Gallup
Poll: 71% support raising minimum wage
There is also a wide range of support among various demographic groups, although the majority of every group supports it.
In addition to liberals and Democrats, those most likely to favor raising the minimum wage include nonwhites, adults earning less than $24,000 annually, women, young adults, residents of the East, and moderates. At least three-quarters of Americans in each of these groups support it.
Additionally, at least two-thirds of seniors, lower-middle-income Americans (those earning between $24,000 and $59,999 a year), independents, Western and Southern residents, and adults aged 30 to 49 are in favor.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
They should make it 30 dollars an hour.
GardenGnome on March 7, 2013 at 12:56 PM
From past experience with raising the minimum wage I predict it will take a max of six weeks for businesses to raise prices to cover it.
CW20 on March 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM
74% support a cool breeze on a summer day.
I’d snark about a law to control the weather but then I remembered the Democrats want to do that too.
Ted Torgerson on March 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM
If they wait that long, many will go out of business. This is not being done on the upswing of a vibrant economy today…
astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 1:03 PM
There sure is a lot if oppression going on in this thread.
/
happytobehere on March 7, 2013 at 1:05 PM
Asking if the minimum wage should be raised, is like asking if you favor better education for children and less crime in your town.
File under duh.
Moesart on March 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM
I dunno, I guess I am a minority, but honestly, instead of a minimum wage, what this nation really needs is a law that requires a minimum amount of wealth creation by each citizen. Unlike slavery, each citizen gets to keep that wealth creation and use it any way they like. If they are unable to produce a bare minimum of wealth creation or are very unwise in how they use that wealth they created, they may be forced to go to others who over produce and beg for help.
astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM
Hey, great idea. Why don’t we base all law and policy on uninformed, pragmatic public opinion.
It’s what’s leading us into socialism anyway, so why the hell not?
somewhatconcerned on March 7, 2013 at 1:10 PM
Just curious – were you inspired by that Biblical tale of the three servants?
FTFY, you economic illiterate.
MelonCollie on March 7, 2013 at 1:11 PM
Why stop at (X) dollars? Keep going!
Why should companies turn a profit at all?
Good Lt on March 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM
the exact parable does not come to mind, but I used to read the bible extensively as a kid and younger adult than I do these days. I got a bit bitter at my last church, International Churches of Christ.
astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM
Basic economic principles are usually counter-intuitive.
Minimum wage laws are a perfect example of this.
visions on March 7, 2013 at 1:19 PM
Let’s make the minimum wage $1,000,000/year.
That way, we can all pay higher taxes as part of a “balanced approach” to solving the deficit problem.
DRayRaven on March 7, 2013 at 1:19 PM
You realize, of course, that there is no body of empirical evidence that increases in the minim wage increases unemployment significantly — or at all. This whole discussion sounds like a bunch of college freshmen quoting their Econ 101 textbook back to their TA on a pop quiz: it’s not actually grounded I’m the real world. .
urban elitist on March 7, 2013 at 1:20 PM
I wondered, it sounded awfully similar.
My condolences on your bad experience. A few years back we had to kick out a much-loved pastor who seriously went off the rails theologically. Darn near broke up the entire church, and there are still people not on speaking terms.
MelonCollie on March 7, 2013 at 1:21 PM
Translation: “I want a gigantic document put up by a certified liberal university and signed by several certified liberal professors before I’ll even consider that I’m a total moron.”
If you would actually READ an econ 101 textbook (or for that matter if you would read at all), you might possibly realize that you have less grounding then a badly-done DIY wiring job.
A college freshman quoting straight from his/her textbook knows more than you. Or your precious peanut of a POTUS. Or your entire brainwashed family tree.
MelonCollie on March 7, 2013 at 1:25 PM
Nobody else but me. That’s me. I.
Christien on March 7, 2013 at 1:30 PM
In further news… 71% of people polled are stupid.
ButterflyDragon on March 7, 2013 at 1:33 PM
And yet as soon as the last minimum wage hike was passed the last time, unemployment skyrocketed.
DethMetalCookieMonst on March 7, 2013 at 1:33 PM
My issues were minor, but the way the leadership handled it, it just poisoned the well.
They teach that you are to have a person you can admit your sins to, which I agree with and all, but then they assign you that person. Mine happened to be a not so solidly recovering heroin addict. I told them that in the early church members picked their own person for this purpose and was ostracized and disallowed from dating any of the women in the church for bringing it up. I quit the church a few months later when they changed their rules to self selected partners and still refused to see me as worthy.
I learned much while there, and they are pretty Biblical, but in the end, they exert too much into the personal lives if they think they can dictate who you can date and thereby marry.
astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 1:34 PM
So, in other words, you have no evidence to support your claims. Like Creationists, you’re all about dogma over reality.
And yes, read many an Econ text in my time. But, being reality-based, I’ve noticed that the nice lines of the textbook graphs don’t always reflect the more complex phenomena found in the real world. This being one such case.
urban elitist on March 7, 2013 at 1:36 PM
Well, most Americans are economic illiterates.
“I’ll take a big scoop of Obamacare, with a side of increased minimum wage. Easy on the taxes please.”
Free Constitution on March 7, 2013 at 1:38 PM
Oh the irony.
Let’s see: provided no evidence of your own. Check.
Support dogma over reality in a way that puts the most rabid Darwinist to shame. Check.
Are a whiny snotling: check.
Lie.
LOL.
Fixed.
MelonCollie on March 7, 2013 at 1:39 PM
Exactly. They want everything paid for by someone else, and they want their money supply to magically go up. Much like our resident champion of the trailer park wishes his IQ would magically increase.
MelonCollie on March 7, 2013 at 1:40 PM
That’s because we live in an economically illiterate society. Even Harvard students apparently know jack squat about finances. And I don’t think I have to recount how stupid many of our elected representatives are in fiscal matters.
If I’m the GOP, I call the Dems out on their BS. Agree to a minimum wage hike, but demand that it be something absurd like $20/hr. Inevitably even many libtards will scoff at that for the obvious reason(it’s unaffordable). Then merely turn the tables on them and ask how they can be so certain 9 bucks an hour can be absorbed by small businesses without job losses or price hikes.
Doughboy on March 7, 2013 at 1:40 PM
Some of the recent studies on minimum wage increases indicate it has little effect. But they were generally small increases in the minimum wage and even then, there was still job loss at the margins.
But there have been no long-term studies on the effects of a minimum wage to my knowledge. Just because it’s harder to measure gravity at the molecular level, doesn’t mean there is no gravity. The economic theory is still sound: Raise the cost of something, get less of it.
Free Constitution on March 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM
The people who study these things, they are paid to find government friendly results. It is the government predominately paying them, and any other findings are conveniently lost and forgotten to have been ever discovered.
Much like Obama’s jobs created or saved.
We say that for every billion dollars we spend X number of jobs are created or saved!
We then say we spent y billion dollars.
Thus, x*y jobs were created or saved.
Prove us wrong!
astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 1:48 PM
Walter Williams on the minimum wage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DS0XXFdyfI
——–
Walter Williams “Race and Economics” $11 on Amazon…
visions on March 7, 2013 at 1:49 PM
You may have read many a Econ text, but there is a difference between reading and comprehending what you read. Which obviously you don’t, cause it appears that you were to busy looking at all the pretty pictures in the book.
opustx on March 7, 2013 at 1:50 PM
Economists Card and Krueger looked at what happened to fast food restaurant employment when the the New Jersey minimum wage increased about 20%, while Pennsylvania’s stayed the same. Result: fast food employment in Jersey actually increased slightly.
And, MC, go ahead, pop quiz me. Ask me about demand elasticity, ppf’s or marginal utility. I ain’t claimin’ to be no JM Keynes, but I’m apparently far ahead of most people here — especially in recognizing the difference between theory and practice.
urban elitist on March 7, 2013 at 1:53 PM
True, perhaps, as increased unemployment is not the only way to recoup the costs of an increase in minimum wage. You can raise prices, reduce hours for your employees, layoff employees, or some combination of the three.
Also, if I might speculate a bit, I would guess that another reason why there might not be a consistent effect of increased employment as a result of increasing minimum wage is that in the past, in many areas, prevailing starting wages were already above minimum wage. For example, in my neck of the woods (which isn’t particularly a high cost-of-living area), McDonald’s was already advertising $8 an hour jobs the last time the minimum wage was raised (they aren’t advertising any jobs now, though).
Mullaney on March 7, 2013 at 1:54 PM
No doubt. But that’s irrelevant to the current situation. In that situation, New Jersey could poach employees from Pennsylvania. However, we’re talking about an across-the-board increase here.
Mullaney on March 7, 2013 at 1:58 PM
There’s also the unmeasurable opportunity costs and other unmeasured consequences.
How many businesses did not start up because they couldn’t afford to pay minimum wage? How much more hiring would there have been if it had not increased? How much did certain products rise in price?
Free Constitution on March 7, 2013 at 1:59 PM
BTW, urban elitist, have you seen the prices lately at fast food joints? They keep going up. Stuff I used to order off the dollar menu is now selling for $1.19. That’s a 19-20% increase in cost to the consumer. Think a minimum wage hike won’t add to this trend?
Doughboy on March 7, 2013 at 2:03 PM
That study has been debunked repeatedly. Even Leftist Cult Leader Paul Krugman didn’t buy it.
Why not try reading the other side of the story? Because it’s obvious you’re not.
Start here: Thomas Sowell “Basic Economics”
visions on March 7, 2013 at 2:06 PM
When unemployment has been 8% and over for 4 years, any increase is significant.
El_Terrible on March 7, 2013 at 2:09 PM
And Economist Welch found that for each 10% increase in the minimum wage there was a loss of about 1 percent of minimum wage jobs.
opustx on March 7, 2013 at 2:11 PM
Jeez, Mullaney, you make one good post and the blow it with the second one. The point isn’t that New Jersey could poach workers from Pennsylvania (though if you want to argue that increasing the minimum wage expands opportunities for low wage workers in neighboring jurisdictions, be my guest),it’s the fact that if the posters here were correct, the increase in mw would have forced mass layoffs outright, or forced prices up so much that customers went across the border to PA, followed by jobs. That this didn’t happen despite a significant wage increase undercuts the Econ 101 blather this discussion has generated.
The body of research suggests negligible or no effect from minimum wage increases.
urban elitist on March 7, 2013 at 2:12 PM
Yes, and how much of that money could have been spent in expanding the business, leading to more people being hired down the road?
Let’s say I have a small business where I have 5 full-time employees that I pay minimum wage. That’s $75,400 a year. But what if I have to now pay them $9 an hour instead of $7.25? Then my payroll jumps to $93,600 per year, a difference of $18.200. That may not be much if I’m making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, but what if I’m barely scraping by? Or what if I’ve managed to build up my business enough that I make a comfortable, but not excessive, $80,000 per year? Can I really afford to eat it, then?
Mullaney on March 7, 2013 at 2:12 PM
But those are both Liberal Democrat Economists. And one study does not Fact make.
wiki:
Stiglitz? Another Right-Winger, right?
INC
Del Dolemonte on March 7, 2013 at 2:12 PM
If employment was solely conditioned on wages, then the study you cite might be worth something. But even in that study they admit there are other elements that could lead to employment going up or down.
It’s a really simple concept. Minimum wage follows the same as a Laffer Curve.
There is a sweet spot to hit. You could slash minimum wage in half, guarantee you there would be businesses hiring more people. If you double minimum wage, guarantee you a lot of people would be laid off. It’s common sense.
Take it to it’s most extreme elements. If a company could hire someone for .01 an hour, they’d have a ton of employees. You know it. I know it. There’s no denying it. If a company was forced to pay someone $100 an hour, they would be trimming the fat and be extremely lean on the personnel side. You know it. I know it.
ButterflyDragon on March 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM
Raise the minimum wage and require every working American to pay some minimum income tax without receiving it back. Minimum wage = minimum tax…for the children.
trs on March 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM
Raising the minimum wage creates jobs. (But it doesn’t.)
Punitive taxes on the rich will balance the budget. (But they won’t.)
Deficits don’t matter. (But they do.)
Washington doesn’t have a spending problem. (But it does.)
Obamacare is a boon to employment. (But it isn’t.)
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fine. (But they weren’t.)
Etc., etc.
steebo77 on March 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM
Ooh, I like it.
MelonCollie on March 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM
I like Federal spending / # adults = tax. Right now, just shy of $16,000 a year.
astonerii on March 7, 2013 at 2:20 PM
Still doesn’t change the fact that the situation you discuss has no relevance for an across-the-board increase in the minimum wage.
As you say, there are multiple variables involved, so I’d have to see what the conditions in New Jersey were before the minimum wage hike. Perhaps the prevailing fast food starting wage in New Jersey was less than what people were willing to work for, but once they were forced to raise it, more people wanted to work in fast food. That’s great, I guess, but fast food companies are large, well-established companies that make big profits. Does the same apply to smaller, newer business?
And you could probably raise prices quite a bit on a Big Mac before people start driving out-of-state to buy one, although there is another option: not buying a Big Mac at all.
Mullaney on March 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM
Doughboy: C’mon, you know us Urban Elitists only eat hand harvested organic arugula and Kobe beef.
Seriously, though, food prices are rising entirely apart from this trend, and I’d be curious to what percentage of a fast-food meal derives from the labor cost of the minimum wage workers and a fractional increase in that fraction of the costs would do. As you may recall, Poppa John’s CEO was outraged about the cost of Obamacare, but it translated into 10-14 cents per pie — well under 1%. Not an exact parallel, but something to keep in mind.
Opustx: if you were a betting man and you were offered a bet that had a 99% of paying a 10 percent return, and a 1 percent chance of losing your money, you’d take that bet all night and walk away rich.
urban elitist on March 7, 2013 at 2:29 PM
The “minimum wage” will remain $0, as it always has been and always will be, as more Americans are now aware since the end of Carternomics.
I wonder how many would support “making it illegal to work for less than $9″ – because that’s what so called minimum wage laws actually do. The salient mechanism is a control on the worker, not the demand side (employer), which would be impossible, which is to say Communist.
What’s the youth unemployment again?
HitNRun on March 7, 2013 at 3:13 PM
Meaningless statistics.
Did they also “poll” these people what consequences on raising minimum wage?
Sir Napsalot on March 7, 2013 at 3:30 PM
You are nothing but a low IQ communist scum and a slave of the state with a huge ego thinking you are so superior because you have a degree in humanities that requires no more than an IQ of 90 to obtain…
Whoever those little f***s you quoted saying that increasing the cost of something (in this case the minimum wage) will lead to an increase on its demand (in this case employment)… This goes against the fundamentals and reality of any basic economics, business, and commerce… The absolute reality is when you increase the cost of something beyond a certain value it is certain that the demand on it will eventually go down…
Do not come here and claim that you are so smart where in reality your IQ is less than 100… You degree in humanities is meaningless and 80% of the population can get so you are not special what so ever… When you come among people who are mentally superior to you i.e. much higher IQ you will be crushed for uttering stupidity…
Now go and f*** yourself…
mnjg on March 7, 2013 at 4:14 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2