Right now it's somewhere around $5 or $6 US Dollars what do you think it should be?

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
This subject came up between a couple of new interns here, thought Id find out what my IW friends thought. While I included a couple of silly answers, I hope you all will give me the benefit of your real thoughts.</font>

I think $7 per hour is about right, more if it's a job involving heavy manual labour.

7 as kaltia said is nice and if its heavy manual labor it should be about 10-11

I think $7/hr. would be an appropriate minimum wage at the moment. It needs to be even higher. The problem is that absent consumer spending rate increases, such a minimum wage will cause an increase in product prices. There's a definite problem with the US minimum wage, though. Hey, I'm all for skimming a few $$ off the top of over-paid union labor prices, if we can find a legal way to do it and not wind up in the bottom of the Chicago River.

In order to keep the minimum wage increase from hurting consumer prices, I vote we also enact a federal maximum wage. :D Say, $50 Million/ year. I can see no reasonable argument that such a wage limit would hurt us any at all. It would also save corps. the money spent in bidding wars for CEOs.

Note that the more manual a labor job is, the less you make. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] Sad but true. Thinking is worth loads more than heavy lifting.

<font color=orange>I agree with the $7. We must be the three that voted for it.
Most manual labor jobs, at least around here (Tennessee) start around $9 or $10 per hour. All Government jobs mandate a pay scale for construction work. But personally, I don't see how people live on $5 or $6 per hour.

edit: Boy TL you read my mind on the Maximum Pay! Some of these CEO's, Sports and Entertainment figures make WAY too much money. I'm sorry, but no Basketball Player is worth $100,000,000 and neither is a CEO! Seems like a read or heard somewhere that the CEO of Lotus makes $750,000,000 per year. Why?</font>

[ 06-09-2003, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Here is a thought...no one ever intended the "minimum" wage to be a living wage. You are supposed to be starting out at this wage and then using your god given brain and talents and hard work to improve your skill then move to a job that pays according to your worth.

If you can only do what every other idiot with 2 arms and two legs can do, your work is worth less than if you can do somethihng only one in a thousand can do.

If you advocate a $7 wage..why not an 8$? why not $10? $20? $50? in the end I think we are better served to have a low or no minimum wage...lazy folk and those who have no skill or intelligence do drop to the bottom of the rung..but hey we spend billions on social programs any way.


Timber, exactly how would you get your federal maximum income level past the constitution? We already know that no one in congress would pass it of course..but Im curious about the methodology and authority to implement such a thing.</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Because the board members see him as the key player in their own incomes and value his experience and performance? Just a guess [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

MagiK, if Robert H. Bork is right the constitutional thing won't be a problem. So much is read into it that the original intent is tossed out the window these days. The Supreme Court is political -- as that branch of government was NOT intended to be. That in and of itself has undercut a basic assumption in our "fair" system of government.

Besides, it is certainly an interstate commerce issue. Plus, how can anyone with a straight face argue a $50mil/yr cap would really decrease their "liberty." I mean unless they have a hobby buying battleships or something. Besides, we include in the legislation a clause requiring any legal challenges to the law to be held in a courtroom open to the public where free cream pies are given to all people in seated in the audience. THEN we'll see who challenges it. ;)

So, the constitution shouldn't be a problem.

P.S. Oh, and depending on how much companies save, we could increase the minimum wage to $10 and hour. That would be great. I can't think of anyone in the US, young kids flipping burgers included, whose hour of time isn't worth $10. I mean, c'mon, we're the richest f-n country there is. Besides, even at $10/hr these folks would only make $80 a day. $80 won't even get you one nice night clubbing in this town. $80 is 1/5th of a reasonable monthly rent anywhere, 1/15th of reasonable rent in Chicago. I mean how poor are we going to demand people be?? I think we have moved forward enough in time that we can allow those whose backs we trod on to stand just a little taller. ;)

[ 06-09-2003, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]