Does minimum wage even matter?

Here's some snippets of the original article:

Nomey Druskin, manager of the Rainbow Hair Designers at the White Flint Mall, employs six shampooers. Mostly Hispanic immigrants, they are paid at the low end of the wage scale. Druskin should be particularly interested in the Democrats' intention to raise the minimum wage when they take over Congress, right? She's not. Druskin pays her shampooers at the North Bethesda salon a base rate of more than $8 an hour. That's higher than the federal minimum wage ($5.15), higher than Maryland's minimum wage ($6.15) and higher than what the Democrats are proposing federally ($7.25). In fact, the median hourly rate for all shampooers in the Bethesda-Gaithersburg area, according to federal statistics, is $7.48 -- above all mandated minimums.

 

More:

Druskin's experience suggests that increasing the federal minimum wage might be irrelevant for many of this region's workers and employers, given the extent to which market forces -- high demand for labor, low unemployment and the lofty cost of living -- have already raised the floor for hourly salaries. According to federal data, the median hourly pay for all workers in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria area is $19.14 -- about 72 percent higher than Lubbock, Tex., where it is $11.13. Dressing-room attendants make about $8.41 an hour here. Photographic processing machine operators: $10.29. Dishwashers: $8.05. Lifeguards: $7.98. "Raising the minimum wage won't really matter for us," Druskin said. "We are already above that." So are most other big job centers around the country, with only about 520,000 people nationwide making the federal minimum of $5.15 an hour, a rate that hasn't gone up in a decade and has led some 28 states and the District to pass their own increases. "When you let the minimum wage fall as low as it's fallen, it becomes almost irrelevant," said Harry J. Holzer, professor of public policy at Georgetown University and a former chief economist for the Labor Department. "This is an attempt to make it somewhat more meaningful, but not so meaningful that it destroys a lot of jobs." While the number who make the federal minimum wage is minuscule compared with the total workforce of 132 million, economists think that several million workers would be affected by a change in the law. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, estimates that the number of workers making at least $5.15 an hour but less than the Democrat-proposed $7.25 will be 5.6 million by 2009 -- when the proposed increase would be fully phased in.

 

More in the original article.

When I have worked in "minimum wage" jobs, I was always interested to hear the complaining of those I worked with...

Fellow Worker: "They should pay me more!"

Me: How long have you worked here?

Fellow Worker: "5 years, with no raise in pay"

Me: What have you done to make your skills worth more?

Fellow Worker: "what do you mean, what have "I" done.  I have 5 years of experience now, that should count for something!"

Apparently it escaped them that 5 years of having the exact same day did not equal 5 years of experience.  If also escaped them that they were doing the same job (at the same pay) for 5 years because they made it clear to their employers that they were content doing that job at that pay.  So why should the employer pay them more when the employee is willing to sell his time for that wage?

Apparently it escaped them that 5 years of having the exact same day did not equal 5 years of experience.

How so? My mother worked in medical billing for 15+ years. Does that mean that she had "no experience"?

Would you clarify that please...



Also, I feel that there should be an increase in pay based on time spent at a job. Say, every six months.

Silent, what I meant was, if you stand at a machine every day for 5 years, you are no more "experienced" than the person who stood at that machine for a month. Once you learned all there was to learn about your position, your done gaining experience from it. Why should the employer pat the person any more? They aren't getting any more productivity from him or her.

If you go to a store everyday and buy something for $5.25 there is no reason for the owner to lower the price. It is the same for labor. If a person is willing to go to work every day for $5.25 and hour, there is no reason for the person paying for the person's time to pay more.

The only reason the employer should pay more is if the employee gives the employer a reason to increase the pay.

Sorry to break it to you, but if your mother did medical billing for 15 years, no she didn't necessarily have 15 years of experiences. If she topped out in her skills at the job after (say) 5 years, how are her skills worth anymore to the company she works for? Most of all though, if she doesn't give her employer a reason to pay her more... why should they?

Until workers realize that they skills are just another market, with employers as consumers, they will ALWAYS settle for less... and by their own choice.

The bill wil not affect most blue states, and that is why the Democrats are pushing it.  But in places like Fargo and Bismark, where you can get a nice house for under $100k, and a nice place to rent for $300-400/mn, it will.  Not a big dent as has been shown by study after study after study that the people at minimum wage are either secondary wage earners or HS and College kids.  But it will cut out some of their jobs, so unemployment will rise in ND and SD and red states, and then the democrats will yell "see what Bush did".

The same arguments were made the last time the minimum wage was raise and calamity did not follow then. The fact that 28 states have had to raise the standard because the federal government has not acted is a disgrace.

28 states chose to raise their minimum wage. They didn't have to do so. They weren't forced in to it. Each state has the right to raise their minimum wage as they see fit and according to the cost of living in that state. The federal government has nothing to do with that state right whatsoever.

As only about 1% of the nation's workers actually work for minimum wage it's not even a major issue. Instead of blaming the feds for not forcing states to raise their minimum wage, why not call it a disgrace that the other states have failed to do so? They have the right and the authority to do so. So why haven't they? Why is it up to the feds to force these changes in each state when the states already have the ability to make the change on their own? It's nothing more than a lame political issue to look like they're doing something for the people when in fact it doesn't amount to squat.

As to the issue of raises, why should an employer give someone a raise if they haven't in some way increased their value to the company? Simply coming to work and doing your job at the minimum acceptable level doesn't warrant a raise. Raises should be based solely upon performance and merit. If an employee does a better than average job or makes a point of learning knew skills then a raise would be in order. If they're simply a warm body every day for 10 years why should they get a raise?

I have a long history of advancement and raises in my past positions. I was never once given a raise simply because I had been on the job for a certain amount of time. I earned my raises and promotions. I prefer it that way.

I have a long history of advancement and raises in my past positions. I was never once given a raise simply because I had been on the job for a certain amount of time. I earned my raises and promotions. I prefer it that way.

I'll offer this suggestion to those that think that they should "automatically" get a raise every so often just because they are still working at a certain position --

I've been there, and done that.  It was called "apprenticeship".  I started out at approximately 65% of the prevalent wage for my position.  Every six months I got a review.  Actually, I should clarify, every year I got a cost of living adjustment, and as it happened, for the first 3 years of working at the position I got a review every 6 months -- half of which happened to co-incide with the yearly cost of living adjustment that raised the prevalent raise.

So, my salary started at 65%, after six months I moved to approximately 72% of prevalent wage.  After another 6 months I moved to approximately 78% of prevalent wage while that target moved up by approximately 2.5% just because of COLA (cost of living adjustment) increases.  After another 6 months, I moved up to approximately 84 - 85% of prevalent wage, etc.

After 3 years I moved from apprentice status to tradesmen status and had my wage set at the then prevalent wage.  From that point on I saw a yearly cost of living increase that would raise my salary somewhere between 1% and 4% (depending on inflation, normally I'd get somewhere around 2.8% or some such number).

The employer had the benefit of having an employee that was learning on the job while performing at a lower wage, I had the benefit of getting a job that allowed me to learn as I went.

It could be argued (I would argue it) that I was ripped off a bit by the employer because my skillset truly was maximized after approximately 18 months in the position.  Unfortunately the employer had me over a barrel though and they kept me working on apprentice program even though I was doing advanced work and running rings around many (almost all of my) co-workers.

Anyway, I did enjoy the opportunity to work my way up in a respectable field and get my salary increased as I went.  I earned a decent living at the position, not great, but better than minimum wage all along.  By the time I was maxed out, I was earning approximately 3 to 4 times the then minimum wage.  Again, not great, but not bad relatively speaking.  Considering my abilities and the fact that I had valuable computing skills that were worth much more if I went elsewhere, I made an easy decision to basically start all over again by jumping fields and starting as a Jr. Lan Administrator.

Sadly, I could tell a tale of woe in working for my new employer that refused to raise my salary and refused to every officially change my title because it allowed them to low-ball my salary even as they sold my services as a "Senior Network Engineer" and one of the, at the time, few Microsoft Certified Professionals (before Microsoft even created the MCSE title, or other titles that followed).  I know for a fact that the customer I worked for paid top dollar for my position, and I know what I was paid wasn't close to a fair salary.  Again, the economic conditions pretty much dictated that I was stuck where I was as the job market wasn't great, even though I had a security clearance.  Until I built up enough years of service in the position and gained a much stronger skill set, I wasn't able to find anything that paid me what I was worth.

4 years after making that jump I switched employers, using the skills I had gained while working for that employer and their customers, and I almost doubled my salary up to a reasonable level (given my locale, the marketplace, etc.)

Since then I've logged many more years of time in my profession, gained more experience with different equipment, systems, operating systems, etc., and made myself more valuable.  I've jumped a few more times between employers, some not by my own desire.  Each jump has generally resulted in better compensation.

But the common factor has been busting my butt to improve my skills and keep up with the marketplace.

If I had sat back on my butt and just accepted COLAs, I'd be making a salary that would barely keep me able to feed and clothe myself.  Perhaps a little better, but not much.  Not enough to offer my family a better home, myself a new(er) vehicle when needed, or a few toys to enjoy in my off time.

Sorry to those that feel stuck at the minimum wage, or in lower paying jobs, but my advise is get off your butt and go find something better.  Make something better for yourself.  Network among friends, make friends through your current workplace, school, friends or family.  Go back to school if possible -- including taking classes at Community Colleges (including "Community Service" or other low-cost classes, seminars, etc.) -- and network there.  Work the system, work the system, work the system.

Never consider yourself "done" in the job market because once you do you'll find yourself easily replaced by someone else willing to work more for less, or at least willing to start out for less and work their way up.

And definitely do not expect the government or society to go out of it's way to pay you more than you deserve or more than someone else that will do the job for less even if it doesn't seem like a fair wage.

How so? My mother worked in medical billing for 15+ years. Does that mean that she had "no experience"? Would you clarify that please... Also, I feel that there should be an increase in pay based on time spent at a job. Say, every six months.

If your mother isn't qualified to work somewhere at above minimum wage then she has no skills.

The same arguments were made the last time the minimum wage was raise and calamity did not follow then. The fact that 28 states have had to raise the standard because the federal government has not acted is a disgrace.

LOL.

I just love when people say this sort of thing.   The massive outsourcing of low-skilled labor has nothing to do with minimum wage right?

"The last time there was a minimum wage people said that it would result in a loss of low skilled jobs."

And...

What have we been hearing ever since? The massive loss of low skilled jobs to other countries because it's cheaper.

 

It's just another example of how liberals like to feel compassionate with other people's money.

I don't pay anyone anything close to minimum wage. But if I did, if the forced raise made them uncompetitive with what I could outsource that job for, I'd do it in a heart beat. I have a responsibility to my employees to maintain a stable business structure.

People should be compassionate with their own money. Unfortunately, statistically, liberals aren't very compassionate when it comes time to put their own money where their mouth is.

Since Most states ignore the minimum wage law imposed by the feds.. it really does not matter does it?