The State of Minnesota actually pays people over $40.00 an hour to tell us things like this in reports:
"Workers paid the minimum wage or less are
more prevalent among those in poverty than
among other hourly workers."
How is that we fund a report like this:
https://www.dli.mn.gov/RS/PDF/13minwage.pdf
which doesn't tell us what a living Minimum Wage should be?
How is it that a report like this which cost tax-payers over $300,000.00 to produce, doesn't explain the relationship between wages, cost-of-living and poverty?
In fact, the term "cost-of-living" does not even appear in this report.
Why would a government agency or department like the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry be allowed to provide a report centered around comparing the Minimum Wage to inflation when inflation is only relevant if one begins with an actual living--- non-poverty--- Minimum Wage to begin with?
It makes not one iota of sense to argue that a poverty Minimum Wage should now be "increased" to compensate for inflation.
The government not only does things backwards, it employs people, paid with our tax-dollars, to think backwards.
It is ironic that we had dozens of politicians and many more labor "leaders" marching behind a banner of Martin Luther King, Jr. while calling for a Minimum Wage of $9.50 an hour knowing full well this is a poverty wage in relation to actual "cost-of-living."
Notice that this report while discusses sex and age, it is "color blind."
The reason given for this is that it protects the "scientific integrity" of the report.
So, in addition to all the other problems with this report we have the racist aspect of the report--- people of color are more often than not the victims of poverty wages which is never mentioned.
How convenient for a governor who believes in "voluntary quotas" instead of Affirmative Action plans and programs intended to create a "level playing field" that this racist aspect of poverty wages isn't mentioned.
With all the problems in this report which is obviously flawed, we have politicians, labor "leaders" and the media citing this report regarding the Minimum Wage.
One has to wonder why a report like this would not have undertaken the figures--- $7.75, $8.00, $9.00, $9.50 and $10.10--- that have been magically pulled from a hat for self-serving political expediency (and to maintain super-profits) was not examined in this report since the author was well aware of these figures being tossed about.
Where is the "scientific integrity" in failing to reveal what impact such poverty wages have on alleviating and eradicating poverty?
Would not this statement of fact:
"Workers paid the minimum wage or less are
more prevalent among those in poverty than
among other hourly workers."
apply to workers being paid:
$7.75, $8.00, $9.00, $9.50 or $10.10 an hour?
Of all the conclusions drawn in this report; this is the one and only conclusion that holds water:
"Workers paid the minimum wage or less are
more prevalent among those in poverty than
among other hourly workers."
This should have been the banner all these politicians and labor "leaders" marched behind.
"Workers paid the minimum wage or less are
more prevalent among those in poverty than
among other hourly workers."
How is that we fund a report like this:
https://www.dli.mn.gov/RS/PDF/13minwage.pdf
which doesn't tell us what a living Minimum Wage should be?
How is it that a report like this which cost tax-payers over $300,000.00 to produce, doesn't explain the relationship between wages, cost-of-living and poverty?
In fact, the term "cost-of-living" does not even appear in this report.
Why would a government agency or department like the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry be allowed to provide a report centered around comparing the Minimum Wage to inflation when inflation is only relevant if one begins with an actual living--- non-poverty--- Minimum Wage to begin with?
It makes not one iota of sense to argue that a poverty Minimum Wage should now be "increased" to compensate for inflation.
The government not only does things backwards, it employs people, paid with our tax-dollars, to think backwards.
It is ironic that we had dozens of politicians and many more labor "leaders" marching behind a banner of Martin Luther King, Jr. while calling for a Minimum Wage of $9.50 an hour knowing full well this is a poverty wage in relation to actual "cost-of-living."
Notice that this report while discusses sex and age, it is "color blind."
The reason given for this is that it protects the "scientific integrity" of the report.
So, in addition to all the other problems with this report we have the racist aspect of the report--- people of color are more often than not the victims of poverty wages which is never mentioned.
How convenient for a governor who believes in "voluntary quotas" instead of Affirmative Action plans and programs intended to create a "level playing field" that this racist aspect of poverty wages isn't mentioned.
With all the problems in this report which is obviously flawed, we have politicians, labor "leaders" and the media citing this report regarding the Minimum Wage.
One has to wonder why a report like this would not have undertaken the figures--- $7.75, $8.00, $9.00, $9.50 and $10.10--- that have been magically pulled from a hat for self-serving political expediency (and to maintain super-profits) was not examined in this report since the author was well aware of these figures being tossed about.
Where is the "scientific integrity" in failing to reveal what impact such poverty wages have on alleviating and eradicating poverty?
Would not this statement of fact:
"Workers paid the minimum wage or less are
more prevalent among those in poverty than
among other hourly workers."
apply to workers being paid:
$7.75, $8.00, $9.00, $9.50 or $10.10 an hour?
Of all the conclusions drawn in this report; this is the one and only conclusion that holds water:
"Workers paid the minimum wage or less are
more prevalent among those in poverty than
among other hourly workers."
This should have been the banner all these politicians and labor "leaders" marched behind.