Let's discuss the minimum wage

Ramafuchs wrote:

The miminum hourly wage in USA is $5.15. Over a year's time, a person working 2,080 hours (40 hours x 52 weeks) earns a total of $10,712. Deducting income taxes and social-security withholding, one's net earning is approximately $8,000.

This is a perfect example of someone that doesn't understand the U.S. tax system or basic math.

If someone earns $10,712 in a year 6.2% ($664) is withheld for Social Security taxes and 1.5% ($160) is withheld for Medicare. On the income taxes they'd immediately exempt $8,450 which would leave $2,262 as their taxable income. The tax on that is $226. At the same time they'd get an earned income tax credit of $107.

$10,712 - $664 - $160 - $226 + $107 = $9,769 as the person's net earnings for the year. (For a single person using the 2006 tax tables)

Not great by any means by that's a $1,700 difference from your source's statement. Of course they also negelct to mention that there are very few people few people that earn the minimum wage that actually rely on it as their sole living resource either.

0 Replies

Spellbound.
Accept my regards

0 Replies

Raising the minimum wage will certainly destroy our economy. NOT!

Fri Oct 12, 2:48 AM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The richest one percent of Americans earned a postwar record of 21.2 percent of all income in 2005, up from 19 percent a year earlier, reflecting a widening income disparity among different classes in the nation, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing new Internal Revenue Service data.

The data showed that the fortunes of the bottom 50 percent of Americans are worsening, with that group earning 12.8 percent of all income in 2005, down from 13.4 percent the year before, the paper said.

It said that while the IRS data goes back only to 1986, academic research suggests that the last time wealthy Americans had such a high percentage of the national income pie was in the 1920s.

The article cited an interview with President Bush, who attributed income inequality to "skills gaps" among various classes. It said the IRS didn't identify the source of rising income for the affluent, but said a boom on Wall Street has likely played a part.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Ramafuchs wrote:
The miminum hourly wage in USA is $5.15. Over a year's time, a person working 2,080 hours (40 hours x 52 weeks) earns a total of $10,712. Deducting income taxes and social-security withholding, one's net earning is approximately $8,000.

This is a perfect example of someone that doesn't understand the U.S. tax system or basic math.

If someone earns $10,712 in a year 6.2% ($664) is withheld for Social Security taxes and 1.5% ($160) is withheld for Medicare. On the income taxes they'd immediately exempt $8,450 which would leave $2,262 as their taxable income. The tax on that is $226. At the same time they'd get an earned income tax credit of $107.

$10,712 - $664 - $160 - $226 + $107 = $9,769 as the person's net earnings for the year. (For a single person using the 2006 tax tables)

Not great by any means by that's a $1,700 difference from your source's statement. Of course they also negelct to mention that there are very few people few people that earn the minimum wage that actually rely on it as their sole living resource either.

Plus it should be emphasized this is only for a single person with no dependants. If there are any children, the child tax credits totally eliminates any tax due and provides a refund instead.

It is a very small percentage of wage earners that earn the minimum wage, less than 2% I think, and of those I am guessing a significant portion live with others, commonly parents.

0 Replies

The following site sheds more light on the subject.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm

Those workers working for the minimum wage comprise only1.5% of working Americans, but something I forgot to point out that the article points out, many of those workers also earn tips, so the percentage shrinks further that actually earn only the minimum wage.

Further, 53% of minimum wage earners are 16 to 24 years of age. Also, 67% of the minimum wage earners are part time employees, typical of young people that live at home and possibly going to high school or college, which is further supported by the fact that the average income of the households of these workers is $64,000 per year. Not exactly poor people, obviously, so if you take out 2/3 of the 1.5%, you are left with only 0.5% of the workers, 1 out of 200, that belong to households that make an average of less than $64,000 per year. Another statistic is that only 5% of the 16 to 24 age group minimum wage earners are married.

The other 47% of the minimum wage earners belong to households with an average family income of $33,000 per year, so here again the stereotype of destitution breaks down. Many are part timers or spouses that work as not being the principle bread winner of the family. Only around 6% of this group are single breadwinners of a family, as single parents.

So it turns out that of the 1.5% of all workers in the U.S., only a very small percentage, probably less than 5% of those according to my math, or less than one tenth of one percent of all workers that are trying to support a family as the sole bread winner. And even within that group, there may be tips that increase their true earnings. Plus the very important point that minimum wage earners are a revolving door. People that make minimum wage are not the same people from week to week, month to month, year to year. They move up, and probably most of them only make minimum wage a short amount of time.

Bottom line, the minimum wage law is pointless and a total waste of time, beyond helping Democrats feel like they did something.

0 Replies

How many workers would be earning the new minimum wage of $7.25? The number I heard was four percent, and it sounds plausible, but admittedly I don't remember who the source was.

Assuming this number is right, though, the Heritage Foundation's logic cuts both ways: if only four percent of the work force earns the new minimum wage, then preventing the raise would have done little but to assure Republicans they did something.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

How many workers would be earning the new minimum wage of $7.25? The number I heard was four percent, and it sounds plausible, but admittedly I don't remember who the source was.

I don't know, Thomas. But interesting if that is true because it would mean that the minimum wage level might be impacting more of the work force, and the impact may be more severe in terms of eliminating jobs. Remember, it cuts both ways. It might help some and hurt others. Which is to be expected based on common sense. If the minimum wage went to $10.00, the percentage of Americans would rise yet more, and the reduction in jobs would be greater, and if $15.00, much greater still.

Quote:

Assuming this number is right, though, the Heritage Foundation's logic cuts both ways: if only four percent of the work force earns the new minimum wage, then preventing the raise would have done little but to assure Republicans they did something.

I'm not sure what you mean, but if the Republicans defeat such measures, it might mean they merely defeat a needless bill if it has little impact, and if it has alot of impact, it would mean they might preserve alot of jobs that will be lost.

There is another aspect to this that I have mentioned that has been belittled, but an aspect I believe to be totally valid according to the principles of market economics and just plain common sense. The closer the minimum wage becomes to a living wage, if forced by law, the more people will be content with less skilled jobs, thus dampening the acquistion of more technical and scientific skills and upward mobility of employees, leading to increased shortage of skilled jobs. Long term effects will be negative. As it stands now, the minimum wage is not much more than window dressing, however.

0 Replies

Quote:

"Thomas"--How many workers would be earning the new
minimum wage of $7.25? The number I heard was four percent,
and it sounds plausible, but admittedly I don't remember who
the source was.

Quote:

okie sez--
I don't know, Thomas. But interesting if that is true because it
would mean that the minimum wage level might be impacting
more of the work force, and the impact may be more severe
in terms of eliminating jobs. Remember, it cuts both ways. It
might help some and hurt others. Which is to be expected
based on common sense. If the minimum wage went to
$10.00, the percentage of Americans would rise yet more,
and the reduction in jobs would be greater,

Answer --$7.00 an hr will cover 8 to 10 percent of hourly empoyes.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/MinWagCover.jpg

Okies common sense is based on lies!

In 1968 the minimum wage was $8.98 per hour in
2005 dollars.
Total Unemployment was 3.4%, the lowest in the last 40 years.
Teen Unemployment was 12.0%, the lowest in the last 40 years.
Nine dollars an hour had NO affect on employment. Period.
Today the minimum wage is just about half as much and teen
Unemployment is higher at 15.3%. Explain that

The ultimate truth in American is that republican LIE.

Quote:

http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/tp-part1.htm

In 1981, the Congressionally-mandated Minimum Wage Study
Commission concluded that a 10 percent increase in the
minimum wage reduces teenage employment by 1 percent to
3 percent.

Quote:
There is absolutely no Statistical evidence to back this absurd LIE!

The minimum wage was not raised at all from 1981 to 1990 and
overall teenage unemployment fell from about 25% to about 15%.
Since the minimum wage was raised in 1990, teen unemployment
has risen to above 20%. The impact of this increase is most
pronounced among minority teens.

Quote:
The lying scum-bag republicans know full well that brain-dead,
Nun-murdering Reagan and Paul volcker colluded in raising interest
rates high enough to raise unemployment to over 10%, but being
shameless liars they blame the rise in unemployment on the
minimum wage. -shameless LIARS.

1979 and 1989 were the final years of expansions followed
by recessions
Year-----$2005----2000 hours---teen unemployment
1979 ---$ 7.80------$15,600------- 16.1-----5.9 total Unemployment
1989 ---$ 5.28------$10,560------- 16.4-----5.4 total Unemployment
Despite a 32% decrease in the minimum wage, teen did NOT drop.

Also, in 1990, papa bush and greenspan had a high interest rate recession.

To paraphrase Milton Friedman: It has always been a mystery
to me why a youngster is better off unemployed at $5.15 an
hour than employed at $4.25 an hour.

Quote:
Even if teen Unemployment increased by three percent, as the
lying low-life republicans claim, a grope of 100 workers would
still make more money, and have more time off.
Can't beat that. LOL

If Unemployment increased from 15% to 18%
$5.15 x2000=10,300 per yr x85 workers =875,500
$6.15 x2000=12,300 per yr x82 workers =1,008,600

Quote:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln
Unemployment Rate - Civilian Labor Force - LNS14000000
Unemployment Rate - 16-19 Yrs. - LNS14000012

year-------nominal $--2005$----2000 hours---teen unemployment
1950 . . . ... . 0.75----- 6.08----$12,000--------15.2--
1951.............0.75----- 5.63------11,260----------8.5--
1952 . . . . . 0.75----- 5.53------11,060--------- 9.3--
1953 . . . . . . 0.75----- 5.49------10,980--------- 6.9--2.5-UnEmployment
1954 . . . . . . 0.75----- 5.45------10,900------- 12.1--4.9-UnEmployment
1955 . . . . . . 0.75----- 5.47------10,940------- 11.7--
1956 . . . . . . 1.00----- 7.18------14,.360------ 10.6--
1957 . . . . . . 1.00----- 6.95------13,900------- 11.6--
1958 . . . . . . 1.00----- 6.76------13,520------- 14.4--
1959 . . . . . . 1.00----- 6.71------13.420------- 14.0--
1960 . . . . . . 1.00----- 6.60------13.200------- 14.6--
1961 . . . . . . 1.15----- 7.51------15.020------- 17.1--
1962 . . . . . . 1.15----- 7.44------14,880------- 16.2--
1963 . . . . . . 1.25----- 7.98------15,960------- 15.8--
1964 . . . . . . 1.25----- 7.88------15,760------- 16.7--
1965 . . . . . . 1.25----- 7.75------15,550------- 16.8--
1966 . . . . . . 1.25----- 7.53------15,060------- 13.0--
1967 . . . . . . 1.40----- 8.19------16,380------- 11.9--
1968 . . . . . . 1.60----- 8.98------17,960------- 12.0--3.4-UnEmployment
1969 . . . . . . 1.60----- 8.51------17,020------- 12.0--
1970 . . . . . 1.60----- 8.05------16,100------- 13.5--
1971 . . . ... . 1.60----- 7.72------15,440------- 16.8--
1972 . . . . . . 1.60----- 7.48------14,960------- 16.9--
1973 . . . . . . 1.60----- 7.04------14,080------- 13.7--
1974 . . . . . . 2.00----- 7.92------15,840------- 14.6--
1975 . . . . . . 2.10----- 7.62------15,240------- 19.5--
1976 . . . . . . 2.30----- 7.89------15,780------- 19.6--
1977 . . . . . . 2.30----- 7.41------14,820------- 18.9--
1978 . . . . . . 2.65----- 7.94------15,880------- 16.7--
1979 . . . . . . 2.90----- 7.80------15,600------- 16.1--5.9-UnEmployment
1980 . . . . . . 3.10----- 7.35------14,700------- 16.5--
1981 . . . . . . 3.35----- 7.20------14,400------- 19.1--
1982 . . . . . . 3.35----- 6.78------13,560------- 22.0--
1983 . . . . . . 3.35----- 6.57------13,140------- 23.1--
1984 . . . . . . 3.35----- 6.30------12,600------- 19.5--
1985 . . . . . . 3.35----- 6.08------12,160--------18.8--
1986 . . . . . . 3.35----- 5.97------11,940------- 18.1--
1987 . . . . . . 3.35----- 5.76------11,520------- 17.7--
1988 . . . . . . 3.35----- 5.53------11,060------- 16.1--
1989 . . . . . . 3.35----- 5.28------10,560------- 16.4--5.4-UnEmployment
1990 . . . . . . 3.80----- 5.68------11,360------- 14.8--
1991 . . . . . . 4.25----- 6.09------12,180------- 18.6--
1992 . . . . . . 4.25----- 5.92------11,840------- 19.2--
1993 . . . . . . 4.25----- 5.74------11,480------- 19.9--
1994 . . . . . . 4.25----- 5.60------11,200------- 18.3--
1995 . . . . . . 4.25----- 5.45------10,900------- 16.5--
1996 . . . . . . 4.75----- 5.91------11,820------- 17.7--
1997 . . . . . . 5.15----- 6.27------12,540------- 16.8--
1998 . . . . . . 5.15----- 6.17------12,340------- 13.9--
1999 . . . . . . 5.15----- 6.04------12,080--------15.2--
2000 . . . . . . 5.15----- 5.84------11,680--------12.7--4.0 -UnEmployment
2001.............5.15----- 5.68----- 11,360--------13.8--
2002.............5.15----- 5.59----- 11,180--------16.6--
2003.............5.15----- 5.47----- 10,940--------17.2--
2004.............5.15----- 5.32----- 10,640--------17.0--
2005.............5.15----- 5.15----- 10,300--------16.2--
2006.............5.15----- 4.97------- 9,940--------15.3--4.6-UnEmployment

Bluecoller, the grumpy old kruat. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

blue-coller-eddie, nice set of graphs and figures. Thanks.

I think "lies" is an awfully strong word however, and the debate is between economists that have reasons for their opinion, which are opinions not lies. After all if Republicans thought it would all work out wonderful, they would want to raise it to $9.00 or alot more. If you raised the minimum wage to $8.98 or round it off to $9 per hour, do you think you would see the same situation as 1969?

$9.00 is still not much of a living wage, so why not raise it to $15.00?

0 Replies

bluecoller-eddie wrote:

Quote:
"Thomas"--How many workers would be earning the new
minimum wage of $7.25? The number I heard was four percent,
and it sounds plausible, but admittedly I don't remember who
the source was.
Answer --$7.00 an hr will cover 8 to 10 percent of hourly empoyes.

Says who? Based on which arguments, and what evidence?

0 Replies

Quote:

So who's making the minimum? According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), 11 percent of the workforce, an estimated 14.9 million workers, would receive a boost in their hourly compensation if the rate hike proposal had passed. About 6.6 million workers earning less than $7.25 would have been directly effected by the increase. But the pay increase isn't limited to those earning exactly $5.15 an hour. More than 8 million workers earning a bit more than the minimum rate would see an increase as employers made adjustments to keep the payroll in check.

CNN - Last year when Minimum Wage Increase did not pass.

0 Replies

Let's discuss the minimum wage

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know