[Vision2020] Fifty years ago today (January 8, 1964)

Thu Jan 9 12:41:47 PST 2014

Speaking of Idaho and minimum wage . . .

Courtesy of the Idaho Department of Labor at:

http://labor.idaho.gov/pdf/wagehour.pdf

-------------------------------------

“MINIMUM WAGE

Unless specifically exempt, all employees subject to the provisions of the
Idaho Minimum Wage Law must be paid at least $7.25 per hour effective July
24, 2009. The federal minimum wage increased to $7.25 per hour effective the
same date.

A “TIPPED EMPLOYEE” means any employee engaged in an occupation in which the
employee customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips.

To determine the wage of tipped employees, an employee’s tips combined with
the employer’s cash wage must equal the minimum hourly wage. If it doesn’t,
the employer must make up the difference. It is the employer’s burden to
demonstrate the amount of tips actually received by the employee.

Any portion of tips paid to an employee, which is shared with other
employees under a tip pooling or similar arrangement, shall not be deemed,
for the purpose of this section, to be tips actually received by the
employee; therefore, only the portion of tips actually retained by the
employee may be counted toward the tip credit.

The minimum tipped wage in Idaho is $3.35 per hour effective July 24, 2007.

It is important to note that the Idaho Minimum Wage Law applies to all Idaho
employers unless they meet the specific exemptions under Idaho Code
§44-1504.

Even though businesses come under the exemptions for paying minimum wage by
meeting the dollar volume test of the Fair Labor Standards Act, they are
still subject to the provisions of the Idaho Minimum Wage Law.

New employees under 20 years of age may be paid $4.25 per hour during their
first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer.”

-------------------------------------

Title 44, Chapter 15, Section 1504

http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title44/T44CH15SECT44-1504.htm

Yep.  That’s right.  Idaho has made it legal to pay “tipped employees” less
than minimum wage.

Now, imagine being a single-parent-waitress in Idaho.

What can I say, but . . .

Esto perpetua, V-Peeps.

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Nicholas Gier
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:58 AM
To: Paul Rumelhart
Cc: vision2020 at moscow com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fifty years ago today (January 8, 1964)

Hi Paul,

This a cute rhetorical trick used by conservatives, but I will trump you:
Let's raise the minimum wage to $1 million an hour.

Of course all proposals, including the one that will probably even pass in
Idaho (I recommend that you sign the petition, Paul), call for a gradual
increases pegged to inflation.

As we have seen from history, the free market does not (no surprise here)
solve all problems.  The government had to intervene to make it possible for
workers to bargaining collectively, so that they did not have to blow up
their workplaces in desperation.  There were no incentives for employers to
bargain in good faith without "enabling" legislation.  Likewise with wages.
The market will keep them as low as employers desire with dire consequences
for workers and society as a whole.

Paul, can you tell me why the economies of Australia and Brazil are doing so
well if increasing the minimum wage is so destructive?  I always like to
offer empirical evidence for the theories I prefer.

Nick

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
wrote:

I have no idea why Rosauers decided to build their new store in WA instead
of ID.  I'm not privy to that kind of information.  Why did they?

I'm not trying to shove a point down people's throats or get in a quick
zinger.  I'm trying to have a discussion.  Whenever anyone brings up raising
the minimum wage, I'm reminded that I'm distrustful of government intrusions
into the free markets.  It also makes me wonder where they expect small
businesses to get the money for the wage and resulting benefit increases.
It also makes me wonder what sort of equation they use to determine that
$9.32 for example is the appropriate value to raise them to.  I also start
thinking about reasons people might not be paying that higher wage before
the raise happens, and I don't just assume "greed" and "GOP is evil" as the
answer.

Paul

  _____  

From: Nicholas Gier <ngier006 at gmail.com>
To: Moscow Cares <moscowcares at moscow.com> 
Cc: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; Donovan Arnold
<donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; "fotopro63 at hotmail.com"
<fotopro63 at hotmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow com" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2014 10:11 AM

Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fifty years ago today (January 8, 1964)

Tom: you forgot one thing.  These people will pay more taxes.

Paul: you can theorize all you want. but the facts are in from Australia
($16/hour), Brazil (two huge increases in the minimum wage), and now our
neighboring state.  Otter just boasted about Idaho's GDP growth, but it's
even better in good ole lefty WA.

Recently, Rosauer's had a choice to build a new store in Newport, WA.  They
had a choice between the WA side and the ID side.  Why did they choose the
WA side, Paul?

Yours for worker's rights and against the theft of their productivity,

Nick

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Moscow Cares <moscowcares at moscow.com>
wrote:

Paul Rumelhart inquires:

"If our government mandates an increase in wages, won't most businesses in
this tough economy who have already mapped out just how much they can afford
to spend on salaries (and benefits) simply lay some people off?"

This certainly explains the state of Washington's (the state with the
highest minimum wage at $9.32/hour) unemployment rate of 6.8% (rankin' in at
24th among the Nifty Fifty).

And it most certainly explains why Hawkins Companies wants to build a mall
(employing many many people) just west of the Washington/Idaho state-line.

Although my degree is in Information Systems, and not related to economics,
let me try to explain this . . .

- If minimum wage is increased, the more money the people collecting these
wages will have.

- If people have more money, they tend to spend more money.

- If people soend more money, more products are sold.

- If more products are sold, demand for those products goes up.

- If demand for products goes up, more of those products must be
manufactured and stocked.

- If more products are manufactured and stocked, more people must be
employed to manufacture, stock, and sell these products.

Am I going too fast for you, Mr. Rumelhart?

Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .

"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)

 <http://www.moscowcares.com/> http://www.MoscowCares.com

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

"There's room at the top they are telling you still.

But first you must learn to smile as you kill,

If you want to be like the folks on the hill."

- John Lennon

On Jan 9, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

If our government mandates an increase in wages, won't most businesses in
this tough economy who have already mapped out just how much they can afford
to spend on salaries (and benefits) simply lay some people off?  The only
other option is to raise prices, but people selling widgets are already
working to hit that optimal price for their product based on a number of
factors.  Having to raise price to offset salaries could upset the apple
cart.  Same thing if they have to scale back because they can't afford to
pay everyone at the new wage level.

I'm curious whether that 10 to 25 percent number is really what we see
locally.

Paul

  _____  

From: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
To: "fotopro63 at hotmail.com" <fotopro63 at hotmail.com>; "ngier006 at gmail.com"
<ngier006 at gmail.com> 
Cc: "vision2020 at moscow com" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2014 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fifty years ago today (January 8, 1964)

The welfare state is bloated. It is bloated because wages are so low that a
family of two working adults cannot pay their basic living expenses. If we
raised wages less people would be on goverment assistance and more would be
paying taxes instead. The idea that raising wages only causes inflation is
an outdated one. This was when labor was 50 to 90 percent of a business's
expenses. Today, because of automation and moving of jobs overseas, labor is
only 10 to 25 percent of a business's expense. Further, the bottom 90
percent of wage earners make up an even smaller percentage of a business's
expenses. Therefore, raising wages even as much as 50 percent would only
cause a 5 percent increase in prices cover loses by employers. A 50 percent
pay raise for 5 percent inflation would be a good increase in quality of
life. 

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

  _____  

From: Nicholas Gier <ngier006 at gmail.com>; 
To: Kai Eiselein <fotopro63 at hotmail.com>; 
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com <vision2020 at moscow.com>; 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fifty years ago today (January 8, 1964) 
Sent: Thu, Jan 9, 2014 7:44:59 AM 

The question to ask about American poverty is where would we be today
without Medicare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps?  We are now at the bottom of
most industrialized nations in general health (worst in preventable deaths),
poverty, child health, STDs, infant mortality, adult life spans, etc., etc.
Without these programs we would have dropped to into Third World conditions.

Kai: if it is the bloated welfare state's fault, why is it that the Nordic
countries (see attached) with the most generous benefits and highest taxes
are at the top of of all these quality of life indicators?  As I have been
saying for years, economic facts defeat the GOP on every issue.

Brazil has raised its minimum wage twice in huge increments, and its poverty
rate has dropped dramatically and its economy keeps humming along.  If the
U.S. federal minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, we would have won
the war on poverty with that effort alone. Adjusted for inflation wages have
been flat since Ronnie Reagan, while the fruits of our labor has gone to the
rich and the corporations.

The minimum wage in Australia is $16/hour and it was one of the only
countries that flew through the Great Recession with flying colors.  They
were government by the lefty Labor Party the whole time.

The facts support the Middle Way between Communism and Libertarianism,

Nick

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Kai Eiselein <fotopro63 at hotmail.com> wrote:

That's pretty much what the graph in USA Today showed this morning. They had
an article about it in yesterday and today's edition. Saw it while eating
breakfast at a La Quinta the past two mornings.
If I had to venture a guess for why it has failed, it would be that too much
money goes to bloated bureaucracies and not enough gets to the actual
programs.
Our government can be counted on for a few things:
Lies
Spying on citizens
F---king up just about everything it tries to manage.

________________________________
> From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
> To: thansen at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 13:51:55 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fifty years ago today (January 8, 1964)

>
> War on Poverty at 50 -- despite trillions spent, poverty won
> 'Over, the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion
> to fight poverty.
> Yet today, 15 percent of Americans still live in poverty. That’s
> scarcely better than the 19 percent living in poverty at the time of
> Johnson’s speech. Nearly 22 percent of children live in poverty
> today. In 1964, it was 23 percent.'
>
>
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/08/war-on-poverty-at-50-despite-trill
ions-spent-poverty-won/
>
> I don't have the time to fact check, but the story is from Fox News
> which is the only source of news trusted by conservatives.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: thansen at moscow.com
> Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 04:48:26 -0800
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] Fifty years ago today (January 8, 1964)
>
>
> "This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on
> poverty in America. I urge this Congress and all Americans to join with
> me in that effort.
>
> It will not be a short or easy struggle, no single weapon or strategy
> will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won. The richest
> Nation on earth can afford to win it. We cannot afford to lose it. One
> thousand dollars invested in salvaging an unemployable youth today can
> return $40,000 or more in his lifetime.
>
> Poverty is a national problem, requiring improved national organization
> and support. But this attack, to be effective, must also be organized
> at the State and the local level and must be supported and directed by
> State and local efforts.
>
> For the war against poverty will not be won here in Washington. It must
> be won in the field, in every private home, in every public office,
> from the courthouse to the White House.
>
> The program I shall propose will emphasize this cooperative approach to
> help that one-fifth of all American families with incomes too small to
> even meet their basic needs.
>
> Our chief weapons in a more pinpointed attack will be better schools,
> and better health, and better homes, and better training, and better
> job opportunities to help more Americans, especially young Americans,
> escape from squalor and misery and unemployment rolls where other
> citizens help to carry them.
>
> Very often a lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty, but
> the symptom. The cause may lie deeper in our failure to give our fellow
> citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities, in a lack of
> education and training, in a lack of medical care and housing, in a
> lack of decent communities in which to live and bring up their
> children.
>
> But whatever the cause, our joint Federal-local effort must pursue
> poverty, pursue it wherever it exists--in city slums and small towns,
> in sharecropper shacks or in migrant worker camps, on Indian
> Reservations, among whites as well as Negroes, among the young as well
> as the aged, in the boom towns and in the depressed areas.
>
> Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it
> and, above all, to prevent it. No single piece of legislation, however,
> is going to suffice.
>
> We will launch a special effort in the chronically distressed areas of
> Appalachia.
>
> We must expand our small but our successful area redevelopment program.
>
> We must enact youth employment legislation to put jobless, aimless,
> hopeless youngsters to work on useful projects.
>
> We must distribute more food to the needy through a broader food stamp
> program.
>
> We must create a National Service Corps to help the economically
> handicapped of our own country as the Peace Corps now helps those
> abroad.
>
> We must modernize our unemployment insurance and establish a high-level
> commission on automation. If we have the brain power to invent these
> machines, we have the brain power to make certain that they are a boon
> and not a bane to humanity.
>
> We must extend the coverage of our minimum wage laws to more than 2
> million workers now lacking this basic protection of purchasing power.
>
> We must, by including special school aid funds as part of our education
> program, improve the quality of teaching, training, and counseling in
> our hardest hit areas."
>
> - President Lyndon Johnson in his State of the Union Address (January
> 8, 1964)
>
> http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/640108.asp
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)

> http://www.MoscowCares.com <http://www.moscowcares.com/>
<http://www.moscowcares.com/>

>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still.
> But first you must learn to smile as you kill,
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
> - John Lennon
>
> ======================================================= List services
> made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> ======================================================= List services
> made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/> 
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/> 
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/> 
         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140109/7089f1ad/attachment-0001.html>