Minimum wage vote pleases Lawrence workers / LJWorld.com

Archive for Thursday, January 11, 2007

U.S. House passes legislation increasing hourly pay to $7.25; measure now goes to Senate

January 11, 2007

Joey McDonald, who works at Rudy's Pizzeria, makes $6 an hour, just a handful of change more than the cost of the restaurant's daily special of a slice, drink and salad.

It's no wonder he finds it hard to make ends meet.

But under legislation passed Wednesday by the U.S. House of Representatives, McDonald would receive a 20 percent pay increase.

The Democratic-controlled House voted to increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 in three phases during the next 26 months. The vote was 315-116, with more than 80 Republicans joining Democrats to pass it.

The measure now goes to the Senate, which is expected to move quickly - perhaps in the next few weeks.

Those affected

McDonald, a Johnson County Community College student, works to pay for his tuition and cost of living. The $1.25 increase would amount to an extra $50 a week or $2,600 a year for the full-time worker. McDonald said he has to make tough financial choices, such as whether to pay his electricity bill or make a late payment.

"Sometimes you get enough, and other times you have to wait (to pay a bill). Sometimes you have to wait a couple nights for the extra tips," McDonald said.

Caterina Benalcazar, a barista at La Prima Tazza, 638 Mass., doesn't think of the proposed increase as a raise, but rather as a cost-of-living adjustment. With the increase in inflation and prices, she said it's only fair that workers see a wage increase.

Benalcazar, a Kansas University student who makes about $7.25 an hour, rejects the argument that those making minimum wage are often students or others who receive substantial financial support.

"You can't pigeon-hole students as a group," she said. "Most students are pretty hard-working and deserving of an increase."

About the bill

The legislation calls for a 70-cent increase 60 days after the bill becomes law. The other 70-cent increases would take place one and two years later. The federal minimum wage was last increased in 1997 from $4.75 to $5.15.

U.S. Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kan., said the increase is long overdue. She dismissed concerns that raising the minimum wage could cost jobs. U.S. Reps. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and Dennis Moore, D-Kan., joined Boyda in supporting the legislation. U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., was the only state representative to oppose the legislation.

In remarks on the House floor, Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said an estimated 5.6 million Americans making less than $7.25 would be directly affected by the increase, while another 7.3 million would benefit indirectly.

The federal minimum wage law covers virtually all Americans. The Fair Labor Standards Act extends federal minimum protection to employees of any company doing at least $500,000 in business or engaging in any sort of interstate commerce.

In Kansas, of the 1.4 million individuals in the labor force, only 19,000 are not covered by the federal minimum wage, according to Beth Martino, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Department of Labor. Those employees are covered by Kansas state minimum wage, which is $2.65 per hour.

Illustration by Karl Gehring

Employers weigh in

Business owners were mixed in their reaction to the proposed increase.

Monica Bowers, co-owner of Penny Annie's candy store, 845 Mass., said the proposed increase would be rough on small businesses.

"I would be against it - that much of a raise, at least," she said.

Bowers said she'd probably be forced to raise prices in order to pay for the raises - something she'd rather not do.

"I pay close to $7, but there are some people who are part-time who make close to the minimum," she said.

Pat Kehde, co-owner of The Raven Bookstore, 6 E. Seventh St., is generally in favor of the increase. She said that because of the store's desire to keep employees, it already paid above the level that the new law would require.

"I don't think it will affect us," she said. "We like to have good people who work for us, and we think they deserve a decent wage."

A recent Newsweek poll shows 89 percent of Americans support increasing the minimum wage.

The minimum wage bill is the second of six measures that Democrats intend to pass in the first two weeks of the new Congress. Legislation aimed at making the nation safer from terrorist attacks passed easily on Wednesday. The agenda for today includes a measure to permit expanded federally funded embryonic stem cell research, a bill Bush has threatened to veto.

On Friday, the House is expected to pass legislation directing the administration to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices on prescription drugs for Medicare recipients. Republicans said Wednesday they believed Bush would veto that bill, as well, if it reached his desk as drafted.

The remaining measures on the early Democratic agenda would cut the interest rate on student loans and raise taxes on energy companies to pay for an effort to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

11 January 2007
at 2:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

timeline 2008: the cost of goods and services has skyrocketed. experts i trying to understand: more manufacturing jobs are being shipped overseas; major fast food restaurants have incorporated outsourced drivethru window operators - when you order your burger, you have to talk to someone in india; unemployment for high school kids has increased; recreational drug use is going up….

since workers between the ages of 16 and 24 account for 53 percent of all minimum wage-earners, school dropouts has increased which inturn has reduced their long-term employability.

since the prices of goods and services have increased accordingly to cover the increased wages and since union hourly wage contracts are tied to percentage increases in the minimum wage, over the short term, low income earners have seen a zero net effect, and are far worse off in the long run.

have a great day!
11 January 2007
at 6:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Porter (Anonymous) says…

Sounds like doomsday to me, LD. I wouldn't have been pleased at the min wage raise if I had known it would be a catalyst for rapture.

I'm no econ expert, but it seems to me that the cost of goods and services goes up every year regardless of wage changes. If a business owner is using a 1994 pay scale for his/her business model, he/she has bigger problems than an increase in the minimum wage.

If “union hourly wage contracts are tied to percentage increases in the minimum wage” then would that mean union workers haven't seen a raise in 12 years? Somehow I doubt that's true.

I don't remember the oceans drying up and the mountains caving in the last time the min wage went up. Anybody else remember that?
11 January 2007
at 7:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

craigers (Anonymous) says…

No but remember Porter that the cost of goods sold is determined by demand. If more people can afford product A, then the demand higher. And if the demand is higher for product A, then the company can charge more for it. So when you hike everybody's wage up that much, then you are just asking for inflation to come right after it. Give it a couple years, but inflation will jump up due to this hike.
11 January 2007
at 7:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

luny is just doing his usual— lacking sound arguments, he resorts immediately to baseless hysteria.
11 January 2007
at 8:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

Were this a discussion among economists and not politicians, the conclusion reached would be different. The correct minimum wage, and the one that helps the most low-wage earners, is $0.
11 January 2007
at 8:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

getserious (Anonymous) says…

problem is, that no one(hardly) works for minimum wage. Even the guy in the story makes $6.00. If you make min wage $7.00, then businesses will have to pay $8.00 for employess, at the least, because employees, especially in a college town, can always find another job. Get ready to pay $8.00 for a burger. The market should set the pay scale, not the government.
11 January 2007
at 8:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

conservative (Anonymous) says…

And bozo is showing once again that he flunked Economics 101. The federal reserve board has been doing everything in their power to keep inflation down, and have been doing a pretty good job of it. This move will drive inflation drastically, which means instead of fed rate cuts that would allow our economy to grow and expand we will see the fed rates remaining the same or even going up.

The problem here is that politics 101 says to give the people what they want even if it isn't good for the country. This is a way for politicians to ingratiate themselves to the uninformed voting public. If it was simply related to keeping the minimum wage earner on pace with inflation the raise would have been much lower. The last raise took effect less than 10 years ago, and I can agree that a certain amount of a raise is due. However since 1997 the rate of inflation has not driven costs up by 40% and that is how much the minimum raise is being hiked.

11 January 2007
at 8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

The current minimum wage is at an all time low, it has never been lower, when analyzed against “real dollars” (inflation), that should be enough to quell this argument. Somehow, I am guessin that it won't so…
Not all of us are skilled labor, there are those who take on less lofty pursuits in efforts to support their families. Those people are as necessary to our nations survival as you or I, and to say that there shouldn't be a minimum salary for those people is ridiculous. In my profession there is a minimum to the salary range, as for most professions, so the same should apply to those people who work harder then me to make a living.

…isn't it interesting that those who complain about the minimum wage idea do not earn it. Hmmm.
11 January 2007
at 8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

Conservative? Isn't it also true that the current gap between economic growth and wages is the largest in 30 years? The only real growth is in stocks and other investments, while there is no real growth in jobs or wages. I know you'll throw in the “surge” of jobs in late 2006, but when levied against the hole we have been in over the last 5 years it is a drop in the Proverbial bucket.

Just another example of the growing gap between haves and have-nots. When the economy grows on top and there is nothing underneath to support like labor, jobs, and wages you have a troubled nation.
11 January 2007
at 8:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“However since 1997 the rate of inflation has not driven costs up by 40%”

Now who is it that is an economic idiot?
11 January 2007
at 8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Just for the record, by the time this increase takes full effect in 2009, with an average inflation rate of 3%, costs will have increased by 43% since 1997, and with an average inflation rate of 4%, which is probably closer to the actual rate, costs will have risen by 60% since 1997.
11 January 2007
at 8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

common_cents (Anonymous) says…

Regardless of which circle of economic theory you favor, government intervention directly upon any factor of COGS (cost of goods sold) never has a positive effect upon the economy.

Even under Keynesian Theory, where government intervention is considered a vital part of the economy, the intervention itself is limited to government expenditures. (whether it's called investment or consumption is irrelevant)

Under minimum wage laws, the government is not investing or consuming, which both require an expenditure on the part of the government. It instead requires an expenditure on the part of the businesses, which, in and of itself, reduces the bottom line by increasing expenses.

Reducing the bottom line of businesses does any of four things: 1) causes prices to rise so that the bottom line can remain level and not sink; 2) causes the employer to reduce workforce if they consider labor as a percentage of COGS; 3) causes the employer to reduce its own investment or consumption; or 4) causes the employer to shut the business down. None of these things has a positive effect upon the economy or the labor market

A much better solution would be to hike the EITC and work it through the tax system. An even better solution would be to improve our public education system and change the attitudes of our children so they “want” an education instead of an I-Pod or a PS3.
11 January 2007
at 8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

conservative (Anonymous) says…

Well bozo, according the CPI which for the last 10 years has run as follows

1997 2.34%
1998 1.55%
1999 2.19%
2000 3.38%
2001 2.83%
2002 1.59%
2003 2.27%
2004 2.68%
2005 3.39%
2006 Data not available yet.

Taking at item that in 1997 cost 100 dollars and running it throught he calculations makes it now cost $124.52. Since I know you have trouble with math that is only a 24.52% rise in the price.
11 January 2007
at 9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

Oddly, the Gallup group's analysis finds that the impact of a minimum wage increase will be, well, minimal.

http://gmj.gallup.com/content/23590/1…
11 January 2007
at 9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

common_cents (Anonymous) says…

Not sure what part of the gallup link you are reading, but I didn't see much to indicate minimal impact from the q/a session. I did see one section to which I think you were referring. In that section the reasoning for this having a minimal effect was that the person interviewed stated that there were few companies left for it to effect: They have either already gone out of business, already replaced their minimum wage workers or will do so soon, by going overseas or hiring illegals. (remember… this was followed by “if that's true… this will have minimal impact”)

So… if this is going to have a minimal impact because of these reasons, why do it?

Here is that section:

GMJ: According to several lobbying groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a minimum wage hike will hurt the backbone of the economy.

Jacobe: Well, in an economic analysis, there is no real justification for the minimum wage. In fact, it inhibits the free market. In that kind of analysis, there are always companies on the margin paying the minimum wage, and some of those will go out of business if their labor costs increase. My guess is that there are few such companies left. Most of these companies have probably already replaced their minimum wage employees, or will do so soon, by going to one of the other two sources of cheap labor — job outsourcing overseas or hiring illegal immigrants who don't have any choice in the wages and benefits they earn.

So if that's true, then based on the results of our most recent survey of small-business owners, the Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Business Index, the real economic effect ought to be basically minimal, if there's any at all. So, the real cost of a reasonable increase of minimum wage probably is not significant because U.S. minimum wage laws have effectively been undercut by the global labor market and illegal immigration. Now, you can argue that if you keep increasing it really rapidly over a period of time, that at some point it will become binding.

11 January 2007
at 9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

I stand corrected on the average inflation rate, conservative, but let's look at what even that lower rate means to someone working at the minimum wage.

If you add up the aggregate erosion of that wage from 1997 to 2007, the overall reduction in actual buying power means that that worker actually worked for 1 1/2 of the last ten years for free.

And it also means that even with this increase, they will never even come close to recouping those lost wages.

Sure that's good for all of you who want the cheap goods they provide for you, but they're just screwed. As long as you get yours, so what, right?
11 January 2007
at 9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

common_cents (Anonymous) says…

logrithmic - Yep, time to end the spending.
11 January 2007
at 9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

“the cost of goods sold is determined by demand. If more people can afford product A, then the demand higher. And if the demand is higher for product A, then the company can charge more for it. ”

How again is this such a bad thing? If more people were earning more money at their jobs, wouldn't there be more who could afford to buy product A?

By the way, I've noticed over the years that more demand for a product usually LOWERS the price, not raises it. See, the more of product A that a business is able to sell, the less they have to charge for it. Besides, if a business continues to raise the price of a product, eventually the demand for it will go down.

I've also noticed that the products that usually go up in price are the ones that are NOT in high demand, and so the business raises the price to continue to make a profit.

Unless, of course, it's a brand new product, in which case the business usually gouges the market for the highest price that it can get while it can get it.
11 January 2007
at 9:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jafs (Anonymous) says…

If one believes in a Libertarian-type of philosophy, then there is no justification at all for any kind of regulation on businesses. That perspective rests on a great faith in the “free market” to sort everything out.

Of course, that would mean removing all of the corporate subsidies, tax breaks, etc. as well - I wonder if the Libertarians advocate that or not.

For more moderate folks, it seems clear that we must regulate business in a variety of ways. Raising the minimum wage is one way to do that.

Interestingly enough, the conversation quoted above left out one obvious way that businesses (especially larger ones) can compensate for the raise in wages - lower their profits. Another obvious way is to lower the wages of the top wage-earners. CEO's, etc. make outrageously large sums of money. I'm sure they could make do with a bit less.
11 January 2007
at 9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sunshine_noise (Anonymous) says…

However, this is only a rise in federal minimum wage not State. Kansas who has the lowest min wage in the country will remain the same 2.65 until folks join the Grassroots Action to campaign for an increase in State Min wage. The Fed min wage increase is only going to affect a small group of people not across the board. Some businesses are except from Fed min wage increases like restaurants workers - = wait staff and such. So the more that join Grassroots the better chance of getting an increase in State wages and more money in our hard-working pockets.
11 January 2007
at 10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tolawdjk (Anonymous) says…

Crazyks: I agree, supply and demand arguements only hold so much water when the demand side is operating at near 100% capacity. Refining capacity in the US is an example of this. We just barely have enough capacity to address our demands that any hiccup in that capacity corresponds to a rise in prices, or as demand increases during the summer driving season and stockpiles deminish, then prices rise.

But if all of a sudden demand in cars goes up, all that means is that GM and Company (more likely Toyota…American automakers can't seem to fight themselves out of a wet paper bag right now) do is add another shift, or increase production rates at exisiting factories. At that point a wide number of variables fly in to determine the effect of costs, but the overall result being that things tend to stay the same or dip slightly lower.

What I don't understand (really I do understand it, no need to go into explainations here) is why there is always outrage at the idea of raising a minimum wage but when a CEO is -fired- for basic failure to do his job (Home Depot) and recieves a $210 million dollar severance package, Congress is never there screaming that things need to change.

I thought the basic idea of a good market was that success breeds its own rewards, but lately the market seems to indicate that once you reach a certain point failure breeds some pretty sweet rewards as well.
11 January 2007
at 10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jafs (Anonymous) says…

Tolawdjk,

Thank you for pointing that out - the discrepancy between the top and the bottom wage-earners in this country is immense, and quite discouraging.

I was told that CEO's now include mandatory severance packages as part of their initial contracts. Why any board of directors would agree to this I can only guess at - it seems ridiculous on the fact of it.
11 January 2007
at 10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hammysammy (Anonymous) says…

Peolple just cannot live on the current minimum wage, period! When I started working the min wage was 4.25/hr, about 11 years ago. If it weren't for my education, and the governments intervention, I feel I can safely say that I wouldn't be earning more. In short, I might become one of “those lazy” homeless people you all have to shell out so much money for. And let's not even get into the complete lack of benefits at those jobs. And respect, from customers and the company.

11 January 2007
at 10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

drake (Anonymous) says…

Who makes minimum wage? Do you know anyone personally or do you just feel sorry for the multiple millions of single parents who raise 6 kids on just $5.15 per hour.

Think with your heads and not react to what “feels good”.

In 2005 only .06 percent of wage earners earned at or below federal minimum wage. That is 1 in 167 people. Of those a full 60% are bartenders and servers who make much more than that in unreported, and untaxed, tips.

Of those very few people who earn minimum wage only 1 in 5 live in households that earn less than the poverty level. That means that a overwhelming majority are students and part-time workers who are new to the workforce and will certainly earn more very soon (once they learn working skills like showing up for work on time).

If you earn minimum wage longer than a couple of months it is either by choice or ignorance.
11 January 2007
at 11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

This is old news. We once read about a city minimum wage that was researched by lawrence. I think minimum wage promotes minimum work and this is what we suffer from. Transit times to get to work and increased traffic is causing expansive use of gasoline and oil. As we all know, gas prices have skyrocketed. So minimum wage equals minimum work equals more people getting more loans to buy $50,000 suv's that guzzle 4 gallons per mile. equals high interest rates
11 January 2007
at 11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BunE (Anonymous) says…

A minimum wage is a public policy statement indicating that empoyers shall pay X. The argument that it causes jobs to be lost is frankly immaterial and frankly specious. Any immediate job loss will be quickly made up as demand is not dropping.

You really want 8.00 cheese burgers? Shut down illegal immigration. There won't be a single job that pays minumum wage in America.
11 January 2007
at 12:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

Every time there's talk of raising the minimum wage, there's talk of wild growth in inflation. Didn't happen the last time; won't happen this time.
Inflation rates from above post
1997 2.34%
1998 1.55%
1999 2.19%
2000 3.38%
2001 2.83%
2002 1.59%
2003 2.27%
2004 2.68%
2005 3.39%
11 January 2007
at 12:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

This one anecdotal illustration does not negate the facts stated in my post.
If this small business owner chooses not to raise prices, then I guess she will be choosing to make less profit.
11 January 2007
at 12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“If this small business owner chooses not to raise prices, then I guess she will be choosing to make less profit.”

Oh, yes! The infamous excessive profits of the retail candy industry! Damn you, profiteers! I'm sure Ms. Bowers must fall asleep each night in her mansion, rolling on her bed of juu-juu beans.

Query: is the “wage” earned by a 70-hour per week “candy baron” much above minimum wage either?
11 January 2007
at 1:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

The effect of this change will be small, for the not-so-small reason that the minimum wage is earned by almost no one (and earned for a significant time period by something like 0.001% of the population - the never-quite-seen workers who never earn more than the minimum wage).

Some marginal workers will lose their jobs.

There will be a small increase in school dropouts (high school and college).

Some working poor will be replaced by newly attracted discretionary workers (part-time housewives, retirees, students).

The non-working poor will remain the non-working poor.

Those with little skills or experience will have an even greater difficulty in acquiring skills and experience.

(But that's okay, all those people are marginal persons who don't matter anyway.)
11 January 2007
at 1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

I have nothing against Penny Annie's. I have no idea what her profit margin is or isn't . If she doesn't adjust her prices to compensate for mandated wage increases, that's her decision. I don't know her, so I have no idea how many hours she works, where she lives, etc. I didn't bring her up; someone else did. And none of this changes the actual fact that inflation did not rise wildly as predicted the last time it was raised.

11 January 2007
at 1:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“And none of this changes the actual fact that inflation did not rise wildly as predicted the last time it was raised.”

Please cite this “prediction” that an increase in a statutory minimum wage will/does/must lead to wild (whatever that means) inflationary price increases.

(Absent that, we'll just leap to the assumption that this is merely a “straw man” argument, made only for the purpose of pretending to demonstrate as fact something one believes anyway for non-factual reasons. There is little debate among economists that higher minimum wages result in lesser employment and higher-than-otherwise inflation; the only real debate is (a) by how much, and (b) does it “matter.” One is perfectly free to answer (a) I don't think by much, and (b) it doesn't have an effect on me so I don't care. Those are at least honest answers that have a reasoned basis why they might be “correct” - even if they dismissive of the plight of the poor.)
11 January 2007
at 2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

“Watch for the inflation numbers and/or the unemployment numbers to climb after this BS goes into effect.”
I was responding to this assertion. The inflation numbers from this thread disprove this claim.
11 January 2007
at 2:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hammysammy (Anonymous) says…

http://www.responsiblewealth.org/livi…
11 January 2007
at 2:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BunE (Anonymous) says…

What data is available for backing up a net loss in jobs and an increase in inflation rates with an increase in the minimum wage? Preferbaly not from the Cato Institute or the Small Business lobby.
11 January 2007
at 2:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic…

Supporters point to a controversial study by Princeton economists David Card and Alan Krueger of minimum wage employees in New Jersey, which found little or no impact on employment. Economist Robert Solow, an MIT Nobel Laureate, wrote in a 1995 New York Times article that the “main thing about the research is that the evidence of the job loss is weak…. And the fact that the evidence is weak suggests the impact on jobs is small.”
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A077447…
http://www.cbpp.org/6-20-06mw.htm
11 January 2007
at 3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

red6102003 (Anonymous) says…

I tell you what me being a buissiness owner I welcome the increase. It will have little effect on unemployement, but it will effect on how much people are spending which will boost our economy.
11 January 2007
at 3:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

It's amazing how many experts on every single subject are on these boards. You guys should be working at the Federal Reserve, or at an economics think tank! *rolls eyes*
11 January 2007
at 4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“Every time there's talk of raising the minimum wage, there's talk of wild growth in inflation. Didn't happen the last time; won't happen this time.
Inflation rates from above post
1997 2.34%
1998 1.55%
1999 2.19%
2000 3.38%
2001 2.83%
2002 1.59%
2003 2.27%
2004 2.68%
2005 3.39%”

There was and has been no “talk” of an increase in the minimum wages throughout those years. The economy is booming. I do see a trend though. In 2000 the rate was as high as it is now. And we were weak on terrorists. Then Sept. 11th. Now in 2005 it seems as if those have forgot about it and we are at that inflation rate again.

Will we get hit?

11 January 2007
at 4:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

THis is going to be an hourly raise in Kansas from our minimum which is $2.65 up to $7.00 per hour. That is inflation. I do not know whom works for 2.65 an hour, but I bet waitresses and some waiters across the state are paid that rate and then includes tips. That will raise up the costs. The whole world is NOT lawrence with a fence around it.
11 January 2007
at 4:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

common_cents (Anonymous) says…

>
“the cost of goods sold is determined by demand. If more people can afford product A, then the demand higher. And if the demand is higher for product A, then the company can charge more for it. “
>

I have to comment on this one. Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) is NOT determined by demand. Final Price is determined by demand.

COGS is determined by the cost of materials, incidentals and labor necessary to product a final product.

Profit = Final Price - COGS

Considering labor is a factor of COGS, if labor costs rise, profit reduces, unless other factors are changed, like Final Price. Profit made affects the amount of capital available for process improvements, work place improvements, WAGE increases (the natural sort), etc etc.

Thus, some methods to retain a constant profit level is to 1) increase price 2) use less costly or inferior materials in the manufacturing process (whatever you are manufacturing - food, clothes, etc stuff is stuff) 3) reduce labor headcount to keep the labor factor steady (which leads to overworking current labor force.)

All in all, this will hurt small businesses more than it will hurt large corporations. (For which I believe this is intended) As a former small-business only, I can tell everyone that I personally have gone through a wage increase and it ended up only making me work more hours while I reduced my labor pool.

Here's a link on some statistics on how small business make up our economy and are affected by various governmental policies:

http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf

Contrary to popular belief, small business owners do not rake in the cash either. I worked close to 65 hours a week on average and my pay was only 4K higher than my highest paid employee. My hourly wage earners averaged $8 per hour back in the 1990's. Then I decided to hang it up and go work for corporate America. I now make twice as much as I did then for a 45 hour work week and a lot less stress.

Small businesses are what I see the population of this town liking. Be very aware of what you wish for or there will be chain stores cropping up on every corner while our local businesses fade away.

Oh wait… that's exactly what's happening.
11 January 2007
at 4:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hammysammy (Anonymous) says…

All waiters and waitresses make 2.13/hr in nearly every state.
11 January 2007
at 5:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hammysammy (Anonymous) says…

because it is 2007 people!!! Gas cost over 2 dollars a gallon! Rent in Lawrence is as much as 1000 a month for a 3/4 bedroom house. It is just not enough money! You people are so shockingly ignorant to the hardships that poor people suffer! The current minimum wage is sufficient only for highschool kids with out any financial responsibilities. Our economy will recover. Chili's has raised their menu prices 4 times over the last 3 years, similar to most other businesses. Some small businesses will suffer, but people cannot expect to be able to pay the same wages for years in a row, because they are small. Yes, Wal-Mart sucks, and is making hard for people to compete; but it is the Republicans and stodgy economic conservatives that oppose this increase that have made it ripe for businesses like that to flourish.
11 January 2007
at 5:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

There goes Pilgrim, cutting and pasting again.
11 January 2007
at 6:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

ALl this minimum wage crap is nonsense FOr this reason:

Why support raising the minimum wage, and support illegalaliens coming here to word? They are the reason wage erosion and why the wages at the loowest end of the econmic spectrum is stagnant.

A minimum wage increase will do nothing if an illegal alien will agree to work for less. Hell it is illegal to start with, do you think business will just pay them because that is the “legal” thing to do.

That is what gets me here. Those pushing for the minimum wage increase are usually those supporting the illegal aliens coming here and polluting our country with their third world ways and customs.
11 January 2007
at 6:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Hammy brings up an interesting point…

Prices have been going up for years, and yet there's been no change in the minimum wage yet.

You guys make it sound like minimum wage is the only evil reason that businesses have to or would have to raise their prices.

And Pilgrim, unemployment rates are a farce anyway. It only counts the most recent people who have applied for unemployment, or who are now receiving it.

It doesn't even count all the thousands of people out there who are still unemployed and either aren't eligible for unemployment benefits or have already used them all up.
11 January 2007
at 6:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

If people make more money, they will spend more. Isn't this why you all have those wonderful high-paying jobs?

You may have a good job, with good money, and have all those “skills” you talk about ad nauseum, but I'll bet there are skills you don't have, even in the corporate world, that are needed for your job to run smoothly.

If the peons didn't exist, your job would be worthless. I'm talking specifically about things like trash hauling and housekeeping, people you consider “unskilled” workers, and yet your job couldn't be done without them.

How about the person who brings you mail and delivers paperwork to other offices and makes sure you have all the toner and paper and pencils and staples that you need? Could your job run smoothly without them?

Do you know how to do housekeeping properly? Believe me, there are all kinds of rules and regulations and methods that have to be used now, per OSHA. Training is required. Could you make sure there was always toilet paper and soap in the bathrooms, and clean it to specifications, putting up with the ungodly messes that so-called civilized business people put there every day?

Could you haul your own trash to the landfill every day? Would you know how? Do you know the regulations concerning items that need to be disposed of in a proper manner, such as old computers, batteries, tires, etc., and would you know the proper place in the landfill or recycling center to take them?

Could you drive a big rig and deliver the materials necessary every day that all businesses need to make a product or market it? It would require a Commercial driver's license, which requires training and you have to take a test about 50 pages long.

Would you be able to deliver meals to eight tables at a time in a timely manner, so that your snobby customers (who are rushing lunch to get back to that cushy job) will be happy? Would you know how to prepare food and store it properly?

Could you clean a hotel room in an hour and make sure everything was spotless for the next customer (and again, up to regulations)? The hotel room that you occupied for that last business meeting?

Could you clean and disinfect an entire school building every night, clean up puke and whatever else per regulations, so that your little darlings will have a nice classroom to go to during the day while you're busy at that cushy job?

Or do you consider those sort of things beneath your superior “skill” level?

But all those people are “unskilled” and don't deserve any more money. Yeah. Right.

11 January 2007
at 7:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

When I know that pizza delivery guys and waitresses are making over $7 per hour, my usual 15 to 20% tip will be greatly reduced and will definitely be based on the quality of service I receive.
11 January 2007
at 8:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

“Those pushing for the minimum wage increase are usually those supporting the illegal aliens coming here and polluting our country with their third world ways and customs.”

You only believe that if you listen to pandering pundits.

Personally, I am in favor of raising the minimum wage because I think trickle-up economics works much better than trickle-down economics. Basically, if you cut a rich man's taxes, he still only needs to buy one copy of Deuce Biggalo (if that). But with the same money,
you can raise the disposable income of 100 poor people
=100 more purchases of Deuce Biggalo
=more energy put into the economy
=Rob Schneider takes over the world. Hooray!

I'm also not in favor of illegal immigration, as I think it does drive down wages and depreciates products below a fair and legal market value. The only difference between us is: I understand why they come here. Believe it or not, it's not primarily to sponge off of US taxpayer benefits. It's because they can make more in a few months here than they can all year at home - so why wouldn't they go for it?

And as long as we have a social, political, and economic climate that glosses over the employment of illegal immigrants, and gives giant companies a slap on the wrists for knowing violations of employment law, well, then you'll have an inexhaustable supply willing to meet the demand.

The solution is to end the demand. Of course, then prices go up by about half in every labor-intensive industry we've got. Good old Law of Unintended Consequences at work.

BTW - just noticed this gem: “Polluting our country with their third world ways and customs”
STFU with your xenophobia already. We all came here on a boat, ain't no point discriminating based on who came on which one. But if you're truely such a terrified crybaby, fear not, I'll protect you from such 3rd World practices as Roman Catholicism, patios, and Taco Bell.
11 January 2007
at 8:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

I vote for a maximum wage. Let us start with government administrators. Make it no more than double the median wage of the citizens of the governmental unit.
11 January 2007
at 8:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

There is no reason a government administrator living in Lawrence, Kansas, should make more than $100,000.
11 January 2007
at 8:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

1. We have federal wage laws, so that's why small business owners must obey them. Those laws exist to protect the lowest-paid workers.
2. If a particular business owner does not wish to adjust her prices. her own labor, her suppliers of basic ingredients, or profits in order to meet federal wage mandates, that's their decision. I've posted several links showing arguments regarding inflation and job loss are bogus, which have been ignored.
11 January 2007
at 8:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

deec, my suggestion to you is, open your own business, pay the new minimum wage, and see how long you last before your close your doors and look for a government job.
11 January 2007
at 8:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

I do have my own business, and I don't work for the government. Do you?
11 January 2007
at 8:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

I believe in maximum pay for minimum work. I think we should all make $7.15 per hour for watching cable tv every night after our 9 to 5 jobs.

We could also get min. wage for walking, shopping, and swimming.

I dont think the government realy has anything to do with minimum wage. If they did it would be considered more of an unemployment wage or something of the nature. Politicaly speaking of course

11 January 2007
at 8:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

Godot:

I agree with your comments about the salaries of public administrators, but take issue with this comment:

“open your own business, pay the new minimum wage, and see how long you last before your close your doors and look for a government job.”

It's a federal minimum wage. Which means it's a non-factor in the competition. It may require you to raise your prices, lower your margins, or cut costs elsewhere, but every one of your competitors faces the exact same dilemma.

So if you fail while your competitors succeed, it's not the minimum wage that killed you, but your failure to adapt to the changing business climate. Which, by the way, is the essence of capitalism - competition in theory, forces increased efficiency and hence better service for the customer at the lowest price.

Why do you hate the free market?
11 January 2007
at 8:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

deec said, ”

I do have my own business, and I don't work for the government. Do you?”

Yes, I do own my own business. Yours must be insulated from the impact of higher costs of goods and labor.

Let me guess: consultant? purveyor of luxury goods? Artist? Musician? Writer, producer, anyone who does not rely on demand, but, rather, creates demand through networking and marketing?
11 January 2007
at 8:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“I vote for a maximum wage.”

I agree. That's probably a better way to approach the whole issue. Ben and Jerry's had a policy where the highest paid person in the company (usually themselves) couldn't get more than 7 times what the lowest paid got.

Under that scenario, a cap of $100,000 for government employees would mean that the lowest paid would get just under $15,000 a year. That's too low to ask of anybody if you expect any quality production out of them.

The current highest wage of about $140,000 to the city manager would translate to $20,000 a year for an entry-level job, which is probably about right.

Contrast that with many major corporations where the CEO gets nearly 500 times the salary of the average worker, and you begin to see that there is a much bigger problem in the economy there than there is in a rise in the minimum wage to $7+ an hour.
11 January 2007
at 8:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

Just food for thought, if your income is $2,000 per month, your living expenses should not ever exceed $2,000 per month.

Unless, you use the credit card system. Then you could expect to pay the 20 percent interest. If you use this system, you could spend $4,000 per month but plan on taking 40 years to pay off debt.
11 January 2007
at 8:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hammysammy (Anonymous) says…

Well budwhysir, if your living expenses shouldn't exceed your income, then people who earn minumum wage, even if it were raised, wouldn't be able to afford to drive, go to the doctor, have prescriptions filled, get glasses or contacts, without government assistance. Probably not afford rent and utilities in most states. But then republicans hate on them for using public assistance. You guys can't have it both ways. You can't repress poor people's wages and then not offer social services.
11 January 2007
at 8:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

“anyone who does not rely on demand, but, rather, creates demand through networking and marketing?”

If you're not doing this, I'd say that's the reason your business is failing, not the minimum wage. Oh, it may be a nail in the coffin, but what put you there was just passively waiting for orders to come in. You've got to network and market in any field - how else do you expect to stand out from your competition?
11 January 2007
at 9 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

HAMMY:

I dont want it both ways, but what I think you are saying is I should establish my living expenses, and then expect a company to pay me that money even if the job I am doing is not worth that?

There is a fine line between needs and wants. I may want to drive a new car, but I may end up needing to use the public transit system. I may want to own a new house, but I may end up needing to rent a small one bedroom house at the other end of town.

The solution??? A career path. In a career, you earn more money as you work your way up the ladder. If I was working fast food, while going to school to become a doctor, I wouldnt mind making min. wage.
11 January 2007
at 9:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hammysammy (Anonymous) says…

Not everyone can be a doctor. We need people to work at the dump, and Mcdonalds too.

11 January 2007
at 9:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

Oh I almost forgot, if the wages are raised by $2,600 per year, wouldnt your tax base go up by somewhere around $200.00 to $500.00 per year??

This would make an excellent tax hike
11 January 2007
at 9:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

Once again, my point goes to needs and wants. Do we want people to work at the dump, or do we need to volunteer once a week. (Also, I know for a fact that people in this profession make above $7.25 per hour)

I coul live without MCdonalds. Every once and awhile I want to eat there, but I dont need to. I dont think managers (the career part of mcdonalds) make more than $7.25 per hour.

Im not arguing with you Hammy, I know where you are coming from so dont get mad, I just have a little different spin on things. You make valid points but I read deeper into this subject and find that there are not any real benefits to the people involved.

Needs and wants, the fine line in life
11 January 2007
at 9:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

If we consider a 10% increase in min wage, can we safely forcast a 15% increase in the cost of living next year???

Also, if we make an extra 2% on our pay stub, will taxes go up 4% will interest rates climb another 5%

In an ever increasing world of crime, taxes, and poverty, min wage is not reflective of needs and wants. Heating bills have gone up, I now heat my entire house with wood. Many think you need a furnace, fact is we want a furnace, all we need is a heat source. My heat source is alot cheaper than natural gas and I have no reliance on others for my heat
11 January 2007
at 9:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hammysammy (Anonymous) says…

But you need money to live a simple life. I can afford to heat my house with wood, because I don't live in a one bedroom apartment, the vast majority of which do not come equipped with wood stoves. The plain fact of the matter is that poor people pay more for regular or sub-par services than people with money. I.E. rent rather than house payments, nothing to show for their investment. The breaks that insurance companies receive from hospitals. People without benefits or money can be completely devastated by a minor illness.
11 January 2007
at 9:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

Yes hammy I see where you are coming from. The systems in place have made an impact on all the people. Here is how I see it.

Rent costs so much, why?, Because rental property owners want to make more money, they dont need to, they want to.

I think it comes down to this, we all must take care of what we need. If a person is looking at renting that one bedroom apartment, they should look for a small one bedroom house, they may have to save for 2 years to buy it but buy when they can.

You make valid points hammy, and as you see, it boils down to needs and wants, not only my needs vs wants, but my neighbors needs vs wants
11 January 2007
at 9:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hammysammy (Anonymous) says…

Agree to disagree, because if you have bad credit you can't buy a house. And if you make minimum wage you could hardly save for a down payment on a home, afford earnest money, or qualify for a no money down home loan. Be that as it may, we will never agree on these points. Have a good night.
11 January 2007
at 9:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

I can agree to disagree, it has been nice posting with you. I do have a plan for making it big while making min. wage if you would like to hear it sometime, let me know.

In short, if I was down on my luck completly I would buy an old mini van that runs, get a min wage job, live in my minivan at the lake, keep all the money I make in my hands (not in a bank) get only what I need and save untill I was headed in the right direction. Health problems, are one of your very good points, some people are unable to progress due to health problems. Another issue for another day. Nice posting with you.
11 January 2007
at 10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

Well I see that Hammy was the only one up to the challenge of trying to disprove my theory. Such a good debater and poster hammy is. Can anyone else touch on needs vs wants and the effect of min wage in our fine town

11 January 2007
at 10:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

larrybill (Anonymous) says…

All of you people want tp see the effects of this wage increase. Travel to kc mo or a little further down I-70. pull into SONIC or wendy's. $5.99 for a single combo. Almost $8.00 for a double. There goes the wage increaase. And who suffers. The people that don't get a raise.

Just what I always say “let the people make the laws that arean't effected by them” at least I still have my guns.

LB
11 January 2007
at 10:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

What in the h*ll kind of dumps are Pilgrim and Budwhysir going to??

Maybe in the elite city of Lawrence, even the garbage doesn't stink. I know many people around here who work for some sanitation company or other (you know, the ones with the big, big trucks) who only make minimum wage…the current minimum wage. Perhaps the owners make more than that, but not the guys who ride on the outside of the trucks and do all the grunt work and have to put up with the weather all year round, and go home smelling like your garbage.

Waitresses, many waitresses, around here only make Kansas minimum wage. They are expected to make up the difference with tips, which doesn't happen. Even if they get no tips, or less than the government thinks they should get in a day, no one believes them. The nice tax forms assume they get lots of tips, whether they do or not.

Yes, I know many waitresses who are having to work two jobs or more to just break even.

OSHA may be a joke, RT, but workers still have to comply or risk losing their jobs. And if you work in any industry which may require any kind of body fluid clean-up, there is a specific way you have to do it. I know, because my job requires this from time to time. This includes places like restaurants, hospitals, office buildings, group homes, motels, hotels, etc. Any place that has public access is required to be cleaned in a certain manner, with specific products, and I doubt the average joe even knows how.

My point was why are these kind of jobs not appreciated? People who work these jobs are usually considered stupid, lazy, underachievers. Why? It's hard, back-breaking work that a lot of people wouldn't even do. And they DO take skills, just different ones from the cushy jobs sitting in front of a computer or a phone somewhere. Skills that not everyone has, yet these people are considered “unskilled laborers”.

Why?
11 January 2007
at 11:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

Crazy, you have missed my point, but its ok cause I admit it is hard to follow, anyhow, lawrence trash service is provided by the city. The people on these crews make good money.

I am a little tired now and not sure I can go into detail but my point of the evening has to do with the difference between needs and wants and also the effect on taxes due to increased min. wage
11 January 2007
at 11:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

But you do rely on others for your heat source, budwhysir…unless you also own your own renewable forest.

The wood has to come from somewhere, and I'd guess you're not growing it yourself. Regardless, everyone doesn't have the option of having a wood stove. And it's highly debatable on which heat source is the most cost-effective or the safest.

In my opinion, if the country operated on a system where people only bought what they needed, and nothing they just wanted, the economy would die in a big hurry.

You don't NEED that big SUV, do you? All you really need is a vehicle that has four wheels and an engine. Yet people buy vehicles all the time that they don't really need. I have also known people who owned four cars when there were only two drivers in the family.

You don't NEED a five bedroom house if it's just you, your wife, and your four kids, do you? All you need is one room for the parents, and then the kids can double up. Remember when that was the common thing to do?

You don't NEED a kitchen with an island in it, do you? All you really need are the basics: a fridge, a stove, a sink, and some counter space.

You don't NEED a lawn service, do you? Let nature take its course and live with the weeds and the crabgrass.

You don't NEED a dress or a suit that costs $500 or more, do you? As long as its neat and clean, anything that covers you will do quite nicely.

Come to think of it, you don't NEED that TV, stereo, i-Pod, or computer, do you? You could sit at home in the evenings and read a book, talk to your family, or do crossword puzzles or something.

Entire industries exist because of things people WANT, not NEED.

CEOs and people in Congress don't NEED the grossly indecent wages they get, either. They could live nicely on a lot less, couldn't they? And still be able to buy a lot of things they just WANT.

As for the living in the van thing…if you're stashing money in an old van, eventually somebody is going to come along and take it off your hands when you're not looking. And this isn't an option for people with a family, is it?
11 January 2007
at 11:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

That may be fine and dandy for Lawrence, but every town or city doesn't have trash service provided by the city. Ottawa doesn't.

City workers here don't make all that much. What do they make in Lawrence?
12 January 2007
at 2:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jhawk0097 (Anonymous) says…

With all of this complaining about the min. wage, I wonder how many of you are even capable of doing a no-skill labor job. In my days working as a custodian, I was met at work by the toilet explosions of many of the edumacated, fiber deficient, fat addicted folks who would no doubt be winded within 15 min. if required to do my job.

Physical labor isn't appreciated in this country now that most of us are off the farm. That work is done by losers. The winners go to school and get edumacated (although many can't spell worth a hoot and outside their field of expertise or reality tv, are intellectually vapid). Losers do the practical work while winners do the intellectual work like running samples through a mass spectrometer all day in a biology factory…err, I mean lab (my brother's job).

EITC or min. wage increase? It makes no difference to me whether I have more to eat or **** less, so long as I'm not hungry after busting my ***.
12 January 2007
at 8:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

crazy:

Your are getting on the same track as I am on. I know that some of my samples of my opinion are a little to simplistic but I believe we see the same thing.

It all boils down to what the people of today view as NEEDS and WANTS. All of your points show correctly people dont need that big suv they want it.

People will tend to believe we NEED a hire min. wage even though the job does not support it. They want a hire min. wage but what they need is another type of job. Going back to my point that every person in the world needs to not spend more than they make
12 January 2007
at 8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

No, the problem is that people think they NEED the goods or services produced by minimum wage workers, but they don't WANT to pay what it actually costs.

If they have to pay what it really costs, then they have to begin to make choices about what things they WANT bad enough to pay for it.

That pisses them off, because they WANT it all, and they WANT it at someone else's expense.

12 January 2007
at 10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jafs (Anonymous) says…

Interesting comments.

I like the idea of minimum and maximum wages. That would centralize the distribution of money throughout our society.

We are indeed a society of consumers, confusing want with need. Choosing to live more simply would be better, in many ways, in my opinion.

I agree with the sentiment that we should be more appreciative of the lower-level workers, who do much of the essential work for us.

The book “Nickel and Dimed” shows how difficult it is for the “working poor” to improve their situation.

Industries which cater to indulgences would have to find something more essential to produce if we all lived more simply - perhaps automakers would produce simpler, more efficient vehicles, for example.

Not a bad outcome, it seems to me.
12 January 2007
at 11:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Well, good for your daughter, Pilgrim. Doesn't necessarily mean she was a great waitress, just that she worked in a classy restaurant with customers that didn't stiff her all the time.

All waitresses aren't that fortunate. Next time you stop at the Waffle House somewhere or some little restaurant out in the middle of nowhere, think about that. Everyone doesn't live in highly urban areas, or in the best neighborhoods in those urban areas.

Don't sit there and try to tell me that a lot of waitresses don't make minimum wage and don't get a lot of tips, just because your daughter was fortunate. An example of one doesn't cut it with me. I know many waitresses personally who don't make minimum wage, and the tips aren't always that good. Restaurants are full of customers who are slobs and find any excuse not to leave a tip at all, let alone one that's worth the service they received or how much they spent. Tips don't always have anything to do with the service you received. Some people are just cheap.

You are such an elitist. You wouldn't deign to do work like that yourself, and yet you look down your nose at people who do. People who didn't have the chance to go to college and get a better job. And don't start the drivel about how anyone can go to college if they want to. No, they can't. Some have other responsibilities, and rent and food come first before college tuition, no matter how hard you work you may not make enough. Some people live in areas where one job is difficult enough to find, let alone the two or three that might be needed to support yourself and go to college at the same time.

Circumstances are different for different people, yet you seem to think that everyone should be able to do it just because you did.

There are people out there who do the grunt work, the dirty work, every day, and take pride in their work and do a damn good job. And they aren't appreciated. Most of them are underpaid. A lot of people wouldn't even consider doing the often nasty work they have to do, and then they moan and groan about how there has to be illegal aliens in this country because of those jobs that “Americans won't do.”

I see people working every day at jobs that Bush claims “Americans won't do.” BS.

I like the idea of salary caps for anyone in government office, especially Congress, jafs. What do they NEED all that money for anyway? All their job expenses are paid for.

But try getting that one passed in Congress.
12 January 2007
at 11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Why did (Nancy) Pelosi exempt Del Monte from the minimum wage?”

Didn't know she had— how did she accomplish that?
12 January 2007
at 12:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

” “I am shocked,” said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. “Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats.”
On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour. ”

Pelosi has bitched about a minimum wage but gave exemptions to a few hometown businesses that supported here election, Del Monte and Star Kist Tuna. These companies also hire disporportianately illegal aliens.

Nancy is FOS! That is MUCH worse than George BUsh. How about “She Leid and illegal aliens did not get an minimum wage increase”

Compassionate Liberalism?
12 January 2007
at 2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fascinating_person (Anonymous) says…

Pilgrim, I'm sure your daughter was doing a great job, but ask her how often her tips seemed to directly reflect the service she provided. Any waitress can tell you that you'll wait on people who tip 10% regardless of the service - they walk into the restaurant planning on spending as little as possible. The amount of money made in tips is based most directly on the menu prices, secondly on the type of clientel, and THEN on the quality of service.

For years I worked at a restaurant on hwy 40 - a humble country steakhouse with humble prices and a largely rural customer base. Most tables that I and my coworkers waited on left less than 15%. Older folks generally left $2 per couple, which was usually less than 10%. I know this phenomenon wasn't exclusive to myself, as my coworkers reported the same. We simply worked as many tables as humanly possible and left at the end of the night with a decent amount of money.

Now I work at a great new restaurant here in Lawrence - American food as well - where the menu prices are higher than, say, the $6.95 Chicken Fried Steak at my old job - and our customers are mostly businesspeople with families who live in the subdivisions west of town. Providing the same quality of service, my average tip per check is about twice what it was at my old job. The same quality of service.

Why didn't I switch jobs more quickly, and move to a place where my work was appreciated? Because I'm putting myself through college, and my old job provided me with the flexible scheduling necessary to be a full time student. At my new job, I have to suck it up and work til 1am when I have an 8:30am class that I still have to do homework for. That's the price I paid when I switched jobs. Additionally, the nice, classy restaurants where servers make good money are not easy to get a job at. (Believe me, I tried for 3 years). Unless you have connections, you have to settle for dumpy restaurants, or get on board when a new restaurant is being opened as I did.

The point is, if anyone could take a job where good work was rewarded with good money, everyone would be rich. Good waitressing jobs can be hard to come by, and any server will tell you that even at good restaurants, the quality of service isn't always rewarded.
13 January 2007
at 8:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

meowllory (Anonymous) says…

Mr.McDonald is a delivery driver and makes tips and commission.
Rudy's Pizzeria employees all make a living wage.
13 January 2007
at 9:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

Well here I am again ready or not. Tables turned and the candles are lit, I am ready to make a concesses. Shall it be noted, that in fact we all make a living wage.

A living wage as stated in the financial hand book is equated to ones cost of living less earned income. Hence the fact that many could live on a small living wage while others are faced with large house payments, gas guzzeling suv's, and also a large food bill.

Had one wanted to live at the lake, have a cloth house, eat hotdogs and fish for dinner, and drink unfiltered water, a small living wage is attainable.
15 January 2007
at 1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Move to a job where your work is appreciated? Do you think jobs like that just grow on trees?

There are a limited, very limited, number of positions at places where they pay you what your work is actually worth. And everyone can't have one of those fine jobs, can they, if there are only so many openings.

I have also heard of people with master's degrees that are now flipping burgers somewhere because they can't find jobs. I guess you think they're just lazy bums, too, with no opportunities.

If you can't afford to pay your employees a decent wage, then I suggest you shouldn't be in business.

Not to mention that they're only talking about raising the minimum wage to $7.25. Could you live on that amount?

Oh, yeah, I forgot. Everybody else in the world is a lazy bum. Everyone except the great pilgrim and his progeny.