$22 minimum wage?

What do you think of this article?

This artical doen't take into accout what the employer spent to enable his workers to be more productive. They could have spent untold amounts on automation and other widgets to boost the workers production while improving working conditins and making jobs less physically challenging, thus the worker actually works less hard, not more. The employer needs to make back his investment, thus lower wages, for less work on the part of employies. This has happened in farming. At $10/hr we are getting more for less as equiptment has grown in size and complexity. That wage is a smaller and smaller part of the picture, thanks to $500K tractors and combines boosting productivity. The farmer is benifiting as he should, for the investment in productivity he gains....

Regards, Kirk

Doc said:

What do you think of this article?

Elizabeth Warren: Minimum Wage Would Be $22 An Hour If It Had Kept Up With Productivity

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made a case for increasing the minimum wage last week during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing, in which she cited a study that suggested the federal minimum wage would have stood at nearly $22 an hour today if it had kept up with increased rates in worker productivity.

"If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour," she said, speaking to Dr. Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the economic impacts of minimum wage. "So my question is Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker."

Dube went on to note that if minimum wage incomes had grown over that period at the same pace as it had for the top 1 percent of income earners, the minimum wage would actually be closer to $33 an hour than the current $7.25.

It didn't appear that Warren was actually trying to make the case for a $22 an hour minimum wage, but rather highlighting the results of a recent study that showed flat minimum wage growth over the past 40-plus years coinciding with surging inequality across a number of economic indicators.

​

Click to expand...

Senator Warren is fooling with economist statistics.

As Dr, Ben Carson, a leading brain surgeon himself, stated on Cpac,,,"I ain't no Economist but I have an education and have reviewed that subject. It ain't brain surgery."

As for The Senator's eaxample,,,it is a compalation of deceptives and lies. First off, in 1960, minimum wage was $1.25 and hour. So minimum wage as been increased almost by 580%.
On a secondary note,,,either by law or by design, the working conditions, safety and healt, along with Social security taxes , workers comp costs, and environmental work place improvments, that worker enjoys non wage benefits not encountered in 1960.

For example SS was 4.25% not 15%.

She made no statistcal data availble as to increased profits derived from that $14.75 she conveniently invented byher dubious statistical projections. She simply implied that they existed.

In fact, that minimum wage worker can thank their boss for what he did. By investing in technologies that made the worker more productive, he likely maintained their empoylment in the USA.

Damnit! I was only making $1.10 an hour in 1966. In 1964 we were getting $.75 an hour. No wonder I liked picking strawberries and being paid by the quart. Always made good money for those few weeks. All my brothers and sisters got called back every year by the produce farm. They were happy and so were we.

I made .75 an hour in 1963, raised to $1.00 after I learned a few things. Warren
is an idiot.

muleman said:

Damnit! I was only making $1.10 an hour in 1966. In 1964 we were getting $.75 an hour. No wonder I liked picking strawberries and being paid by the quart. Always made good money for those few weeks. All my brothers and sisters got called back every year by the produce farm. They were happy and so were we.

Click to expand...

Minimum wage was exempted for farm workers. Agriculture lobby is powerful.

I made $0.55 per hour as the straw boss on a truck farm in 1965. I was the highest paid man there.

RedRocker said:

I made .75 an hour in 1963, raised to $1.00 after I learned a few things. Warren
is an idiot.

Click to expand...

Yes she is. Her assault on capitalism proves why minimum wage lawsdon't work for the benefit of employees. It forces bussiness owners to buy automation to replace them. When was the last time you called your bank, your government office or most any corportion and got a real person?

Automated phone systems are more reliable, and more cost effective than a minimum wage receptionist. We now have WORD somany executives no longer need a typist assistant. Low skilled, entry level jobs are replaced by technologies when the are cost effective savings to capitalize.

I am willing to bet that the senator from Ma is willing to take some credit for the High tech boom in her state but not willing to connect the dots that got the receptionist and the stenographer replaced by a machine.

As labor Secretary Riechs under Clinton once said, "America doesn't need these menial jobs, they need the high tech jobs." Well, he got his wish. And 25% of the nation, and much of it's youth, cannot get those entry level jobs anymore.

Yup, I made $1.00 per hour 1964/5 stocking shelves at the local A&P. I quit the summer of 66 to work as a white ticket helper on a union electrical job (my first) and over doubled my pay to $2.25 per hour. Back in those days white ticket helpers earned 50% of a Journeyman electrician's pay. I thought those electricians making $4.50 per hour were the richest people I ever knew.

I must apologize for my faulted memory. Minimum wage of $1.25 started in 1963, not 1960. In 1960 it was only $1.00 per hour.

Does anyone knowwhy minimum wage was justified by President Roosevelt in the first place,,,,1938?

Minimum hourly wage of workers in jobs first covered by Effective Date 1938 Act 1 1961 Amendments 2 1966 and Subsequent
Amendments3 Nonfarm
Farm
Oct 24, 1938
$0.25
Oct 24, 1939
$0.30
Oct 24, 1945
$0.40
Jan 25, 1950
$0.75
Mar 1, 1956
$1.00
Sep 3, 1961
$1.15
$1.00
Sep 3, 1963
$1.25
Sep 3, 1964
$1.15
Sep 3, 1965
$1.25
Feb 1, 1967
$1.40
$1.40
$1.00
$1.00
Feb 1, 1968
$1.60
$1.60
$1.15
$1.15
Feb 1, 1969
$1.30
$1.30
Feb 1, 1970
$1.45
Feb 1, 1971
$1.60
May 1, 1974
$2.00
$2.00
$1.90
$1.60
Jan. 1, 1975
$2.10
$2.10
$2.00
$1.80
Jan 1, 1976
$2.30
$2.30
$2.20
$2.00
Jan 1, 1977
$2.30
$2.20
Jan 1, 1978
$2.65 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Jan 1, 1979
$2.90 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Jan 1, 1980
$3.10 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Jan 1, 1981
$3.35 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Apr 1, 19904
$3.80 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Apr 1, 1991
$4.25 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Oct 1, 1996
$4.75 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Sep 1, 19975
$5.15 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Jul 24, 2007
$5.85 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Jul 24, 2008
$6.55 for all covered, nonexempt workers
Jul 24, 2009
$7.25 for all covered, nonexempt workers

When I joined the military in November 1967, my Basic Pay was $95.70 a month, which works out to $0.40 an hour for an eight-hour day. But, we were being paid for a 24-hour day, so the real rate was $0.13! And we were already hearing that we were overpaid in comparison to civilians!!

Any of us would have been thrilled with the HUGE amounts Franc and TR were getting!

Danang Sailor said:

When I joined the military in November 1967, my Basic Pay was $95.70 a month, which works out to $0.40 an hour for an eight-hour day. But, we were being paid for a 24-hour day, so the real rate was $0.13! And we were already hearing that we were overpaid in comparison to civilians!!

Any of us would have been thrilled with the HUGE amounts Franc and TR were getting!

Click to expand...

We were not getting free room and board sir. Much less medical and discounts at the canteen.

But, I'll not compare the perks of military life to that of civilians. We could walk away from our situation anytime we wanted. You, on the other hand, would have to stand your ground, no matter how frustrating, dissappointing or dangerous things got. To that I can only make one comment......

Thanks

I worked as a tray girl in the hospital one summer. I loaded the food onto the big trucks and then took the truck out to the patients wing. It was HOT in the kitchen in the middle of the summer and no air conditioning. I was making $1.25 an hour plus all that I could eat. That was a bad deal for them because I was trying to gain weight and ate everything. I was 6' tall and weighed 125.

During the depression, so many people were unemployed that employers were able to offer low payng jobs to new workers and lay off higher paid ones. A bad practice but seemingly neccesary under competitive conditions.
to combat this, FDR proposed that a minimum wage would short circut this pratice. The unions were for anything that protected them at the bargaining table and the supported it. It got passed.

The purpose of the minimum wage was not to create a floor under all wages upon which to build but a floor beneath which no employer could legaly go.

Except the farmers and AG Corps.

Of course the unions now use it to build their wage packages. so they want it to rise.

Here is a question for Senator Warren. If a State, or the entire Republic, were to set the minimum rate at $22.00 per hour, what would happen to all those jobs easily outsourced to other nations? And what would happen to those taxpaying companies and their employees who could not compete on the world market against lower wages provided elsewhere?

FrancSevin said:

We were not getting free room and board sir. Much less medical and discounts at the canteen.

But, I'll not compare the perks of military life to that of civilians. We could walk away from our situation anytime we wanted. You, on the other hand, would have to stand your ground, no matter how frustrating, dissappointing or dangerous things got. To that I can only make one comment......

Thanks

Click to expand...

You're certainly welcome!

The "perks" were nice at times, but they sometimes came with a pretty big price tag, as you alluded to. As they say, "All gave some, Some gave All!" Which was a possibility we all understood when we gave the country that check saying "Payable in an amount up to and including my life."

(But I still think at $0.13 an hour we were underpaid.)

Go ahead raise it to 22.00..hell why stop there???lets have 100.00 an hour......and see how quick the fast food industry puts in automated berger flippers!!!!!and wrapers ect.........JSMT.....

300 H and H said:

This artical doen't take into accout what the employer spent to enable his workers to be more productive. They could have spent untold amounts on automation and other widgets to boost the workers production while improving working conditins and making jobs less physically challenging, thus the worker actually works less hard, not more. The employer needs to make back his investment, thus lower wages, for less work on the part of employies. This has happened in farming. At $10/hr we are getting more for less as equiptment has grown in size and complexity. That wage is a smaller and smaller part of the picture, thanks to $500K tractors and combines boosting productivity. The farmer is benifiting as he should, for the investment in productivity he gains....

Regards, Kirk

Click to expand...

RIGHT!

$22 is over three time $7.25. I don't see people working three times and fast....Maybe SMARTER, but as you pointed out, that's the cost of equipment.

I can picture an employee watching a production machine,while sending and receiving text messages. Decades ago similar employees would be working up a sweat.

K-1 thru K-12 test scores have gone down, instead of up over the past 20 years or so. Why are teachers making more money? And that takes us to Dr. Arindrajit Dube, University of Massachusetts Amherst professor. Is he three times as efficient as he was a few decades ago? Is Sen. Elizabeth Warren or anyone else in the House of Senate working three times as hard? Or are they ten times as incompetent as they were 20 years ago?

I avoided union jobs my entire life because I knew I was better than that. If I wanted to make more money, I proved to my employer that I was worth more. If he didn't agree, i would move on to someone who saw the added value/productivity that I brought to the table. I never had a problem going into a performance evaluation, because I always knew where I stood before opening the door.

In 1990 my company piad workers about $5.75 and hour. We had older mahines and did a lot of assembly work by hand. Reject part rates were 3% and our mechanical machines needed intense maintanence and skilled operators who could not turn their backs on the operation.

We ran parts at 40 packages per minute per person.

Today I have modern equipment, rejection rates are under 1%. Operation are automated to the point where I need one skilled operator over five lines manned by unskilled workers who average $9.75 per hour.

We now run at 80 PPM per person.

Despite increases in labor, material and overhead costs (essentially double), automation allows us to charge the exact same prices as we charged in 1990. It helps keep the work from going overseas. This productivity improvement was done by management, not the workers. It did not improve profits, simply assured survival. Under what "fairness" should they reap any rewards?

Except for retention of employment.

The Senator's model assumes we can just charge more because, "everything costs more so why can you not just increase your prices?"

The answer Senator Warren is that such "economics" only work in faculty lounge discussions,,,,,,,,,, and Congress. "We spent more than we took in? No problem,,,,,,,just raise taxes." "Do it for the children"

The Senator from Mass makes her argument for only two reasons:
1. Higher wages equate to higher union dues as a % of wage. Reward for union support at election time.
2. Higher wages equate to increased Income & FICA taxes which give her party more money to waste.

Other than that, the Senator is nothing but a pawn for the party & the unions, and would make a lousy trial lawyer. JMHO

spot on Jev what I want to know is when are the workers not making min wage going to get a pay raise or are we going to let min wage catch up to skilled labor to make us commies to

300 H and H said:

This artical doen't take into accout what the employer spent to enable his workers to be more productive. They could have spent untold amounts on automation and other widgets to boost the workers production while improving working conditins and making jobs less physically challenging, thus the worker actually works less hard, not more. The employer needs to make back his investment, thus lower wages, for less work on the part of employies. This has happened in farming. At $10/hr we are getting more for less as equiptment has grown in size and complexity. That wage is a smaller and smaller part of the picture, thanks to $500K tractors and combines boosting productivity. The farmer is benifiting as he should, for the investment in productivity he gains....

Regards, Kirk

Click to expand...

The Lefties always squawk about increased productivity statistics, as if the worker is working harder for less money. Which is, of course, the furthest thing from the truth.

But the low-information voters latch onto it and whine. When will they ever learn?

I suspect not until 2016.
.