Laboring

From "Labor Blog" harsh commentary on a bill sponsored by Sen. Santorum

This is as low as it goes, as the GOP fights to expand sub-minimum wage sweatshops across the country. Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum is leading the charge for a GOP bill that would ostensibly raise the minimum wage by $1.10 per hour, but in reality would cut wages for millions of American workers and expand unregulated sweatshops across the country.

As this Economic Policy Institute analysis details, the bill is a trojan horse for assaulting workers rights.

Licensing Sweatshops: While a $1.10 per hour minimum wage increase by itself would help 1.8 million workers, Santorum includes a poison bill exempting any business with revenues of $1 million or less from regulation -- raising the exemption from the current $500,000 level.

The upshot: while 1.2 million workers could qualify for a minimum wage increase, another 6.8 million workers, who work in companies with revenues between $500,000 and $1,000,000 per year, would lose their current minimum wage protection.

Comments

[JD Anonymous]

The Labor blog is quite confused. The Santorum bill will indeed help over a million workers by raising the wage. However, to apply it to small businesses could be a death knell to those enterprises. Think about raising the wage for each worker $1.10 an hour. Adding that up over the course of a year and multiply by two or three employees, and that is a considerable sum of money for such a small business. Even Catholic Social Doctrine does not require increasing wages to the point where it would jeopardize the whole enterprise. In fact, applying this logic may cause people to lose jobs and businesses to close. This isn't a case of rich fat-cats hoarding their money. In a business with that small of revenue, no one is "getting rich." But the ideological bent of such bloggers prevents them from thinking concretely about hard economic reality.

If you want to criticize Santorum's move on free-market grounds as pandering to a large, blue-collar electorate as he approaches re-election, that is another issue. A strong case can be made based on the logic above that the exception revenue cap should be raised significantly as to not hurt small businesses. Businesses with revenues of under $20 million annually are not very large, and would really feel this sort of pinch.

There is indeed an obligation to pay a just wage, but we should be prudent as to how we choose to regulate the vice of greed. As Aquinas says, not every vice requires a legal remedy because some greater good may be lost in the process of implementing the rule.

[Mike Petrik]

I agree with JD. Most economists oppose minimum wage laws precisely because they cause greater unemployment of the unskilled. There are exceptions, of course, so fair-minded people certainly can disagree. But automatically castigating Santorum for this is out of line.

[brent]

http://www.nathannewman.org/laborblog

The minimum wage mainly applies to kids and people in entry level jobs. Employers would either cut wages or raise prices, thereby increasing unemployment/inflation. The best way to increase people’s wages is to give them a great education. The best way to do that is through vouchers, but unfortunately unions are opposed to them.

[Whitcomb]

The minimum wage was raised twice, in the late 1980s and 1990s, with no discernible negative effect on job creation. So a higher wage isn't necessarily a death knell for jobs.

I don't know if the Economic Policy Institute is making a reasoned critique of Santorum's plan, but the provision he is apparently advocating to change overtime is troubling.

[Daniel H. Conway]

The "minimum wage jobs is for kids" is true, without the explanation that many of these "kids" are supporting children and the economic demographic folks use to call someone a "kid" frequently extends beyond 21 in many comparisons.

Additionally, many of these "kids" are not the children of wealth, many are using this income to pay their way through college.

Santorum offers an opportunity to effectively decrease the minimum wage offered for close to 7 million people. The comboxes ("com" does not stand for "compassionate"), should be less defensive. They seem to think, by way of "good 'Christian' economics," that the opportunity to pay people less is really in the best interests of these lowly employees. Gosh, I know I would love to get the opportunity to get paid less. And I'm sure Jesus is blessing Mr. Santorum for his efforts to improve the economy on the backs of these minimum wage earners.

[ajb]

JD, your post doesn't make sense (or you don't understand Santorum's bill).

Santorum wants to exempt companies with revenues between $500K and $1M that are ALREADY SUBJECT TO THE LAW. That doesn't just mean that those companies wouldn't have to pay the additional $1.10/hour. It means those companies wouldn't be subjected to ANY MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS AT ALL, including those they currently must pay.

[RP Burke]

Looks like Santorum has some fear in him, since it looks like, with Casey challenging him for re-election, no one -- not even the Chaputs and Burkes of the world -- will mistake him to be the candidate more in support of Catholic social teaching.

[Peggy]

I agree w/JD, Mike P, brent & Whitcomb.
I also believe that, in most markets, workers are earning well above the minimum wage even at McD's, suggesting a shortage of workers. [There must be a shortage of workers (at certain wage/skill levels, of course) since so many illegal aliens are able to enter the country and become "gainfully" employed.]

Raising the minimum wage has a negative effect on the level of employment and can destroy small businesses. Rasing the min wage causes upward pressure on the retail price level, ie, causes inflation. Raising the minimum wage has never increased employment or improved the economy. It provides artificially higher wages for fewer people than otherwise. That's about it.

Don--I had to work a couple of min wage jobs going through college. That's the nature of such jobs in any generation at any level. Min wage jobs will always be priced in relation to higher-skilled/union/professional, etc, jobs in the market. As we increased our experience and skills (ie, through technical schools or university eduations) we expect higher wages than what we'd get at McD's. Min wage earners will never catch up.

[Dale Price]

I can see exempting the smaller businesses from the increase, incrementally imposing it over a reasonable period of time. Obviously the smaller businesses have managed to make it with a $5.15 floor, and shouldn't be forced to eat a 21% increase overnight.

But eliminating the wage protection altogether is beyond rancid. It would be quite an opportunity for unscrupulous employers close to the revenue cutoff point to reorganize their businesses to take advantage of the no-minimum wage provisions.

[ajb]

Peggy, if there is a shortage of workers, and if places like McDonalds are willing to pay over the minimum wage, then who would be working at "small businesses" paying at or under the minimum wage anyway?

At any rate, the true problem with Santorum's bill is that he wants to strip even the minimum wage protection that millions of workers currently enjoy. (of course he also wants to phase-out Social Security to screw those same folks at retirement as well).

Another interesting aspect to his bill is that it would preempt any state from setting a minimum wage above the federal minimum, including preventing states from requiring restaurants to pay tipped employees above the federal minimum.

So much for the party of states-rights and federalism. Once again, it's party over people and power over principle.

[Mike Petrik]

Dale,
Unless there is only one employer in town and all the townsfolk are immobile that just isn't going to happen. Employers compete for workers, and the exemption will have more to do with administrative regulatory compliance than with wages. Not surprisingly (given my degree in economics), I agree with economist Peggy.

[Daniel H. Conway]

Peggy,

You seem confused. This bill is not about protecting small businesses from a minimum wage increase. It is about gutting the Fair Labor Standards Act.

There is the provision assisting employers to insist on mandatory overtime without having to pay overtime wages. The minimum wage is being lowered for workers by this act.

Memo to Archbishop Chaput: the media will notice if you take to task Mr. Santorum for abandoning the poor.

[Dale Price]

Mike:

I think you'd be surprised. There are places in the country--think "company towns"--where there is, for all intents and purposes, one employer, and packing up and leaving isn't a matter of simple choice. I'm thinking of Michigan's Upper Peninsula, for starters.

Moreover, the last 15-20 years have seen the growth of employee leasing arrangements, whereby a company obtains its employees through another firm that it pays to supply it with labor. I've seen companies fire their entire staffs and "rehire" them through the lessor. The terms of the leasing arrangement usually make the lessor the "employer" for all legal purposes, including compliance with civil rights, workers' compensation, and wage laws. In a brutally competitive, bottom line global market, I wouldn't care to put this no-minimum wage past anyone.

[Mike Petrik]

Dale,
One of my young associates is from the Soo. He chose to leave for opportunity.
I have been a leased employee. No big deal. Employee leasing is not at all an evil phenomenon. This does not mean that there are not bad employers just as there are bad employees.

[peggy]

"There is the provision assisting employers to insist on mandatory overtime without having to pay overtime wages. The minimum wage is being lowered for workers by this act."

Dan, I don't fully understand this para. Is a word or two missing? I know there was a labor dept rulemaking that redefined what were supervisory vs. non-management positions. I recall that supervisory positions would no longer be eligible for mandatory overtime. I think firms were giving managerial titles/responsibilities to folks who really were not managers, but not giving management salaries; these "managers" were still eligible for overtime. I think when it came down to it, more people would be classified as management and not be eligible for overtime. [That's appropriate. They should get manager salaries in my mind.] That's my recollection.
I have no idea what this law has to do with that.

Santorum's just proposing to raise the exemption to firms up to $1M from firms w/$500K. This is not troubling. How long ago was the $500K set? It probably is due for some reflection of inflation on income. These are quite small companies we're talking about. I work for a firm with 15 employees. We make probably $1M to $2M in annual revenue. [I'm a stockholder, too; so I benefit in wages and in profits. Oh, no! The horror!]

So, a small businessman (the business being small/not the man!) is going to offer wages lower would be offered elsewhere--probably anywhere else in town? The businessman must offer comparable wages or he won't get too much response. The market does work to some extent for goodness sake.

About "abandoning the poor." The "poor" will always be "poor" in relation to higher wage earners--and inherited wealth. All you do with min wage increases is put price pressure on other wages and retail prices. There are better ways to help than this.

[Dale Price]

Mike:

I represented an employee leasing company. I know they are not "evil." But I also know of concrete examples of companies using the leasing arrangement to circumvent their legal obligations to employees.

Not everybody is as successful as your friend. Some people plant deep roots with their families, churches and communities that are difficult to sever. They shouldn't have to simply because their employer is obsessed with the almighty dollar.

[ajb]

Peggy:
As I understand the mandatory overtime provision, it would allow an employer to force an employee to work, say 60 hours this week and avoid paying overtime by telling them to work on 20 hours the following week.

That would create a bit of a problem for working parents who have a scheduled child-care situation.

I've come to learn that economists can argue as many sides of an issue as lawyers (and I'm a lawyer, so that's not an insult).

But has there really been an outcry by business w/revenues between $500K and $1M that the minimum wage is significantly hurting them? If there is, I haven't heard it.

And what of the provision that forbids states from setting their own minimum wages? Economics aside, this is totally contrary to federalism (so much for Republicanism) and subsidiarity (so much for Opus Dei "bring your faith to work").

[Mike Petrik]

Peggy,
My vague understanding is that Santorum's amendment would repace the overtime threshhold from 40 hrs per week to 80 hours per two weeks. The debate is about who would benefit from this flexibility. I know our HR has repeatedly denied my secretary's request to take time off in exchange for making up the time the following week (which would have been fine with me) due to the overtime pay consequences. I'm not sure I fully understand the concerns from the employees' standpoint, but I imagine that there are some.

[ajb]

Mike:
The problem with the overtime provision from the employees point of view is that it allows the employer to enforce mandatory overtime without paying for it, as long as the employer cuts back on the hours the following week.

Many working parents depend upon a set starting and ending time for their work day, and schedule childcare accordingly.

Consider an after-school program that charges a certain price up to 5:30, with a significant incremental charge after that time. A parent who is now forced to work until 6:00 or 7:00 gets hit with that added expense, without being compensated with overtime. The fact that they get out early a few days the following week really doesn't help them because they don't get a break on the childcare if they pick up before 5:30.

[John]

Be careful here. The articles I've seen are not trying to read the proposal with any sense of charity and the EPI is not an unbiased source as its name suggests. I have not been able to find the actual text of Santorum's proposal on-line to actually evaluate the text. All of the commentary is press analysis based on press releases from the opponents (as Santorum does not have a press release on his Senate site).

But there are several things you should be aware of though that make the hyperbole perhaps overwhelming.

1) The 500K, vs. 1MM cut off. As I recall, the 500K threshold was written into the act in the 70s, to expand the coverage of the FLSA to "enterprises" that were not technically engaging in interstate commerce, and minimize litigation over whether a particular employee was covered or not. Obviously, this threshold has via inflation has been rendered more and more moot. Futhermore, since such a change would only be to one of the alternate provisions that govern whether the FLSA applies to you, just changing the number would not impact most people covered by the act. As a practical matter under the other provisions, it can be argued that the FLSA applies to every employee whose job requires use of the mail, receives or makes products that move in interstate or foreign commerce, etc.
http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/scope/er1.asp

Now if Santorum is writing a new exeception into the Act, that is interesting, and is a major policy change that should be debated, but as a practical matter, I doubt that's the case.

2) Elimination of Protection only under Federal law. Most states have state FLSA equivalents, and the federal act almost never preempts the state law FLSA, which means the employer would still need to satisfy the state law requirements. To say that workers will have no protection altogether could easily be overstated.

This feels funny to me, and I want to reserve judgment until I've looked at the actual text.

John

[Peggy]

Ok, on the overtime stuff. I looked again at the EPI doc...the other links required registration or something.

In general, I don't see a problem w/working 30 hours one week and 50 the next. My mom did that as an hourly-wage nurse for many years. She actually liked it. Overtime kicked in above 80 hours every 2 weeks, I think. My husband works 12 hr days--3 days one week and 4 days the next to make an 80-hour 2-week pay period--as a salaried employee. He likes it. He's home w/the kids while I work. We would have to do daycare or I would have to quit altogether if he worked 9-5, 5 days a week. [We're both home 3 or 4 days a week and earn 1.5 salaries between us. Not bad, I'd say!] Families are finding such schedules advantageous to their needs. Employers have been doing this for some time.

All that said, I would agree that the law/rules should have some guidelines that an employee should not be compelled to work the preponderance (most all) of the time one week and none the next--unless he wants to and the workload permits. But that is the catch. The best policies are those that provide flexiblity and permission to do A or B with some caveats for worker protection.

I also agree that I dislike the "federalization" of anything when not warrented. I don't understand what getting into tips issues is all about. The feds should only concern themselves with taxation of such income or how it may play into existing min wage laws.

[Donald R.McClarey]

"Who founded EPI?
EPI was founded by a group of economic policy experts that includes Jeff Faux, EPI's first president; economist Barry Bluestone of Northeastern University; Robert Kuttner, columnist for Business Week and Newsweek and editor of The American Prospect; Ray Marshall, former U.S. secretary of labor and professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas-Austin; Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of labor and professor at Brandeis University; and economist Lester Thurow of the MIT Sloan School of Management."

From the Economic Policy Institute website.
Expecting these folks to give a fair analysis to anything proposed by a Republican is akin to giving serious consideration to a Planned Parenthood analysis of a pending piece of pro-life legislation. Does anyone have a link to a neutral analysis of this bill?

[Daniel H. Conway]

"The "poor" will always be "poor" in relation to higher wage earners--and inherited wealth."

A fairly disingenuous way to dismiss concern for the poor.

I repeat the less quoted lines of Archbishop Chaput on any conservative blog: "If we abandon the poor, we go to hell."

[Mike Petrik]

Fair enough, abj, but the problem cuts two ways. That same working parent may have to leave early due to a child being sick. She will be docked that time and unable to replace it without the flexibility afforded by this proposal. In my experience that phenomenon is far more likely to occur today than the one you describe, but of course your experience could suggest the opposite.

Dale, I admit that I am not sympathetic given that my grandparents gave up much more for economic opportunity, and I certainly didn't grow up in Atlanta. In any case the industries with the lowest wages tend to also have the weakest profits (if any profits.) I wouldn't be too presumptuous about the greed factor.

[ajb]

If the increase in the exemption from $500K to $1M is simply an "inflation adjustment", wouldn't the same logic compel a similar increase in the minimum wage?

Without wading into the minutae of the Church's social justice teaching, clearly the Church recognizes a "tension" between labor and capital. A bill that appears to increase the power of capital at the expense of labor, with no apparent offsetting protections for labor, can't be good.

[Jimmy Mac]

Federal or State wage and hours laws that are most advantageous to the employee will prevail. California is a daily overtime state, even though the FLSA calls for o/t worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

This is a good situation because there are many states (mostly in the southeast) that have virtually no wage and hours laws advantageous to an employee.

Every time the minimum wage is proposed for increase, the usual "run in circles, scream and shout" crowd comes out. Jobs will be lost! Hiring will be cut back! The sky will fall! Well, I was in HR in various sized companies for 40 years and rarely saw any of those things happen. Yes, in some cases, prices do go up MARGINALLY. That's a small price to pay to help some people at the low end of the economic scale bridge a small bit of the gap between what they earn and what life in this country costs.

Anyone on this blogsite willing to work for the minimum wage?

[ajb]

Mike:
I'm not sure the Santorum bill gives the employee the flexibility to say "I need a few hours off this week, but I'll make it up next week". Rather it only give the employer the right to say "you're working 60 hours this week. If you don't like it, you're fired".

Of course, I may be wrong.

And Jimmy Mac, my understanding is that the Santorum bill has preemption language that would do away with state minimum wage laws that exceed the federal level.

Again, I'm only going on what's been reported. Maybe this evening I'll have time to check Thomas for the actual language.

[Peggy]

This CNN article is a more fair representation, it appears:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/05/minimum.wage.ap/

As far as inflationary adjustments are concerned, the minimum wage has increased a number of times since the 1970s, the small business exemption has not been raised at all since then, according to John. The firm exemption must be increased to catch up. Whether the level advocated is correct, I don't know off the top of my head. I do know that federal small business exemptions typically max out at $1M/yr (in telecom regulation, anyway) these days.

Apparently, the flex time is an option for employees--not mandatory, according to the CNN article. [I could not find anything on Santorum's web site!]

[Donald R.McClarey]

"Anyone on this blogsite willing to work for the minimum wage?"

Sure Jimmy Mac, if I were once again a teen-ager or working my way through college or law school. I worked plenty of minimum wage jobs, and sub-minimum wage jobs actually, because 1. I needed the money and 2. I lacked the skills necessary to fill jobs offering more than the minimum wage. Once I got the skills I said hail and farewell to the minimum wage. I am sure my kids will work many minimum wage jobs before they acquire the necessary skills to compete effectively in the job market, although in my community, come to think of it, no one is paying minimum wage. Starting hourly rates are usually at least a dollar more per hour. Supply and demand.

[Kate]

Jimmy Mac, Daniel, and all who agree, you guys are on the right track.

I am less than edified by all you orthodox conservative Catholic bloggers who find, for a number of excuses of course, that there is nothing at all wrong with virtually eliminating the minimum wage for so many people. Or for anybody, for that matter. Hey anyway, if as some assert, employers are falling all over themselves to pay more than even a higher minimum, then raising the minimum does no harm, right? Why worry?

Being pro-life isn't enough. Not according to Jesus at least. And the Old Testament prophets? Don't even ask that question.

[Mike Petrik]

Daniel,
I don't think that anyone is advocating dismissal of the poor. But in this country the bottom ten percent live better than 85% of the world and live like princes by historic standards. Access to basic food, shelter and emergency medical care are only rarely a problem in this country. Our sympathy for the poor should be more focused toward the Third World in my view, especially children.

Someday the bottom ten percent will have living standards comparable to the top 10% today. I have little doubt there will be Daniel Conways of that generation who will assert that these folks are poor and entitled to relief. The question begged is to what extent is "poverty" a relative or an absolute concept. Conservatives lean toward the latter while liberals lean toward the former. The question cannot be answered by resort to empericism or theology. And the advocates of neither are worthy of contempt or ridicule.

[Mike Petrik]

abj,

I think Peggy's last post responds precisely to your earlier question regarding inflation adjustments.

Also, I am not saying that a worker would be entitled to select the 80 hours that he works every two weeks, any more than an employer can force an employee to work when he doesn't want to. Ultimately, they either agree or they terminate the relationship. What I am saying is that right now an employer could not allow that parent to make up the time lost due to the sick child without incurring overtime pay, so he will generally not permit it, and it is just lost wages to the parent. As I posted above, there are many working moms who simply forgo wages when they have to miss work for a sick child, because employers refuse to allow them to make it up since such make up work would be subject to expensive overtime pay.

[Peggy]

Daniel, my point was not to callously dismiss the poor, but to note out that there will always be a level of society that is poorer than others and that increasing minimum wages does not really solve the problem. They will still be poor in relation to others that earn higher wages. Union labor will demand higher wages to distinguish themselves from unskilled min wage earners. Professionals will demand higher wages to distinguish themselves, and so on. Retail prices will be pushed up. [Lower levels of employment would not necessarily occur directly from the wage increase if employers pass on wage increases to consumers. Unemployment, however, may increase if the firm loses business as a result of price increases and has to lay off employees.]

My point is that there are better ways to help, such as providing job training to enable folks to obtain higher income earning positions.

About the flex time, it sounds like some of the concerns might have to do with whether there is uncertainty about a worker's schedule from week to week. In my experience most flex time office jobs have fairly predictable schedules. Further, employers need to be assured that there is "coverage" in the office, so they may want a generally predicatable schedule as well. Often employees who want to switch days, etc, can work things out among themselves.

I would think that factory job schedules would not be so skewed or uncertain since the manufacturer would not want to keep starting up and shutting down the production equipment.

Retail & fastfood positions which are the typical minimum wage jobs, are thoroughly flexible and, thus, wrought with uncertainty. So, this plan won't harm them.

My conclusion is that there probably won't be as much uncertainty as feared.

Kate--are you the same Kate whose comments I've read over the weekend aparently advocating for Terri Schiavo's "right to die"?

[ajb]

Well I've searched quite a bit and can't seem to find Santorum's proposed language. It's not even on the Senator's website. That's interesting.

I, like others, can't speak to the economics of whether the extent of increasing the exemption is appropriate.

But I simply come back to my earlier point that, from what is reported, this bill appears to provide relief solely to capital with no provision for the protection of labor other than, as someone pointed out earlier, raising the minimum wage to what many companies are already paying anyway.

You can't escape the business lobby's whining about "tort reform". I simply haven't heard the same cry about to do away with the minimum wage for companies with revenues between $500K and $1M(beyond the usually posturing whenever a particular bill comes up for consideration)

[Peggy]

ajb,

The relief to capital is remedial. There is no need for commensurate relief for labor that fall within the small business range as defined. Capital has been at a disadvantage vis-a-vis labor in this situation.

In rsponse to your and Kate's comments "What does it hurt to have a minimum wage law if employers pay above it?" Unnecessary laws inhibit the markets from obtaining the natural & best results for employees/ employers/ consumers. Small businesses compete with major corporations for labor. Small businesses are actually better places to work and tend to offer greater flexibility because they would like to retain employees and keep things moving along. They don't have huge personnel departments to set extensive wage and time off policies. Most innovations in labor policy probably come from small businesses.

[Peggy]

Whoops, I forgot to get to my point in my post. Small businesses are held in check by larger businesses with which they compete for skilled/unskilled labor. Imposing minimum wage on larger firms has an effect on wages offered by small businesses w/o imposing unnecessary regulations on the small businessman.

[Ambrose]

Just curious---are there any small business owners out there who can reveal (even anonymously) how an increase in minumum wage would impact their business? We keep saying that it will impact the job creators in this country, but how much? Does a nickel an hour wipe out the bottom line? Twenty cents? A buck?
I know there is a great variety of business types that would fall into this category. Labor as a percent of operating cost is very different for a manufacturing company (my experience) than it would be for a service company, than it would be for a retail business. When I was in manufacturing, labor was anywhere from 7-20% of the operating cost (depending on what we were producing, raw material value, etc but this was the range most of the places I worked fell into), so if the wages needed to be increased by 20% (5.15 to be increased incrementally by 1.10 is about 20%), that is still only a 4% increase on the cost side if labor is at the most I have seen.
If no one here can volunteer that sort of data, does anyone know a good site that can?
Thanks.

[JDP]

Speaking of “raising” minimum wage is a bit of a misnomer. When looking at the data in real dollars (e.g. dollars adjusted for inflation) the minimum wage has been steadily decreasing since 1968 when it was $8.68 in current dollars. This would have allowed a full-time employee to earn about 90% of the poverty level. At $5.15/hr and 55% of the poverty level today, it would be more honest to talk about “restoring” minimum wage.

Oregon State University has these and other statistic at http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html

[Victor Morton]

Why is 1968 the baseline year?

[jdp]

1968 was the historical high point of real dollar minimum wage.

[Mike Petrik]

Why not pick the historic midpoint?

[Kate]

Peggy,

I'm not advocating Terri's "right to die." God forbid!!

What I said was, (1) Terri (according to the best fact-finding mechanism we have) said she wouldn't want to be "kept alive" (whatever that means) under these circumstances. A court has found - again, the best we have - said that means we should cut off the feeding tube. (2) So, if we are to deny that, which I think we must, by the way, we should come out front and admit that what we're frustrating is Terri's own intention, that is, suicide.

Maybe we should frustrate suicide. Actually, I think we should, my own opinion. But there's no good blaming Michael. Let's park the blame where it belongs. At Terri's door.

Back to the topic. I'm unhappy with the "well, even the abjectly poor in this country are in pretty good shape considering, so we ought to turn market forces loose on them" argument. I don't think that argument squares with Scripture.

Those who disagree are invited to cite chapter and verse.

[Kate]

In response to your and Kate's comments "What does it hurt to have a minimum wage law if employers pay above it?" Unnecessary laws inhibit the markets from obtaining the natural & best results for employees/ employers/ consumers.

The natural and best results being, according to this post, being paying workers less than the already low minimum wage figure.

Hey, all good. It's the best result for the employers, for the consumers. It's better for the employees? I'd like to hear from an employee whose wages have thus gone down to explain how good this this for him/her. Hey, I have an open mind. Bring it on.

[Barbara]

Here is who this bill helps: restaurant owners and other small employers (dry cleaning establishments, for instance) who exploit relatively unskilled immigrant labor. Having pursued FLSA claims on behalf of such employees I know that they are usually willing to work for any wage and now this bill will make their desperate circumstances legal. If you live in a part of the country that doesn't have a lot of immigrant labor, please come and visit here for a week and talk to your waiters and waitresses to see how they are treated. That is, if they aren't too scared to tell you how they feel.

And yes, people in the U.S. have a higher standard of living in some regards (many regards, really) but they have abominable access to health care services, in particular, especially this population. Sure, you can look at it as a glass half full, and I usually do, but you have a better chance at getting good medical care in Cuba (just be snide) if you work in a restaurant than in the U.S., unless you are willing to go bankrupt.

It's not enough to say that this bill "doesn't matter" since most people in the U.S. are better off than people in, say, the slums of Brazil (they probably have better access to health care too, but you get the point). Inequities are also a measure of well-being and a just society.

[Kate]

Barbara, you are Right On.

Let's hear a defense from those of you "orthodox" Catholics who disagree. Testimony from minimum wage workers whose salaries will go down as to how great this is (testimonies from people who can now run their businesses even cheaper than before don't count), citations from Scripture (anything from the gospels or the Old Testament prophets especially appreciated), hey, all good. We're waiting.

[jdp]

Mike & Victor, please feel free to check out the Oregon State site to slice and dice the statistics any way you want.

My only point was that framing this issue as an “increase” in wages (and the related “increase” in costs to companies) is a bit misleading when view in real dollars. The current real cost of the minimum wage is low, historically speaking. In fact you’d have to go back to 1949 to find a time when minimum wages were lower than they are now.

I think that bearing this fact in mind while discussing the potential economic impact of an “increase” would be useful as it puts thing in a more honest perspective.

[Rich Leonardi]

I don't know if anyone has addressed this yet, but the Economic Policy Institute is nothing but a front for organized labor. Unlike, say, the Cato Institute, which has a broad contributor base that includes both corporate and individual contributors, EPI is virtually owned by about twelve labor unions. (I've reviewed their annual reports.) Take anything they say with Gibralter-sized grain of salt.

[Kate]

Rich, you are invited to personally respond to my challenge. See above.

I'm familiar with the Cato Institute. I had lunch today with a contributor. Let us just say that he's not hurting for cash. Almost all my super-wealthy clients contribute to it. That's their "broad" contributor base.

What can I say.

[Rich Leonardi]

Kate and Barbara,

No conservative Catholic that I know insists that a "Catholic view" of economics must conform with Milton Friedman's view of labor and capital, yet every liberal Catholic I come across believes in some sort of Catholic litmus test tied to welfare state dogmas. Go figure.

[Rich Leonardi]

There's no need to wait. Just look up the paragraphs associated with "subsidiarity" in your presumably crisp-spined catechism.

[Kate]

Rich,

I'm puzzled. What does "subsidiarity" have to do with the question at hand?

[Kate]

Rich. Please. Stay on point. "Subsidiary" to what or whom?

Please explain why lowering the minimum wage is OK. Cite either minimum wage workers whose wages will go down, or, chapter and verse from the gospels, or, chapter and verse from the OT prophets, or, specific citations from the bishops or any other Church authorities. Or, any other authorities you think relevant. With an explanation why.

[Kate]

ps, Rich. My catechism is about to fall apart because the binding can't stand up to the use. Thanks a lot for your assumption about me. Right. 'Everyone who disagrees with me must be uneducated.'

Can there be a more arrogant point of view?

[Rich Leonardi]

Kate and Barbara,

I'm not sure what your challenge is. One of you assaults market forces as somehow victimizing the poor and then ask for Scriptural support for a contrary view. Every heretic, dissenter, and half-truth evangelist in history appeals to Scripture.

The Church has not established a table of wages or a definitive minimum wage. You seem to assert that she has, so the burden is upon you to provide it.

The Catechism's section on subsidiarity addresses the limits of state power and the proper ordering of society necessary for living in harmony with the Gospel. It's far more relevant to the gist of your "challenge", such as it is, than random passages from Scripture.

[Mike Petrik]

Kate,
If minimum wage legislation really works why not just increase it to $100 per hour so we all can be rich? Market forces determine wage scales. If market forces are somehow subject to imperfections or interference, then government redress may be appropriate. If not, then there are still consequences. Some employers make less; others quit the business. Some employees make more; others are layed off.
As far as other employee protections are concerned, when in high school I can recall begging my employer to give me more hours so I could save for college but he said he couldn't because the overtime rules made it too expensive. I told him I didn't care about overtime pay, but he said he had no choice but to comply with the law. It was for my protection. I still have a hard time seeing that.

[Kate]

Mike,

"Market forces" may drive wages to $.50 an hour. This is OK with you? And if so, why?

My sympathies to you as a teenager trying to make more money. For college. (My sympathy is everything it should be, considering that you weren't trying to put a roof over your head and your family's head, or to put food on the table, all these problems being taken care of by your parents.) But think about the teenagers who were trying to support a family, just to put food on the table. So, according to your reasoning, they should have been allowed to work....50 hours? 60 hours? 80 hours a week, without being paid overtime. SUCH a bonanza for the employer!

So, if you were willing to work overtime the employer should have been unwilling to pay for that....why? Because.....he wanted to increase the bottom line at your expense? And you were all cool with this.....why? Because you knew it was temporary? And for the people, without your advantages, for whom it was not temporary?

Well, too bad for them, according to you.

I do see that your post doesn't include any citations from Scripture. You undoubtedly thought I wouldn't notice that.

Citations still welcome. Try again.

[Kate]

Get real folks. We're the people of the Book, right?

Let's hear it. Popes OK too. Cite some authority. Go for it.

[Whitcomb]

Rich, the Cato Institute's "broad contributor" base is limited to conservatives and libertarians. So one could just as easily say that Cato is a "front" for business or the Republican Party. You make it sound like it's a disinterested party that seeks only truth, justice and the American way. Nice try.

[Peggy]

I heard on a radio report that only 15% of those working at minimum wage jobs are doing so to support a family. The remaining 85% are students or young adults living w/parents or alone w/no children to support, or their spouses earn fulltime wages. A senator unidentified by the radio announcer made that statement on the Senate floor this evening.

There will not be tons of families enrolling in welfare if the minimum wage is not raised. Admittedly, if it were to be eliminated at this point, after being in existence for so long, there could be a shock to the system. Some employers might lower wages. I doubt highly that wages would drop to a ridiculously low level because no one would work for it. (save illegal aliens who have no business being here anyway. They are the current market force that holds wages down.)

Some businesses that compete internationally may try to lower wages drastically to compete w/say Asian producers. But, they already are locating abroad because US wages are so high relatively. [Thank the unions for the high wages and loss of jobs.] The effect may be arguably a net positive, as new jobs arrive in the US, though at lower wages.

Some one claimed that poor people do not have access to healthcare services. [What is this "healthcare" stuff? What happened to words like "medical" and "doctors"?] No one is turned away from emergency rooms--insurance or not, citizen or not, legal alien or not. Illegal immigrants are costing us a great deal with the medical care they receive at no cost to themselves.

I am a Friedmanite economist, myself, though, as Rich points out, I am aware that Catholic teaching is not quite as sanguine about unfettered markets as I am (barring market failures). The Church, however, stands strongly against communism and statism, no ifs ands or buts.

Kate is arguing w/some one--I guess Mike P--about whether he'd be happy working extra hours for no extra pay. Salaried professionals work as many hours as it takes to complete a job, with no extra wages or compensation time. That's what professionals do. We're big kids. Also, her comments assume that the revised work policies in the bill being discussed make it mandatory that workers work extra hours for no additional compensation. The bill does not force a worker into an undesirable situation. HE CAN CHOOSE, according to the bill.

Finally, Kate, I note that you blame TERRI for her situation? Why? Because she did not write a living will, and a court sided w/her husband who had some miraculous recovered memory of her commenting on one occasion that she'd not want to live like this? You really believe her intention is to die based on the flimsy evidence that Judge Greer bought from Schiavo and Felos? She doesn't look suicidal to me. You're cold.

And I'm the heartless one b/c I don't think that we should keep pressing up wages for unskilled jobs held primarily by students and people not heads of households?

[Mike Petrik]

Kate,
You are so angry and self-righteous with everybody you miss the point. Why I was working is not relevant. Some of my cohorts were supporting families. We were all denied the opportunity to work more hours because it was not economic for the employer to pay us time and a half. The rule did not protect us or help us; it impeded our efforts and hurt the employer as well, since working extra hours at straight time would have been a win-win.

[Victor Morton]

Kate wrote:

" 'Market forces' may drive wages to $.50 an hour. This is OK with you? And if so, why?"

Under what kinds of circumstances would market forces (no sneer quotes necessary, they are real things, like gravity) do this? Are there any naturally countervailing forces at all? Do wages bear any relationship at all to the cost of living in a given labor market? Or to productivity? Or is it just that Sindely Whiplash Capitalism Sucks The Blood Of The Workers?

[Daniel H. Conway]

Worked minimum wage 12 years ago. On brief breaks through school, I worked as a farm laborer to pay for food. My experience is recent enough to suggest it is not the "character building" experience grey heads want portray this as.

I have seen individuals struggle to support families on the "just" wage of minimum wage. I have watched the other acts of incivility and injustice that employment at this level entails. Ms. Rettles' dismissal of the class segregation (just for schools alone) and the danger of the neighborhoods of poverty in America is either again a propagandist's disingenuous tactic or someone truly out of touch with what the daily life of poverty is in America. Hardly the "princes" of Mr. Petrik. Usually in schools that are harrowing and living amidst a stultifying infrastructure.

I am well aware that raising the minimum wage will not attend to the alienation and despair that accompanies poverty in America. However, the cheer that conservatives threw up with this measure (Yippee!!! the opportunity to lower wages!!! Yipppeee!!!) confirmed my every suspicion-conservatives do not care about the poor.

A near universal blog whine over the past week-echoed the whine of Chaput-
1. "They" only focus on "us" the Church when we talk about sex and abortion.
2. Orthodox Catholics (read conservative Catholics) are the only ones doing REAL Catholicism, all should learn from us.

Well, it seems that the chance to show what REAL Catholics are all about has been made-hollow political support for anything but abortion and tax cuts, despite a call to for the rest of the world to listen to the Church's "full" message. The Gospel of the Cato Institute.

I've listened to the full message of the orthodox Catholics on this thread.

"Woe to you rich, for your consolation is now..."

[Daniel H. Conway]

Should read "anti-abortion activities and tax cuts"

[Kate]

I have seen individuals struggle to support families on the "just" wage of minimum wage. I have watched the other acts of incivility and injustice that employment at this level entails. Ms. Rettles' dismissal of the class segregation (just for schools alone) and the danger of the neighborhoods of poverty in America is either again a propagandist's disingenuous tactic or someone truly out of touch with what the daily life of poverty is in America. Hardly the "princes" of Mr. Petrik. Usually in schools that are harrowing and living amidst a stultifying infrastructure.

I am well aware that raising the minimum wage will not attend to the alienation and despair that accompanies poverty in America. However, the cheer that conservatives threw up with this measure (Yippee!!! the opportunity to lower wages!!! Yipppeee!!!) confirmed my every suspicion-conservatives do not care about the poor.

Thank you, Daniel. You are defending gospel values.

[Victor Morton]

Please provide specific citations for this ... remarkable ... statement:

"the cheer that conservatives threw up with this measure (Yippee!!! the opportunity to lower wages!!! Yipppeee!!!)"