Just found out, here in Maryland, we're awaiting the Gov. to sign the bill increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour HOWEVER, to be incremental and not fully implemented until 2018! To me, if it is going to be of maximum value, it needs to happen faster. Originally, they were proposing 2016. By 2018, the cost of living will have increased and $10.10 will not be as attractive. I understand businesses need the opportunity to adjust, but July of 2018 is just too far. I can't say I am satisfied with that timeframe. Is this unreasonable? Of course families will benefit if implemented sooner or later but also families will be able to crawl out of debt, become more independent or spend on other necessary items--this would help the economy.By the time 2018 rolls around there will be a need to increase the minimum wage again. Lois
Did anyone read Krugman’s piece the other day about wages/inflation?
I believe it was entitled “Oligarchs and Money”.
Oligarchs and Money]
Did anyone read Krugman's piece the other day about wages/inflation? I believe it was entitled "Oligarchs and Money". Oligarchs and Money]Makes sense.
And behind this attitude, one suspects, lies class bias. Doing what America did after World War II — using low interest rates and inflation to erode the debt burden — is often referred to as “financial repression," which sounds bad. But who wouldn’t prefer modest inflation and a bit of asset erosion to mass unemployment? Well, you know who: the 0.1 percent, who receive “only" 4 percent of wages but account for more than 20 percent of total wealth. Modestly higher inflation, say 4 percent, would be good for the vast majority of people, but it would be bad for the superelite. And guess who gets to define conventional wisdom.
Just found out, here in Maryland, we're awaiting the Gov. to sign the bill increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour HOWEVER, to be incremental and not fully implemented until 2018! To me, if it is going to be of maximum value, it needs to happen faster. Originally, they were proposing 2016. By 2018, the cost of living will have increased and $10.10 will not be as attractive. I understand businesses need the opportunity to adjust, but July of 2018 is just too far. I can't say I am satisfied with that timeframe. Is this unreasonable? Of course families will benefit if implemented sooner or later but also families will be able to crawl out of debt, become more independent or spend on other necessary items--this would help the economy.That's what I love! If I met someone(between the ages of 18-69) on the street and offered to pay them $10.10 to sit on a park bench for one hour and play with a yo-yo how many people do think would actually do this? I say almost no one. Certainly if I said to that person,"Hey come to a warehouse and stack boxes for 1 hour and I will give you $10.10." Who would do it? No one! The trick is that people stack these hours together in a shift and it seems like you made some money at the end of the week. The idea of their time being traded in 1 hour increments for $10 is lost to them. The idea that their time is more valuable than $10/hour is lost to them.
Did anyone read Krugman's piece the other day about wages/inflation? I believe it was entitled "Oligarchs and Money". Oligarchs and Money]Another voice of sanity, crying out in the wilderness.
Here’s a short video on the math of increasing wages. It says if WalMart increased their wages for cashiers from $8.80 to $13, it would increase their costs by 1.4% That seems low even for something on the scale of WalMart. Places like small restaurants run upwards of 10 to 20% labor so the increase would hit them harder. But you’re still increasing wages far beyond the affect on prices, bringing wages in line with current COL, so you’d be bringing more money into circulation and increasing the overall health of the economy.
Lausten, can you change the link you cited on the walmart article to “here” or something shorter than the link as it stands ? As it is, it is so long, that it expands the margins for all posts, making them more difficult to read.
Job Cretor? There is no such occupation, organization or indevidual. It is just one the “creations” politicians evoke and define for us that produces the intended reaction from us. Words like capitalism, socialism, communism, freedom, liberty, entrepreneur, statesman, liberal, conservative, savior, and god are all defined for us and used to enfluence us in predictable ways. None of these words is intrinsically good or bad, righteous or evil. We need to take these words away from the control of the politicians and impose our own definitions and question the politicians accordingly when they use them.
VYAZMA: at my first corporate job, we were provided a lump sum of 15 total days leave, to be used for sick leave, personal days & vacation. It was not acrual basis as in most places. So, if you gave resignation notice (i.e. written notice you plan to leave in 3 months, for example, your “leave” benefit was taken away immediately as the company said it was not acural based (i.e. most employer have a system in place where you build up leave based on time worked; for example, now where I work I receive 4 hours of paid leave time per pay period, which is every two weeks) and it is considered “earned” and cannot be taken away. Anyway, back to my initial point, most employees would get smart and just take any remaining leave THEN turn in their resignation letter…when employers treat employees poorly, employees learn ways to be not so nice in return! It was essentially tantamount to state: “you didn’t earn this, we’re giving it to you.” I think it was part of a scheme to paint a culture where employees feel like the employer (CEO) was a parent taking care of us all and we are equal people working in collaboration.