Bush, Kerry on Issue of Minimum Wage

[RoyGBiv]

Bush, Kerry on Issue of Minimum Wage

37 minutes ago

By The Associated Press

Three times a week, The Associated Press picks an issue and asks President Bush (news - web sites) and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) a question about it. Today's question and responses:

MINIMUM WAGE: What increases, if any, do you favor in the $5.15 an hour federal minimum wage?

Bush: "My first goal is to make sure that every American who wants to work can find a job. I would consider any reasonable proposal that phases in an increase in the federal minimum wage over an extended period of time — provided it does not place unreasonable costs on small businesses or other job creators."

Kerry: "I believe that no one who works full time should have to raise their children in poverty. President Bush is standing in the way of fundamental fairness even as the purchasing power of the minimum wage is at a 30-year low. That's unacceptable. As president, I will raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7 by 2007, giving a raise to nearly 15 million workers. Doesn't President Bush see that the minimum wage has fallen further and further behind the cost of living, and the impact of the last increase has been wiped away by inflation?"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=7&u=/ap/20041003/ap_on_el_pr/on_the_issues

[cal04]

1. A must issue to discuss, I'm glad Kerry is voicing his

opinion because contrary to what Bush says, kids are NOT the only ones working for minimum wage. Lots of people have to take those jobs who can't afford a college education, can't find a job or simply don't have what it takes to go to college.

[RoyGBiv]

2. College Grads

I personally know several college graduates who are working for minimum wage or just above it.

[beyurslf]

5. I have a friend with her MASTER's working for 6.50 an hour right now.

[MUSTANG_2004]

35. Yeah, but a Master's in what?

Art history? Sociology?

I know a Ph.d working for minimum wage. There's not a lot of call for people highly educated in the field of medieval music.

[durablend]

3. Kerry wants to raise it...

And Bush wants to get rid of it (*any* increase could be construed as being "unreasonable")

[devinsgram]

4. * is so worried about the owners

but doesn't give a hoot about the employees. I realize there are some business owners out there that work just as hard if not harder than their employees, but on the other hand if you are not going to pay your employees a decent wage you won't get employees that do a good job.

Also isn't it better to pay people a decent wage and keep good employees then to have to hire and retrain people all the time. To me that just seems counter-productive.

[demoman123]

7. That's the class of people he serves.

To get elected, he also has to rope in a lot of morons who don't understand this.

[RoyGBiv]

12. Owners ...

Shrub isn't even as concerned about "owners" as his rhetoric makes him sound. He talks a lot about the small business owner, but I can't determine that any of his policies actually benefit them. What's more, a good number of those policies actually hurt small business, to the benefit of large corporations.

For example, the real benefactors of the change in overtime rules were large retailers like Wal-Mart. Small business owners have actually had their overtime pay requirements broadened in some cases.

Shrub said it himself. "I call you my base ... " The ultra wealthy are the only ones Shrub really cares about, and he only cares about them for the power he is able to personally wield due to their influence.

[wildeyed]

30. He talks allot about the small business owner,

but actually does nothing to help us. Ask me about my health insurance plan that went up by 50% last year. * has no plan at all to address that. If the trend continues, next year I can decide between laying off a full timer or dropping the health care plan entirely.

[Pretty_in_CodePink]

38. As a small business owner we have found it is better to pay more.

You are right. In our commercial cleaning business we have little turnover which means greater crew efficiency, reliability and higher quality work. I also believe that our employee retention translates into client retention so we spend less on generating new business. Some of our clients are hotels and even during the hurricanes most of our crews managed to get to work. During Frances we had hotel rooms for employees and some family members. Meanwhile our clients' were short staffed. I think because their employees did not feel the same loyalty as ours.

A competitor recently had an article in the business section and they were so pleased with their strategy of paying 15% over min. wage. Even called themselves progressive and considered their yearly turnover of 120% lower than the industry standard. The lowest amount we start at is 85% over min wage. Don't know the % of turnover but I'm guessing it's tops 10-15%

Now if we had access to reasonably priced healthcare I would really be happy with what we offer employees. We do have a 401K.

[Sugarbleus]

40. Excellent report!

Very encourageing to hear from someone like you. Yes, I'd like very much to see a healthcare plan that takes much of the burden of it OFF you while still thoroughly benefiting the employee. A healthy employee is a strong and lasting employee.

KUDOS TO YOU! May you, your business, and your employees ever prosper!
:thumbsup:

[Star]

6. Basic economics

If the lower and middle classes have more money, they will spend more money, especially the lower classes.

When people buy stuff, that means companies must make more stuff.

When companies need to make more stuff, it means they have to hire people to do the job.

When they hire people to do the job, more people have money.

When more people have money, they buy more stuff.

Etc., etc., etc.

Giving more money to the rich doesn't do the same thing because the rich can already buy whatever they want, so the extra money just gets lost with the rest of their money.

[demoman123]

9. There is no such thing as "basic economics." There is only politics.

Demand-push or trickle down? For every argument there is a counter argument. Ultimately you get to value-premises which are matters of moral principle and not matters of fact.

[mbperrin]

21. Actually, Star has given a very cogent

description of the circular flow of money in the economy, a descriptive rather than analytic tool, such as the ones you've named.

Basic economics is very real, and one of the aspects is: when people have no money, businesses make no money. Ask yourself if you were going to open a very nice restaurant where you would do so - Beverly Hills or the Sudan? Beverly Hills, of course, because people there have money to spend on nice restaurants, as attested to by the number of them located there. In the Sudan, there would be no competition and for a reason - not because people don't want to eat, but they have no money.

This is basic.

[demoman123]

24. I disagree. Economics is not a science. It's a normative discipline.

In the Nineteenth Century, it was called "Political Economy," which is its proper name.

Bourgeois economists would reply to your argument by saying that if market forces were allowed to operate untrammeled, everyplace would be a Beverly Hills and there would be no Sudan.

This, of course, is unverifiable, as are the assumptions behind your assertions.

So we are thrown back on value judgments. Mine favor the working class, as, apparently, do yours.

[sweetheart]

18. That's the argument for unemployment & welfare as well

People who need such payments, are very likely to spend them, and
thus create stimulus.

YOu leave out as well, that as women and 1/3rd of american children
are amongst those poor, that the transfer is overwhelmingly to
increase the political voice of women.

[sweetheart]

34. Compare to the UK minimum wage

Here is the official website advising of the minimum wage. Notice
that it is significantly higher in dollar terms, than the US, AND
that it is graded for school-age kids and young adults.

I wish the US could at least adopt "transatlantic parity"
http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/nmw/

4.85 sterling per hour * 1.8 pounds/dollar = 8.73 dollars/hour
4.10 for 18-21 years olds * 1.8 pounds/dollar = 7.38 dollar/hour
3.00 for under age * 1.8 pounds/dollar = 5.40 dollars/hour

[lexicon089]

32. Not exactly

The lowest income wage earners tend to spend more money, but on inferior goods and if they increase spending inferrior goods, the supply of the inferrior goods goes down, causing the price for those inferrior goods to go up, which runs the risk of increasing the cost of living for lower wage earners.

Middle Wage earners tend to buy less inferior goods and more superior, well this could cause the supply to lessen and the pricing to increase, meaning that in a short period of time they are in the same boat they started out in, just paying more for the same good.

Now that is one possibility. There are several in the field of economics. but in general, raising the minimum wage is good, WHEN the RELATIVE economy can shoulder that increase. for example raising the minimum wage to $30/hr right now is not a good idea. and an even worse idea for poorer states.

By the way i can't spell so don't shoot me.

[AZCat]

44. This doesn't make sense

Why would the supply of inferior goods go down if demand for inferior goods goes up? Production of goods isn't fixed, so why wouldn't increased demand prompt industry to create more of these goods?

[mdhunter]

47. It really depends on the quality of goods being purchased...

and the profit, and subsequently job creation potential, built into the product.

To posit an extreme example, there isn't tons of profit margin built into the production and distribution channels of rice. If you're buying more and more rice because you have more disposable income, but you're still just getting buy, that isn't doing so much for the firms that are producing, shipping and selling the rice. If you're wealthier, and spending your new money on more refined goods, where added value can be priced beyond what I would call its natural rate, the income generation on the firm side will be comparatively larger.

This doesn't necessarily preclude some economic benefit as described in the top post. It only suggests that giving more money to wealthier people might have a greater economic benefit.

Now, if we could all just stop talking about the need to maximize economic benefit and start framing the debate on wages around social justice or simple morals we'd all be better off. I'm tired of trying to find economic reasons for decreasing the suffering of people, let's just take out the middle man and do it.

[mumon]

8. remember this from the guy who said in 2000

he favored increasing Head Start funding, only to cut it.

What Bush said is Bush-speak for: "I hate employees."

[AmandaRuth]

10. good for Kerry

it is unbelievable to me that adults are working full time jobs making $6.00 or less. That is gross salary of $480.00 every two weeks, working a 40 hour week. Thank God for food banks.

[daleo]

11. From F911, Bush speaking to a crowd of very rich supporters

"You are the haves and the have mores. Some call you the elite. I call you my base."

I don't think the base wants to see their sweatshop employees, and gardeners and other household help get a raise.

[AmandaRuth]

13. not to mention

the kil-billion of low paying retail jobs - in a lot of rural/suburban pockets - these are the only type of jobs available. I'm not saying that every home depot, waldenbooks and sears cashiers has to make $35,000 a year, but how about at least paying the managers a living wage? I know retail managers that are making under $8.50 an hour. And its $8.50 an hour because Washington state has a higher min. wage than the federal. I can only imagine what wages are in the parts of the county where the state min is equal or lower than the federal.

[MatrixEscape]

14. Graduated?

What is wrong with the idea of a graduated minimum wage? It seems that they use the impact on small businesses as a valid road-block to raising the current minimum.

What are the problems with basing the MW on the company's Gross income? That does give a competitive aspect to the equation, since larger companies would pay more and have the potential to attract better, or more skilled, workers. Small biz would have to decide on either paying more, or economy and possibly, more training.

I know, big business determines the policies and not a concept of the fair distribution of wealth.

The vicious circle point brought up here makes sense. You pay your workers, they have more purchasing power, etc. Rinse. Repeat. For that reason, I think the motivation is concentration of wealth and power even above potential profits, at least here in the US ;)

[llmart]

15. I am so tired of Republicans.....

always trotting out that excuse that raising the minimum wage will hurt small business. That's a load of hooey. Have you ever heard of masses of small businesses going out of business because the minimum wage was raised? No.

I think Kerry's plan to raise minimum wage and roll back tax cuts for the wealthy is going to create a lot of jobs. The tax rollback will generate a lot of tax revenue so that our schools, libraries, local and state governments will benefit and consequently, maybe reinstate some of those jobs that have been lost.

[RoyGBiv]

17. "Small Businesses"

It's interesting to realize what it is they're calling a small business.

A real small business, that is one that is in any way viable in the first place, isn't going to feel the effects of a moderate increase in the minimum wage. With just a few employees, the total cost to the employer is in the hundreds of dollars per month, which isn't much, again if the business is viable at all anyway. They, like any other business, can offset the cost with tiny increases in price to high volume, or high priced, items.

The businesses that do feel it are Wal-Mart, fast food chains, etc. These are hardly "small" businesses. They do however employ large numbers of low-wage workers. Most of these can absorb the cost fairly easily, however. A nickle increase in the price of a large soft drink, can fund the cost of a dozen employees who make another hundred dollars a month.

[thinkingwoman]

20. this is exactly opposite

of what real life is like.

A few hundred dollars a month? Ha! It's not just the wages, but the matching taxes (soc security and fica and medicare) that the biz has to pay!

You think any small biz that is viable has a "few undred dollars per month" just sitting around? You think customers of small businesses are just willing to pay more for their items?

These statements are not reality. Most small businesses hang on by the skin of their teeth...they live month to month just like the workers they employ.

Wal Mart on the other hand, can absolutely absorb higher wages...check their stock reports! They are the companies with extra cash!

I'm all for raising the minimum wage, but nobody is going to take arguments seriously that are based on fantasy!

[trogdor]

23. Based on that...

...imagine what the benefit to small business would be if we had single-payer health insurance, a la Canada. That would be a great burden lifted from their shoulders. No US politician would run for office claiming he or she wants to socialize US healthcare, but you could sell a plan like that on this basis, IMO.

Your post also reminds me of a common trial balloon floated around here, which is to exempt the first $20,000 or so from the payroll taxes you mention, and to raise the income ceiling on these taxes to make up for it. Benefit to small biz would be more than enough to offset a raise in the minimum wage.

[thinkingwoman]

25. I completely agree!

In fact, I tell other small biz owners that I'm surprised that single-payer health insurance isn't a Repuke plank (since they claim to be the pro biz party) because that would benefit businesses of all sizes. You can probably imagine the looks and responses I get.

(Can anybody point me to information that might support this idea btw? I've been looking for statistics to support outsourced wages being lower because of national healthcare whereas U.S. workers need more money to pay their share of medical bills)

Something has to happen with the current tax system...it is unbelievably broken. Exempting the first 20,000 would help both my workers and my biz so much that I believe I could DOUBLE my staff.

[RoyGBiv]

26. I've managed several small businesses ...

I've endured raises to minimum wage, and I've never found a need to complain. I know what costs are involved to the employer when wages are increased. I was including that in my "few hundred dollars." I am talking about a "small" business, not one that employs more than two or three employees.

The reality of small businesses in this country is difficult to swallow. A great number of them are run very poorly by people who don't really have a clue how to run a business. They set up shop and think they can open the doors and start raking in the cash. That's supposedly all it takes. I mean no disrespect to those out there who run a small business and run it well, but I've seen this far too much in my life to ignore it for propriety's sake. IOW, this isn't directed at you, personally. There are well run small businesses whose owners treat their employees well already. They will feel the costs of increases to wages more heavily than the type of business I'm talking about.

These businesses bleed cash that could be spent on improving their business and benefiting their employees. Every time I hear a small business owner complain about the cost of wages, I want to ask (and sometimes do) him or her to see the business's financial statements and look at their costs. More often than not, they don't even know what I'm talking about. Their financial documents are kept in a notebook they sometimes update when the IRS or a government agency comes calling.

To take one example, when I was hired to run a certain retail business in the early 90's, the first thing I did was look at what the owner spent on product. In one month, I reduced his average cost by approximately $1000/mo, this in a business that took in about $40,000/mo in gross revenue. That's substantial. I did a very simple thing that took no thought at all. I changed the way he ordered product. He'd been making "split" orders, and I pointed out how he could get significant discounts if he made "full case" or "full pallet" orders. After I did this, I asked him why he hadn't. He said he didn't want to spend that kind of money in one lump sum ... just didn't like writing that big of a check. He had the cash, just didn't want to spend it.

And that was just one thing. Over time, with other subtle changes, including a modest increase in prices here, lowering prices over there, all taking into account the various elements that go into maximizing income, his net profit margin more than doubled. Guess what he did with it? He started taking cruises and doing some other things I won't detail that, in the end, caused him to go bankrupt. He never gave any of his employees, two clerks and me, a raise or offered any benefits. He could have. He just didn't. I got frustrated with him and resigned.

That is just one example. I've witnessed the same process repeated over and over and over again. The costs of labor are an important consideration for a small business. I'm not claiming they aren't. But, I have only rarely known of a business that went under because of them.

What you say about large corporations is only partly true, and my comments about them were not in any way meant to indicate they could not absorb the costs. Of course they can, but they feel it as well, and sometimes in a more dramatic way. Large retail corporations run on such a low profit margin that any across the board change in wages forces a restructuring of their entire costs and income scheme. Wal-Mart, for example, can certainly absorb this, and do it without blinking, but the way they do it is in fact by increasing prices, sometimes in ways that are "hidden" to the consumer, reducing benefits for employees, if they have any, reducing the number of employees in certain locations, etc. One retail chain I worked for on its own increased wages for its lowest paid employees by 50 cents an hour at one point. To account for this, they reduced workers hours, starting running shifts at certain locations with 3 employees per 16 hour period rather than 4. There was also an across the board increase of 1 cent in the price of a high volume product. Customers never noticed this because they never realized it. It was a "hidden" cost to the consumer. It resulted in approximately a $200,000/mo increase in revenues for a hundred-odd store chain. Within a six month period, the 50 cent/hour raise had been absorbed entirely, and net profit had increased.

[thinkingwoman]

48. your definition of small business

is rather narrow:

"I am talking about a "small" business, not one that employs more than two or three employees"

One employee, two employees, five, ten...these are all extremely small businesses.

Even a company with 20-50 employees is considered small.

But for clarity, my business employees anywhere from 3-6 full time employees depending on the economy. We've had to reduce down to 3 in the W years.

I noticed you say you've managed many businesses...this is not the same as owning them. I know. I've done both.

Also, businesses vary dramatically depending on type.

Finally, you are correct that many businesses are poorly run. But that doesn't mean that the sweeping generalities that I originally responded to are correct. Apples. Oranges.

[thinkingwoman]

19. um, I own a small biz

It's NOT a load of hooey.

I pay my employees more than minimum wage...and I give generous raises each year.

When the minimum wage raises, I have to give comparable raises to my employees so that they stay at the same level above minimum that they were before.

My biz is so small, that if the minimum wage raised I would have to consider NOT hiring another employee this winter, and I might even have to cut my own pay, which is already at 1/4 what I am worth if I did the exact same job for a big corp.

While I agree with Kerry that people who work full time for minimum wage should NOT live in poverty (I lived that life myself a decade ago), claiming that raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt small businesses at all is what is hooey.

You wouldn't hear of masses of small businesses going out of business because the minimum wage was raised. Who would track it? There's no exit interview when a biz shuts its doors. Only an overwhelming sense of failure and loss and a few more unemployed people, including the former owner. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[llmart]

49. If a business is operating that close to the edge of solvency.....

that raising the minimum wage would put them under, then some other variable could put them under also. So, to blame a business failure on raising the minimum wage is not a valid point.

[Deja Q]

16. Note Bush's words carefully

My first goal is to make sure that every American who wants to work can find a job.

He's more inclined to try to GET RID OF the minimum wage because such a high amount of money hurts our beloved corporations. x(

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

22. there are far more large corporations out there who benefit

from the minimum wage than small businesses.

This is just off the top of my head and not at all scientific, but I can think of several big companies within seconds that I know pay their lower-level employees minimum wage or at least less than Kerry wants to raise the minimum wage to:
- my employers
- Wal-Mart/Sam's Club, Target
- almost every fast food place
- most stores you'd find in the mall (Bath & Body, Sears, etc.)

That's the equivalent of at least 15 large corporations that I came up with in about 20 seconds. Meanwhile, I don't know a single small business that pays less than $7/hr. In the process of getting a business off the ground, most owners I know would rather hire less people and pay them well so they'll do a good job than hire more people, pay them poorly, and get poor work. It's usually bigger businesses that can handle employee mistakes and/or high turnover. The "fewer employees paid better" concept is employed in:

- my father-in-law's plumbing business
- my uncle's concrete business
- my other uncle's karate dojo
- a family friend's furniture store
- the hardware store run by a local church elder

EDIT: It'd be nice if I could use proper grammar.

[PsN2Wind]

27. I've heard this minimum wage

will bankrupt small business stuff forever. I worked for twenty years for a true small business, about 50 employees. The outfit did pay more than minimum and provided the best benefits they could afford. They would cheerfully pay more than they do now, IF, the ever rising cost of medical insurance wasn't killing them. However they are at the point of dropping medical or making their employees pick up a large part of the cost.
Might also point out that every member of the family was on the payroll whether or not they did any work.
Kinda like the 80s when there was talk of an increase in the minimum wage. Ray Kroc (McDonalds owner) was testifying before congress that an increase in the minimum wage would devastate his business. You'd thought that he would have been reduced to traveling town to town, cleaning his own grease-traps. Anyhow the raise didn't take effect. Shortly thereafter, he signed Steve Garvey to maybe the first huge contract to play baseball in modern days. To shorten the story, he was willing to pay big bucks for vanity that earned him little or nothing but didn't want to pay more for the kids that made him an extremely wealthy man and provided the money to buy the damn ball team.

[crossroads]

28. A decent minimun wage helps the economy! These people spend every

dime of it back into the economy just to live, whereas the wealthy can afford to put it in a portfolio or a diamond. The poor *have* to spend to eat!
:eyes:

[Nimrod]

29. I wonder what those "owners"

Will do when nobody can afford to buy their shit. A "living wage" in Montana is estimated at $8.16 for one person living alone. And that's on the low end of the spectrum. Seattle was buck and a half more.

Not a surprise that paying people a wage above the poverty line is an "unreasonable burden". Jesus I hate what we've become.

[MUSTANG_2004]

50. Not everyone earning min wage lives alone

The minimum wage is also paid to single people who are not "one person living alone." Most of the min. wage earners I know/knew (including myself) were late-teen, early twenties who were paying for school or at least their own living expenses. They had roommates to cut costs, and their parents were a safety net in the case of a crisis.

Young people (under 20) have an unemployment rate of about triple the general population unemployment rate (even higher for minorities). It would be interesting to see if that ratio was true before the minimum wage.

[lexicon089]

31. $7 is a little steep

look, a FEDERAL min. wage of $7 an hour is not good for the entire united states. I can see the need for it in California and New-york and probably Texas and Florida and alot of other states in the northeast and in other high cost states.

But in places like Oklahoma, or Arkansas the economy could not handle an increase to $7. i would start off at an immediate increase to $6/hour and in 4 years increase the wage to 7. honestly it is foolhearty and downright wrong to increase the min. wage that steep in some places.

for example, my brother and his wife moved to oklahoma from DC and they were about to buy a 2-story, 5 bedroom house that was CHEAPER to buy than their 1-bedroom apartment in Arlington, VA (suburb of washington).

Overall my take on things is that an increase is needed, but in some states the increase should be more than others. and you have to understand when you raise the min. wage you open up a whole bout of possibilities. Its not as simple as some people would like you to believe and very well could bankrupt and stop job creation, ESPECIALLY for businesses with under 15 employees, and where the current C.O.L. is not that expensive to begin with. And you don't want to just shift spending power from inferrior to superior goods and cause a chain reaction of higher pricing for inferior goods- very bad for people not making money to begin with or without a job.

by the way I made a 98% in my micro-economics class last semester.

[RoyGBiv]

33. Good for you ...

Do you know what the living wage for a single person is in Oklahoma?

[The_Casual_Observer]

36. made a 98% in my micro-economics class last semester

believe and very well could bankrupt and stop job creation

Your comments have no merit.

[gavodotcom]

37. Just like the minimum wage killed America's economy in 1938

When it was implemented and has kept the country poor.

Oh wait, since then, the United States has become the world's richest country.

98% in micro-economics? 2% of the class must have been about the CPI and inflation.

[lexicon089]

39. Look guys I just said we NEED an INCREASE

I just told you all we NEED an increase and that it is good for the economy. I think anybody currently paying the federal minimum wage is either a small business owner with less than 15 employees and is afraid to raise their wages, or people are hiring high school kids... OR in the case of pizza hut they are doing it out of sheer greed.

But like I said we need a flat out increase in the minimum wage. that being said, I think we should be smart about it. there is no need to bankrupt already poor states or hurt small business owners. what i'm saying is why can't we do both, increase the minimum wage in stages in some areas.

In other places the wage could be increased to 8.00's without causing any harm to the economy, and infact helping it.

I mean look maybe i'm not as partisan as alot of people but I am a democrat and I am voting for kerry, but i want you to know you can believe i'm being honest about what I think on the current minimum wage debate, and the reason i think what i think is not because i'm some greedy person...

Its because i think it truly would be bad for you to go increasing the min. wage too high in some areas. I think that because i'm right. if you honestly think you can't buy more in oklahoma or alabama with a dollar than you can in california then all i can say is good thing you're not in charge of the economy.

[truthbetold]

41. Please.

I bet you anything you don't make minimum wage. Try living in my shoes for a few weeks, and tell me you still don't think EVERYONE (regardless of state) should make so much more than that. I'm having trouble making ends meet and I'm a college student. I can't imagine how the other people at my job, like the single mothers, support their families on that salary.
It's not just "hard" living on minimum wage- it's damn near impossible.

[lexicon089]

42. Actually...

I live in oklahoma and work two jobs, I make 6/hr at each.. I started out making 5.15 when I was 16 yrs old. my family is poor and i'm the first one to go to college.

I just happen to be smarter than most of you thats all. well not smarter, just better educated on the subject of the economy.

[lexicon089]

43. "please"

where do you go to college at? I qualify for a full pell grant and full O-TAG (which is an oklahoma program for low income households with first time college students). That pays for my entire tuition with money left over. When the pell grants came in this semester I got 700 dollars back when otag comes in I will get 500 dollars.

None of which is based on high school achievements because if you grew up like I did, believe me homework is the last on your mind.

On top of that i work two jobs (though one of them i just work once a month). And yes I struggle to get my share of the rent paid ($225/month). So you see I have a unique perspective.

and like I said I think that the minimum wage in OK SHOULD be raised to $6/hr. In a month i'm due for a raise to 7/hr. In other states I said it should be raised to 7/hr and maybe more.

By the way unskilled labor generally costs less because anybody can be trained to do it. Once you get out of college you should be making more.

If you want to make things worse here in oklahoma go ahead and raise the minimum wage to what is needed in california. who cares if it doesn't make sense. I said raise it to 6/hr for 4 years then to 7 after that because it gives the economy time to cope. too bad you didn't read everything.

[Still_Notafraid]

46. More money means

more spending its always been the case anytime min wage was raised to just below or equal to inflation,more spending means more profits it all evens out,the low wage earners and working class drive the economy because they spend there money,that few extra dollars everyone is getting is just gonna go right back into the economy to the same small biz that had to pay there employees,it evens out,6.00 is to low it would make almost no diffrence in the economy because now we need at least 7.00 to even pay the bills on time.

[camero]

45. Along with every increase in the minimum since then

More on that here:
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/conservativeobstruction.htm