Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Raising minimum wage

Comments

Return To Article
  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2014 12:18 a.m.

    "Reducing the number of people near the poverty line requires increasing the capacity of the private sector to create jobs and equipping people with the skills necessary for those jobs."

    Yes, but where will capital create those jobs? Our experience of the last 30 years suggests those jobs are likely to be created in Mexico, China, Southeast Asia or India. That's why labor has no guarantee its efforts in retraining will benefit them.

    Look, capital and labor have fundamentally different interests. Capital wants to pay labor as little as possible. Labor wants to survive if not thrive. Capitalism rests on this contradiction.

    Of course in grinding labor down capital threatens the whole system because profits are mostly made from the exploitation of labor. Labor has to survive for profits to be made.

    Nobody at the Deseret News thinks Marx has any relevance. In time you will see that he does.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2014 12:32 a.m.

    Also: "Raising the minimum wage in an effort to increase living standards is like taking water from one end of the bathtub and pouring it in the other in an effort to raise the overall water level."

    But in the case of minimum wage, the reason for raising it is not to raise the overall water level, rather the reason is to shift some wealth from the wealthy end of the tub to the poor end of the tub. And the real minimum wage has declined severely over the last 30 years. The rich end of the tub can afford it.

    But, to continue your physical analogy to economics, the rich (capital) end of the tub wants all of the water. This is not possible but continuing to demand it threatens the entire system. Should the rich ever get it all, there will be a tidal wave back the other direction. So your analogy has some value after all.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 1, 2014 1:27 a.m.

    Corporate America has already drained most of the water out of the wage end of the pool and redistributed it into the profits end. It's time to rebalance the pool.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    April 1, 2014 6:22 a.m.

    Shill and Shrill.

    I seriously doubt that.

    Let's ask the citizens of the State of New Jersey,
    or those living near Seattle --

    minimum wage was raised to $15 and hour,
    I do not hear one peep of complaint,
    nor do hear of one single business going out.

    Rather than the "opinions" from those living 1,000 to 3,000 miles from either of them.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 1, 2014 6:32 a.m.

    For some years now I have watched companies outsource departments in order to reduce overhead/maximize profits. Sometimes this did not involve a change in personnel. An arrangement was made for the affected individuals to be hired by the vendor. Nothing changed except the name of the company issuing their paycheck - and of course the amount of that check. The amount missing from it could be found in the pockets of their former employer.

    I don't have a problem with this when it's done to keep a company viable, but when it isn't - when it's done merely to increase one's share of the pie - it smacks of the powerful taking money from the pockets of the powerless.

    So I don't have an objection to increasing the minimum wage. In some instances this may amount to restoring to the individual the money that he/she was once earning.

    Also, if our minimum wage places people below the poverty line, they then qualify for government assistance. So we pay for it one way or another, don't we? If we want people off the dole, then let's pay them a livable wage.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 1, 2014 6:43 a.m.

    "Raising the minimum wage . . . is like taking water from one end of the bathtub and pouring it in the other in an effort to raise the overall water level."

    Oh good. In other words, at the very worst, it doesn't hurt anything.

    . . . Might as well raise the minimum wage substantially then. Why not?

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    April 1, 2014 6:52 a.m.

    The writer of this letter is correct in pointing out that business views its labor force as a commodity. Just like rice, sugar, corn. Something to be bought at the lowest price possible. And then expected to yield the highest return. I would suggest that those businesses that wish to do business in the United States be required to maintain a certain level of pay for its workers. Limit those at the top to no more than 20x the pay of their lowest paid worker. Sure the business could try and pass the cost on, what if we just told them they could not. The wealthy businesses like capitalism when it serves them. And socialism when it serves them at other times. Private profits and shared risk seems to be their attitudes. Let’s all remember this during this tax season. Many multi-billion dollar companies pay little or no income tax. Yet they expect to sell their goods and services in this country. How about we not allow those businesses that do not want to pay their fair share in taxes. And pay their employees a good wage. The privilege of doing business in this country.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    April 1, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    Many thanks to Kyle Scott for stating the obvious – when wages of workers goes up it has some kind of impact on company profits. The question we need to ask ourselves is what kind of impact should that have and who should be impacted.
    Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont recently gave an eloquent speech in a Senate sub-committee meeting about this very subject and the Deseret News covered the story, including a video, in an article on February 22. Senator Sanders makes a strong case that the Walton Family of Wal-Mart fame, which has more wealth than the combined wealth of the lowest 40% of all Americans, is, in fact, the largest recipient of welfare in this country. Because they pay their workers minimum wage and only allow some of them to be part time workers, the only way their workers can stay healthy and do their jobs is by receiving government welfare for food and medical care. Does anyone think that is a healthy state of affairs for what is considered the most benevolent country in the world?

  • ECR Burke, VA
    April 1, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    With every right comes a responsibility. Individuals, or groups of individuals, have a right to start a business in this country and they have a right to make a profit. But they also have a responsibility to give back to the community and country that grants them that freedom. There is vast evidence illustrating that many of those companies have failed to give back and have, instead, squandered that wealth on their own decadent lifestyle. And so their failure to act responsibly should be met with consequences. Significant taxes for excess profits have been used in the past during times of war. Today such proposals face strong opposition from businesses and some economists, who argue that it would create a disincentive to capital investment. But they are not making capital investments, they are hoarding their profits and creating a third world nation here in the U.S. Who in the Congress will have the courage to take a stand against such aristocratic arrogance.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    April 1, 2014 7:18 a.m.

    Many economist feel that moderate raises in the minimum wage have very little impact on employment. When low wage workers gets a pay hike it goes straight into the economy, and has a stimulative effect. In addition it eases the burden of government by reducing food stamps and other social program costs. For example, many of the people who work at low wage jobs, at places like Wal-Mart, are also consumers of public services, so increasing the minimum wage reduces payments to them.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    April 1, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    How about setting a MAXIMUM wage?

    You hit say - $1 billion - and you win the game.
    Then step aside, and let someone else have a crack at it...

    Your life-style isn't going to change one iota,
    and everything after that is just funny monopoly money anyway.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 1, 2014 8:10 a.m.

    Why not cut YOUR wage to pay those who make less than you? If you think that the "system" is unjust then why don't YOU give up something to make it more "just"? Of course you won't do that. You've EARNED your money. You worked hard for it. You deserve it. But, you think that the "businessman doesn't deserve his profits. You think that his capital should not earn him a profit, even though you watch your 401K fund grow - through no effort of your own. You watch that "investment" grow, month after month, as the stocks that back your pension fund grow month after month.

    Why not give away those 401K "unearned profits"? You don't deserve them, if the businessman doesn't deserve the profits that he made on his investments.

    When a State changes its "minimum wage" and other States do not, those employees might think that they're better off, and in relation to other States, they are; but, at what cost? What is the cost of living in Seattle compared to Jackson, Mississippi?

    Costs go up when wages go up. The consumer pays. Always.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 1, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    Raising the minimum wage creates additional economic activity, whihc is good for everyone, including business. Despite the theories, reality shows that it is effective. A well run business will make adjustments and do what is necessary to be profitable. Besides, more money in customer pockets means more sales. And don't forget that wages are deductible (and there are other tax code incentives) and the result is a lower tax burden on business. It is not a zero sum game like opponents of a higher minimum wage seem to think. When people are paid much less than in 1960 (adjusted for inflation), we should ashamed of ourselves. This is a country driven by greed and selfishness, and a system that serves those who already have.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    April 1, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    The letter writer, in the bathwater example, completely ignores the multiplier effect which means that person lacks even the most fundamental understanding of economics. Why does the DesNews publish such drivel? Why not publish informed positions?

    Mike Richards - Many of us who support increasing the minimum wage do so realizing that some of our wage, in the form of stock, may actually be affected in the short term. However, rather than suffer the current boom and bust lifestyle of hyper-inflated stock prices that are exclusively driven by quarterly reports, we'd rather have a healthier business sector in the long term and that requires having a healthy working class. Raising the minimum wage and pegging it to inflation rates is the most effective way to ensure that people who work will have expendable income to purchase more product.

    Further, your assertion that costs go up when wages go up is demonstrably false. Nearly all the cities in Silicon Valley and the SF peninsula have already raised minimum wages above state/federal levels and, almost without exception, the products we sell consistently get cheaper and more accessible over time.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 1, 2014 8:52 a.m.

    marxist,
    I hate to inform you of this but... the "rich" don't eat at McDonalds.

    So this won't take from the "rich" and give to the poor.

    ===

    Who mostly eats at McDonalds in America (not just in SLC)?

    You guessed it... the poorer people (not the rich people). So let's do a little economics 101.

    Raising the wage of McDonalds workers has to be passed along to the customers (no... the owners are not going to take it out of their pocket) they will increase the cost of the product (the food) to pay the higher wages (ever noticed what a Big Mac costs in Seattle or NYC)? So guess who gets to pay more for their food? You guessed it... the poor (not the rich).

    So your pretense that this will take the money from the "rich end" of the pool, and re-distribute it to the "poor end" of the pool is a logical fallacy. And the author's analysis is more correct... it will take more from the "poor end" of the pool (McDonalds customers) and re-distribute it to the "poor end" of the pool (McDonalds workers).

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 1, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    Sentinel,

    What you said is false. The cost of living in "Silicon Valley" is much higher than the cost of living in Barstow, California. The cost of products that were created in "Silicon Valley" have become cheaper because of the lost cost of assembly and/or distribution. The cost of development is amortised over millions of sales. Automation keeps the cost of assembly down. (Have you seen Apple's assembly line?) How much human labor is involved in Internet sales?

    Pegging minimum wage to the inflation rate is a sure-fire way to increase inflation. Look at the cost of a meal at McDonalds. Every time minimum wage goes up, the price of a meal goes up. Labor is the largest cost at McDonalds. They have to raise prices when they increase wages. The "laborer" ends up paying more for the essentials of life, so he does not gain.

    There is no multiplier effect when expenses drive up prices. The only one who gains is the Government when they raise taxes on the middle class, which also gets a wage increase to offset the higher cost of living.

  • KDave Moab, UT
    April 1, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    The only winner in a minimum wage increase is Govt. as they collect more in taxes. The biggest losers are pensioners. The best anyone else can hope for is to stay neutral.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    April 1, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    When the WORKING poor rely on Government Food stamps, the tax payers pay for it -- NOT the Corporations who are exploiting those they employ.

    If WallStreet had not been making insane Profits over the last 10 years -- I would hesitate to increase wages, but they are making more money than ever, and Trickle Down Ain't happen'in!

    With a minimum wage increase,
    Romney's 47% drops in half instantly,
    Making them tax Makers and no longer tax takers.
    [isn't that what conservative want?]

    FYI -
    Ironically enough, Mitt Romney was FOR a rise in the Federal minimum wage - and keeping it adjusted automatically for inflation.

    He increased it in Massachsetts to $8.80 almost 10 years ago.

    Either Raise the minimum wage for the works/producers,
    or
    Increase Taxes on the Wealthy and their Corporations.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 1, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    Raising minimum wage doesn't solve the real problem.

    Marxist hit the REAL solution in the quote in his first comment.

    "Reducing the number of people near the poverty line requires increasing the capacity of the private sector to create jobs and equipping people with the skills necessary for those jobs."

    Just increasing minimum wage (to yet another wage that can't sustain a family) doesn't solve the problem. It's a temporary "feel-good" patch, that solves nothing. It just keeps you on the treadmill.

    Who can raise a family even on $15/hour? You can't! That doesn't fix the problem. These jobs were not intended to be careers for parents. They are short term, entry level jobs, for young people who may have no job skills, but want to enter the workforce, earn some spending money, and develop job skills so they can move up when they graduate (not necessarily make a career of working at McDonalds).

    Like the article said, "Reducing the number of people near the poverty line requires increasing the CAPACITY of people... and equipping people with the SKILLS necessary for.. better jobs." (not minimum wage inflation)

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    April 1, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    I have like 1 more comment --

    This is about the WORKING poor,
    not the "lazt free loaders" the right-wing is endlessly harping about.

    If Corporations are unwilling [becasue we all know they they are indeed financially able] to raise the wages for their workers,
    then it is the Governments duty to step in and force the issue upon them.

    Wages -- Just like taxes,
    Corporations will only pay them if the HAVE to,
    not because they want to.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    April 1, 2014 9:27 a.m.

    So, here we have the Republican Swiss cheese argument for why we should keep the minimum wage far below where it was in 1968 when it hit its peak ($10.75 in 2014 dollars). Now it is at $7.25. Not surprisingly, it lost the most ground during the Reagan and Bush Sr years, rebounded a bit during the Clinton years, then nosedived again during Bush Jr's reign. Since 1968, profits have been up and down, but mostly up, hitting record levels in recent years. All statistics show that a greater share of the pie keeps going to those at the top, thereby reducing the ability of consumers to purchase all the stuff businesses need to sell to stay in business. We need a complete overhaul of the capitalist system before it collapses under the weight of its own excesses and shortsightedness. Raising the minimum wage is one small piece of that overhaul, but essential if we dare call ourselves a moral people. How anyone can make a case with a straight face for keeping the minimum wage at $7.25 is a mystery. But keep trying, conservatives. It's entertaining, but tragic.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    April 1, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    If someone is worth more than they are making then another company will be more than happy to pay them more.

    If someone can't find a job for more than they are currently making - its because they aren't worth it.

    And whose "fault" is that?

    its not any corporations fault.

    Its the persons responsibility to gain more skills that will demand a higher wage.

    Only a lazy person would suggest its rich people's responsibility to take care of them instead of focusing on how they can improve their own skill set.

    Its not McDonalds responsibility to pay enough for a person to provide for a family.

    Its only McDonalds responsibility to provide for the work being done.

    Its the employees responsibility to ensure he/she has skills that will provide for a family.

    Only a lazy person would suggest otherwise

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    April 1, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    The letter-writer seems to be saying if everyone's salary went up, prices would go up a comparable amount. If everyone's salary were lowered, prices would go down. In other words, we're no better off either way. Maybe we ought to pay people nothing. That way, everything would be free, and there'd be no taxes.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    April 1, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    One more point: "Businesses exist to make money."

    Here is another conservative myth, which can easily be exposed. A consultant, years ago, was hired by a corporation to do what consultants do. In the process of his examination of the business, he asked the board of directors what the purpose of their business was. "To make money," they all exclaimed. "Then let me see the books on your prostitution and drug operations," he said. They were aghast. "Well, if your purpose is simply to make money," he said, "I figured you'd be involved in two of the most profitable forms of business possible." That got them thinking. They finally concluded that maybe their business had other purposes that were more important than making money.

    Two of those, for any business, should be to offer a quality product to society and to provide good jobs for members of society. Remember, corporations are chartered by government. They are allowed to exist by the public. Shouldn't they serve some significant public purpose? The tail has been wagging the dog for too long in America.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 1, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    So Kyle hits on the central issue but then offers a solution that will do nothing to address it. He is right to claim that “raising the minimum wage” will do nothing to help the working class “be better off,” the problem is “increasing the capacity of the private sector to create jobs and equipping people with the skills necessary for those jobs.” Will do anything to address the fact that the current mindset is that “Businesses exist to make money, and those in the upper echelons of business like to make money for themselves and their companies,” without regard for the effects on their workers or society. Until we address this central issue and are able to get business to see that it is in their overall best interest to take slightly smaller profits and pay their workers a livable wage. we can pick around the edges and face raising cost of living with the raising the minimum wage or add to businesses profit margins with no benefit to the workers with Kyle’s suggestion. How do we know this? Because we have tried both and failed to gain any ground.

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 1, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    airnaut,

    2 problems with your post.

    1. Nobody said ANYTHING about "lazt free loaders"... That's just you talking for them. The Right wing doesn't actually endlessly harping about that. That's just YOUR impression of them, YOUR image of them, YOUR stereotype for their type. But if you read all the comments... you will see it's not there. It's just in your imagination.

    2. We have totally different visions of the "proper role of Government". You say, "it's the Governments duty to step in and force the issue upon them". I don't think it's the Government's duty to force things they want upon us (if it is... they are analogous to Satan). They ENFORCE the law... but it's different. It's not their role to FORCE us to do everything they think is moral or correct. There's no "Law" that corporations be willing to raise employee wages... that's just YOUR morality... with Government force behind it.

    I think Ezra Taft Benson (a Prophet in the Church you claim faith in)... had the role of Government correct. Google "The proper role of Government" and listen to his speech...

    Very enlightening.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    April 1, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    Good grief, is basic economics really that hard to understand? For people who’ve never worked a day in their life, or ran a business, like Obama, it most certainly is hard to understand.

    While it sounds compassionate and caring, arbitrarily raising the minimum wage will the hurt the very people it was intended to help. But as with all liberal programs, this is par for the course. When you tell an employer, as Obama did during his SOTU address, that they need to (through heavy handed legislation) raise what they pay their low-skilled workforce (increase in minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.00 per hour), they will find a way to recoup that cost. The logical choice for most employers is to simply cut their workforce. How does not working help these people?

    Okay, if prosperity can be created by raising the minimum wage (as indicated by Obama), why only stop at $9.00 per hour? Why not mandate employers pay their low-skilled employees $30.00 per hour? Wow, this would create all kinds of prosperity!

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    April 1, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    Marxist said:

    "Nobody at the Deseret News thinks Marx has any relevance. In time you will see that he does."

    The only thing Marxists/Communists have ever given the world is brutality, lack of freedom/individualism, and an equal share of misery.

    Yep, the people of the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Romania (under the Ceausescu's reign), Venezuela, and other Marxist nations lived just grand lives in their respective totalitarian economic utopias.

    It's easy to be a "Marxist" in the United States, where you live a comfortable life under the Capitalism you decry. My guess is, you wouldn't survive a month with people who suffer under the Marxist ideology you seem to love so much. If it's so great, why aren't you flocking to Cuba...or Venezuela...or China? Easy to be a "radical" when you don't have to live in those totalitarian systems.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    April 1, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    Mike Richards - Actually, what I said is not false and you fully admitted that when you stated that the products Silicon Valley creates "have become cheaper" while we've steadily increased the minimum wage. So, I appreciate you making my point that while our wages have continually risen in Silicon Valley we have found a way for our products to become cheaper. Thus, dispelling the conservative notion that a higher wage means a higher cost of good. Thanks, Mike.

    Regarding the cost of living, nothing against Barstow but Silicon Valley is a far more desirable place to live so it will inherently be more expensive. One main reason is the fact that we have higher paying jobs here. Once again proving that a higher collective wage creates more wealth. Thanks again, Mike.

    Finally, inflation is caused by various factors but raising minimum wage is not an immediate indicator. For recent examples, federal minimum wages were increased in 2007 and 2009 yet we saw a drop in inflation both years. Further, the states with highest minimum wages are not the states with the highest inflation. Sorry, your McDonalds experience is not a good indicator of the world/national/state economies.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    Let's understand that raising the minimum wage is not a fix for our problems. It won't change the top heavy distribution of wealth in this country. It will however make life a little more tolerable for a significant number of people. BTW, if the likes of McDonalds can pass along all of the increased wage in higher prices, why do they fight raising it?

    We need to understand that we already have socialism. Government regulates the money supply. Government rescued the big banks and insurance companies with sums in the trillions. And government continues to support them with near zero interest rate money. We have socialism!

    If things continue as at present, the United States will be a collection of ownerships and financial services - money changers - with little manufacturing and an impoverished working class (most of us). We will be a shell. Can the United States persist that way? I don't think so.

    Our socialism serves only the top 1%. I call for socialism which works for all of us. Stay tuned.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    It sounds like all the conservatives commenting here are not only against raising the minimum wage, they are against any minimum wage. Just another aspect of the capitalistic quest to keep government out of business at all costs. And we have learned by sad experience that uncontrolled, unregulated business practices lead to the kind of excesses and maldistribution of income that we are seeing today. It's too bad that you didn't learn anything from the greedy robber baron, sweat-shop, child-labor, environment-be-damned era of a century ago. Why do you think Congress enacted a minimum wage law in the first place?

    If you were willing to concede that a minimum wage at some level is appropriate, then we could have a rational discussion on what that level should be, and whether it's a positive or a negative thing that the minimum wage has actually declined in real dollars over the last three decades. But your laissez-faire arguments against any government interference in the marketplace have never worked, and will not work now.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    April 1, 2014 11:32 a.m.

    Curmudgeon said:

    "If you were willing to concede that a minimum wage at some level is appropriate..."

    Please, we're breathlessly waiting for you anti-Capitalists to tell us what a "fair" minimum wage is...? If $9.00 is good, then $30...maybe $75 per hour would be even better...right? Tell us how you come up with your arbitrary numbers?

    If minimum wage for low-skilled jobs can be adjusted arbitrarily, there will be consequences. The workforce will be reduced, and the cost of the goods or services will go up. Either way, this hurts the people liberals always claim they want to help. Liberals have destroyed the Black Family with failed cradle to grave welfare programs. But liberals must never be held to account for their results, only their "good intentions."

    Liberals are going to once again destroy the people they are claiming to help. They will ensure an equal share of misery for everyone.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 1, 2014 11:52 a.m.

    @2 bit
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    I think Ezra Taft Benson (a Prophet in the Church you claim faith in)... had the role of Government correct. Google "The proper role of Government" and listen to his speech...

    Very enlightening.

    9:52 a.m. April 1, 2014

    ===========

    Just as I thought.
    an avid Pres. Ezra Taft Benson fan.
    Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

    Did you read his talk, "Beware of Pride" , April 1989

    Very enlightening.

    Our nation is being destroyed by the Rich and Powerful,
    not the poor, sick and the needy.

    You took you eye completely off of the ball.

    The poor, sick, elderly and the needy are NOT what we need to beware of.
    Just the opposite.

    Keep worshipping the gold an d riches of Babylon and her mammon.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    April 1, 2014 11:58 a.m.

    And just one more thought - back in the mid-90's a friend of ours served as the Relief Society President in her ward in New London, Connecticut. Her husband was in the Navy and was stationed in New London. She stated that most of the married, enlisted personnel with children (2 or 3) were receiving assistance from the church because their salaries could not support even a small family living a modest lifestyle. Even soldiers protecting our country can't afford to live in our society. I'm thinking we need to re-think our priorities.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 1, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    Here is your challenge liberals. How does creating more unemployed people help.

    According to the BLS there are currently 144 million workers in the US. Of those 1.1% earn minimum wage. That means that there is approximately 1.5 million people earning minimum wage. Of those about 1/3 are Highschool age. According to the CBO, raising the minimum wage will result in a loss of 500,000 jobs, which is about 1/3 of all minimum wage jobs.

    That means that 500,000 people will not get job experience that can lead to better paying jobs, and that there are more people that not only have no job skills, but cannot develop job skills.

    Why do you think it is good to hurt the future of 500,000 people just to give a few people more money?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 1, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    FYI --

    Our Men and Woman in Uniform make even LESS than minimum wage.
    Go figure.

    Republicans love the Military Industrial Complex [filling corporations pockets with $],
    and LOATHE the actual "People" serving in it.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 1, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    Sentinel,

    How many "minimum" wage workers own homes in Silicon Valley? How many work at high tech businesses (except as janitors)? How many work at high tech businesses, such as IMFlash or Adobe? How many can afford to eat a good meal in Silicon Valley? How many people in the vast Central Valley can afford to live in Silicon Valley?

    Minimum wage workers did not create the products of Silicon Valley. They don't make the products. They can't afford to live there. They can't afford to eat there. They can't afford the product designed there. I visited Silicon Valley for twenty years while servicing customers in the San Francisco area. I knew many of the major developers and visited in their homes. They paid their highly qualified workers huge wages with stock options. They did not hire unskilled, unprepared workers. They had no need for anyone who didn't think enough of themselves and their families to prepare themselves for the responsibilities of life.

    Your example has nothing to do with minimum wage workers in Silicon Valley.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 1, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" you are half right. There are the wealthy that are trying to destroy the US. People like George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, and others that want to transform the US into a socialist utopia where they rule. You also have the poor that keep voting for politicians because they are promised more free stuff.

    You forget the scripture D&C 56:17 "Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men's goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!" You see, greed is not limited to certain income brackets.

    Lets also look at Jacob 2:19 "And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good;to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted." So, riches are a blessing if used to help others. Why not seek after wealth?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 1, 2014 12:32 p.m.

    @Curmudgeon
    RE: "If you were willing to concede that a minimum wage at some level is appropriate"...

    I think the wage should be based on the skill you have, the scarcity of that skill, and the value that skill brings to the business (not an arbitrary number set by some Government bureaucrat).

    So... If we could agree on some minimum still level... maybe we could agree on a minimum wage...

    =====

    @LDS Liberal,

    You seem to think that knowing I agree with Benson's "Proper role of Government" reveals everything about me. You frequently hear one thing... and think that tells you everything you need to know about a person, and you can assume that ALL your numerous stereotypes you have attached to that "type" of person... now automatically become true about that person. I call that "judging" people. Something President Benson taught us is wrong.

    As for President Benson's views on Pride. I agree with those views too. Contrary to your assumptions... they are NOT mutually exclusive (if you agree with one you cant agree with the other).

    BTW.. I thought you were out of posts... what's up with that?

    I am out of posts...

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    April 1, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    Sven says: "Why not mandate employers pay their low-skilled employees $30.00 per hour?"

    Using an extreme exaggeration of a modest proposal does not make a persuasive argument. Its like saying "Utah can't have a 5% income tax, because just imagine how we destructive a 100% tax would be", or saying "we shouldn't have any speed limits because the logical conclusion of regulating speed, is a speed limit of zero".

    A modest increase in the minimum wage is probably a good thing, huge increases would be very bad, no one is arguing for a huge increase.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    Sven and 2 Bits:
    You have confirmed my supposition that conservatives don't want any kind of minimum wage set by government mandate, so there is no point in discussing how much or little it should be. You want to return to the "good old days" of the Great Depression and the robber baron era, before minimum wage and other worker protection laws were enacted. Back then employers unilaterally decided, without government interference, how much skill and value workers brought to the job, and paid them accordingly. The oversupply of workers, even highly skilled workers, gave employers the ability to pay what were literally "starvation" wages. What a utopia it must have been for conservatives such as yourself.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 1, 2014 2:17 p.m.

    Oh Kyle,

    You have inflamed the liberals by making too much sense.

    They forget that when you redistribute the water in a container, you don't get more water, or better quality water. What you get is waves, sloshing water, and liberals know very well that sloshing water is better.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 1, 2014 2:21 p.m.

    To "Curmudgeon" I hate to break it to you, but the minimum wage laws were enacted as a form of racism. Yes, minimum wage was implemented as a racist policy. In New York in the 1930's, the construction companies were bringing in non-union blacks onto their construction sites. The blacks would work for less money than their white counterparts. So, to stop this practice they implemented a minimum wage.

    The amazing thing is that before minimum wage laws were passed poverty rates were about the same as they are today. So again, what good are minimum wage laws besides holding people down?

    What highly skilled field is there that has an oversupply of workers? Since only 1.1% of workers are paid minimum wage, why isn't that number larger, there is nothing preventing employers from paying all of their employees minimum wage.

    Should we adopt the liberal Utopia where it doesn't matter how much you work or how valuable your skills are or the value you bring to a job, everybody gets the same? Does that sound like a better system?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 1, 2014 2:49 p.m.

    I'm all for doing away with ALL wages, period.

    Nobody works for money,
    but all for the betterment of humanity.

    FROM each according to his ability,
    TO each according to his need.

    Having ALL things in common,
    And having NO poor amongst us.

    call it
    United Order,
    Law of Conscetration,
    Zionism,
    Socialism,
    Communism....

    I don't really care what it's called,
    it's the end result I'm only interested in.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 1, 2014 3:37 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" you should care what it is called.

    Only under the Law of Consecration (United Order) will you be able to obtain that goal peacefully. When this has been tried, the worst that happened was that people began to starve. Plus, this is a voluntary system that you can enter into with your community, or not. You have the choice here. You will also maintain ownership of your property.

    Under Socialism, Communism, Marxism, and other collectivist philosophies you subjugate yourself to a dictator who will end up killing a lot of people because of rebellion or because the excess population had to be reduced. This is a system of force, where your rights and needs are determined by the state. You will also give up all claim to personal property.

    The results are quite different. Under the Law of Consecration all people prosper. Under Socialism, Communism, and other similar collectivist ideals all end up poor and struggle.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 1, 2014 3:36 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    And let me guess, you know this omniscient 'guy' in Farmington UT who you think should be in charge of managing all the goods (i.e. wealth). We aren't stupid enough to put you in charge of everyone's everything.

    Sorry to break this to you, but we have seen in history that corruption and wealth inequality in communism and socialism are worse than in capitalism.

    I don't see any connection between minimum wage and the creation and promotion of a Jewish nation. Your use of the word Zionism makes no sense.

    The other 2 you mention only work if an Omniscient God is at the head, and if every person in the group is all in, and doesn't ever fall to resentment, a natural human emotion. So far no group has had everyone be that good.

    Zionism (which is not an economic or political system) is the only one of those that has been successful, and you liberals decry their success.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    April 1, 2014 4:14 p.m.

    Mike Richards - It seems you unintentionally proved my point. While I don't see your analysis as accurate, you do realize that when you list basic necessities such as food/shelter that cannot be met by working class American incomes you are undermining your own position, right?

    I also believe you should be more cautious when determining hard working people to be "unskilled, unprepared." In the Bay Area, we generally try to value everyone and work to create a society that reflects that. Indeed, the "unskilled, unprepared" guy flipping your burger is one "ah ha" moment away from the next billion dollar company and our region of the country has the infrastructure in place to realize that. What's more, we actually create wealth rather than exploit Mother Earth like conservative demigod oil companies.

    Redshirt - Your seminary teacher is shaking his/her head in disappointment right now. The word "poor" from D&C 56:17 has footnotes and the word essentially refers to the idle. The working class are, by definition, not an idle lot.

    But please, tell us more about how self-made industry titans like Warren Buffett admire socialism, I love a good fairytale.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 1, 2014 4:50 p.m.

    To "Stalwart Sentinel" what scriptures are you using. The footnotes make no such reference. It has some scriptures listed in the footnotes, but they all refer to helping the poor. It also includes a Topical Guide reference, which again refers to needy.

    What version of the Doctrine and Covenants are you using? The LDS version does not have the footnote you refer to.

    As for Buffett, look at who supports what he says. Socialists. If he wasn't a socialist or believed in socialism, why would the socialists support him on so many fronts? Just look at the man's statements on taxation, and you see that he supports socialism, except for himself.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 1, 2014 5:03 p.m.

    Sentinel,

    You keep changing your point.

    At 8:38, you wrote about a "multiplier effect" that is caused when the minimum wage is increased. That is not true. When the minimum wage is increased, prices increase. There is no "extra" money floating around the community.

    At 10:33, you inferred that minimum wage workers in Silicon Valley made "products cheaper". They did not. Minimum wage workers did not develop those products nor do they manufacture those products.

    At 4:14, you told us that minimum wage workers cannot afford the basic necessities of life. Minimum wage is not supposed to be a "living wage". It is an entry level wage. It is a "starting" wage that allows untrained, unskilled, unprepared workers to enter the workforce so that they can receive on the job training. AFTER they are trained, either by completing a degree or receiving higher education either on the job or at a "trade school", they can command a higher wage.

    Minimum wage workers cannot expect to buy a home in Silicon Valley. They cannot expect to drive an expensive car. They have not yet prepared themselves for "success".

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2014 11:07 p.m.

    Redshirt:
    It is you who must have an incomplete copy of the D&C, or you are just ignoring what is plainly there. In D&C 56:17, footnote "a" to the phrase "poor men," it lists several references, including two that specifically mention and condemn idleness, not poverty: D&C 42:42 and D&C 68:30-32. Thus "poor men" in your favorite scripture (D&C 56:17) is linked with idleness, as Sentinel correctly noted. But you don't need to even look at the footnotes, as verse 17 specifically condemns those "who will not labor with your own hands!" That's not the working poor, that's the idle. And the "idle" could include the idle rich, "whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men's goods, whose eyes are full of greediness." That's a pretty good description of a lot of rich people. In which case the adjective "poor" could mean someone to be pitied, as in "you poor soul," not someone in physical poverty

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 1, 2014 11:46 p.m.

    @marxist
    "Yes, but where will capital create those jobs? Our experience of the last 30 years suggests those jobs are likely to be created in Mexico, China, Southeast Asia or India."

    If jobs are created in Mexico, China, Southeast Asia, and India it's because that's where competitive labor is found.

    "Look, capital and labor have fundamentally different interests. Capital wants to pay labor as little as possible."

    Nay. Capital's (businesses) interest is to maximize profits for the owners/stockholders. Capital's interest is not to be dictated to by labor.

    "Of course in grinding labor down capital threatens the whole system because profits are mostly made from the exploitation of labor."

    If the 'system' is threatened, it's because labor is driving jobs overseas. Today, we live in the global market. This means that labor has to compete with the rest of the world for jobs.

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 6:34 a.m.

    "Businesses exist to make money ... for themselves and their companies. To say otherwise is naïve."

    And employer and stockholder Greed is an epidemic in this country. To say otherwise is to be in Denial.

    It is the doctrine of Korihor, in full bloom:

    "...but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was NO CRIME [no moral crime].

    And this:

    "And there shall also be many which shall say: ... TAKE THE ADVANTAGE of one because of his words [e.g., because in his utter despair, he agrees to cheapskate wages], dig a pit for thy neighbor [i.e., pay him peanuts, and then rationalize, "Well it's not like anyone is FORCING him to work for me]; there is no harm in this..."

    We increase the capacity of the private sector by increasing Americans' ability to purchase. Then everyone wins. No use denying it: In-N-Out Burger proves that it IS possible to pay one's employees better while STILL keeping retail prices low AND by not cutting corners.

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 6:45 a.m.

    @Mike Richards

    "Costs go up when wages go up. The consumer pays. Always."

    A lie. In-N-Out Burger's business model of higher wages, lower retail prices, and no compromising the quality of product, SINGLEHANDEDLY refutes that propaganda.

    @2 bits

    "These jobs were not intended to be careers for parents. They are short term, entry level jobs, for young people..."

    SAYS WHO.

    Another of the standard RATIONALIZATIONS for taking advantage of one's fellow man and oppressing him in his wages.

    @Christopher B

    "If someone is worth more than they are making then another company will be more than happy to pay them more."

    So if you're certain that "another company" will, then why wasn't the first company "happy to pay them more?"

    Because what you are saying is not true, that's why. It is only one more example of the elaborate sophistry developed by greedy businessmen to rationlize oppressing the hireling in his wages.

    "If someone can't find a job for more than they are currently making - its because they aren't worth it.

    A lie.

    No wonder Jesus spoke of Camels, and of Eyes of Needles.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 2, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    To "Curmudgeon" again you are wrong. SS said "D&C 56:17 has footnotes and the word essentially refers to the idle". That is not true. I looked up each of the footnotes, and it does not say connect poor to idle workers. In the scriptures you reference, it does not say connect poor people to idle workers.

    Either way, you only confirm my point. That is that greed is not limited by wealth. There are poor that are greedy, lazy people that are greedy, and people that are both poor and lazy that are greedy. No matter how you look at it, the Lord has little tolerance with those that want others to support them.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    April 2, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    Warren Buffett is a socialist! Haha, good one! I love it.

  • StalwartSentinel San Jose, CA
    April 2, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    RedShirt - You're mistaken. You appear to have viewed the footnote for "poor" in verse 18. Please check the verse you actually cited: 17.

    Re: Buffett - Again, you're mistaken. His public statements on taxation directly targeted the rich (ie himself) - please see the Buffett Rule. And no, 30% taxation is not socialism, it's America pre-Reaganomics.

    Mike

    My point remains the same: increase the minimum wage. I'm simply making an attempt to address all your random questions.

    We've already established that as the minimum wage increased in the Bay Area, prices for goods actually dropped. Please stop perpetrating lies.

    The multiplier effect is not debatable, I'm sorry. If you and I both have a dollar but you stow yours away in your mattress whereas I spend mine at a local store, which uses it to buy product, and it is then used to purchase more inventory, my dollar is creating more commerce than yours.

    My 10:33 post made no such direct or indirect inference. It merely reiterated the points you unintentionally admitted.

    Actually, minimum wage was designed specifically as a living wage - See the FLSA of 1938 and pay particular mind to Section 202(a).

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 2, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    To "StalwartSentinel" whatever you want to believe, that is up to you.

    The point that I made, and that you cannot refute is the simple fact that greed knows no economic bounds. Poor people can be just as greedy as rich people. It doesn't matter how you define poor, greedy poor people that demand to be supported by those who work is against God's desires.

    Yes, look at the Buffett rule, tax those who produce more. According to the Socialist Brotherhood web site, that is precisely what they want. So are you saying that you agree that Buffett wants to be part of the socialist ruling class that has all of the privelages?

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    April 2, 2014 12:55 p.m.

    So let me get this right. Buffett wants to be taxed more. Therefore he is a member of an elite class that wants more for himself??? I don't know how you could possibly twist logic any more than that.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 1:10 p.m.

    "According to the CBO, raising the minimum wage will result in a loss of 500,000 jobs"

    Yeah, except they did NOT say this. You shouldn't just make stuff up.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 1:26 p.m.

    "Minimum wage workers did not create the products of Silicon Valley. They don't make the products."

    Well, you are right there, Richards, minimum wage workers don't make the products. People making far, far less then minimum wage make the products. People basically making not much more then slave wages, in shops with hardly any protections for the workers make the products. But you are right, the people that make these products do not have minimum wage protections.

    "You also have the poor that keep voting for politicians because they are promised more free stuff."

    Now that's funny. You act like conservative politicians don't promise free stuff. I remember Romney saying how he would not cut entitlements, and that he would INCREASE defense spending, AND cut taxes. Talk about promising free stuff. You get a massive military, but you don't have to pay the taxes for it. Oh yeah, and if you own a business, just look at the free stuff you are going to get. Get rid of your regulations, pollute away, as long as it saves you money. We will get rid of those pesky labor regulations also.

    Too funny.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 2, 2014 2:35 p.m.

    To "mark" actually, they did. See the CBO report title "The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income". On page 1 of their report they state "Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income. Once fully implemented in the second half of
    2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects."

    That is directly from their report. You can either believe it or not, but that is what the CBO states.

    You seem to forget the video's of the people declaring how Obama is going to pay their mortgages, fill their gas tanks, and so forth. Those were the people voting for Obama.

  • StalwartSentinel San Jose, CA
    April 2, 2014 3:44 p.m.

    RedShirt

    Uhm, no - it is not whatever I want to believe. D&C 56:17 clearly has a footnote defining "poor" that you failed to account for and, when I notified you of your error, rather than correct your ways, you proceeded to make an additional mistake by referencing a footnote from a completely different verse. There is no "belief" involved here. You were mistaken the first time and the second, show some integrity and own up to it.

    The point you made that "greed knows no economic bounds" was never part of the conversation, LDS Liberal didn't even suggest it. Your point was a non sequitur and is irrelevant.

    Again, if you're going to disparage people, at least try to be accurate. This is about the minimum wage so those folks are not looking for a handout from "those who work" - the working class is categorically constituted by people who work.

    Re: Buffett - He's asking to be taxed more - he does not want special socialist elite "privelages (sic)". You literally contradicted yourself in the space of three sentences.

    Finally, your blanket assumption that the rich "produce more" is demonstrably untrue.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 6:11 p.m.

    Yeah, see the problem is that you cherry pick.

    What they actually said, not cherry picked:

    "Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers."

    They also said with a minimum wage increase to 9.00 an hour the effect might be a very slight increase in employment to a 200,000 loss.

    Those are broad ranges, and absolutely not what you claimed, that they said there WOULD be a 500,000 job loss from a minimum wage increase.

    Also the report discusses various methods and thinking that come to very different conclusions about the effect a minimum wage increase would have. It really does not come to any hard conclusions.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    April 3, 2014 6:22 a.m.

    When wages are low turnover rate is high, absentee workers, loss of production, cost of retraining, mistakes happen more frequently, on the job accidents are more frequent, medical costs are much higher........I guess the employer is willing to accept these costs.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 4, 2014 3:01 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    " Yes, minimum wage was implemented as a racist policy. In New York in the 1930's, the construction companies were bringing in non-union blacks onto their construction sites. The blacks would work for less money than their white counterparts. So, to stop this practice they implemented a minimum wage."

    Let me get this straight... increasing wages to people is a racist policy? Hey, do you think the same about conservatives saying that illegal immigrants are driving down wages because they work for less under the table, is that racist policy too? Then again it must be even more racist since your example involves increasing black wages while the other involves booting people out of the nation.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 4, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    To "Schnee" it is a racist policy when you enact it to prevent blacks from being brought into the city. What would you call a law designed to make it so that you could keep out a specific group of people?

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 4, 2014 1:22 p.m.

    Problems, however, had emerged with respect to construction of a federal hospital in Bacon’s New York district. Local contractors, he explained, had submitted bids on the project that reflected local standards. But the contract was awarded to an Alabama firm. The latter, Bacon noted, “... brought some thousand non-union laborers from Alabama into Long Island, N.Y.; ... They were herded onto this job, they were housed in shacks, they were paid a very low wage and the work proceeded.” In Bacon’s view, the least government could do, when contracting, was “to comply with the local standards of wages and labor prevailing in the locality where the building construction is to take place.” His measure did not seek to inflate wages artificially but, rather, to assure that government respected the existing local standard. The bill was not adopted.
    . . . In a note to Labor Secretary James J. Davis, “The essence of the thing as I see it is: Is the Government willing for the sake of the lowest bidder to break down all labor standards and have its work done by the cheapest labor that can be secured and shipped from State to State?” - Whittaker

  • common sense in Idaho Pocatello, id
    April 4, 2014 7:52 p.m.

    Redshirt - Sorry, but Sentinel is winning the discussion here. I am also in favor of a minimum wage increase. You say only teenagers work minimum wage jobs. WRONG. I know college educated individuals who cannot find work, try as they might. Sending out hundreds of resumes. They are supporting families and in some cases they can't even find a minimum wage job. You know, "we'd love to hire you but you're overqualified." They aren't lazy, shiftless bums who want a handout. They have earned a right to a decent paying job but they can't find one.

    Corporate profits are at an all time high. Real unemployment is incredibly high. Corporations stockpile billions in cash reluctant to hire anyone. In my current employment overtime is mandatory. Why, because they won't hire anyone. We'd rather see them hire more people. But they won't.

    An increase in the minimum wage is not only the right thing to do, it's the moral thing to do. It's not going to break anyone.

    Idaho has more minimum wage workers than any other state. We're very proud of that here.