Who are minimum wage workers?
An estimated 7.3 million workers (5.8% of the workforce) would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage to $7.25 by June 2007. Of these workers, 72.1% are adults and 60.6% are women. Close to half (43.9%) work full time and another third (34.5%) work between 20 and 34 hours per week. More than one-third (35%) of the workers who would benefit from an increase to $7.25 are parents of children under age 18, including 760,000 single mothers. The average minimum wage worker brings home about half of his or her family's weekly earnings.

Why do we need a minimum wage increase?
A minimum wage increase of $2.10 by 2007 would raise the wages of 7.3 million workers. A minimum wage increase is needed to restore the minimum wage to historic levels. The inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage is 26% lower in 2004 than it was in 1979. In addition, comparing the wages of minimum wage workers to average hourly wages, we find that the wages of minimum wage workers have not kept up with the wages of other workers. The minimum wage is 33% of the average hourly wage of American workers, the lowest level since 1949.

Congress has not increased the minimum wage in seven years—the second-longest stretch of government inaction since the minimum wage was enacted in 1938. When Congress does not increase the minimum wage, the minimum wage continues to lose value.



All this information speaks to minimum wage. This isn't even touching on a "living wage" which is necessary to sustain a family and is much higher than the minimum wage. Think of all the people trying to support their families on 7-13 dollars an hour!!! Insane in such a wealthy country.

The top 10% should not control 90% of our country's wealth like they are currently doing.

Okay. Your study says 44% work full time and 34% work part time. That's 78%. What do the other 22% do?

Looks like I was right. 44% is less than half and I said most were not fulltime. Thanks.

How many of them are 18 & 19-year old "adults" - or are retired adults who are greeters at WalMart for both the exercise, the socialization and the spending money?

Here's another catch: How many of these minimum-wage workers should NOT be paid more, specifically because they are NOT worth what they are already being paid? The answer? MANY!

Here's yet another catch: We hear lots of people - conservatives and liberal alike - cricitizing the Hispanics who are coming to America and "stealing all our jobs!" But the TRUTH of the matter is that they're simply going to where the jobs are.

What is even more telling are the "living wage" statistics:


http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/is...ivingwagefacts

Living wage ordinances have been enacted in over 70 localities.

A living wage ordinance requires employers to pay wages that are above federal or state minimum wage levels. Only a specific set of workers are covered by living wage ordinances, usually those employed by businesses that have a contract with a city or county government or those who receive economic development subsidies from the locality. The rationale behind the ordinances is that city and county governments should not contract with or subsidize employers who pay poverty-level wages.


The living wage level is usually the wage a full-time worker would need to earn to support a family above federal poverty line, ranging from 100% to 130% of the poverty measurement. The wage rates specified by living wage ordinances range from a low of $6.25 in Milwaukee to a high of $12 in Santa Cruz.


In addition to setting wage levels, many ordinances also have provisions regarding benefits (such as health insurance and paid vacation), labor relations, and hiring practices.
Living wage ordinances provide much needed raises for low-income workers.

Wages for the bottom 10% of wage earners fell by 3.9% between 1979 and 1999.


The number of jobs where wages were below what a worker would need to support a family of four above the poverty line also grew between 1979 and 1999. In 1999, 26.8% of the workforce earned poverty-level wages, an increase from 23.7% in 1979.
Living wage ordinances can ensure that pay for contractual workers does not fall behind the pay of city workers.

The trend toward privatization of services formerly provided by public sector workers is well documented.


These privatization efforts have often resulted in decreases in wages for the private sector workers in the same job categories. A study by the Chicago Institute on Urban Poverty, which compared the wages and benefits of Chicago city employees to contractual employees for low-skill jobs, found that privatization led to compensation losses for entry level workers ranging from 25% to 46%.


Since government agencies disproportionately hire (and advance) female and minority workers, these changes have meant the loss of relatively high-quality jobs for these workers.
Living wage ordinances promote responsible economic development policies.

Living wage ordinances have the potential to counteract the destructive race to the bottom wherein cities and counties try to attract businesses by offering larger subsidies than their neighbors. The more prevalent living wage ordinances are, the less firms will be able to shop around for the cheapest locality on the basis of cutting wages.


Recent research focusing on the number and quality (in terms of wages and benefits) of jobs created by tax incentives has found that many economic development subsidies are not tied to job quality. A study of tax incentives in Minnesota by Good Jobs First found that 72% of subsidized jobs paid below the average for their corresponding industry.


Some detractors argue that the living wage will create a "hostile business climate." But most living wage ordinances cover too small a proportion of the labor force to have such a profound effect. Most living wage ordinances cover less than 1% of the local workforce. In addition, for most firms, the increase in labor costs is expected to be less than 2% of total production costs.
Living wage ordinances have no negative effects on a locality's contracting process.

An EPI evaluation of a living wage ordinance in Baltimore found no significant cost increase to the city. The 1.2% cost increase for the contracts examined was less than the rate of inflation for the same period.


An evaluation of the Baltimore ordinance by the Preamble Center also found that the ordinance did not reduce the competitiveness of the contract process. The small decrease in the number of bids per contract wasn't high enough to lower competitiveness or raise contract costs.


Even if the costs to contractors do increase, it is still profitable for these firms to do business with the city. Most firms will choose to sacrifice some of their profit margins, which are estimated to range from 10% to 20% of production, since wage increases from the ordinance only amount to an estimated 2% of production costs.
There is no evidence of job losses as a result of living wage ordinances.

The EPI evaluation of Baltimore's living wage ordinance found no job loss as a result of the ordinance. The workers interviewed for the study reported no changes in the number of hours they worked after the ordinance went into effect.


Employers interviewed for the study reported that although wages increased, these costs were absorbed by improvements in efficiency. By raising wages, they decreased employee turnover rates, which decreased recruitment and training costs.
Sources:

Chicago Institute on Urban Poverty. 1997. Does Privatization Pay? Chicago: Chicago Institute on Urban Poverty.

LeRoy, Greg, and Tyson Slocum. 1999. Economic Development in Minnesota: High Subsidies, Low Wages, Absent Standards. Washington, D.C.: Good Jobs First.

Mishel, Lawrence, Jared Bernstein, and John Schmitt. 1999. The State of Working America 1998-99. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Niedt, Christopher, et al. 1999. The Effects of the Living Wage in Baltimore. Working Paper No. 119. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Pollin, Robert, and Stephanie Luce. 1998. The Living Wage: Building a Fair Economy. New York: The New Press.

Weisbrot, Mark, and Michelle Sforza-Roderick. 1998. Baltimore's Living Wage Law. Washington, D.C.: Preamble Center,

Have you thought about how many people work multiple full time and part time jobs??

Imagine trying to make ends meet at less than $12 an hour these days!

If they can't make a living on what they are earning, that should be incentive for them to educate themselves and forge their own path in life rather than having the government take money from other people to fund their livelihood. America is the land of opportunity. Maybe they should use it. It's there for everyone. That's what I did. I was a high scool drop out maing $1 an hour in 1965 and now I am comfortable. The government didn't set my wage. I taught myself how to get a better life by educating myself and working hard.

If they can't get a better job how the hell are they going to afford a high priced education? If they get a loan how are they going to raise a family with those loan payments hanging over their head?

It is a vicious cycle.

I never got a high priced education and my parents didn't help me either. I got my GED through a government grant and then I got an apprenticeship at a printing company when I was hired as a box boy and showed some initiative and there was an opening. Then as I got older and got a little better off in the printing business, I went to college part time for 2 years. Then I got older and the printing business was too hard for me and I got a home study course for medical transcription and now work at home with full benefits, paid vacations, paid holidays, sick pay, retirement plan, etc. No one helped me.

That is great. But realize a GED probably went a lot further in your time.

Are you a white male by chance?