> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:46:35 GMT, Les Cargill
cfl.rr.com>
> wrote:>>
>
>>>And given that only a portion of workers work minimum
>>>wage, only some products may go up.
>>
>>I do not wish to knock anybody, but minimum wage is a "safety
>>net" subsidy. This is pretty clear; almost nobody actually works for
>>minimum wage ( outside of very poor regions ). Around here, there's
>>a defacto minimum wage of about $7.50.
>
>
> Of course its a safety net issue.
But that's why an increase does not generally create unemployment.
And as subsidies go, it's one of my favorites - it helps
people who might not otherwise seek employment.
I'm optomistic about these things because I spent my early
20's during the "Repo Man" era of the early '80s. Turned
out fine - but it was looking *scary* then.
But 14 million out of a work force
Nice website.
That's not 14 million at minimum wage - that's 14 million
at a wage level expected to be perturbed by minimum wage.
Even if it *were* 11%%, that just means that for
a work-life of 50 years, a person can expect
to spend 5/0.9 of them at minimum wage - which
seems roughly about right.
> Another 8.3 million work slightly above minimum wage and would likely
> see increases as well.
>
I do have to wonder if the statement "A minimum wage increase would help
reverse the trend of declining real wages for low-wage workers." is
true, though.
I agree - we're probably due for one, though.
I do hate this: "Today, the minimum wage is 31%% of the average hourly
wage of American workers, the lowest level since the end of World War II."
Why? Because it's beter interpreted that market wages
are pulling away from minimum wage. That's a good thing.
> ________________
> "You never need an argument against the use of violence, you need an
> argument for it." Noam Chomsky
--
Les Cargill
