A U.S. Senator from Iowa had introduced legislation in Congress that would raise the national minimum wage by more than $2.
Now, the national minimum wage stands at $7.25 an hour. U.S. Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat, wants that minimum wage workers making $9.88 an hour.
NPR reports that, according to the Economic Policy Institute, if Harkin has his way and the minimum wage was actually raised to $9.88 an hour, it would increase wages for 30 million Americans — 10 percent of the country.
Harkin, in the NPR report, argues that most people making the minimum wage spend just about all their money because they don't have much left. Giving them a raise, he says, woudl mean more for the nation's gross domestic product.
From the report:
Harkin estimates that his minimum wage increase would mean about $25 billion more for GDP, 100,000 more jobs and 28 million Americans would get a raise.
To those that say raising the minimum wage would actually increase unemployment, Harkin says there's simply no proof of that. He says they've found that when minimum wages were increased, employment actually went up.
Opponents say raising the minimum wage would have a reverse affect—creating higher unemployment rates than the ones plauging the country today.
According to NPR, 18 states have set minimum wage rates slightly higher than the national level, while four states actually have exemptions and even lower minimums. Missouri's minimum wage is the same as the federal minimum wage.
What do you think? Should Congress act on such legislation and raise the nation's minimum wage to just less than $10 an hour? Or do you think raising the minimum wage will create more burden on small business owners already struggling to survive?
Get off the backs of business and promote competition. More business means more jobs and more job options for workers, forcing businesses to compete for the better employees by offering better wages, and even better healthcare insurance, like businesses used to have to do before we all became conditioned to think the government has to do everything for us. It's the same thing that caused the "need" for the new healthcare taxes. We need a seperation of business & state. And James, these days, not many of our politicians are employers, most have never been employees (including the Pres & 92% of his administration). They don't know the simplest thing about how money, the economy & business work. This suggestion proves it. We gotta quit electing people that think that government is the solution, when it's exactly what has created all of these "needs" in the first place. Competition fixes the economy, not government involvement. There's proof above, and there are thousands & thousands more pieces of proof upon request.
Workers who earn more push more of those earnings back in to the local economy. They're also happier, more productive, and less likely to quit. Reduced churn is good for business for obvious reasons--it's significantly cheaper to keep an employee than hire and train a new one, and long term employees mean better customer relationships and better customer service. I don't care if a business wants to keep overhead down by shortchanging its people, but there's a pretty good chance it will come across in the quality of their service. There's no need for the Chicken Littles to come out. It's an election year, so this isn't going anywhere.
You're missing the point, this is what happened to all of the other businesses that used to be out there competing for workers by offering higher wages, benefits & in-turn, producing better products. But, at least they aren't out there being greedy & "keeping overhead down" at the expense of their employees (now jobless), and their quality (no longer providing competition to keep the rest of those greedy businesses meanies from taking advantage of not having someone right down the road doing it better with higher wages, better benefits --therefore better employees-- producing better quality products). Do they not teach simple supply & demand in school anymore? Not at Harvard apparently. It IS an election year, that's why we need people who understand these simple principles, instead of people who keep asking for more & more of the problem because they'd rather think with their emotions, instead of looking at reasons & results.
Most minimum wage jobs are in service industries that cannot move overseas. McDonald's isn't going to move its restaurants overseas so it can pay lower wages. One group that would benefit from a higher minmum wage is college students. In 1968, a student at the University of Missouri-Columbia could earn enough money from a minimum wage job in a three-month summer vacation to pay for full-time tuition and room and board in the dorms. Today it wouldn't even come close. The last time checked, work-study jobs at MU paid the minimum wage and many students work for minimum wage in restaurants and retail while in school. Increasing the minimum wage would help students graduate with less debt.
Students with less debt? If that were a goal, why take student loans out of the private sector, where there's competition, and start dictating them? Know what you got before asking for more. AND stop spending when it's gone. This is a Yahoo! tm headline from 7/12 - U.S. government records $904.2B deficit through June. I wonder how they know, the Senate hasn't presented a budget in what... 4 years?
We already know employees go where the money is. 2 months into your scenario though, NJ had 6-cent inflation & 987 fewer jobs to offer than before (& zero new stores). If the price of everything the surviving minimum wage employee buys goes up, what happens? They're in the same place they were before, only now, they (& the newly unemployed) all have to deal with inflation too. Krueger's results with Obama speak loudly, any percieved need to justify them with accolades stipulates that. Look, there are more people in this country than ever, paying higher tax-rates than ever (multiplied for business), yet it hasn't worked & they STILL can't stay within or even commit to a budget. How can they even be sure they need more? Just for the sake of pointing it out, if this works why do we have to keep doing it? In 1992 & especially in 1968, things were different in 1 very major way, the amount of government involvement was a tiny fraction of what it is now (especially on a Federal level). Taxes were nowhere near as high, and they weren't conditioned to think of more government as the only solution. Today, many think it solves everything (lack of results & detriment to the economy aside). You make some great points though, pointing out how things used to be. I agree, we should all look more at how we got here, so we can get off this path. Also, rule of thumb, Illinois is not a role-model, they're lost.
We keep placing more burdens like this on business, then blame them for leaving or out-sourcing. We use it as an excuse to keep pinning them with the new expenses of those they used to be able to employ. Who decides "Well, They make enough money, so they need to allow us to take more"? What? Apply that to DC. We chase away business, then penalize them for leaving as if it's their fault. We force them to resort to alternatives, then blame them for it. Get off their backs, they are what keeps the economy going, not a government that's against them. Please listen as I say this again... We have the highest corporate tax-rate, and the most regulations on business, in the world. That's what caused this. Fix that, and you fix the entire economy. You'll never be able to mop up all the water, until you fix the leak. Think! This administration on supply & demand: "We can't just drill our way to cheaper gas prices" Can too. It's simple supply & demand. "It's a world market", yep, but it works like every other market, more product = lower prices. "It's a middle-east problem", you mean the ones you buy from instead producing your own? Is it smarter to pay $100/barrel or earn $100/barrel ($200 turn-around)? Or to keep funding our enemies in 2 different wars? We have our own oil, but it's better to keep buying their ONLY resource? It's foolish.