posted
Rich Senators Defeat Minimum-Wage Hike Congressional Pay Rises While Minimum Stays Same Helen Thomas, Hearst White House columnist
U.S. senators -- who draw salaries of $162,100 a year and enjoy a raft of perks -- have rejected a minimum wage hike from $5.15 an hour to $6.25 for blue-collar workers.
Can you believe it?
The proposed increase was sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and turned down in the Senate by a vote of 51 against the boost and 49 in favor. Under a Senate agreement, it needed 60 votes to pass.
All the Democrats voted for the wage boost. All the negative votes were cast by Republicans.
Four Republicans voted for it. Three of the four are running for reelection and were probably worried about how voters would react if they knew that their well-heeled senators had turned down a pittance of an increase in the salaries of the lowest paid workers in the country.
The minimum wage was last increased in 1997.
Kennedy called the vote "absolutely unconscionable."
The lawmakers are hardly hurting. They get health insurance, life insurance, pensions, office expenses, ranging from $2 million on up, depending on the population of a state. The taxpayers also pay for their travel, telecommunications, stationery and mass mailings.
AFL-CIO president John Sweeney said the rejection was "outrageous and shocking."
Sweeney said minimum-wage workers "deserve a pay raise -- plain and simple -- no strings attached."
He said it is "appalling that the same right-wing leaders in Congress -- who have given themselves seven pay raises since the last minimum wage increase -- voted down the modest wage increase proposed by the Kennedy amendment."
During the same period since 1997, raises that the Senate has given itself bolstered senatorial pay by $28,000 a year, Kennedy said.
"If we are serious about helping hard-working families, we will give a fair raise to America's low-income workers without taking away essential protections," he added.
The Senate also killed an amendment proposed by Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyo., which also would have increased the minimum wage by $1.10 but included drastic measures such as wiping out the 40-hour work week, cutting overtime pay and weakening job safety and health protection.
At the same time, Enzi wanted to sweeten the pot for small business by providing tax and regulatory relief and to exempt small business from the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Kennedy likened the Enzi bill to an "anti-worker poison pill" and said it would "severely hurt millions and millions of workers."
According to the Census Bureau, there are 37 million Americans living in poverty, up 1 million in just a year.
Statements by President George W. Bush since the Gulf Coast hurricane disasters indicate he has a new awareness of the plight of the poor in this country. Katrina and the devastation of New Orleans have made the more affluent realize the hardships suffered by poor families.
When asked about the Kennedy measure, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush "believes that we should look at having a reasonable increase in the minimum wage ... But we need to make sure that, as we do that, that it is not a step that hurts small business or prices people out of the job market."
Bush has not weighed in with his own proposal for a pay hike.
The Senate's action comes at a worrisome time when motorists are paying much more for gasoline and heating bills are expected to rise by 56 percent this winter, according to Kennedy.
As a result, families will have to tighten their belts to pay for the basic necessities.
"It is shameful that in America today, the richest and most powerful nation on earth, nearly a fifth of all children go to bed hungry at night because their parents, many of whom are working full time at the minimum wage, still can't make ends meet," Kennedy said.
Kennedy has been in the forefront of the fight for increases in the minimum wage for years, and I don't expect him to throw in the towel now.
Congress still may have a chance to redeem itself in the eyes of the less fortunate -- before the 2006 elections.
posted
Who makes the minimum wage? The average family income for employees who would “benefit” from the proposed $1.85 minimum wage hike is $44,331. Why? Nearly six out of seven of these employees either live with their parents or relatives, have a working spouse, or are single and don't have children.
Virtually all minimum wage employees will see their incomes rise as they increase their value to employers by gaining skills through experience. Analysis of US Census Bureau data shows the median raise these employees receives is six times higher than that of employees earning above the minimum wage.
This traditional growth out of entry-level employment explains why only 2.8% of employees above the age of 30 are working at the minimum wage.
Among those 2.8% are the low-skilled adults we want to help. They are also the very people who lose their jobs when the minimum wage is hiked.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2002 According to Current Population Survery estimates for 2002, some 72.7 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.6 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Of those paid by the hour, about 570,000 were reported earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage, and another 1.6 million were reported with wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 2.2 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 3.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers. Tables 1 - 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for these low-wage workers. The following are some highlights from the 2002 data.
Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and slightly more than one-fourth were age 16-19. Among teenagers, 10 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. However, among those age 65 and over, the proportion was about 5 percent. (See table 1 and table 7.)
About 4 percent of women paid hourly rates reported wages at or below the prevailing Federal minimum, compared with about 2 percent of men. (See table 1.)
The proportion of hourly-paid workers receiving $5.15 or less was about 3 percent for whites, blacks, and Hispanics. For whites and Hispanics, women were more likely than men to be low-wage earners. (See table 1.)
Never-married workers, who also tend to be quite young, are more likely to earn the minimum wage or less than persons who are married. (See table 8.)
The likelihood of a worker being paid the minimum wage or less is inversely related to the level of education attained. Among hourly-paid workers age 16 and over, a little over 2 percent of those who had a high school diploma but had not gone on to college earned the minimum or less, compared with less than 2 percent for those who had obtained a college degree. (See table 6.)
Part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were much more likely than their full-time counterparts to be paid $5.15 or less (about 8 percent versus about 2 percent). About 1 in 10 workers putting in fewer than 15 hours per week earned the minimum or less. (See table 1 and table 9.)
By occupational group, the proportion of hourly-paid workers whose earnings were reported at or below $5.15 ranged from a low of less than 1 percent for persons employed in managerial and professional specialty jobs and in precision production, craft, and repair positions, to a high of about 10 percent for those in service jobs. Roughly two-thirds of all low-wage workers in 2002 were in service-type occupations, mostly in food service jobs. (See table 4.)
Among industry groups, the proportion of workers with reported hourly wages at or below $5.15 was highest in retail trade (about 8 percent), agriculture (about 2 percent), and services (also about 2 percent). About three-fifths of all low-wage workers were employed in retail trade, and nearly one-fourth worked in services. It should be recognized that for many working in these two industries, tips and commissions might supplement the hourly wages received. (See table 5.)
Among the four broad geographic regions, the West had the lowest proportion of hourly workers with earnings at or below $5.15 (about 2 percent), while the South had the highest (about 4 percent). For a number of States, the proportion of hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage exceeded the national average; in many other States, the proportion was much lower. Some States have minimum wage laws establishing minimum wage standards that exceed the Federal level of $5.15 per hour. (See table 2 and table 3.)
The proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less has trended downward since 1979, when data first began to be collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Bureau of Labor Statistics' data on minimum wage earners are derived from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a nationwide sample survey of households that includes questions enabling the identification of hourly-paid workers and their hourly wage rate. Data in this summary are 2002 annual averages.
posted
I'm not entirely sure that minimum wage is meant to be a livable wage. Aragorn is right in that most people making minimum wage are living with their parents. Why are we overly concerned about the bottom two percent?
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Because it's a political hot button. Easy to use and say one side is helping the poor, the other isn't, etc. Most people don't care enough to actually look into the issue.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
1. It's more then the bottom 2% The numbers probably more in the 5% area of workers because the study said $5.15 or lower which is federal and some states have higher wages. So if they made $5.25 then it's not in this data.
2. The more money they have, the more they will spend. When gas is $2.50-$3 a gallon and you have to drive to work it takes more money.
3. There should be some increase for adjusted inflation.
I don't care who you are, if you are making money, paying taxes and contributing to the society you live in, you count. If you don't count then you don't have to pay taxes...
I don't know the numbers for people on welfare and other governemnt assistance, but this small raise in pay COULD help many of these people and get them out of the welfare system.
Posts: 562 | From: NY | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A person working 40 hours a week at $5.15/hour for 52 weeks of the year will earn $10,712. That person has a standard deduction of $4850 which reduces net income to $5862. This is then reduced by the exemption of $3100 which reduces the net income to $2762. This results in a tax of $276. The earned income credit reduces this tax by $59 which results in a total tax bill of $217.
If that same person is a single parent of one child, their net income after the standard deduction and the exemptions is $0. They then receive from the government an earned income credit of $2604. With two children the EIC becomes $4290.
So in effect, anyone earning minimum wage with children pays no tax and receives instead a check in the amount of the earned income credit.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The government reported that the number of people who are hungry because they can't afford to buy enough food rose to 38.2 million in 2004, an increase of 7 million in five years. The number represents nearly 12 percent of U.S. households.
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: We've certainly been coddling the top 2% long enough.
HERE HERE! but dont you get it man, its the top 2% who make it to the top by hiring and paying the minimum wage to the bottom 2% this is the art of business. why do you think they turn a blind eye to illegal immigrants from mexico. They would take less than 5.15 if they could, just to have a job. I'm all for an increase of minimun wage but i dont think it will help that much, because according to a class i took in high school a person cannot live on thier own without about $11 per hour. unless they dont have a car. and dont have kids.
this reminds me of the saying: Those who dont know how money works will always work for somebody who does.
And i truely think that if someone is eager enough they can move up and earn more money for themselves, but most of these people are "its somebody elses fault" people, and never take their destiny into their own hands and just settle for less than they want because they are too lazy or uneducated to reach for something better. Now While i do admit that haveing minimun wage jobs is good for high school students just starting out but if that person quits school to work at mcdonalds then they better be the franchise owner, otherwise they are foolish and dont deserve any more than minimum wage.
Most big companies didnt get where they are by paying their employees liveable wages.. ie. Walmart, mcdonalds, Wendy's, pizza hut... etc. and if you notice they never have a hard time finding new employees to replace the ones who move on or finish college. for example my wife was laid off and while she was looking for a job she decided to apply to be a cashier at one of the (5) local walmarts to help with bills until she could get a real job, well lets just say that she didnt get it because there was a waiting list of people who would take less than $6 per hour. even though she had experience. So i dont think the minimum wage is going anywhere soon, there are to many people willing to accept it.
-------------------- "Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over." Herbert Hoover 1930 Posts: 678 | From: currently in hiding due to investigation | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Only 59.6% of American workers are paid an hourly wage. Of these only 3% or 2.2 million are paid the minimum wage.
The average household income for those earning minimum wage is $44,331, above the poverty line.
Six out of seven live with someone else or do not have children.
Only one out of seven or 314,285 are supporting children on minimum wage. This is .0026% of the working population
These one out of seven don't pay taxes, they don't live only on their minimum wage pay. The true income before all other benefit packages such as WIC, food stamps and other governmental assistance for a working parent with one child is $13,316. With two children it is $15,002.
Raising the minimum wage to benefit this .0026% of the working population which will also result in every other wage class demanding a corresponding wage increase, thus causing inflation which will put them in the same proportional situation they began with is not cost effective.
They are receiving other benefits which are not seen, the EIC being one, food stamps, WIC, child support and social security in some cases being others.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless those 314,285 single parents supporting kids have an average of 121.5 children each, raising the minimum wage isn't going to affect the 38.2 million who are going "hungry".
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Putting the word "hungry" in quotes doesn't diminish the problem, Arrogant243.
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The government reported that the number of people who are hungry because they can't afford to buy enough food rose to 38.2 million in 2004, an increase of 7 million in five years. The number represents nearly 12 percent of U.S. households.
posted
Hungry in the United States isn't really hungry now is it?
38.2 million are hungry? That number coincides with the number of people living below the poverty level. So "hungry" is just a buzz word for those below the poverty line, not those that are hungry.
If poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being "in poverty" by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.
The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher. Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Hungry because they can't afford to buy enough food" means "hungry because they can't afford to buy enough food".
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do realize what happens when you don't have enough food don't you?
I think they have enough food, may not be as much as they like but there aren't many starving people in the United States.
I would like to see the government report that says they are hungry because they cannot afford food. A news article from an AP reporter using editorial power, is not a government report.
I couldn't find the term "hungry" used on any census report. I could find "poverty level" however in the same percentages.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ask any cable tv installer, who has the big tvs with all the premium channels.
Posts: 1235 | From: Anacortes, WA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
once again i have to ask you strider, what is your logical progression here...people in the US are pretty well off..i know i've seen the third world, and i currently live in one of the poorest areas of the US right now... i've also lived in several of the wealthiest areas of the US...
so since they are so well off? we should cut the benefits until they aren't safe? and people do sart dying of starvation and bad health??? cuz i gotta tellya, that ain't very Christian, and it is stupid managment to boot, when TB becomes an epidemic from having so many poor and unkempt? it won't discriminate based on your bank account...or your health care provider... there are some dengue cases that recently popped up in the US that were apparently caught HERE....that should scare ya...
why is it that these bible thumpers are the first ones to preach atcha and then the first to abandon their own teachings?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's because they're thumping and preaching instead of reading and teaching by example. Remember when we used to know they were Christians by their love?
Posts: 1235 | From: Anacortes, WA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I never suggested we should cut the benefits until they aren't safe, people are dying of starvation and bad health.
I have stated and supported reasons why raising the minimum wage does not help those it is intended to help.
I've also provided the statistics showing who is earning the minimum wage.
I've also provided the tax figures for those earning only the minimum wage showing that only those with no children or other means of support pay income taxes.
My question would be:
What does people going hungry have to do with the effects of raising the minimum wage?
But since a statement that 38.2 million Americans are going "hungry" I want to define what "hungry" is. It appears that "hungry" means below the poverty level, not HUNGRY as in lacking in food as it is portrayed.
That definition has nothing to do with being Christian, Bible thumping, preaching, abandoning teachings or cutting benefits.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But since a statement that 38.2 million Americans are going "hungry" I want to define what "hungry" is. It appears that "hungry" means below the poverty level, not HUNGRY as in lacking in food as it is portrayed.
That definition has nothing to do with being Christian, Bible thumping, preaching, abandoning teachings or cutting benefits.
amazing.... i am so pleased you cleared up the issue strider...there are no hungruy people just statistics.... thanx
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government. Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. see the patio? home sweet home
ah'm not poor ah owns ma own home
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aragorn, you will find that is impossible to use facts in these arguements as the witless libs don't want to hear them as facts are never on their side.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
seriously? i posted some scary stats about homeownership a little while back....
you would bae amazed how many "homes" in America are doublewides... and they come with two baths...and they have porches, and patios, and they don't mean you have enough money to pay the bills... they also DO NOT apreciate in value...they go down fast. like cars do..
i'm not for raising the min wage... cuz i agree with strider about the inflation thing...
i do question those stats you posted tho strider, they call the way you presented them "bootstrapping" in scientific circles...
the fact is? the gap between the haves and have nots is getting too much bigger too much faster, and that leads to public unrest, i would like to avoid that if we can...
the Air Cond. thing? more people die in this country from HEAT exposure than cold... i think its a ten to 1 ratio, and its mostly kids under 4 and elderly that die from it..in their homes...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i was at the grocery today: i saw this happen....
A lady goes to the grocery store, with her kids, and she needs groceries but she’s not very good about knowing what to buy because she’s not too bright, but she’s got these kids saying “buy me this” all the time. Mostly “this” is the sugary stuff, soda pop and sweets, kids can easily see it because it’s in the bright colored packaging and placed where they can reach in the store. The’ve also seen stuff on TV and boy howdy they want it. So mom gets the toilet paper and chips and milk and cereal, maybe a frozen pizza, then she gets to the checkout and she’s only got $22 in her pocket. She didn’t get much from public school so she’s got no clue how much the stuff in the cart will cost. The checkout clerk says “that’ll be $28.50. Now mom has to take out some of the sodas, or juice, or milk, or whatever to get down to the $22. She ends up with chips and pudding, that’s dinner for the next week. The whole family gets chubby and everybody who looks at them figures they’re healthy. That’s what her welfare check buys. What should she do? Go to college? She already goes to church…..
and don't tell me she had the same opportunities you and i did...i KNOW for a fact she didn't...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
LOL
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
