• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama to use executive order to raise minimum wage

The studies on the impact of an increase to the minimum wage have been fairly mixed. The number of federal contract workers making minimum wage is like 15,000 people -- that's not really affecting the economy at large. It's a symbolic step.

Indexing the minimum wage with inflation seems like a sensible step.
I think we should just import more illegals to work under the table.

The number of workers affected directly is going to be more than 15,000. It's not just people at minimum wage, it'll affect anyone making less than $10.10 and then the DOL standards for wage classifications kick in so there might be a bit of a ripple effect going up the ladder. I don't know how people will have to handle it. If it goes to suppliers, then it will affect a much much larger group....and given their history that'll be their intent IMO.
 
Of course raising the minimum wage is income distribution. That's the point.
I was referring to the creation of minority middle brokers who are mostly Indian to satisfy minority subcontracting rules. The government created a job that does no actual work. At least minimum wage earners are doing something.
 
Regardless, the economic impact will be minimal but symbolic.

Obama and Democrats must be banking on solid continued job growth for the rest of the year, because if there is even a small tick up in unemployment Republicans will point to this EO and use it during the election.
 
Regardless, the economic impact will be minimal but symbolic.
If Obama uses the increase at the bottom to drive up wages in the private sector across the board (to comply with other wage law), it will be WAY more than symbolic. But I know....if he goes there and it happens it'll be excused as an "unintended consequence" even though it's probably by design.
 
No, it will not. Feel free to go to the DOL website and check the labor wage rates for 2013-2014. Again, even these jobs have pay rates higher then $10/hr. You and the rest of the right-wingers want to jump into Fox News-like hysterics over something like this while the impact is negligible. But as I said, facts are boring. Bumpersticker rhetoric is much more exciting. Rant! Rave! Shout! Hyperbole!

And BTW, executive orders, regardless of the president or agenda, are inherently political. Hence the name.

And incidentally, federal contractor positions have been eliminated and cut along with federal employee positions (though those are generally due to retirement attrition and subsequent elimination). So even the lower-wage scale contractors are assuming more work anyway. To attract qualified personnel, private companies who contract with the government need to provide better wages and benefits. The thing the right-wing forgets when they chant about smaller government (when it suits their agenda, of course) is that the regulatory or legal requirements which were met by those now-eliminated positions does not go away simple because you cut the people doing them. You just have less people doing more work.

Again, those damn facts and realities.

Those facts? I have already said twice and now three times, that the issue I have is moving all the minimum wage. The executive order is just politics. As I have already stated. Damn reading apparently. Obama wants all minimum wage raised to 10.10. He is using the executive order to bring attention to his desires and try to push the narrative. What about that am I missing? My argument was and will always be against jumping all minimum wage earners 30% overnight which is what Obama either wants or is the narrative he wants to push.

Its never going to happen so in reality this is all just political gamesmanship, but if he truly believes that would benefit the working class then he is an idiot. It would benefit about 2/3rds of the working class, and the rest would be out of a job thereby increasing unemployment and the federal burden to society.
 
Obama and Democrats must be banking on solid continued job growth for the rest of the year, because if there is even a small tick up in unemployment Republicans will point to this EO and use it during the election.

Unless there's a serious economic effect, I don't think it changes the narrative for either party during the election. :noidea:
 
Those facts? I have already said twice and now three times, that the issue I have is moving all the minimum wage. The executive order is just politics. As I have already stated. Damn reading apparently. Obama wants all minimum wage raised to 10.10. He is using the executive order to bring attention to his desires and try to push the narrative. What about that am I missing? My argument was and will always be against jumping all minimum wage earners 30% overnight which is what Obama either wants or is the narrative he wants to push.

Its never going to happen so in reality this is all just political gamesmanship, but if he truly believes that would benefit the working class then he is an idiot. It would benefit about 2/3rds of the working class, and the rest would be out of a job thereby increasing unemployment and the federal burden to society.

1) The Executive Branch cannot unilaterally raise minimum rage for everyone.
2) Not even this E.O. does that for all federal contractors. It only applies to NEW contracts engaged after 2015. It's not overnight.

If you want to argue about the minimum wage, fine- go ahead. But using this E.O. as a reason is silly and off-base. What he wants to do and what he can do are different things. You're going chicken-little.
 
Unless there's a serious economic effect, I don't think it changes the narrative for either party during the election. :noidea:

It doesn't change the narrative, it is just the beginning. Time to start painting the Republican as the party that doesn't care about the middle and working class. It is the cornerstone of any democratic party electoral narrative lately. When nothing you are doing seems to be working just start attacking the other guy. Politics 101.
 
1) The Executive Branch cannot unilaterally raise minimum rage for everyone.
2) Not even this E.O. does that for all federal contractors. It only applies to NEW contracts engaged after 2015. It's not overnight.

If you want to argue about the minimum wage, fine- go ahead. But using this E.O. as a reason is silly and off-base. What he wants to do and what he can do are different things. You're going chicken-little.

Are you trying not to read? I already addressed both of these points. Let me rephrase:

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IS JUST POLITICS! IT DONT CARE IF IT IS OVERNIGHT OR UNDERWATER. IT IS SYMBOLIC.

I KNOW THE EXECUTIVE ORDER CANNOT CHANGE MINIMUM WAGE FOR EVERYONE. I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL POST THAT OBAMA WANTS TO PUSH THE SENATE BILL THAT WOULD INCREASE ALL MINIMUM WAGE.

Hopefully that was clear enough. I am not being chicken little. I am discussing the issue. Please read. I fully realize Obama cannot change the minimum wage and have NEVER said he could.
 
Jesus H you are truly neurotic. Love the all-caps, though. Try hitting the keyboard harder.
 
It doesn't change the narrative, it is just the beginning. Time to start painting the Republican as the party that doesn't care about the middle and working class. It is the cornerstone of any democratic party electoral narrative lately. When nothing you are doing seems to be working just start attacking the other guy. Politics 101.

In practice this is true, by and large.
 
Like I said in my post. This aspect only makes us pay more for some if the jobs that are bidded out. My comments were directed at Obamas push to raise all minimum wage 30%. The executive order is all politics. I understand that. Might impact some janitorial contracts on and other low wage earners on military bases and the like.

The only reason it is being done this way is the GOP has steadfastly blocked incremental increases. The reality is $10.10 is at or below where the minimum wage would be if it were simply tied to inflation over the past 30+ years.
 
In the '60s and '70s, the minimum wage was anywhere between $8 and $10 an hour in real dollars. Since then the minimum wage has pingponged between $5.50 and $7.50 an hour, generally trending downward.

The wealth inequality in this country is so absurd, and frankly unsustainable, that it makes a lot of sense to pick a number somewhere between $7.50 and $10 (hopefully closer to the higher of the two), peg it to inflation, and move on. The way things are now, left to its own devices, there's zero evidence that wages will rise respective to gains made by the economy at large.
 
Jesus H you are truly neurotic. Love the all-caps, though. Try hitting the keyboard harder.

Haha...the caps was for your benefit. You seem hard of reading. You kept arguing something I never stated nor attempted to argue/discuss.
 
In the '60s and '70s, the minimum wage was anywhere between $8 and $10 an hour in real dollars. Since then the minimum wage has pingponged between $5.50 and $7.50 an hour, generally trending downward.

The wealth inequality in this country is so absurd, and frankly unsustainable, that it makes a lot of sense to pick a number somewhere between $7.50 and $10 (hopefully closer to the higher of the two), peg it to inflation, and move on. The way things are now, left to its own devices, there's zero evidence that wages will rise respective to gains made by the economy at large.

A completely sensible and good solution.
 
Haha...the caps was for your benefit. You seem hard of reading. You kept arguing something I never stated nor attempted to argue/discuss.

Take a look at the last paragraph of your OP. Unless you're a different Wrangor, you're forgetting something.
 
In the '60s and '70s, the minimum wage was anywhere between $8 and $10 an hour in real dollars. Since then the minimum wage has pingponged between $5.50 and $7.50 an hour, generally trending downward.

The wealth inequality in this country is so absurd, and frankly unsustainable, that it makes a lot of sense to pick a number somewhere between $7.50 and $10 (hopefully closer to the higher of the two), peg it to inflation, and move on. The way things are now, left to its own devices, there's zero evidence that wages will rise respective to gains made by the economy at large.

Like the idea, but would we peg it for a set timeframe? Jan.1 to Jan.1 each year for example.
 
Back
Top