Senator: Should hourly minimum wage be $22?
Elizabeth Warren said that a much higher baseline would be appropriate if wages were tied to productivity gains.
What if U.S. workers were paid more as the nation's productivity increased? If we had adopted that policy decades ago, the minimum wage would now be about $22 an hour, said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) last week. Warren was speaking at a hearing held by the Senate's Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. You can see the video here.
Warren was talking to Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the issue of minimum wage. "With a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75?" she asked Dube. "It sure didn't go to the worker."
The $22 minimum wage Warren referred to came from a 2012 study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research. It said that the minimum wage would have hit $21.72 an hour last year if it had been tied to the increases seen in worker productivity since 1968. Even if the minimum wage got only one-fourth the pickup as the rate of productivity, it would now be $12.25 an hour instead of $7.25.
Some of the news media took this to mean that Warren is calling for a minimum-wage increase to $22 an hour. That doesn't appear to be the case. She seems to be merely pointing out that the minimum wage has grown more slowly than other facets of the economy.
Warren is taking some hits on Twitter for her comments. One user describes her as "clueless and out of touch" while another calls her "delusional." But other users are praising her arguments as "compelling," saying she is "asking the right questions regarding minimum wage."
Maybe minimum wage is a misleading nomenclature.Maybe we should look at what it does.When a minimum wage is established then any company must pay that minimum(or get creative in their hiring{using contract workers etc.})
On the other end of the scale,it makes companies paying higher wages want to reduce to the minimum.In both cases the workers are expected to perform at the top of their ability and productivity.At some points in our country's history companies rewarded the workers who did the best work,contributed to improving the product and helped the company gain market share.These dayss companies reward with the attitude "At least you have a job".Political affiliation aside the politicians take lobbyist money to vote for programs that have allowed and fostered this style of management without reguard to workers.Most companies now work like the goverment.They have little reguard for those who support them,expect their programs to be carried out,and attempt to profit maximum.It works so well for the goverment,why wouldn't companies follow their example.The trend now is to get everyone down to a subsistence level so that they will be greatful when they hear the "At least you have a job".
What this does not take into account is the reasons for the productivity increase. For example, in 1968 there weren't desk top computers to or word processors, and there were almost no robotics in assembly line work.
So I what criteria was used to determine an individuals productivity? Can the high cost of automation be factored in? And does that actually decrease the individuals "sweat equity" in the position? None of this was addressed based on the article, nor was the cost of the automation.
I want my wife to stay home and raise our children. I have become more productive as a worker through technology but corporate america will not give me a raise based on how much more money i make them so both my wife and I have to work 50+ hours a week to survive! Who suffers? For one the children. Who gains? You got it the 1%ers.
So I guess
1%ers>>>>>>>>Children
Terrible.
So if we are more productive then ever that means companys are doing the job with less people right? If that's so corporate america could take a big cut say 60% and still give the workers raises. Instead they're taking it ALL! They are not even giving you 5%. You get nada. Nothing. And you better like it or they will fire you. Sounds more and more like slave labor everyday.
The rich are getting richer. Bring back the unions!
DATA PROVIDERS
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Thomson Reuters (click for restrictions). Real-time quotes provided by BATS Exchange. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Interactive Data Real-Time Services. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by SIX Financial Information.
Japanese stock price data provided by Nomura Research Institute Ltd.; quotes delayed 20 minutes. Canadian fund data provided by CANNEX Financial Exchanges Ltd.
RECENT POSTS
While incompetent bosses like Michael Scott and Andy Bernard typically can’t survive in the workplace, office romances are a very real part of corporate culture.
- Southwest Airlines turns less legroom into $773M
- 'American Idol' gets sorry ratings for season finale
- Powerball's wacky sense of humor
- Millions of Facebook's users are actually pets
- Can crowd funding rescue the LA Times?
- Domino's debuts a DVD that smells like pizza
- Average US retirement age climbs to 61
- McDonald's aims to slim down its 145-item menu
- Bathroom reading goes digital with iPad TP stand
MARKET UPDATE
[BRIEFING.COM] The S&P 500 ended this week with a bang, roaring to a new all-time high on the back of stronger-than-expected economic data, influential leadership, and an ongoing appreciation for the Fed's monetary policy support.
The bullish bias was evident in premarket action as the S&P futures pointed to a higher start without the benefit of any definitive news catalyst. Stocks indeed benefited from a blast of buying interest at the opening bell on this ... More
More Market News
TOP STOCKS
All hail the bull market, which ended the week with a big rally. But it also is starting to look a little like 1987, which suffered an epic blow-out.
MSN MONEY'S
- Shared
- Commented
- Viewed
