barfo, the article makes the actual propose to do that. "The case for helping them is very different than minimum wage nonsense. Substantial government subsidies." roughly.
Critics will respond that abolition of wage minimums will cause rampant exploitation. All-powerful employers will set the wages of the low-skilled at subsistence, while the prices they charge customers will be as high as ever. However, the critics might be surprised to learn that the share of hourly workers earning the federal minimum wage or less has fallen significantly over the long term. While the inflation-adjusted federal minimum in 1980 was about the same as in 2010, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that the share of workers at the federal minimum or less has plummeted, from 15.1% in 1980 to 6% by 2010, and to 4.7% by 2012—a trend that tends to belie the idea of employer omnipotence. So I'm no economic expert but I would think the fact that many states continue to raise the state minimum wage to the point they go over the federal minimum wage would be a big factor to why workers at the federal minimum wage has plummeted. For instance: Alabama in 2009 had a minimum wage of 7.25 (mirror the feds). However since 2009, Alabama has raised their minimum wage while the feds have not. That is why many workers are no longer at federal minimum wage . . . the feds are behind the times (or ahead of the times depending on how you see it)
Read the article at the link: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/19/who-makes-minimum-wage/
Wait... aside from barfo, who argued for abolishing child labor laws or bringing back black slaves? Neither of those are proposals I've seen from any source in the last 50 years.
The problem I have with that is it's very easy for you, or the authors of that article, to pay lip service to that idea. Writing it in an article or a post here doesn't mean squat. I don't see any of 'your people' out there actually backing real bills to do that. Frankly, if such a thing were an actual bill, I'd bet you'd oppose it rather than support it. It just sounds nice right now because it lets you talk about opposing the minimum wage without sounding like you don't give a shit about other people. barfo
Barfo, There are already hundreds of agencies to give people welfare benefits of various kinds. Be they cash assistance, tax credits (negative tax!), food stamps, and so on. Why do we need something in addition? The point is that minimum wage workers are a tiny fraction of the workforce in the first place and a tiny fraction of those are reliant on the income as sole source to live on. We don't need to hike the minimum wage so some high school kid can get more pay while he's working a summer job. Waiters and waitresses might get minimum wage, but they get tips on top of that. So why not help the people that actually need the help?
Ok, so now you are backtracking on even your lip service for additional help to the poor. That's a little more honest. Good. Now, about those child labor laws. Seems to me the parents wouldn't need to make minimum wage if they could just send their kids to work. Hell, some of them have six or eight able bodies just wasting away in school. Get them in the factories where they belong and we could cut everyone's wages! barfo
Why are you proposing to treat those making minimum wage like children? Why do you want to take away voting rights from those making minimum wage? You don't want them to be able to gamble or drink. You're trying to take away the rights of all those people making minimum wage. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Reading comprehension problems? The minimum wage was enacted 25 years before the great society programs. The new programs much better what minimum wage has failed to do. Why do you insist on doing things the worse way.
Information is from 12/12. But interesting that the minimum wage raise in Oregon affected more people than the fed min wage raise is purported to affect people nationally. The Oregon Employment Department recently estimated that there were about 130,000 jobs in the state that paid less than $8.95 per hour in the first quarter of 2012 that would be directly affected by the increase. The Employment Department data shows that the leisure and hospitality industry and retail trade account for about four out of 10 of the jobs affected. The wage increase affects tens of thousands of minimum wage workers and workers with wages just above minimum. The Washington, D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute (EPI) recently estimated that 83,000 Oregonians would benefit directly from the minimum wage increase. The institute noted that another 44,000 Oregon workers currently earning just above the new minimum wage would likely see their paychecks increase as employers adjust their overall pay structures to reflect the new minimum wage. Together, those directly and indirectly impacted account for about 8.3 percent of Oregon’s workforce. EPI found that about 86 percent of workers directly impacted in Oregon are over 20 years old, and three out of five were women. “Odds are that a minimum wage worker is an adult and a woman,” said Sheketoff. “The image that some may have of minimum-wage workers being primarily teenagers is incorrect.” - See more at: http://www.ocpp.org/2012/12/27/nr20121227-new-year-oregon-minimum-wage-earner/#sthash.U3LygCCF.dpuf
How about you file your taxes and the govt. pays you the difference between what you made and the poverty line?
Doesn't really work because if you are that poor, getting a lump sum check in April doesn't really buy the groceries back in December. How about instead of guaranteeing an annual wage, we guarantee an hourly wage instead? Same total cost, but the wage earner can use it to eat regularly. We could call it the 'minimum wage' or something like that. barfo
Pay em monthly at the unemployment or welfare office. Already set up to do that. We could call it 'welfare' or something like that. Or 'food stamps.'
