I started my IT career with most of a B.S. Computer Science and an A+ Certification, around the bulk of the recession (the UIGEA pushed me out of online poker). As an entry-level employee for all kinds of national firms, I was working alongside guys with 20 and 30 years experience. That job paid much better than minimum wage, but these are guys with tons of skills, experience, and qualifications that are working for the same as an entry-level guy.

In logistics, I worked as a package handler alongside a lot of smart, very capable people. The company was extremely good at pitting them against each other to fight for a few scraps of hours (to get over 20 hours/week if they were lucky), temp promotions that offered no pay raises (one of which I took, of course), and possible promotions years down the road that may or may never come. Noone was allowed to work full time, and overtime was a laughable concept. During peak season we were kept to strictly 25 hours or less. I was being groomed for those mid-level positions but I couldn't handle it when my manager was telling me all about the production-based incentives for management level positions.

A lot of these people were trying to raise a family, and let me tell you that job is physically extremely demanding. They worked as hard as anybody, in fact they worked much harder than anybody I've ever worked with in IT. The facility won award after award, but all the money went to the managers.

This company is rated one of the best companies to work for in the U.S.

To those who say I have no business experience, I now own my own small business. I've been supporting myself off of it since I resigned from the logistics company, and although business is scarce I do much, much, much better than I ever did working for someone else.

I don't agree with all your assertions that the workplace is a meritocracy. Poker was a meritocracy, and I'll agree with you if you say that I should have been better at it, and I wouldn't have been pushed out.

These working people used to be respected in America. It was Rosie the Riveter, not Rosie the Private Equity Capitalist. These people are the backbone of our country, they make it so amazingly fun to live in, and easy to do things in, they deserve a decent standard of living.

I also think this could result in a type of trickle-up economics where we create a rising tide that really does lift all boats, as it seems to me job creation is intrinsically tied to consumer demand and spending, over anything else really.

It might temporarily increase spending habits for those lucky/valuable enough to keep their job, but when the higher wages inevitably lead to higher prices, that wage no longer leaves people w/ any more discretionary income than they had in the first place.

Whether the pricing will be passed along to customers doesnt have anything to do with how much Walmart owners are worth. Customers would pay some percentage of the increase. Dont confuse what you perceive as fair with what would actually happen.

Supermarkets are not hugely profitable businesses FWIW. Margins suck.

I see no unintended consequences on capital structure and market time preference that will lead to volatile and overall degradation of societal wealth. Just well thought out utilitarian economic method. Proceed with instituting a national living wage.

But isnt that basically a constant. You will always have a reasonably fixed percent of people who make bad choices when the big forks in the road happen (admittedly im one of them who has screwed up a big chunk of my 20s, I know suzzer has talked about doing that too). So, I mean, what is the end game solution here? Keep min wage so low to incentivise people to make better choices? Those same people we can specifically point to as making bad choices a lot? Is it just a case of punishing them for their mistakes and if so is that the right thing to do, especially given reproduction is more or less fixed so instead of having someone making bad decisions but then getting their head back above water when they start hitting their 30s they will be worse off and arguable worse of longer term whilst bringing up the next generation of American workers - so long term is this a good thing for the economy let alone the morality of it?

Logically the solution, ignoring welfare programs, is a scaling min wage that not only takes into account where you live but also if you have dependants. Which creates all kinds of disincentives to hiring practices it is clearly a bad idea.

But bringing back in welfare programs, as a progressive I have no problem agreeing with you that they are a good thing and help get past that one size fits all problem. Which is what currently exists showing min wage is too low and so you have just created this huge hijack to nowhere, well done.

Didn't Republicans just take back the legislature for the first time since reconstruction in Alabama?

I'm confident the Republicans are terrible but at least get it right.

That's not inevitable. If I'm selling more widgets, I can get by with a smaller profit margin on each widget and turn bigger profits than I was before.

Hm, we have had a Repub. Governor since I was in high school here. Not sure about the legislature but I guarantee you if they have a (D) beside their name, they are still basically religious nutball social conservative "give all the money to the business owner" types. Worshipped around here like Gods they are.

We recently just barely beat privatization of the school system, and we'll probably have to fight that battle over and over until the privateers eventually win. I'm fighting to stoke up some involvement among the working class people here though, hopefully there will be unrest in the streets soon.

Well, I would think its also not inevitable that the marginal spending effect of more $$ going to minimum wage workers offset the effects of decreased demand because products with minimum wage inputs now cost more.

So Id say your original statement isnt necessarily correct.

EDIT: two posts up

Of Alabama?

GL.

You know, I used to work I-20 and I've been told at least 25x in my life "I'm sorry sir, I'm from Alabama" during traffic stops.

I was headed out to Jacksonviile to watch my cousin play football and I saw a Alabama trooper and pulled over, asked him what "I'm sorry sir, I'm from Alabama" means, he shrugged and said "I guess they're too ****ing stupid to read speed limit signs!"

Even ignoring all the businesses struggling along the margins already, there will always be incentive to maximize profit margin as much as possible regardless of what kind of volume you're cranking out. You don't think Walmart would raise prices in an instant if they were guaranteed more profit? They don't just say "Hell, we're making plenty so we don't need to raise our prices!"

If I can make more money by raising my prices, I raise them, and so would the vast majority of business owners. This ends up leading to a prisoner's dilemma where if say, a supermarket raises its prices, other business owners are forced to raise their prices as well because their money doesn't go as far.

No, they don't want *a* job, they want *the right job*. There's a huge difference. They can sit back and chill on UE and wait for it without any worry. And a lot of those jobs aren't coming back. Or they simply stop looking. You do realize that the numbers that report UE don't count people who stopped looking, right? Or the people who took too long and didn't find anything.

Mainstream economists will argue back and forth on this, but even in the worst case assessment, min wage is responsible for a tiny, tiny uptick in unemployment.

You know that Obama and Jesse Jackson won the Dem primaries in Alabama, right? Artur Davis lost the gubernatorial primary for being too conservative. Sorry for sidetracking as this is all irrelevant, but, the more you know.