Comments on: Full Steam Ahead On "100 Hours" Express

House Approves Minimum Wage Hike; Thursday Vote On Stem Cells

Add a Comment See all 144 Comments
by bellal-2009 January 11, 2007 5:31 AM EST
Randal, I agree with you and have said from the beginning this is a big Democrat hype over nothing since half the states have already raised minimum wage. But in theory I don't think it's a good idea to regulate anything that can be set by the market. And Democrats love to do it and it just messes things up. It's like we really have to decide how we want the country to function. I think the best way is basically a libertarian type model where govt. gets out of the way except for protection of the environment, clean air and water and forest preservation. The global warming thing is just too vast and nebulous.
Reply to this comment
by randalds January 11, 2007 4:57 AM EST
So you're saying never give people a raise because it won't do them any good anyway? That makes no sense at all. And their dollar does go further because most companies are already paying more then minimum anyway depending on their location to compete for good labor, so most companies aren't going to have an increase in wages to pass along because of this bill. The ones getting hurt here are not the mom and pops either, they're companies that traditionally have paid rotten wages in the past like hotels.
Reply to this comment
by bellal-2009 January 11, 2007 4:38 AM EST
And again you intentionally skip by mine. You're just going to pass the cost along to your customers. This won't hurt you in competition because all of your competitors will do the same
Posted by RandalDS at 01:31 AM : Jan 11, 2007

OMG, Randal. I really mean it when I say you're missing the point. If the costs of goods and services go up how does that help minimum wage workers when they're dollar doesn't go as far. That's the point.
Reply to this comment
by randalds January 11, 2007 4:31 AM EST
Well,(yawn) again you miss the point. Before businesses go under they will strip down lean and mean. And again (yawn) they will cut workers or benefits.
Posted by bellaL at 04:22 PM : Jan 10, 2007

And again you intentionally skip by mine. You're just going to pass the cost along to your customers. This won't hurt you in competition because all of your competitors will do the same. Then you'll stand around with your competitors and whine and pi*ss and moan about how the minimum wage is costing you money when it hasn't increased your real expenses at all. If you can't stay in business it's not going to be because of the minimum wage. It'll be because you're a bad business person. Survival of the fittest. It's republican right wing social anthropology at it's finest.
Reply to this comment
by frankly6 January 11, 2007 2:19 AM EST
janem4

The last four years of Clinton's Presidency he was fighting for his life against a rediculous witch hunt and a GOP controlled congress who would sooner mug an old lady than raise the minimum wage.

Reply to this comment
by rwassel January 11, 2007 12:54 AM EST
Janem4 -

Gee, who controlled Congress during the last four years of the Clinton Admin? Maybe Republicans?
Reply to this comment
by egresor January 10, 2007 11:25 PM EST
this is not valid. do the same people complaining about raising the minimum wage howl at executive bonuses and cost of living increases for themselves and others fortunate enough to have them? oh---you might hear some about some of the outrageous excesses, but generally not. what you do hear is for raising the most vulnerable getting a 10 years in coming cost of living raise.

the republicans complained when clinton raised it. forecasting job losses and unemployment, but then again we were dealing with a common sense economic program...instead of bush's nonsense plan for failure. so how did clinton do it? sorry---I forget bush destroyed everything positive clinton accomplished!

what does someone making minimum wage do with that little bit extra they get? they spend it---that's what. they don't sock it away or buy luxury items that benefit very few. spending it on needed items that boost the economy.

check out what gets more of a return per dollar to the federal coffers. a tax cut that benefits the rich (and those who don't need it) or a raise in the minimum wage. I bet you'll be surprised!
Reply to this comment
by joesal698 January 10, 2007 11:13 PM EST
This last ten years, Congress has been very good at voting themselves pay raises, 8 times, to be precise.

But when it comes to giving the poor a living wage, they have all the right reasons why it sould not be done, primarily because it will hurt them, (the poor)!

After ten years, finally a bill, wonder if it's got anything to do with the new folks in charge!
Reply to this comment
by processor2 January 10, 2007 10:58 PM EST
A $2/hour increase times 40 hrs/week times 52 weeks/year equals $4,160 PER employee PER year in extra labor costs.

If you have 11 employees (which I have), that's $45,760 per year increase in labor cost to my business.

THEREFORE, in order to pay for the minimum wage increase, I will have to lay off 3 employees in order to pay for said increase.

[... 3 employees times 7.15/hour(new rate) times 40 hours/week times 52 weeks/year equals 44,616]

IN A NUTSHELL; of my eleven employees, three will be laid off to pay for the raises for the remaining eight.

..........
Reply to this comment
by mdc76082 January 10, 2007 10:51 PM EST
Most businesses, like Walmart will start you out at $7.00/hr. anyway. The only place I know that starts out at $5.15/hr is Taco H_ell (Bell). This is stupid and not a "Show-me" big triumph for America's laborers. The Dems are just full of themselves, thinking they are doing "America" favors. Like we're having to be forever indebted to them. It's all pomp & circumstance. Remember America: VOTE REPUBLICAN IN 2008!
Reply to this comment
by annd2302 January 10, 2007 10:49 PM EST
OK.I will date myself. I can still recall when I made 50 cents @ hour (sacker at a mom & pop grocery store) and less taxes, for a week I took home less than $20.00. Oh, in that same store, my brother was the butcher and he took home about $45.00 per week. OH the times were so good.
Reply to this comment
by the74blaster January 10, 2007 10:15 PM EST
This is crazy. All you have to do is look at the minimum wages that are mandated by local government to see how far out of touch the federal government is. Lets look at some facts regarding our economy.

It has been argued that raising the minimum wage is going to increase the cost of goods sold and it will be passed on to the customer. That statement really isn%u2019t valid if you take a walk through Wal-Mart. My question is how many items do you find in Wal-Mart that are actually made in the United States? Not many.

What impact does raising the minimum wage have on the cost of selling these goods? My guess is that its not all that significant when you consider how much the managers and CEO%u2019s are taking out of the pie. A case in point is for the 210 million dollar severance pay the CEO of Home Depot received could pay a significant army of floor personal at minimum wage.

Reply to this comment
by pakaal January 10, 2007 9:59 PM EST
Cato and the Heritage Institute are certainly no less controversial a source for economic information than EPI, davidlar2. I think you can do better than to throw words like that around, by the way, it demeans the discussion to stoop to slander.
Reply to this comment
by kemetorigin January 10, 2007 9:54 PM EST
Further, many of these comments demonstrate our misplaced values. We are completely fine with paying 25k for a car made of plastic to pay CEOs multi million dollar bonuses even when the company fails to make a profit all while laying off workers. I understand that a company is in business to make money, but if the consumers are unable to afford their goods and services b/c their wages are insufficient to living decently, then who the heck is going to buy these goods? Costco is a good example of fair wages and good profits. Greed corrupts people. The president of Costco admits that he could increase profits and increase money for shareholders if he decreased wages, but then what of customer service and employee morale? It would all plummet and Costco would be as generic as Sams. I can tell when employees are better compensated. Compare Dillards to other retailers. You notice a difference in the service--you get what you pay for. Even in fast food. Think Chick Fil A versus McDonalds. Which has the better products and service?
Reply to this comment
by kemetorigin January 10, 2007 9:47 PM EST
Even in consideration of column space limitations, this article over simplifies this issue. I would not consider all minimum wage workers unskilled. In fact, these people are usually skilled, but have been laid off b/c of the obsolescence of their skill due to the advent of technology, specifically in the manufacturing sector. Moreover, some of these "unskilled" jobs are the jobs on which we have come to depend like grocery clerks, child care providers, maintenance personnel, and sanitation workers. Excuse me, but I hope to heck that these people get wage increases b/c it would be a filthy and pitiful US without them. I know, I worked as a grocery clerk in high school before and after the minimum wage increase of Clinton's during which I made $4.50/hour. B/c I was in highschool this was acceptable. I couldn't imagine having to do it now. Trust me, $7.20 is not that much. It is only 14k a year working full time.
Reply to this comment
by davidlar2 January 10, 2007 9:44 PM EST
That's right, let's decide public policy with emotion instead of logic. There are legitimate debates out there, but perhaps it is elitist and ignorant to consider what economists of various beliefs have published instead of to ignore any elitist literature and just react with emotional nonsense about made up stereotypes.
Reply to this comment
by olgreyghost January 10, 2007 9:41 PM EST
Is it legal anywhere in this country (U.S.) that an employee can take a gun into his employer's office and demand that his boss give him a pay raise?
Reply to this comment
by nyckate January 10, 2007 9:37 PM EST
davidlar2 - many people have to work those low-end mimum wage jobs - from divorced moms who need the flexibility of the hours to laid off folks to college and high school kids - how elitist is it of you to view them less worthy of one raise in 10 years. How ignorant also.
Reply to this comment
by davidlar2 January 10, 2007 9:36 PM EST
By definition, a minimum wage is an artificial salary above that that would be set by the market in its absence. That is a neutral statement independent of whether you think it is a good thing or a bad thing.
Reply to this comment
by nyckate January 10, 2007 9:34 PM EST
davidlar2 - artificialyl high salaries?? What on earth are you talking about - tehre hasn't been an increase in mimimum wage for over 10 years - let's not be so foolish as to believe that you or Bush or Rove or DeLay or any of the other completely useless incompetent fools haven't had a raise in 10 years.

Lower income people DO spend money - on all sorts of things - from clothes to food to household items - wealthy people shop in Milan or Paris not Southbend Indiana. Duh
Reply to this comment
See all 144 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: