Garbage truck workers typically make a pretty good wage, especially those who work for private firms. A guy that I work out with rides on the back of a garbage truck for a company that does contract garbage pick up in rural areas. He makes $20/hour. He's going to night school to do better, but because he's willing to throw trash instead of flipping burgers or work a cash register, he does pretty well.
I gotta agree with T_J on this that I think mandating higher minimum wages is a bad idea. The biggest problem I see with a Federal min. wage is that there are big differences throughout the US in regard to what would qualify as a min. / living wage. I also agree with T_J in regard to problems with establishing a floor for wages and think its naive to presume that putting in an artificial floor on the wage would somehow lead to more spending. What it would lead to is more inflation as you are artificially raising the costs of production. I don't think there is any good solution for the economy and the nature of our system is that there are going to be ups and downs. What I would agree with is what Desert_Scar and some other posters have mentioned instead of tinkering with the min. wage provide health care and other things that eat up the income of people.
Wow, first of all, I think garbagemen make a lot more than minimum wage, and I dont think most IT managers pull in 6 figures (I could be wrong). Not to mention, being an IT manager is definitely harder than being a garbageman. I could probably be a garbage man tomorrow. But to be an IT manager I would have to go back to school for several years, graduate, work in an IT department for a few years, learn management skills, THEN I could apply to be an IT manager. And your descripiton of a lawyer's job is funny. Most lawyers I know (just out of school) have to work a crapload of hours. Not to mention, they went to school for a heck of a long time and are probably in debt. Fact is, the economy is paying jobs what they are valued.
That depends on what sort of company you are managing their IT for. As for being able to be a garbageman tomorrow depending on where you are that might not be that simple if where you are applying for is unionized.
Inflation regarding a national minimum wage isn't a big problem. Most employers already pay above the fed min wage because states have theirs set higher. What it also does is create an artificial floor for employers like Walmart or on the other end, large unions to pit against entry level employees. Unions mandate that their wages should be X% higher than the min wage, while Wal-mart rebutts raise requests with the empty charge that they're getting paid more for similar levels of work for min. wage skills. I think standardized health is a much better option plus improving working standards for menial labor jobs.
I agree with all the good conservatives (and the bad ones) here that argue that an artificial floor destroys value, will increase unemployment, and may even make some industries inoperable in the States. The idea that this effect would be offset by more consumerism is like thinking you could actually lift yourself by pulling on your bootstraps. But, I'd be willing to do it anyway, if we also provided more help to the unemployed as well (and maybe we'll have to divert funds from the DoD to afford it). Managing the economy is a trade-off between long-term efficiency and short-term comfort. In the long-term, the country will be better off without a minimum wage -- more economic growth, more domestic value creation, a stronger competitive position vis-a-vis other nations. But, in the short-term, we have millions of people with only one life to live and they'd rather have some nice things occassionally and not have to fight and scrap to get by. We're rich enough today that the upper and middle classes can subsidize the lower class; that may not be the case tomorrow, but we're alive today. So, expropriate wealth from others, destroy value, and introduce efficiencies in the system. A lot of people who used to struggle to make rent will be able to wear Polo and drink Starbucks as a result.
in a place like nyc - i don't even think anyone earns minimum wage since no one would actually work for $6 / hr. Could you imagine - your first hour of work would only pay off the cost of transport to work, and the next 2 hours to pay for your lunch????
Its true that most min. wage isn't cause too much inflation pressures since they are generally set below what the market is. The problem is when people start defining not just a min. wage but a living wage that in many cases is above what the market might be willing to support. Can you define what you mean by "standardized health"? Is that that everyone has access to the a basic level of health care?
My stance is this: Federal Minimum Wage - Congress has no authority to institute any wage controls unless a person's job has him or her traveling across state lines. Even then, it shouldn't. It should leave it to the state from which the employee gets his or her paycheck. State Minimum Wage - If you have a welfare state, the minimum wage should allow an individual to make enough money to get off of the State payroll without working an unreasonable number of hours. That is an incrementally conservative position. The most conservative and most Christian action would be to get the government out of God's work, but I don't think the American people trust themselves enough right now to do that.
the minimum wage is such a small issue in fixing the economy, and once again we have been all duped into discussing a red herring.
Thanks for that. I agree completely. Like rhester said, the number one issue in this election is the Federal Debt. If McCain and Obama or Clinton are nominated, it won't even be mentioned, but it is the most important issue in the campaign.
Important...yes. More important than the foreclosure crisis, what we are going to about Iraq, and the search for alternative fuel sources....I don't think so.
Iraq is part of it. That being said, you obviously didn't read this report by then Comptroller General David Walker when I posted it awhile back.
Living wage is a messy issue. There's the issue of teens who would benefit from it. Yes. I'd rather the government raise the standard of living by keeping people healthy while educating prevention. There are already education grants in place. I don't have a problem boosting it either. It's costly, but letting people become injured and unproductive would hurt the economy too.
The trouble with artificial input into an economy is who pays for it? Everyone who wants to raise the minimum wage would balk if the govt. asked you to fork over the money. You like it alot better if you don't have to fork over the money. Where does the company get the money? If they have 15% over head for every dollar in cost they have to increase sales or productivity by $0.15- that kind of pressure on most companies is not acceptable. It is all about value and success in a free market. I think opportunity, education and private training are much slower vehicles for change, but they are the only ones that will truly improve wages. The only way to improve the economy is to stop borrowing, save money, become more industrious and create more value in private sector. As businesses grow profitable the pie gets larger and everyone shares a larger slice. It is ridiculous to think that by increasing costs without improving performance and profits will result in a better economy. Eventually socialism doesn't work because govt. will tap out the productivity of people given the chance. It is not a coincidence that you can go to France, or New Zealand, or Germany and you don't find car dealerships, Krogers and Best Buys on every corner. Most people in the US would freak if they had to walk to the grocery store each day to buy their cheese and bread. We are a very indulgent people, having traveled around the American standard of living is still king in the global market, but we are trying our best to pull back to the pack. Nothing wrong with having less, it's just not getting any easier for those nations. My son just returned from traveling around New Zealand and his first comment getting back was 'it's a nice place if you have alot of money, most people live simple lives with far less than we have here.' Nothing wrong with that, but don't think govt. is getting smaller in social democracies, they are gobbling up the middle class... we don't want that fate. I think we need to rebuild our economy on sound principles- great products, great producers and wise investment, value and savings. Be careful what you wish for.
The middle class is being pretty gobbled up in our own country between globalization of labor markets and our health care system mess (terrible inefficiency and overhead--only worse projections forseeable). I am not sure government can do much constructure about the 1st (except very long term, better fiscal planning, invest in education, etc), but government can certainly help with the latter. Our current system is terribly ineffiient and many government systems from other nations cost less with better outcomes.
Talk to any legitimate researcher in health services research and they will tell you we (US people) receive less health impact from more money being put into medical care that virtually all 1st world nations Now there is serious/legitimate debate as to the ways to address it and certainly a healthy debate on which factors are most responsible (though I have seen recent evidence that the frequency of unnecessary tests, drugs and procedures is even more important than the relative costs of those things vs other countries--i.e., volume/overuse is even more of a problem than prices—therefore price controls in drugs for example would have a relatively minor effect by itself). You are of course free to disagree with the contention that we have one of the least efficient health care system among the most developed nations--just like you are free to disagree with whether smoking causes lung cancer, argue that the Earth is flat, and assert that we faked the moon landing. Some people are not convinced no matter the evidence. Anyway I highlighted some tidbits, there is a lot more from these and other sources... http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/4/325 "the United States spends about 16% of its annual gross domestic product (GDP), or $6,400 per capita, on health care, whereas France, for example, covers virtually its entire population reasonably well at 11% of GDP and half the per capita spending". http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten...ic&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT The fact is that the US population does not have anywhere near the best health in the world. Of 13 countries in a recent comparison,3 the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. Countries in order of their average ranking on the health indicators (with the first being the best) are Japan, Sweden, Canada, France, Australia, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Belgium, the United States, and Germany. Rankings of the United States on the separate indicators3 are: * 13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages * 13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall * 11th for postneonatal mortality * 13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes) * 11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males * 10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12th for males * 10th for life expectancy at 40 years for females, 9th for males * 7th for life expectancy at 65 years for females, 7th for males * 3rd for life expectancy at 80 years for females, 3rd for males * 10th for age-adjusted mortality The poor performance of the United States was recently confirmed by the World Health Organization, which used different indicators. Using data on disability-adjusted life expectancy, child survival to age 5 years, experiences with the health care system, disparities across social groups in experiences with the health care system, and equality of family out-of-pocket expenditures for health care (regardless of need for services), this report ranked the United States as 15th among 25 industrialized countries.4 Thus, the figures regarding the poor position of the United States in health worldwide are robust and not dependent on the particular measures used. Common explanations for this poor performance fail to implicate the health system. The perception is that the American public "behaves badly" by smoking, drinking, and perpetrating violence. The data show otherwise, at least relatively. The proportion of females who smoke ranges from 14% in Japan to 41% in Denmark; in the United States, it is 24% (fifth best). For males, the range is from 26% in Sweden to 61% in Japan; it is 28% in the United States (third best). The data for alcoholic beverage consumption are similar: the United States ranks fifth best. Thus, although tobacco use and alcohol use in excess are clearly harmful to health, they do not account for the relatively poor position of the United States on these health indicators. The data on years of potential life lost exclude external causes associated with deaths due to motor vehicle collisions and violence, and it is still the worst among the 13 countries.3 Dietary differences have been demonstrated to be related to differences in mortality across countries,5 but the United States has relatively low consumption of animal fats (fifth lowest in men aged 55-64 years in 20 industrialized countries) and the third lowest mean cholesterol concentrations among men aged 50 to 70 years among 13 industrialized countries.6 The real explanation for relatively poor health in the United States is undoubtedly complex and multifactorial. From a health system viewpoint, it is possible that the historic failure to build a strong primary care infrastructure could play some role. A wealth of evidence3 documents the benefits of characteristics associated with primary care performance. Of the 7 countries in the top of the average health ranking, 5 have strong primary care infrastructures. Although better access to care, including universal health insurance, is widely considered to be the solution, there is evidence that the major benefit of access accrues only when it facilitates receipt of primary care.3, 7 The health care system also may contribute to poor health through its adverse effects. For example, US estimates8-10 of the combined effect of errors and adverse effects that occur because of iatrogenic damage not associated with recognizable error include: * 12,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery * 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals * 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals * 80,000 deaths/year from nosocomial infections in hospitals * 106,000 deaths/year from nonerror, adverse effects of medications These total to 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes. Here is another perspective. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/8/733
