Do you agree, keep the minimum wage low?

Question

To all of you who want to raise the minimum wage, don't.

I live in Washington, where the minimum wage is the highest in the country. It also has one of the best economies in the country.
http://neweconomyindex.org/states/2002/washington.html

If you raise the minimum wage, then Washington won't be able to maintain its economic power. I don't want to see all those states with a lower minimum wage start to get the economic success that Washington has.

Wash. State minimum wage is $7.93

The STATE of Washington, non Washington DC

Answer 1

hahaha... indeed... well, there are many Republicans that appreantly live in Washington too... hahaha...

those that think minimum wage will destroy the economy really have no idea what they are talking about and barely have a grasp on only the most basic ideas of economics...

Answer 2

Every time I go to the grocery store, the price of food goes up
anywhere from 20 cents to a dollar - this adds up, especially
when I have to go with the exact same amount of money I
had to shop with 12 months ago.
So that means, every time I shop, one more item has to be
left off the list, just to afford the absolute necessities.

If Washington has one of highest minimum wages & the
economy is one of the best - looks to me a higher minimun
wage is good thing.
In Pa., I think it's $5 something right now - barely livable.

If these people making $6 - $9/hr. don't need a raise, then
why do the congressmen & senators keep giving themselves
a raise when they're alread making about $140,000?
They are so blinded by greed, they can't see the people who
they want to vote for them, are going without enough food or heat.
It's a disgrace.

Answer 3

There should be no minimum wage. The government does not have the Constitutional power to tell a business owner how much he or she has to pay an employee. If an employer wants to pay its employees low wages... let it; it will simply hire poor employees and experience low productivity and a high turn-over rate.

I am guessing also that you are trying to argue that there is some sort of causal relationship between raising the minimum wage and increase economic output. If that is the case, why not raise the minimum wage to $200/hour... oh wait, suddenly your argument breaks down. I think you forget that D.C. is not only the government nucleus of the country, but it also is a center of international business activity (something relatively few regions can claim).

Answer 4

What BS.

There is lots of money in Washington DC, because it is the seat of power for your government. It seems to me that there are also a LOT of poor people in Washington, just not seen by those who have enough. Last I heard, Washington, DC, had one of the highest crime rates in America. And I am not speaking of your government. That pushes it over the top if you put LA and NYC together!

Selfish, stupid, short-sighted and just plain makes no sense. The more people earn, the more they can spend. THIS is what counts. Meanwhile, you live in a Christian country, so they say. Practice your compassion and get a little humanity.

To be honest, your observation is so short sighted and poorly thought out, I am beginning to think this is a joke question.

Sorry Hartman, but there will always be people desperate enough to work for slave labour wages. It has been done quite a few times in your country. Then eventually, the poor of other countries come in and take the jobs no one else will touch.

Answer 5

Here's my suggestion: get rid of the minimum wage entirely. Government does not belong in any way in businesses. Setting a wage floor will end up driving more companies out of business and thus creating more unemployment, and here's why: the idea of forcing an employer to pay his workers a certain amount is nice, but the more he has to pay the workers, the less he has to improve the company, make better products, increase patronage, etc. Also, the higher the minimum wage goes, the less likely it is that companies will be able to afford the increases; those that can't will go out of business, and unemployment will rise. A company is perfectly capable of regulating itself, including its wages; if the wage isn't enough to live off of, as is the case with minimum, the worker is entirely at liberty to search for a better paying job -- or better yet, not take the job in the first place.

The idea of self-monitored entities may not seem particularly appealing, but how else do you think we got to where we are today? Our momentum from the era of low government intervention is lessening drastically, if not entirely stopped already. Each raise of the minimum wage takes a little more off of that.

Answer 6

private sexual habit does no longer reason any important harm on different persons (different than ethical reprehension). besides the indisputable fact that, if at present the minimum salary have been abolished, then people presently earning the minimum salary would would desire to the two take a pay decrease, or be fired, simply by fact the business enterprise has get right of entry to to a extensive pool of folk who may be prepared to take decrease than the former minimum salary. In different words, persons prepared to paintings for a subminimum salary reason harm to society via reducing the final earnings point. on your examples, the worker is prepared to take a subminimum salary simply by fact they truly need or prefer the activity. yet regulations can no longer matter on assessing no remember if the worker needs the activity, or truly needs the activity. There ought to be a glittery line rule in this section, considering a protracted time in the past society desperate to stay away from wages from turning out to be a race to the backside.

Answer 7

No, I do not agree, when you lift an object it is best to lift from the bottom, as you know by your additional details, this is directly relative to the economy. More people have more money to spend and therefore are able to buy things. This in itself creates jobs. Which puts more money in the economy and more jobs. People that are against raising minimum wage are also for supply side economics, like with the Bush administration. This type of lifting is to lift the top and it has never worked, not with Nixon, Reagan and now Bushy jr. It always results in a recession, it was first tried in the Hoover administration and we all know how that turned out.

Answer 8

You're right. We should raise the minimum wage to $100 per hour since the higher the wage, the better the economy. Hey, why not $1000 per hour? We could all be rich then.

If you think I'm being silly, then reexamine your stance that higher mandated wages are good for economic activity.

Answer 9

Wages for work should be determined by the marketplace, and not politcans. I would abolish the minimum wage because its not useful tool to address low wage workers because wages increased the increased costs are passed to the comsumer. You work for what your worth?

Look at bread basked of goods for the lowest sectors of society, and try to increase access, and qaulity thru the marketplace. The lowest wage earners if they are working fulltime over the age of 20, and then use cash transfers to supplement the wages so thier above proverty level is cheaper alternative than pay 30,000 breuacrats to enforce wage laws. Freidman idea of negative income tax is better idea than minimum wage mandate.

I dont want the poor to suffer, but I know minimum wage set by goverment intervention is terrible economic policy rather than using a negative income tax.

Answer 10

The government is saying that eight(*8)+ million people do not deserve an honest days work for an honest days pay!!! They have kept the people in poverty since 1997=$5.15 2010=$7.25!!! They gave themselves a $35.000 dollar raise while denying an increase in the minimum wage!! The actual increase they are proposing only amounts to 17.6cents an hour for waiting 12yrs for an increase in our pay!! Would you work for 12yrs for a 17.6cent an hour increase in your paycheck? Thats Insane!! Thanks for nothing!! An honest days pay for an honest days work is not much to expect from any employer!! Because they want to increase it on a graduated basis we will not receive the $7.25 an hour increase until 2010!! If you want to improve the lives of people working for poverty level wages then pay them wages that will raise them out of poverty!! To do otherwise is to keep them in perpetual poverty!! Pay them a fair and equitable living wage!! NO ONE WHO WORKS FOR A LIVING DESERVES TO LIVE IN POVERTY!! Are we suppose to be grateful now for waiting 12yrs to receive a 17.6cent an hour increase in our paychecks!!! What would they do if those eight(8*)+ million workers walked off the job tomorrow until they got paid above poverty level wages? You can enrich others at the same time you are enriching yourself!!!