SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: flatsville who wrote (106346)6/4/2001 11:44:22 AM
From: LLCF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 436258
 
<Of the 11.8 million workers (10.1% of the workforce) that would receive an increase in their hourly wage rate if the minimum wage were raised to $6.15 per hour seventy-two percent of these workers are adults (age 20 and older) and 59.2% are female. This is a very different population than what you beleive it to be.>

Well if 72% are adults.... then....:

>>>You also have a good third who are likely not relying on the wages for supporting families, of which many are living at home with parents while attending school.<<<

HELLO??? McFLY???

<Check the numbers:>

Good freakin idea!

DAK



To: flatsville who wrote (106346)6/4/2001 12:04:06 PM
From: Les H  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 436258
 
I think you need to adjust the income distribution basis the localities. A twenty-five thousand dollar household income in Oklahoma is considerably different than the similar income in California, Washington D.C., or New York. You'd also need to factor in the impacts of TIPs in the large number of jobs affected by the minimum wage.

The following study is from the Fed:

csus.edu

For the same reasons as the federal min wage, I don't support the EITC as a broad-brush that benefits a lot of unintended people in trying to help a target political group. I think it would be fairer to gradually increase the minimum wage over time rather than these stepwise increases.