Comments on: Update on the Arizona Minimum Wage

By: Brit B

Brit B — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:43:22 +0000

The way I see it, these increases in the minimum wage are a way to shift the support of workers earning minimum wage towards the employer and away from the taxpayer (via foodstamps etc). I’d be all in favour if the tax burden was decreased to reflect this.

By: ou_steve_o

ou_steve_o — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:21:58 +0000

I’m with Kebko. Why can’t you increase the old workers’ hourly wage but charge them the difference for the campsite?

By: K

Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:24:54 +0000

A little off topic.

I once had a long conversation at a party with a bulldozer operator. Or sort of a bulldozer operator, I’ll get to that. It was in Orange County, CA over a decade ago.

No doubt he was an able and skilled heavy equipment operator. And after a few beers I learned he made about $50/hour which was the established union wage for such masterly skills.

The problem was that he hadn’t worked in three years. There was no work for unionized construction workers except when government mandated it. i.e. on construction for city, county, or federal entities. Private builders just used cheap labor, usually illegal aliens.

I’m not Aesop. There is no moral to the story. Just some food for thought.

I will add, referencing DirtyJobsGuy, that government workers heartily endorse a very high “official” union wage scale because the pay of government workers is often set to the “prevailing wages” for the craft. And the prevailing wage is defined as the union scale wage rather than the pay actually being received by nearly all workers in the private sector.

For government workers it can be a nice closed loop. A toy railroad where the little train brings goodies around on every loop.

By: joshv

joshv — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:39:04 +0000

I was taking a sleigh ride through a Wisconsin cherry orchard this last weekend and the guide pointed to the remains of a few outbuildings “this is one of the building that the migrant cherry pickers used to live in”. It seems they used to be housed communally, in clean, yet cramped quarters (imagine an army barracks). Eventually though an edict came down from the state of WI requiring that every migrant family had to have its own accommodation – with a separate sleeping/washroom. Given the number of migrant workers employed, and the short length of their visit, it was basically impossible to comply with the order.

The next year they used tree shakers to shake the cherries off of the tree and hired no migrant workers. I am sure the migrant workers were well please with the beneficence of the Wisconsin legislature.

By: DirtyJobsGuy

DirtyJobsGuy — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:16:00 +0000

Much of this is a totally shameless fundraising ploy by politicians. Raising the minimum wage for private firms costs them nothing, but it does raise any union or public sector job pay that is tied to some multiplier of the minimum wage. These unions then can show their appreciation with increased campaign contributions.

They don’t really care if it backfires in the private sector. The Politician (largely Democratic but in some states republican as well)/Public Sector Union complex is the greatest threat to the economy today.

By: pino

pino — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:58:06 +0000

It is a shame that the minimum wage has risen above the productivity level of these workers. No one will hire them now.

It has always been that way; maybe not for these specific workers, but for labor in general. I don’t understand why minimum wage supporters never try to INCREASE the productivity of the worker; education, life skills or just plain ‘ol gumption.

By: Franco

Franco — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:47:03 +0000

It is a shame that the minimum wage has risen above the productivity level of these workers. No one will hire them now. But I guess nothing is better than something…

By: Brian Dunbar

Brian Dunbar — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:06:13 +0000

We are increasingly turning to automation solutions, like automatic pay systems and gates, to replace people.

The cost to employ a person is raised and the employer finds it cheaper to deploy automation.

Anyone who didn’t see this coming … raise their hand.

By: kebko

kebko — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:20:34 +0000

Can’t you pay them the minimum wage & then subtract out fees representing the other benefits, so that for them, there basically isn’t any change?

By: Ian Random

Ian Random — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:07:02 +0000

You’re missing the point, all that matters is that it feels good. Think of all those teenagers trying to make their car payments.