A Second Look at Minimum Wage

Published on October 27, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

Minimum wage is relative and should be based on the minimal national average of the cost of living index of all 51 states. This will help boost the cost of living index for states on the low level and force them to increase the minimum wage commensurately; the states such as New York and California would be affected minimally because the labor markets there are competitive and already in practice exceed the existing $5.15 level or have their own statewide minimum wage law, provided it meets or excels the national average.

Aside from sweatshops and companies hiring part-time and temp workers disregarding or exploiting minimum wage, a better way is to come up with formulae for various kinds of workers. High school student working at the mall more or less to pay their car insurance and feed the gas tank, probably are pretty much content with five bucks an hour, and confident that if they are reliable might in time get a raise. This does not necessarily mean they are left to the mercy of the local employer but rather more left up to themselves and the smarts of the employer who knows when he is better off with a reliable employee, rather than having to constantly rehire new ones because of constrained policies. Moreover, if the employees are under nineteen, the parents are entitled to declare them as dependents. If not a dependent chances are the employee doesn’t have to pay taxes anyway if working part-time.

College students on the other hand might have more expenses and wages should be boosted if their total family income is less than $20K in taxable income, but not that much more since parents still can claim them as dependents.

The sticky issue is really concerned with breadwinners who are hired as part-timers or temp workers deliberately so that employers do not have to supply supplementary benefits. At this point “living wage” comes into play, requiring a totally different formula. Most small businesses already acknowledge the value of their workers by paying them a “living wage” — that is, a decent level as insurance that a good worker feels comfortable at the workplace and will stay. For those that are unscrupulous, such as managing sweatshops, janitorial services, all night stop and shop gas stations and whatever else, should be held accountable for violating the spirit of a living, “loving” wage or at least the new national average depicting what constitutes a minimum wage for those struggling to fuel a family, in which case the estimate would be in the neighborhood of $8 an hour.

To counter employers from only hiring and firing teenagers or part-time spouses supplementing family income, they must show cause that the hiring is truly temporary and if not, show cause for dismissal and ineligibility for permanent — even though part-time — employment, requiring proof the employee lacked reliability.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments

Draginol

on Oct 27, 2004

That's a recipe for disaster. If you make it hard for employers to hire and fire employees they simply won't hire as many people or worse, outsource it somewhere else.

Madine

on Oct 27, 2004

For exhibit A of what Draginol is talking about, see Germany. Do you want Germany's unemployment %?

Is it realistic to expect to support a family of four with a job whose qualifications are simply a warm body that shows up on time?

Why should the minimum wage be decided at the federal level? Wouldn't state/local governments be better suited to set minimum wages that work for their state/local economy?

Myrrander

on Oct 27, 2004

Draginol, this one of the few areas that you and me see eye to eye on. From my own time spent in management, I've seen what minimum wage increases do first hand. Hiring immediately goes down and lay offs are common. Fewer people then have to do the same amount of work.

stevendedalus

on Oct 28, 2004

That's a recipe for disaster.

I thought it was rather moderate, myself.

Hiring immediately goes down and lay offs are common

At the outset perhaps but it returns to normal.

Hiring immediately goes down and lay offs are common. Fewer people then have to do the same amount of work.

And as a teacher you also know that a weak union accepts lay offs and increased class size as a trade off for better pay, eh? That's a cop-out.

Why should the minimum wage be decided at the federal level? Wouldn't state/local governments be better suited to set minimum wages that work for their state/local economy?

Didn't I imply that?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!