire what they need to get the job done. Besides, higher wages would put more money back into the economy and encourage growth. Kind of like Reagan's argument for reducing taxes on the wealthy.(smirk)
384. arkymalarky - Jan. 29, 1999 - 8:13 PM PT
I've got to go to bed. I'll pop back in tomorrow.
385. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 29, 1999 - 8:45 PM PT
arkymalarky (Message #383)
"...I see no basis for the assumption that jobs will be lost with a raise in the minimum wage..."
Of course a rise in the minimum wage could reduce employment. The question is two-fold: whether a modest increase must reduce employment (I don't think so); and whether the unemployment costs of a more significant rise in the minimum wage could still produce net social benefits (I think so).
"I don't think Burger King hires more employees than it would at a higher rate. They hire what they need to get the job done..."
Or hire fewer workers and try to improve productivity (output per worker employed) through labour-saving devices.
"Besides, higher wages would put more money back into the economy and encourage growth."
This is pure nonsense. A minimum wage can only redistribute income, either from employers to employees, or from the newly unemployed to the employed, or from both employers and the newly unemployed to the employees. There is no new spending in the economy as a result of a rise in the minimum wage.
386. thomasd - Jan. 29, 1999 - 9:01 PM PT
Re. 355 -
MSIT -
I understand your discomfiture at making the utterly ridiculous assertion (among others, of only slightly less monumental risibility) that the net flow of transfer payments actually reversed itself during the '80's between rich people and poor people, and of subsequently being cut off at the knees by moi for doing so.
But there it is. No ropes of saliva can save you now; only retraction.
387. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 30, 1999 - 12:34 AM PT
ThomasD (Message #386)
In Message #349, you characterised the following remrks of Msit's in Message #172 as "defying rationality":
"...by far the single most important contribution to increased poverty rates in the 80's was the decline in social services and transfer payments that occurred as a result of Reagan's social welfare policies."
I clearly showed in Message #375 that those remarks were reasonable. You also seem to have a problem with these remarks of hers:
"In addition, changes in tax policies, with redistribution switching directions (changing from rich to poor, to poor to rich) during the Reagan administration further eroded the incomes of the poor."
Which you stupidly misinterpret as "the net flow of transfer payments actually reversed itself during the '80's". What Msit means (and the language she uses is standard) is that during the 1980s the after-tax incomes of the lowest quintile fell while the after-tax incomes of the top quintile rose. Do you have any problem with this factual and uncontroversial observation?
388. wexxford1 - Jan. 30, 1999 - 3:41 AM PT
No need for a minimum wage. Why, as George Bush's brother once famously said when he ran for senator in Connecticut,the richest town in that state could not exist without " illegal aliens." Out you go folks and hire all the wetbacks you need .That's the market system,stupid.
389. joezan - Jan. 30, 1999 - 4:00 AM PT
Message #350
In my first job out of H.S. I had to work for minimum wage - $2.15 an hour, I think - in order to pay for school and keep my junker going. This was just as Carter took office, so you KNOW it only got worse from there. Being single and living at home, I took home about $60 a week. No mercy from Uncle Sam - I only attended school part time.
But, as if that weren't bad enough, it was a Teamsters job (injection mold press operator), and a closed shop. From the first check each month, the Teamsters took $26.00! Talk about taxing the poor - this was the same amount everyone had to pay, including the foremen, who made 4 times what I did!
After a year I got a $.25, and only got to enjoy this windfall for 2 weeks because, after accidentally breaking a machine, I was fired by my foreman, who was also the shop steward. As I said, this was during Carter...it took me over 6 months to find another job.
390. joezan - Jan. 30, 1999 - 4:04 AM PT
That's, "...I got a $.25 RAISE", in the last paragraph.
391. joezan - Jan. 30, 1999 - 4:31 AM PT
As for the current reality of the minimum wage: I'm curious to know to what extent there exists a true "minimum wage" in other parts of the country. By this I mean, with unemployment as low as it is, how many employers can actually hire anyone at minimum wage?
Here in western Michigan, even in rural counties the unemployment rate is very low. But wages for comparable jobs are a good deal lower than in other parts of the country. Still, not even the fast-food places and convenience stores can hire anyone at minimum wage. There isn't a Burger King or McDonald's for 100 miles around that pays less than $7 an hour ($8 for 2nd shift). There's a coffee shop in town which pays it's cashiers $9 an hour. Two years ago a Pizza Hut franchise was built near here, advertising $6.00 an hour to start. The place sat vacant for over a year, while the starting amount on the sign grew, quarter-by-quarter, until it finally reached $7.50 an hour.
As Wexx noted somewhat cynically above, it IS the market system.
392. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 30, 1999 - 4:43 AM PT
Zan said (Message #390)
"This was just as Carter took office, so you KNOW it only got worse from there...."
Yes, in the sense that the Reagan years had to follow Carter's. As Message #335 & #336 show, minimum wage workers were _much_ better off under Carter than under Reagan.
Moreover, the unemployment rate kept on falling during Carter's presidency until 1980, when it rose again. But the unemployment rate for 1978 and 1979 was lower than any Reagan year except 1988.
(Not that presidents have much to do with the unemployment rate, but...)
393. RyckNelson - Jan. 30, 1999 - 5:46 AM PT
JOE! Where yah been? Choice Theory was the thread for you. You missed it. I would have liked to see what you have to say. If you've time go and read back. It's the type of connection to your described profession that I'm refering to.
394. Msivorytower - Jan. 30, 1999 - 5:47 AM PT
Mein Gott
PE has been masterfully defending the rationale behind the comments I made that caused ThomasD such anguish and turmoil, while I've been busy typing my fingers to the bone (not to mention burning my brain cells) trying to finish a damn paper I'm writing.
PE has demonstrated the data that underlies my position. I see no need to reiterate.
Thank you PE (and you have the Statistical Abstract on CD-ROM???, I'm jealous).
Btw, much as I want to do a full blown critique of that Cato paper, I must defer the pleasure to Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. I cannot take the time to do it right now.
395. RyckNelson - Jan. 30, 1999 - 5:53 AM PT
This is pure nonsense. A minimum wage can only redistribute income, either from employers to employees, or from the newly unemployed to the employed, or from both employers and the newly unemployed to the employees. There is no new spending in the economy as a result of a rise in the minimum wage.
Explain yourself wrt the above please. I am not agreeing with this, I'm without proof, but, I understand human nature and we spend more when we have more. So, how does what you say make sense in human terms?
All right PE! It's great to see someone who agrees that Carter had some very significant policies which improved the U.S. His being slammed by some, just isn't reality to me. Reagan rejecting Carters gracious offer to share his notes was the opening of the gates to hell in my opinion. The hell being the eight years of Raygun and the four of Bushed.
396. RyckNelson - Jan. 30, 1999 - 5:55 AM PT
Forgot my "" above. The quote in my post above is PE's, it's the opening paragraph.
397. Msivorytower - Jan. 30, 1999 - 6:16 AM PT
I should also clarify that when I made the following comment
"...by far the single most important contribution to increased poverty rates in the 80's was the decline in social services and transfer payments that occurred as a result of Reagan's social welfare policies."
I was speaking specifically to a question Calgal had asked about the importance of transfer payments and welfare policies in affecting the poverty rate. In addition, I was thinking soley about government actions that affect poverty, I was not including the structural effects that were occurring during the 80's that also contributed to the movement of workers down the income distribution.
I have discussed those issues elsewhere, but they are mainly related to the changing demand for workers to fill the type of jobs being created in the 80's. There was a simultaneous shift in the demand for workers with higher skills during this time, which led to a rather sharp increase in the returns to education observed. What this means is that the demand for workers with low skills and lower levels of education fell during the 80's, which further pushed people into the lower income groups (ie, they had fewer employment opportunities and lower upward job mobility).
Since there is a strong correlation between education and earnings, the lower ones education was during this time, the more likely his or her earnings were falling. Government tax and spending policies did nothing to mitigate this trend, in fact, they exacerbated the widening income gap. This was the point I was making, and is one that has been made by several analysts, including economists.
398. RyckNelson - Jan. 30, 1999 - 6:24 AM PT
Absolutely! I totally agree with Msivorytowers post!
399. arkymalarky - Jan. 30, 1999 - 6:43 AM PT
PE,
I agree with you about the possible impact of a modest increase in the MW. I should have used the word "modest." I think what Clinton proposed is very reasonable, especially with many minimum wage jobs advertising for workers the way they are.
"There is no new spending in the economy as a result of a rise in the minimum wage."
Well, first, my remark was supposed to be a jab at the old Trickle Down argument which I think was "pure nonsense," and when I wrote it I wasn't meaning it as a serious argument in favor of minimum wage, but I do think that with poor people more likely to spend what they have as opposed to investing it, it would increase consumption. Just think of the effects on Wal-Mart alone. I really don't think it would have much impact on the economy beyond decreasing the numbers of working poor, but you would know much more about that than I.
Cal,
I really didn't answer your question, and that is I would not support that much of an increase($8) that fast, but it's hard to say what the right amount would be over time, because the cost of living differs so much from one area to another and from one time to another. As far as whether I would support it if it would cause unemployment, that would depend on how much unemployment in relation to how many workers' living conditions were raised to a more decent level.
400. FreeToChoose - Jan. 30, 1999 - 8:07 AM PT
In Message #367 bubbaette says:
“The EITC is also kind of a fraud, since you get it once a year instead of weekly when you need it.”
I urge you to check out my Message #227 Things have changed.