Senate to Vote on Minimum Wage

[Boon 0]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate is gearing up for a vote on whether to raise the minimum wage for the first time in eight years as Democrats and Republicans offer competing proposals they want to add to bankruptcy legislation.

 

Looking ahead to the expected votes Monday evening, the Democratic plan would increase the current $5.15 hourly minimum by more than $2. The GOP proposal couples a more modest raise with a change to the 40-hour work week.

 

The plan from Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, also includes tax and regulatory breaks for small businesses. His amendment would lift the minimum wage by $1.10 over 18 months, in two steps of 55 cents.

 

The rival proposal from Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, would boost the wage to $7.25 in three increments over 26 months.

 

The bankruptcy bill, long a priority for Republicans, is intended to make it more difficult for people to eliminate personal debts by declaring bankruptcy.

 

The minimum wage amendments will need 60 votes in the Senate to survive; it is not clear if either one has that support.

 

A minimum wage increase faces a tougher road in the more conservative House. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, said late last week that the House was ready to quickly pass the Senate's bankruptcy bill under the condition that the Senate reject any further substantive amendments.

 

DeLay also had said that the House had no plans to vote this year on a minimum wage increase, which business groups claim would drive up costs and force small businesses to lay off workers.

 

Santorum's proposal contains an idea that Republicans have advocated, without success, for years: "flex-time," which gives employees the option of shifting their work hours over a two-week period. Supporters say this would allow workers to adjust their schedules to meet family needs.

 

Kennedy said this would end the 40-hour work week by denying workers overtime pay for up to 10 hours every two weeks.

 

Kennedy also said restaurant workers would be harmed because Santorum's proposal allows tips to be credited for purposes of complying with any future minimum wage increases in states where tips are not now credited. Santorum said his plan would not reduce cash wages in any way.

 

The GOP plan says small business enterprises with less than $1 million in receipts would be exempt from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which sets minimum wage, overtime and record keeping standards. The current ceiling is $500,000.

 

The proposal includes more than $4 billion in small business tax breaks, headed by a 15-year recovery period for certain restaurants, at a cost of $3.4 billion. The tax breaks are offset by such measures as tightening tax requirements on companies that move their companies overseas to avoid U.S. taxes and increasing penalties on tax fraud and underpayment.

 

Santorum's spokeswoman said the senator is introducing his amendment in response to Kennedy's. The Pennsylvania Republican recognizes that it has been 7 1/2 years since the last raise but also wants to ease regulatory burdens on small businesses, the aide said.

 

Kennedy, in a statement, said the GOP plan would help only 1.8 million people, compared with 7.3 under his.

 

He told fellow senators that under the last minimum wage raise, voted by Congress in 1996 and reaching its current level in 1997, minimum wage workers earn $10,700 a year, $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.

 

During the same eight-year period, members of Congress have raised their own salaries seven times, by a total of $28,500, he said.

 

I've worked for minimum wage before, so I know how much it can suck. But does increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 seem a bit high to anybody else?

[Guest MikeSC]

I'll use one of Rush's old comments:

 

Why not raise it to $1M/year? If they're going to be overpaid anyway, why not go ahead and recommend an extreme and force the left to decide how much actually IS too much.

-=Mike

...Didn't Ted Kennedy go batshit insane on the Senate floor about this bill?

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

To be honest, considering the price of consumer products these days, I feel like somewhere between $6.75 and $7.25 would be relatively accurate. The state one here is $6.75, and works out all right. Although, admittedly, the state has an amazing decrease in the number of businesses located in the state. Gillette, anyone? You'll probably also see State Street move on out of the state in the near future, too.

 

--Ryan

[Guest MikeSC]

It shouldn't matter what things cost. The ultimate concern should be what the job is worth.

 

McDonald's cashiering is not worth that much money.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Man, back in my day the minimum wage was $4.25. Fuck this, half the people making minimum wage nowadays don't even deserve to be getting paid that amount anyway...

[Guest MikeSC]

I want to know where Kennedy gets off discussing the minimum wage, considering that he got paid $10/hr to get potty-trained.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Uncle Ted is a man of the people, when he's not driving them to a watery grave. Why oh why did JFK, RFK and JFK Jr. die early and this man is still around?

 

EDIT: Since Rush was mentioned earlier, did anyone else hear his Friday show when he used "watermark" noises in his news soundbites? That was pure gold...

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Kennedy's wage hike is excessive, but the real thing that's bad here is in Santorum's bill. I don't like that hour-flexing and tip counting at all. Not that surprising that that sort of rider has never passed.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The fact that Republicans are even talking about a minimum-wage hike is disturbing. Why do I even bother voting for these people?...

[tommytomlin 0]

Is the American minimum wage adjusted for inflation or CPI?

[Guest MikeSC]

Is the American minimum wage adjusted for inflation or CPI?

Nope. It's a flat rate.

-=Mike

[Guest Smues]

Is the American minimum wage adjusted for inflation or CPI?

Nope. It's a flat rate.

-=Mike

Except in Washington state where it's adjusted every year for inflation or something like that. Which is why our minimum wage is (I believe) the highest in the country.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I want to know where Kennedy gets off discussing the minimum wage, considering that he got paid $10/hr to get potty-trained.

-=Mike

I wonder if his classes ever conflict with his duties as Senator

[SuperJerk 0]

I'll use one of Rush's old comments:

 

Why not raise it to $1M/year? If they're going to be overpaid anyway, why not go ahead and recommend an extreme and force the left to decide how much actually IS too much.

Because that would create a massive wave of inflation.

A $2 or even $1.10 would not.

 

It shouldn't matter what things cost. The ultimate concern should be what the job is worth.

 

You can't see how the two are related? The more things cost, the less money is worth, thus the job is worth more money.

 

You guys who are automatically opposed to any and all minimum wage hikes, or even the concept, have too much faith in market forces. Market forces do not always drive wages in the correct direction. Some people are overpaid (entertainers and atheletes), and some people are underpaid (cops and child care workers).

 

The only thing Adam Smith's invisible hand does well is give poor people the finger.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'll use one of Rush's old comments:

 

Why not raise it to $1M/year? If they're going to be overpaid anyway, why not go ahead and recommend an extreme and force the left to decide how much actually IS too much.

Because that would create a massive wave of inflation.

A $2 or even $1.10 would not.

 

 

That is copious logic. Any increase in labor costs will be passed on to the consumer. Thus, inflation will arise and any benefit from a temporary minimum wage hike will be non-existant. And, to boot, fewer entry-level jobs will be available due to higher labor costs.

 

Businesses will always pass the costs on to the consumer. Whether you raise the minimum wage $1 or $100, the end result will be the same.

It shouldn't matter what things cost. The ultimate concern should be what the job is worth.

You can't see how the two are related? The more things cost, the less money is worth, thus the job is worth more money.

 

You guys who are automatically opposed to any and all minimum wage hikes, or even the concept, have too much faith in market forces. Market forces do not always drive wages in the correct direction. Some people are overpaid (entertainers and atheletes), and some people are underpaid (cops and child care workers).

No, there is no such thing as under- and over-paid. Salaries are based, primarily, on scarcity of talent. As useful a job as it may be, there are many more people capable of being a cop than are capable of being a major league ballplayer. Teachers, as noble as that profession claims to be (and there are a lot of teachers who openly suck at the job, let's be honest) is not a rare talent. Almost anybody can be a talent.

 

Not many people can put asses in the seats to watch them in a movie.

The only thing Adam Smith's invisible hand does well is give poor people the finger.

It's a flawed system. It's just significantly and markedly better than any other one out there.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

No, there is no such thing as under- and over-paid. Salaries are based, primarily, on scarcity of talent.

How much money do you think Ashlee Simpson made last year? How much does Demi Moore make per movie, despite a steady stream of box office bombs to her credit? There's people in Hollywood who's only job is to follow other people around all day (no ability to do), and they make a lot more than girl who works at a daycare center (takes some ability to do).

 

Simply put, there are more things than just market forces and government regulation effecting wages. There's also human stupidity.

 

It's a flawed system. It's just significantly and markedly better than any other one out there.

 

A pure capitalist system would be a nightmare. That's why we no longer have one. I like the modified version we have now, with minimum wage laws, protections for workers, product regulation, and all kinds of things that cut profits but help the general public.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You're crazy, RJ. The ability to direct a pornographic film takes a much *rarer* kind of talent than teaching or serving as a police officer or firefighter.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

That is copious logic.

 

What does this mean?

[The Czech Republic 0]

Well, I guess "a lot of logic" but that's not very logical

[Guest MikeSC]

No, there is no such thing as under- and over-paid. Salaries are based, primarily, on scarcity of talent.

How much money do you think Ashlee Simpson made last year?

Simply put, there are more things than just market forces and government regulation effecting wages. There's also human stupidity.

God knows. I also know that few people have the talent she has. She's untalented by the standards of a professional musician -- but she can sing better than, say, you.

How much does Demi Moore make per movie, despite a steady stream of box office bombs to her credit?

The bombs are why she no longer makes double-digit millions. What she makes now is likely quite commiserate with the amount of asses she puts in the seats.

There's people in Hollywood who's only job is to follow other people around all day (no ability to do), and they make a lot more than girl who works at a daycare center (takes some ability to do).

Guess what?

 

Life ain't fair.

 

Ain't it a bitch?

 

If you want to bitch about paparazzi, then bitch at the people who buy the tabloids and magazines who buy their shit. Because, like it or not, what they do MAKES people money. If you feel what hey do requires no ability to do --- then go do it. Go out and make a living at it.

 

You can't do it.

It's a flawed system. It's just significantly and markedly better than any other one out there.

A pure capitalist system would be a nightmare. That's why we no longer have one. I like the modified version we have now, with minimum wage laws, protections for workers, product regulation, and all kinds of things that cut profits but help the general public.

Minimum wage laws are a joke. An absolute joke. If somebody wants to spend their lives not doing shit --- then it is THEIR problem when they can't make ends meet.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Here goes Mike on that stupid what the job is worth thing. Someone may be willing to do shit work for 50 cents an hour, but if that's the only person in the world that will do that, you shouldn't be expecting all other workers to accept that as standard. This concept lovingly benefits illegal immigrants over legal Americans, but anyway..

 

 

Still, I can't support either of these bills, because that means siding with either Santorum or Kennedy. Fuck, shoot me now.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Also, I don't understand if Michael Eisner's job is really worth all those benefits he's giving for himself or not.

 

And if I'm willing to be Disney CEO for less money than he is (and I'd probably do a better job anyway), should they can him and hire me instead because I'd be willing to just settle for middle-class salary so appearantly that's all the job is worth?

[Guest MikeSC]

Here goes Mike on that stupid what the job is worth thing. Someone may be willing to do shit work for 50 cents an hour, but if that's the only person in the world that will do that, you shouldn't be expecting all other workers to accept that as standard. This concept lovingly benefits illegal immigrants over legal Americans, but anyway..

And a company that wants employees who aren't utterly inept will have no choice but to pay competent workers enough money to attract them. You won't see high-demand fields see a drop in salary. You won't see many fields have a drop in salaries, outside of jobs that could effectively be done by a moderately-trained chimpanzee.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And a company that wants employees who aren't utterly inept will have no choice but to pay competent workers enough money to attract them. You won't see high-demand fields see a drop in salary. You won't see many fields have a drop in salaries, outside of jobs that could effectively be done by a moderately-trained chimpanzee.

                      -=Mike

But really, all you're doing is hurting the poor. Because the poor are in vast supply, and jobs you hire poor people for aren't worth all that much on the whole, not because it isn't hard work, but due to the number of other people willing to do them. Doctors and attorneys and shit will be paid the same or even more, since that occupation demands a type of educated individual who is in a much shorter supply. In fact, you may drive their salaries up, since they may believe that they're in short enough supply that they ought to be compensated better.

 

So, honestly, you're widening the class gap and making it harder for the poor to become rich.

[Guest MikeSC]

And a company that wants employees who aren't utterly inept will have no choice but to pay competent workers enough money to attract them. You won't see high-demand fields see a drop in salary. You won't see many fields have a drop in salaries, outside of jobs that could effectively be done by a moderately-trained chimpanzee.

                      -=Mike

But really, all you're doing is hurting the poor.

 

So give them pity money? "Gee, I'm sorry you lack any actual skills --- we'll give you this much money anyway" sounds like a really weak idea.

Because the poor are in vast supply, and jobs you hire poor people for aren't worth all that much on the whole, not because it isn't hard work, but due to the number of other people willing to do them.

Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be a career. They were intended to be the first step in a career.

Doctors and attorneys and shit will be paid the same or even more, since that occupation demands a type of educated individual who is in a much shorter supply. In fact, you may drive their salaries up, since they may believe that they're in short enough supply that they ought to be compensated better.

So, you advocate screwing the people who do the work, expend the effort, and spend the money to improve themselves to aid those who are unwilling to do the same?

So, honestly, you're widening the class gap and making it harder for the poor to become rich.

Having a shitty job that doesn't pay you a thing will inspire you to improve yourself quicker than anything else will.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So give them pity money? "Gee, I'm sorry you lack any actual skills --- we'll give you this much money anyway" sounds like a really weak idea.

So you would rather deal with a massive homeless problem because doing anything else doesn't live up to your principles?

 

Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be a career. They were intended to be the first step in a career.

 

Some of these jobs aren't exactly simple minimum wage jobs. Ringing up shit at Target isn't exactly the most challenging job, working in hot fields for hours on end every day is. They money being paid isn't really equal to what the work being done is worth, because it is difficult. However, there's enough people who are so desperate for any work that they'll do that that people are being exploited and not being paid anything near equivelant for what their work is worth.

 

Another example: You think teachers are overpaid now? Wait until everyone sees what their average day is like and tries to decide what that's work. Combat pay is not unlikely.

 

So, you advocate screwing the people who do the work, expend the effort, and spend the money to improve themselves to aid those who are unwilling to do the same?

 

Personally, I feel digging holes in the ground for 15 hours in the hot sun is more effort than something like data entry in an air-conditioned cubicle. This is where we disagree, and where you begin to look foolish.

[Boon 0]

Another example: You think teachers are overpaid now? Wait until everyone sees what their average day is like and tries to decide what that's work. Combat pay is not unlikely.

Who said teachers are overpaid?

[Guest MikeSC]

So give them pity money? "Gee, I'm sorry you lack any actual skills --- we'll give you this much money anyway" sounds like a really weak idea.

So you would rather deal with a massive homeless problem because doing anything else doesn't live up to your principles?

We'd only have a "homeless problem" during a Republican administration, let's be honest. That is a major red herring and always has been. If you're an adult and have to rely on minimum wage --- you've managed to botch your life so thoroughly that we can't save you now.

Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be a career. They were intended to be the first step in a career.

Some of these jobs aren't exactly simple minimum wage jobs. Ringing up shit at Target isn't exactly the most challenging job, working in hot fields for hours on end every day is.

Picking fruit also requires virtually no talent or ability whatsoever. Forgive me for not empathizing for jobs that require no ability whatsoever. Why pay somebody considerably more than their job requires?

They money being paid isn't really equal to what the work being done is worth, because it is difficult.

But work that requires zero talent or ability.

However, there's enough people who are so desperate for any work that they'll do that that people are being exploited and not being paid anything near equivelant for what their work is worth.

Then they'll move on to jobs that DO require some talent or ability.

 

The crap job is the first step.

Another example: You think teachers are overpaid now? Wait until everyone sees what their average day is like and tries to decide what that's work. Combat pay is not unlikely.

The phrase I said was that there is no such thing as over- and underpaid. You are paid what the market will bear. And teaching in public schools isn't something that requires a great deal of talent.

So, you advocate screwing the people who do the work, expend the effort, and spend the money to improve themselves to aid those who are unwilling to do the same?

Personally, I feel digging holes in the ground for 15 hours in the hot sun is more effort than something like data entry in an air-conditioned cubicle. This is where we disagree, and where you begin to look foolish.

The guy doing data processing spent his/her time actually developing skills that employers want. If you are unable to grasp the whole "scarcity of talent tends to drive wages" concept, then there isn't much I can do for you.

 

You're mistaking effort for ability. Like it or not, ANYBODY can dig holes. Clearly, everybody can't do data processing --- or else they wouldn't be digging holes.

-=Mike

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Well folks when some poor ass feels justified in coming to rob and kill you cuz they haven't got anything... Lets see how the "life ain't fair" horseshit gets you when face to face with THAT!

[NYU 0]

Let's just put this in simple terms:

 

If someone can't live their life on working a 40-hour week with minimum wage, then the minimum wage just isn't high enough. I'm not suggesting they should live a life of luxury -- but if they can't pay their rent, pay for the food bill, electric bill, water bill, gas bill, and still have a few dollars of spending money -- then the wage just isn't simply enough.

 

If someone puts in a 40-hour typical work week effort for a job, regardless of whether or not YOU think the job is respectable, they need to have the funds to live on their own.

 

Clearly, many of these people do not. Thus, the minimum wage needs to be raised.