http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati..._minwage22.html


Senate GOP derails minimum-wage bill
By Los Angeles Times and The Associated Press


WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Wednesday killed an effort to raise the minimum wage, but Democrats who back the measure say they will try again both in Congress and through ballot measures in several states.

The federal minimum wage has been $5.15 per hour since 1997.

On a procedural measure Wednesday, senators voted 52-46 in favor of raising the wage to $7.25 in three steps, but that was short of the 60 votes needed to move the legislation forward.

The vote came one day after House Republican leaders made clear they won't allow a vote on the issue, fearing it might pass.

Still, Democrats intend to highlight the subject before November's midterm elections. Many hope to frame it as a "family values" issue they believe will draw Democratic-leaning voters to the polls, just as Republicans have tried to energize conservatives with proposals to ban gay marriage and flag burning.

"Americans believe that no one who works hard for a living should have to live in poverty. A job should lift you out of poverty, not keep you in it," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

He said a worker paid $5.15 an hour would earn about $10,700 a year, "almost $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three."

Kennedy noted Congress has raised its own pay for the past nine years by $31,600, while the minimum wage remained unchanged.

He said backers may try to insert a minimum-wage amendment into another spending bill before November, including a proposed congressional pay raise or a bill to reduce the estate tax, which is popular among Republicans.

Senate Republicans argued that raising the minimum wage would lead to job cuts and hurt unskilled workers. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., referred to Kennedy's proposal as "a feel-good amendment whose intention ends up having the exact opposite result."




Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyo., offered an alternative Wednesday that would have raised the federal wage floor by $1.10. But Kennedy said that plan would cut overtime pay and cover 4.8 million fewer workers than his proposal.

The measure failed, with 45 senators in favor and 53 opposed.

The federal minimum wage is the lowest it has been in more than 50 years relative to the cost of living, according to a study by the liberal Economic Policy Institute. The average full-time, minimum-wage worker earns $10,712 a year, about $900 more than the federal poverty level for one person and $2,500 less than the poverty level for a couple.

When fully phased in, the Democrats' proposal would have added almost $4,400 a year to the gross earnings of a full-time minimum-wage worker.

In the House last week, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee — with the help of a few Republicans — succeeded in attaching a minimum- wage increase to legislation providing funding for federal social programs.

Fearing the measure would be passed with the increase intact, the GOP leadership swiftly decided to sidetrack the entire bill.

"I am opposed to it, and I think a vast majority of our [rank and file] is opposed to it," House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Tuesday.

Pressed by reporters, he said, "There are limits to my willingness to just throw anything out on the floor."

Voters and legislators have already raised the minimum wage above the federal level in 21 states, including Washington, and the District of Columbia. The minimum wage in Washington state is $7.63 an hour.

"Minimum-wage measures have really proven to be winners at the ballot box," said Christina Wilfore, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which is helping Democrats plan for the midterm elections.




This is what bothers me. The senate salaries have been raised 31,000 in 9 years! Yet the poor workers can't get a raise?

It would kill the economy. It's better to give rich people money in the form of tax breaks. That way, the poor will pay their fair share when it comes to using public services.

maybe the senators earned their raise!

JFC, at least adjust it to inflation. $5.15 is worth like a fifth less than what it was in 1997.

Greedy Republican bastards. Ah, I remember the Clinton days, when all we worried about were stray BJ's...

The excuse of the hour that I heard yesterday was that it'd force companies to lay people off because they wouldn't be able to afford to pay people which made as much sense as the conservative think tank that released their conclusions about immigration only effecting about 1% of the work force.

Oh wait, Bush announced this morning that he's concerned about maintaining human rights...



Perhaps I should buy the Halliburton stock and take the ride to hell with the rest of these a-holes.

Of course it's going to have that effect. It's a question of proportionality -- do the costs you incur outweight the benefits you accrue? If a hike in the minimum wage was going to cause wholesale reductions in workforces, then of course you'd have to weight that and what it does to the collective standard of living that this a wage hike is aimed at -- the working poor. And so forth.

The other cost that you have to consider is more-widespread inflation of prices. For instance, if the producer passes along the higher labor cost by raising prices, then does this end up being a progressive tax in drag (where the more-affluent subsidize the less-affluent)? My guess is that there's more smoke than fire to that claim--I'd venture to guess that minimum-wage labor cost as a % of GDP isn't all that high...meaning that as you boost the minimum wage, it shouldn't have an enormous economic impact. But the political calculus--which is invariably cynical--ignores all of that.

Rats! I was totally gonna say what he said first...

So did Mr Stay Puft's.

Here's something I heard on a news show. Some economist mentioned outsourcing. He said outsourcing was supposed to bring down prices (he used a word I don't remember.) That people are still paying the same prices for items whether they are made here or in China. I am not an economist so I don't know. Wouldn't that be similar to them saying wages raise prices?

i've never understood that argument. the only reason it should cause workforce reduction is if businesses are forced to close. and i can't imagine there are many businesses in such dire straits that a fucking minimum wage increase is gonna drive them out of businessthis is another argument that doesn't make sense to me from a business perspective. the optimum profit-producing price level for selling your product doesn't change based on cost of production. reduced profits do not signal a need for a price increase

edit: outsourcing - now there's a problem when you're talking about raising the minimum wage

i'm a business. i have four employees. i pay each the minimum wage. let's say for simplicity's sake that the workers are my only cost (it's a service business; i own outright, don't rent; workers get no benefits; yaddayadda). let's also say that my business normally yields a 10% profit margin. so, if i've got $20.60 in costs per hour (the four employees x $5.15/hour) and pull down a 10% profit margin, that means I'm generating about $23 in revenue per hour.

now, the government hikes the minimum wage by $2. my hourly cost has jumped to $28.60. uhoh. i only am making $23/hour in sales. i'm now in the red. what to do? i can either (a) raise the price i charge the consumer such that i continue to get a 10% profit (I'd need $31.80 in revenue per hour to pull that off w/my current headcount) or ( lay off one of my people, thereby trimming my hourly cost to $21.45, which approximates my previous hourly cost.

the course i choose is going to depend on a lot of things. for instance, how price-sensitive is my customer? are my customers also poor? how productive are my workers? etc. but this seems like an entirely plausible scenario.

i guess that does seem like a plausible scenario. except for the solutions aspect. if this was a business intent on maximizing profits wouldn't the prices already be at the breaking point for customers? and wouldn't they already have the minimum necessary personnel on hand to get the job done?

w/respect to the second question, not necessarily. there's always the service-vs-cost tradeoff, with the pendulum constantly swinging in one direction or another. if you think that your customer is price-sensitive, then service is likely to be a lesser part of the equation and, thus, you cut headcount to make do. actually, companies have mercilessly cut headcount in recent years through the use of technology and other productivity-maximizing methods in order to pad profits.

w/respect to the first question, i'm not understanding what you're saying. the breaking point is what the market dictates. you can raise your prices or not raise your prices. it comes down to the customer, the competitive climate, etc. if you raise prices and your business falls off by half, then obviously you need to respond somehow (i.e., by cutting costs, such as headcount, thereby allowing you to trim prices and re-stimulate demand).

I own a business, and my employees take home $9-10 / hour. If I open up another shop, I'll be paying at least one of their health insurance and probably springing for a cell phone as well. But I guess I'm lucky that I'm good enough at turning a profit.

It's probably worth mentioning that states are able to pass their own minimum wage laws. For instance, Illinois' minimum wage is $6.50.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm
I don't quite understand why Kansas is able to have a lower minimum wage, but it looks like they do.
Also take a look at the map, change the blue states to red and the green to blue and you've got pretty close match to the electoral map.