Surely Roger has stolen the thunder of many that would comment on this issue. He is absolutely right.

Decades ago, minority unemployment used to be lower than that of non-minorities. Now, it is much higher. That is commonly attributed to the minimum wage cutting out of the job market individuals that are seeking to gain a foothold, those that would be willing to work for less than what is mandated by the government. There are areas of the country in which entry level workers are being paid far more than the minimum wage based upon supply and demand of labor. North Dakota, its booming economy, and low unemployment rate provide an example of this. The government wades into dangerous territory when it seeks to impose a significantly higher nationwide minimum wage at a time that the economy remains in very delicate condition.

Roger

Raising the minimum wage was merely a political move to support ACA. Moving more people above the poverty line / state removes the Medicaid responsibility of the state. With 12 states still challenging the law, it once again is just politics. With ACA the employee making now a greater wage will need to afford insurance vs. being eligible for Medicaid.

I hope he does. I like it...

James agree with what you are saying about our military is so true. Those at the lowest rank make minimum wage, those going though basic training to be in the military are getting less than minimum wage. They have cut breakfast to the ones serving in the Middle East. To many that have come back from War are homeless living on the streets as they were keeping us safe and they lost job (reserves) and our Government has kicked them to the curb as most are suffering from PTSD. I would love to see minimum wage be increased especially for ones coming home from the Military.

Janet true and companies are paying $10 an hour and no benefits. Ones losing their jobs and their unemployment runs out take these jobs which aren't made to raise a family on but they have no choice in the matter.

Right on the money Janet. Minimum wage jobs are entry level and temporary jobs.

Jon agree with you there but people are having trouble finding decent jobs paying more than 10-12 an hour and not getting benefits. Sales at ATT, Verizon, Sprint all start out at 10 an hour. Customer service jobs are 8 to 12 an hour and no benefits. My neighbor has been working at Alorica for 8 years and only makes 12 an hour and they pay 40% of medical. If they don't meet their quota for sales, then they don't get their commission. One month they make commission then the next month they raise how much they have to sell.

I agree with you on Waiters and Waitresses. I have seen people in Restaurants run up hundreds on a bill and leave a waitress $10.00 and they ran the waitress ragged every 2 minutes wanting something that she had to keep on running to the kitchen to get. Then they insult her with not leaving even 10% for a tip. They add up all her orders and that grand total is what she pays taxes on. Those that serve in restaurants deserve a 15-20% tip.

@cc – What do you mean “they add up all of her orders and that grand total is what she pays taxes on”? Are you saying they total all her tickets, suppose 10% of that total was given in tips and they (the restaurant?) reports that 10% to the IRS as income? Please be clear, as I’m sure the restaurant doesn’t report the total sum of her tickets as income. I can assure you and Jim that not all restaurants work this way. There are restaurants that have wait staff self report tips.

Additionally, for all of you whining about how little wait staff make per hour, if a waiter doesn’t make enough in tips to meet minimum wage, the restaurant makes up the difference.

Finally, there are always other jobs.

Outraged Citizen, She pays taxes off her tips whether she gets them or not. If her total take for a day is $2000 she is charged 15% for taxes on that money which comes out to being taxed on $300.00. If her tips only add up to $200, she is still paying taxes on the $300, not the $200 that she actually put in her pocket. Out of the $2.83 that most waitress/waiters make an hour, they might end up cashing a check for $20 if they are lucky.
There are a lot of people out there who are demanding on their waitresses/waiters and leave no tip at all or a very minimal amount.

@cc – Again, you confuse the issue when you state things like,”She pays taxes off her tips whether she gets them or not” and the seemingly contradictory “$2000 she is charged 15% for taxes on that money which comes out to being taxed on $300.00.”

Once more, it appears what you’re trying to say is the restaurant where your friend works tally’s her total sales for the day, in your example $2,000. The restaurant then assumes she receives a fifteen percent tip on every check, in your example a daily total of $300. The restaurant then reports that $300 to the IRS as income. Is that what you’re trying to say?

First, let me ask a question. Let’s suppose your friend makes more than $300 in your example – and you have to be a terrible server to NEVER exceed fifteen percent – is she going to tell anyone? I think we all know the answer. Second, not all restaurants work this way. There are restaurants that have servers self-report tips. Finally, there are other jobs available if your friend doesn’t feel she’s adequately compensated.

Outraged Citizen - There are people out there that do not like to tip at all and think waitress make good money for the jobs that they do.
Talk to any waitress/waiter who have worked their butts off serving someone who has them running the whole meal only to be left a few bucks or nothing at all.
My friend makes decent money from being a waitress but her job taxes her on the total amount of what she serves a night, not a self reporting tip sheet, not all restaurants use these and charge their employee a percentage of what they served, especially high scale restaurants.

@cc – I don’t need to speak to a waitress to discover if it’s a difficult job. I worked in restaurants all through high school and college – some of those years as wait staff and some as management.

Her job does not “tax(es) her on the total amount of what she serves a night.” A restaurant is not a taxing authority; the government – federal, state and local – is a taxing authority. Additionally, you’re friend does not pay taxes on her total sales for the night. The restaurant she works at takes her total sales, assumes fifteen percent gratuity was earned and reports that amount as wages. This means that in your previous example, your friend pays taxes on the $300 of assumed earnings not the $2,000 in sales. I’ll ask again, if in this example your friend earns more than $300 on that day, does she report the additional income, or just let the government assume she earned just fifteen percent? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

While her restaurant doesn’t do self-reporting, there are restaurants that do. If your friend is good at her job, and you say that she is, you should encourage her to find a job elsewhere.

Finally, there are always other jobs than service industry ones.

Outraged Citizen - She likes her job at a upscale restaurant but her employer holds 10% out of her total sales a night as if she got that in tips. The point is some don't tip at all or leave a few bucks on the table, and that waitress/waiters are paying tips on money that they didn't receive.

Outraged Citizen, do you go visit all restaurants and keep a book on how they operate and how they hold taxes out for all their waitstaff, maybe I should have my friend call you and you can tell her the best place to work since you know how all restaurants hold taxes out.

@cc – Well, let’s forget the fact for a moment that you originally said your friend’s employer assumes she earns fifteen percent in tips – you know the $300 out of $2,000 you alleged earlier and now that figure miraculously becomes ten percent. I know that’s not the larger point, it just makes you factually challenged – or not entirely trustworthy or believable.

Let’s now ask ourselves a couple of pretty fundamental questions:
* Are employers required to withhold taxes for their employees?
* Is the amount withheld based on reported wages – including tips?

Ok, let’s ask ourselves a few more questions:
* Does your friend ever make more than ten percent?
* Does she ever report this additional income?
* Does she keep a tip log?
* If so, does she present this to management?
* If not, why not?

I think you can probably see where I’m heading here. Her employer, the restaurant, is required by law to report wages and withhold taxes based on reported wages. It sounds like her employer is trying to make it easier for themselves by coming up with a simple method to determine tips earned. Some days this method hurts servers, some days it helps servers. That said, your friend has the right to demand her employer report an accurate amount.

Frankly, I couldn’t care less if your friend finds a new job. What I do care about is people whining about how “unfair” the system is when their “complaints” couldn’t be further from the truth.

Tips & Taxes – The misconception about IRS tip reporting.
http://www.tip20.com/tips-taxes/25

What a stupid pissing battle you two are having.

My two cents.... people making minimum wage do not necessarily get paid what the labor market deems they are worth. I have no doubt that some minimum wage jobs are worth less.

Also, there is nothing wrong with collective bargaining. The perversion is in government regulations that favor unions. Government regulation has hurt unions and their members. It has turned unions into bullies and extortionist instead of the honorable collection of high quality workers they should be.

Finally, you hit the nail on the head with your education comment. There are tons of good paying job openings all across the country. But there are not enough people with the education and experience to fill them. Long gone are the days where a high school education is enough.

EITC applies to all workers. It's on a "scale" of availability; that is, one does not qualify for it until they make a certain amount of money. On the other end of the scale, if one makes too much money, they also do not qualify. It's an incentive program rather than an entitlement program.

Another thing one must consider when talking wages are real wages and nominal wages. Just do a quick wiki on these topics and one will understand where it all comes from.

The reason we are crying about not having enough workers is simply because there are NOT enough qualified workers available!!!!! Oh, I can find a few non-technical workers, and if I get very, very lucky three out of five will pass the initial drug testing. Then if my luck holds, the other three will actually understand that they are supposed to work for at least eight hours per day, five days per week. But my chances of that happening have proven to be just about 10%.

As to highly skilled, highly educated staff???? Well, in Pittsburgh, they have left in droves, and I can't really blame them. But even on a national level, the data indicates that we will not meet the job demands of the next two decades in Science and Engineering fields with domestic college grads, and the visa programs will be used to fill that gap.

Wages are quite high right now for the science and engineering fields, so I don't really understand your question as to why they aren't. You seem a bit misinformed about that. And if you believe collective bargainning represents "just economic times", I think I have a full understanding of where you are coming from.

As to "wage inequality" boo freakin' hoo. Let me get a tissue to wipe away the tears.

Wage inequality used to be the engine that drove workers in America to better themselves and their employment situation so they could make more money. Now, it has become the calling card of the great ignorant masses to point a finger, blame someone else, and get the government to confiscate someone else's wealth and redistribute it to the great ignorant masses.

Steve
The Earned Income Tax Credit, in reality, is only available to those with children or those at the far bottom most rung of the income levels. For example, in 2011, if you made more than $18,000 as a childless couple (two people making minimum wage would make more than this), you were not eligible. However, if you were a couple with 3 or more kids and made $45,000 per year, you are eligible.

In theory you can say the EITC applies to all workers. In reality it mostly applies to those with kids, the more kids, the better payoff.

Frus/prag - You figured me out - I'm a union supporting liberal. Good catch!

In a supposed free labor market, higher pay will entice workers to get the training they need (I won't even go into the fact that companies used to hire and train workers, not expect them to have every skill needed for a specific job). In our labor market, corporations look outside our country, either to persuade the government to allow them to bring in foreign workers or to move the jobs outside the country. This is how our "free" labor market works.

Your dismissal of wage inequality is exactly what I was talking about. Ignore economics (the loss of demand for goods and services due to stagnant or declining wages holds back an economy) and history (this gross inequality was one of the major causes of our last Great Depression) and stick to your fear of redistribution and creeping Socialism. Heard it before, along with the claim of the "ignorant masses" pointing the finger. All the while, you point the finger at the least well-off among us and accuse them of all that's wrong with our country. It's called blaming the victim.

You are right. It's sad to see working people struggle to make ends meet. It's hard for a lot of people to get ahead at this time with taxes, gas prices, health care costs... I have heard people say that they didn't want to take a certain job because they didn't want to lose their "benefits". When someone benefits more from not working, something is wrong.

Well said. Although those in our country that long for the return of the robber baron days (we're almost there) have gotten louder in the last few decades, I don't believe they've gotten larger in numbers. As the wage gap widens and the growth of our economy continues to fill only the pockets of those at the top, the cries for economic justice will grow louder.

@JS – I agree the above are great things unions have helped bring about in the past. That said, there are two sides to every story.

You might also have mentioned:
• bilk taxpayers for construction projects (Davis-Bacon and PLA projects)
• protected unproductive workers and disenfranchised younger, better performing employees through arcane seniority rules
• destroyed personal property and committed acts of physical violence
• lavish spending by union leadership for personal gain at member expense
• funneling the union dues of members to support politicians many members oppose
• forcing employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment

These are but a few of the many union-fueled atrocities you failed to mention in your blind support.

@Glenn – Let’s see, you postulate that “Unions = Good.”

Can we also postulate that Chocolate = Good, maybe Sleep = Good or finally Love = Good? By your logic then Unions must also equal Chocolate, Sleep and Love.

Obviously, the same can be said for your government involvement analogy.

Yeesh!

As usual on the Patch, someone appoints themselves protector of the discussion and tries to direct folks back to the original question. In this case, “Minimum Wage Laws. Good or Bad? Necessary or unnecessary?”

Wait a second, that wasn’t the “original” question. The original question was, “Should Congress Raise the Minimum Wage?”

If you’re going to appoint yourself protector of the discussion, at least get the original question right.

Yeesh!

OC,

I never said that was the original question....just parts of the question. And I notice you completely avoided it. Wait, let me act surprised.

@TFP – Pray tell, what part(s) of the question “Should Congress Raise the Minimum Wage?” does “Minimum Wage Laws. Good or Bad? Necessary or unnecessary?” address?

That’s right, not a bit; it’s a complete non sequitur. You know why? Because the question “Should Congress Raise the Minimum Wage?” is a “Yes” or “No” type of question. You bring “values” to answer a question where none are required, a non sequitur.

As for not addressing “your” question – as opposed the actual original question – I didn’t feel the need because I actually agree with most of what you write.

As for acting surprised, to thy own self be true. You should never feel compelled to act.

@TFP AND OUTRAGED Do you realize how silly you two sound? Get a life.

@Honest Citizen – Taking the time to comb through old posts to find some with which to find silly or stupid for the sole purpose of informing the authors they are being silly or stupid and/or that they are in need of getting a life very well might be an indicator the one taking such time is also in need of getting a life – just a thought.

That said, we all need hobbies and who am I to tell one that their hobby of combing through old posts to call others silly or stupid and to tell them that they need to get a life is in of itself silly or stupid or to recommend to such a person that they need to get a life? Please do have a blessed day.

As I stated above, every worker in America gets paid exactly what he is worth in the labor markets (excluding collective bargainning agreements). So, if these low paid workers deserve more money, they will get more money. On the other hand, if there are 10 people waiting for each of those jobs, they will get less money.

@JDB – It’s really a matter of simple logic.

Let’s say:
“A” represents “Unions”
“B” represents “Good”
“C” represents “Chocolate”
“D” represents “Sleep”
“E” represents “Love”

Now Glenn says that Unions = Good, or A = B. If we agree that Chocolate, Sleep and Love also = Good, or C = B, D = B and E = B respectively, then must also concede that A = C, A = D and A = E.

Glenn choose to equate unions universally with good and there is a serious flaw in that logic. I utilized exaggerated effect to prove the point.

Unions once served a purpose, before we had instant mobility between jobs, cities and even countries. They also served a purpose when companies treated their employees as a disposable commodity. Their purpose is no longer needed. In fact, they are destroying much of what they created when you consider the Public Sector Unions.

I have no problem with Unions, as long as they are forced to compete in the open market with Non-Union entities. However, the government has been bought and paid for by many Unions, especially Public Sector ones, so they are NOT forced to be competitive. They are given the privilege of being uncompetitive.

Frust/prag-
Unions have to be competitive like a free market? Is the free market the answer to every question for you?
Does any country, including the US have a true free market? - no.
Would a true free market ever work? - no, it's as extreme an economic idealism as true Socialism is and will never happen.

@JS,

What a strange reply!

I clearly state unions must compete "IN" the open market, not "like a free market". The free labor market exists. You may want to somehow emotionalize that simple statement of fact, but the vast, vast majority of workers in America are AT WILL workers who can be hired and fired at any given time. They are also free to leave their job and work anywhere else they chose at any given time. This labor market is not any sort of "answer" for me, whatever the heck that is supposed to mean, it is just the reality of the country we live in.

Does the US have a free LABOR market you ask? Of course it does, I just explained it to you above. Would a true free LABOR market every work? Of course it works, it has been working for hundreds of years here. It is most definitely not some extreme economic idealism at all. In fact, freedom of movement in our Labor Market is one of the engines that drives or economy, and it is one of the factors that determines MARKET VALUE for any given type of worker. Think about it, nurses get paid differing wages all over the country based on supply and demand. Or look at the current situation in North Dakota...the lowest tier of wages there right now is way, way higher than those same jobs in California or New York.

Try pragmatism.

JDB,

The problem I have with your position that "they coulduse it", is that everyone (if asked) would say they could use it. And, I cannot ever agree that there should ever be legislation that determines who "gets it" and who doesn't.

If the minimum wage were to be increased by Law, it is an economic FACT that less entry level workers will be hired, and some will be let go. That is reality. Therefore, a lot of people who "deserve it" in your opinion, are not only NOT going to get it, they are going to end up with nothing.

@Lady Blake – Thank you for your insight.

That said, restaurants DO NOT tax servers. Restaurants do not have the authority to tax employees. Restaurants are required to REPORT income to the taxing authorities – government. Restaurants are also required by the taxing authority to withhold taxes based on reported income and send that money to the government on the employees behalf.