English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Senate just shot down a bill to raise the minimum wage. My question is if they raised it to $10.00 wouldn't that mean a boost in the economy in the long run. I feel that would increase consumer spending, grow and create more small business. After all we can send Billions to fight a war.

2006-06-22 06:13:29 · 10 answers · asked by TNA Ambassador 6 in Politics & Government Politics

10 answers

Two schools of thought.

Dems think it does acutally help rather than hurt the economy. Min. Wage hasn't changed in years and inflation has eroded $$ to the point where even if you do earn min. wage, you are below the poverty line.

Repubs think it will cost jobs since employers will either not hire or fire people given the new costs.

I haven't seen stats on reality, I presume Bureau of Labor Stats would have this -- e.g. how many companies pay Min. Wage vs. more given market conditions.

Many states, seeing how ineffectual the Fed are on this have pre-emptively raised the minimum wage in their state (I know CA has done so but can't remember the others). So the point may be moot given that some states are acting on their own. Plus, I have seen that many places pay more than min wage simply because they need to to get workers (In-and-out burger was paying $9+ per hour here in Phoenix)

$10/hour for min wage seems a bit much. And, what we spend on the war has nothing to do with min wage. That money comes from companies in the private sector. Now I guess raising it would also raise our tax revenues-- more people making more money == more taxes to help with deficit and war costs (hopefully)

Ironically, the goofs in DC just voted themselves a pay raise and I think they've done so for a few years now.

Senate Leadership
Majority Leader - $183,500
Minority Leader - $183,500

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $212,100
Majority Leader - $183,500
Minority Leader - $183,500

By the way-- the get automatic pay increases based on cost of living unless they decide to vote it down. Nice that they get many "liberal" type of wage & benefit policies.

On merit they should get nothing given they can't control spending nor have made substantive progress on much of anything except earmarks and spending money on stupid stuff.

2006-06-22 06:22:12 · answer #1 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 1 1

I'm all in favor of there being a living wage. I think it makes sense to assume that an increase in wages would mean an increase in spending and a boost to the economy. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised by the fact that the Senate shot down the minimum wage bill. After all, most of the senators are Republicans, and Republicans only care about the oil companies, major corporations, and other wealthy donors who line their pockets.

2006-06-22 06:20:55 · answer #2 · answered by tangerine 7 · 0 1

How is the economy going to be boosted when the cost of everything at the grocery store and department stores doubles? Where do you think the money will come from to pay all of those people nearly twice what they're making now? The store will have to raise their prices.

If I have to spend $100/week on groceries instead of $50, I no longer have money to go to the movies, buy clothes that I don't really need, eat dinner out somewhere nice, buy that new car, etc. It will destroy the economy.

Under your logic, why not pay everyone $100/hour? Wouldn't that really boost the economy if everyone made $200,000/year?

2006-06-22 06:17:00 · answer #3 · answered by FozzieBear 7 · 1 0

The minimum wage shouldn't be a Federal issue anyway. This is a state's rights issue. Can't we please accept the fact that the Federal Government shouldn't be there to hand out checks and set labor rates? That's why the Senate was originally intended to be populated by officials elected or appointed by the STATES, not by popular vote. We the people elect two sets of representatives, but we get no representation. States rights have gone out the window and now we are little brothers and sisters to the big daddy in Washington.

2006-06-22 06:40:51 · answer #4 · answered by johngjordan 3 · 1 0

I'm not sure. I agree it's time to boost minimum wage. But some companies will simply not be able to afford that. Yes, in the long term boosting wages will grant greater spending power to the blue collar worker. But in the immediate, companies won't be able to afford it. They'll go bankrupt attempting to pay their employees before they ever see growth in sales.

And with this country's obsession with credit it is likely that extra cash wouldn't be dumped back into the economy but rather into the debt everyone has accrued just to be able to live.

2006-06-22 06:20:52 · answer #5 · answered by bubb1e_gir1 5 · 1 0

It would help, but it still would not give most people enough money to live on. And employers would cry "foul" because if they have to pay their employees a decent wage, then they (employers) might have do do things like drive the same car for more than a year, or suffer some other "hardship" because of it.

2006-06-22 06:18:08 · answer #6 · answered by innocence faded 6 · 0 1

Rasing the minimum wage is a bad idea. Forget about the people and their rights, lets worry about marketing gimics, corporate products and tax breaks for the rich. God knows they need another HumV. Minimum wage is America's slave labor trade.

2006-06-22 06:18:18 · answer #7 · answered by someDumbAmerican 4 · 0 1

Those same Senators would vote themselves a raise in a heartbeat.

But not the simple working class person here in America.

It's a joke.

2006-06-22 06:17:15 · answer #8 · answered by jedilogic 3 · 0 1

No, it would put a lot of small businesses out. If people want more money, they should get a better job. IT CAN BE DONE.

2006-06-22 06:17:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

people who allready make that much will start asking for raises.

2006-06-22 06:17:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers