Less than a month after California passes its $31,500 minimum wage bill (that's 15 per hour, folks) jobs are already being lost.

Justin Holcomb / Townhall.com:

UC Berkeley Forced to Cut 500 Jobs After $15 Minimum Wage Hike  —  The $15 minimum wage hike in California has sent financially troubled UC Berkeley into decision making mode, and “the people who clean buildings, who work in food services or health clinics,” says Todd Stenhouse, will be the ones without a job.

Editor's notes:  the cost of winning elections is not just the $15.00 per hour Democrat promise,  but the price of all that additional welfare,  demnaded by the millions who will lose their jobs.  

Fact:  1975,  minimum wage was $2.76 per hour with 15.5 million folks earning that wage.  Today,  minimum wage is $7.25 and less than 6 million work for that wage.  And now,  the geniuses in government,  are proposing doubling that wage. 

Why an increase in minimum wage is as unproductive an appraoch to wage equality as we can imagine

Anonymous December 14, 2015 at 11:30 AM
Canada's middle class has just surpassed the US in after tax income. Why, how? By doing everything the GOP is against: higher min wage, more unions, higher taxes on the rich, free health care and strong bank regulation. That's how.
Trickle down... what a crock.
________________________________

Editor's notes:  a reply to the above reader comment:

John Smithson December 14, 2015 at 12:36 PM

Funny, but you have to go to Canada for "proof" that Obama's scheme's actually work, because the same agenda is not working here, in the US.
I am not going to take time to study Canadian domestic policy as to wages and financial. It's GDP (2013) was around 1.5 trillion dollars compared to the US at 16.5 trillion. And, in that difference there is a world of reasonable contrasts.

Understand that a rising minimum wage, in the United States, has eliminated nearly 10 million minimum jobs for the entry level and low level wage earner. `1974, the wage was $2.75 per hour and 15.6 million folks earned that wage. Today, at 7.25 dollars per hour, we have 6 million folks on minimum wage. Double that wage to $15 per hour, and you may less than 1 million folks working at that level of pay. In view of this irrefutable fact,  how has a rise in minimum wage ever helped the working poor,  as a segment of the population? 

As an aside:  Welfare benefits must never be confused with personal wealth statistics.  One can actually amass more than $30,000 in welfare benefits (ObamaCare subsidies,  rent assistance, child tax credits,   and food stamps)  and still be poor.  If personal wealth does not lead to increased personal freedoms,  it is not personal and it is certainly not "freedom.  Being enslaved to a welfare systems that entraps the constituent and enlists is his political support for ever,  is hardly "freedom" in anyone's book. 

Because our workforce is educationally unqualified to earn a higher wage, the jobless working poor have had no choice but to enroll in various welfare programs. They sure as the world are not "going union." Our banking regulations have only increased the size of banking institutions while more than 300 local and smaller community banks have gone out of business during these Obama years . . . . . so how is the working poor benefited in these statistics ? Answer: they are not. And free health care? Hey, the working poor was already getting free health care., and, still, today, 5 years after the law was signed, there remains  40 million Americans uninsured. Our ER centers remain as busy as before ObamaCare. The program has solved absolutely nothing.

The overriding problem is "continuing education." The immigrant class has a very high percentage of folks without the kind of education that equips them for higher paying jobs.
Referring to the minimum wage as a wage designed to support a family confuses the issue. Families need a living wage, not a minimum wage. With that said, working at McDonald's or the local gas station isn't a career. These are jobs designed to help entry-level workers join the workforce, not to support the financial needs of a family.

On the core issue of minimum wage itself, political wrangling is unlikely to result in a real solution. A more practical solution is to join the workforce at the low end of the wage scale, build your skills, get an education and move up the ladder to a better paying job just as members of the workforce have done for generations.
__________________

Some points taken from Investmentpedia, here.  

Here is a practical essay on why $31, 680 ($15 per hour for a year) will not work.

If the fantasy is giving unqualified workers "a living wage,"   $15 per hour will not work.    Here is why:  $ 31,680.

In a standard work month,  there are 22 days.  Take that monthly number and multiply by 12,  and you have 264 work days in a year.    $15 per hours is 120 per day.  When you get done with the math,  you have an annual "minimum wage" per year,  of $31,680.  

Keep that number in mind.  

If you do the research,  as I have,  and you will find that in the early 1970's, the minimum wage was around $2.70 with 15.5 million folks working, earning that wage.  The average minimum wage earner moved to a higher paying job within 12 months.  

Today, with a minimum wage of $7.25,  the total number of folks earning minimum wage has fallen to 6 million, despite the outrageous lie from the Left that increased wages have no effect on employment numbers.  

"We"   are now proposing to double that wage.  Idiocy on its face.  

Look,  as a retired building contractor in California,  I paid a young carpenter with a couple years experience,  a starting wage of $10 per hour,  and gave him a raise to $15 in three months, or,   let him go.  I could afford to train a "newbee,"  off the street,   at $7.25 per hour.  

But,  now,  today,  I simply would not hire an entry level worker at $15 per hour,  not when I could get someone with experience at $17 to 20 per hour.    Understand that a work agreement between an employer and an employee is based on the notion that the employee will earn most,  if not all,  of his wage.  

Traditionally,  it was the private employer and small business owner who trained 75% of the private sector work force.  With a $15 per hour requirement,  that training will come to a screeching halt and small businesses will decrease in numbers.  

And the unqualified will simply move into some sort of welfare program   . . . . . .   at no fault of their own  . . . . .   they will have no choice  . . . . .   all because we have brain dead politicians running around,  making promises and getting themselves elected.  

The untrained just forced a deal for $15 per how. Anyone actually think that this will not cost jobs? Good Grief.

NY Times:   The labor protest movement that fast-food workers in New York City set off nearly four years ago has led to higher wages for workers all over the country. On Wednesday, it finally paid off for the people who started it.

A panel appointed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo recommended on Wedesday that the minimum wage be raised for employees of fast-food chain restaurants throughout the state to $15 an hour. Wages would first be raised in New York City and then the rest of the state.

The decision is a major victory for the campaign to improve the lives of workers who often struggle to pay for basic needs on low salaries. “This is one of the really great days of my administration,” Mr. Cuomo wrote in a Tweet shortly after the decision.

Editor's notes:  Minimum wage in NY is $8.75.  How many jobs will be lost when the food industry is forced to double its wages?  And do not think for a minute that high minimum wages do not cost jobs.  In 1978,  15.4 million folks were on minimum wage ($2.72 per hour).  Today,  that number has fallen to 6 million folks working for $6.25 per hour.  

When I was a contractor (now retired),  entry level pay was $12 per hour when the state's minimum was around $5.70.  Today,  if in business,  my minimum would be around $17 per hour.  If a 15 dollar wage was ordered by the State,  for entry level workers,  I would quit hiring entry level people   . . . .   could not afford training for a year or more at $15 per hour.  

54,000 minimum wage workers live in New York's five boroughs  . . . .  91,000 state wide.  This blog will try to follow this story for the next 12 months. 

L.A. unions push for the minimum wage . . . . . . . . . . except when union workers are being hired.

LA Times:

Labor leaders, who were among the strongest supporters of the citywide minimum wage increase approved last week by the Los Angeles City Council, are advocating last-minute changes to the law that could create an exemption for companies with unionized workforces.

The push to include an exception to the mandated wage increase for companies that let their employees collectively bargain was the latest unexpected detour as the city nears approval of its landmark legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020.

But Rusty Hicks, who heads the county Federation of Labor and helps lead the Raise the Wage coalition, said Tuesday night that companies with workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law.

Editor's notes:  So there you have it,  unions collaborating with politicians to punish non-union shops.  Incredibly,  the self-serving policies of our nation socialist centers for political reform,  aka "the unions,"  are given a pass when it comes to the minimum wage.  

Understand that only 3.5 million folks out of a total and active workforce of 148 million,  work for a minimum wage.  

Will this cost jobs? Well,  today,  the number of folks on minimum wage is around 3.5 million folks out of a workforce of 148 million.  In 1979 per our chart in this post,  something close to 13 million wage earners were on minimum wage.  While increased technical requirements exist for wage earners,  still,  it is obvious that increases in the minimum wage have cost the American worker, some entry level positions.  But it is not as simple as subtracting 3.5 million from 13 million.  Why?  Because upward movement,  in terms of wages, is almost impossible to tract.  The fact that fewer people are on minimum may be attributed, in part, to the notion that business does a better job of training at the "entry level,"  and moving workers off the lower wage. 
_________________________________
Related articles:

History of the minimum wage,  here.

Wonder if this woman can get even one sponsor for a $26 per hour minimum wage.

22 share

On Crossfire  (CNN),  Barbara Lee (D-CA) had this to say: 

"In California, more than likely from what I remembered, a living wage where people could live and take care of their families and move toward achieving the American dream was about $25, $26 an hour," Lee said. 

Lee went on to say she would "absolutely" support $26 per hour as a minimum wage for California and claimed it would not cause more unemployment. 

Crossfire returns to CNN

Editor’s notes:  Pardon me for asking,  but why are most of the intelligent black leadership in the GOP and Libertarian Parties?  Conservatives have no one capable of coming up with such nonsense.  I am wondering if this woman is paying her gardener $26 a hour?  Nobody is stopping her.  

Me?  I pay my gardener in cash and will not take a receipt in return.  Why?  Because I support the "underground economy," that's why.

More bad news for the Administration and the Dems, just in time for midterm consumption: medium wages at a 40 year low.

18 share

In 2012, the latest year for which the Census Bureau has published an estimate, the real median earnings of men who worked full-time, year-round was $49,398. That was $2,272—or about 4.4 percent—below the peak median earnings of $51,670 in 1973. 

Editorial notes:  The really bad thing about the current debate over the minimum wage is this:  It signals a surrender on the part of the Progressives as to the issue of job creation.  

In short,  advancing a minimum wage would not be necessary if there were plenty of jobs and a hiring environment that rewarded business for creating those jobs.   More than this, if there existed an aggressive, job training program,  on a state to state level, the minimum wage issue would take care of itself.  

Since our politicians have done nothing about job creation over the past 6 years,  the "next best thing," in terms of election brag,  is for politicians to force the employer to pay more while struggling with the regulations that prevent him from hiring more, and then take credit for choking the life out of small business  -  you know,  sense small business owners are all so damn rich, and all.    Genius !! 
________________

Related:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/men-who-work-full-time-earn-less-40-years-ago

Wednesday's Theme (Economic news): Affects of the minimum wage projections on the middle class: it DECREASES wages for the vast majority of all (more than the poor)

Editor's notes:  According to the CBO conclusions (below),  will see the 10.10 minimum wage increase and benefit 1.3 million folks currently earning minimum wage incomes (3% x 45 million).  At the same time,  another half million will be harmed,  dropped from current job projections,  according to the CBO.  

Of the total 19 billion dollars in additional income (2 + 5 + 12 = 19 billion - see below), 2 billion will come from the wage increases and 17 billion will be taken from those making 72,000 and more, proving, of course,  my claim that Obama has targeted the working middle class in his rush to income/wealth redistribution and not [just] the One Percenters [if at all].  

From the CBO  (all parties listed below are middle class.  at the top,  you have those who earn $72,000 a years BEFORE THEIR 40% OVERALL TAX BURDEN,  and $12,000 per year (individual "poverty" level.  No one in the middle class are "rich,"  but most are treated as rich,  if their income actually more than $50,000 per year* ~ blog editor).  

Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.

Real income would increase, on net, by $5 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 3 percent and moving about 900,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold (out of the roughly 45 million people who are projected to be below that threshold under current law).

Families whose income would have been between one and three times the poverty threshold would receive, on net, $12 billion in additional real income. 

About $2 billion, on net, would go to families whose income would have been between three and six times the poverty threshold.

Real income would decrease, on net, by $17 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by 0.4 percent.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995

______________________

*  My "$50,000" number comes from the fact that those individuals earning $50,000 or more per year,  are not eligible for any ObamaCare subsidies  -  meaning,  of course,  that they have been targeted by this Administration for wealth redistribution.  

Over the weekend, House Democrats make a move to force a vote on the House floor regarding immigration and the minimum wage.

Editor’s notes:  House Dems announced a move,  over the weekend,  to force a vote on the minimum wage and immigration.  Neither attempt will succeed.  This is a first move in establishing a 2014 campaign strategy that avoids ObamaCare as the primary issue.  If the GOP plays its cards right,  the Dems will need to explain why they did not pass comprehensive legislation in 2009,  as promised by Obama,  when they had super-majorities in both the Senate and the House.  They also,  need to explain why they believe that $10.20 per hour is,  somehow,  a living wage. 

From Washington and the AP   — House Democrats are determined to cast an election-year spotlight on Republican opposition to raising the minimum wage and overhauling immigration laws.

To try to accomplish that in the GOP-controlled House, Democrats are planning to rely on an infrequently used, rarely successful tactic . . . . . . 

A note about the minimum wage: facts that are not commonly reported.

<<<<  Before you all get too discouraged with Obama's use of Executive Orders,  you need to read this.  Just know,  that Executive Orders are not permanent,  can be changed or delete on a whim by future presidents,  add nothing to Obama's legacy since nothing he is doing is permanent.

Around 11:30 pt, today,  Obama signed an executive order,  raising minimum wages for folks who work for contractors signing new contracts with the Federal Government.  

I was an engineering contractor in California.  Going back 20 years and more,  I am not aware of any contract opportunity I on which I offered a bid that included included funding from the Feds,  that did not require union scale wages  . . . . .  which means that Obama is all smoke and mirrors on this one.  All he gets out of this is a photo-op and the pretense that he is actually doing something.  The fact of the matter is this:  the action taken today,  effects almost no one.  

Nation wide,  only 1% of the general population earn minimum wage and most of those folks are young people,  untrained and entry level employees  . . . . .   and no one in the Federal Government makes or earns minimum wage . . . . . .  no one.  

Warren thinks 22 bucks is fine for a minimum wage, but will start with $10.20 and go from there. She has no clue what business "profits" fund and is not asking.

It is hard to believe that the people of Massachusetts would have so little commonsense or disregard for moral character as to elect Elizabeth Warren to any position of leadership.  This is a woman who literally lied her way into Harvard,  and has qualified herself to speak on business issue by avoiding hard labor in the private sector business community.  She knows nothing but what she has learned as academic theory and from reading Marx and Engels.  As a freshman Senator,  she recently made these statements concerning minimum wage levels:

"'If we started in 1960, and we said [that] as productivity goes up...then the minimum wage was going to go up the same...if that were the case, the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour,' the senator said."   . . . . . .  "The current minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. 'What happened to the other $14.75?' 'It sure didn't go to the worker.'"

She went on to claim that the cost of a seven dollar meal at McDonalds,  would increase just four cents if we instituted a minimum wage of $10.20 over the course of the next three years.  (Obama campaigned on an 11 dollar minimum wage back in 2008,  but has not mentioned this bit of political stupidity since  -  not even once in a serious way). 

In answer to her question, “What happened to the other $14.75,”  it went to fund the salaries of the remaining skilled labor force,  a collective that demands far more than minimum wage.  It went to pay the increased employment taxes,  when wages are increased.  It went to sustain increased health care costs demanded by the government and the three trillion per year the business community has to pay for regulatory compliance.  It went to cover litigation insurance costs and judgments.  We should not forget the benefit packages of the full time and skilled labor force and the increased costs of those packages.  What about vacation pay and pregnancy pay,  and forced sensitivity forums?  Then there is the rising costs of inventory and the demand to reward business owners and inventors and patent owners  -  a class of labor Ms Sitting Full of Bull Warren despises.   

Warren believes the whole world is about the unskilled labor force working at McDonalds,  a labor collective that moves out of “minimum wage” limitations precisely because of “minimum wage.”  Want more money?  Learn a trade !!  It is that simple. 

Warren’s own philosophy works against her "concerned" pretense.  When you pile on regulation over regulation,  when you demand less time spent in labor for higher wages,  when you demand a free ride for those who do not work but live off the profits of the business community,  what happens?  Business’s hire more and more part time labor,  work fewer people over-all,  reduce benefit packages and often go broke.  That is the world the Marxist Warrens of this world are creating right before our eyes.  

Elizabeth Warren displays her academic stupidity in this friendly exchange with a fellow academic.

Updated for content:  Elizabeth Warren is the perfect example of an academic who believes that data is all one needs to correctly and wisely determine what is right and wrong for the workers of America as they struggle to make a living in our society. She lied her way into Harvard and won an election in which the voting demographic was so partisan,  they did not care about her proven distortions.  She has never worked a serious, public sector job,  in her life,  and joins Obama's horde of advisers and partners in the quest for restructuring this great nation.  

In the video, she is concerned about a living wage for the "workers of America."  She posits that if  "we" had increased the minimum wage commensurate with the increase in national productivity,  since the 1960’s,  that wage would be somewhere around $22.75 per hour. 

Further,  she posits that a raise in federally required wage minimums,  to $10.10 per  hour over the course of three years,  would only add 4 cents to a McDonald’s meal costing   $7.19.  Her point?    “We”  (she includes herself in reference to the business community) can certainly absorb such increases. 

The entire video discussion is about Warren dealing with increases in the fast food industry and the mutten-head on the opening screen,  agreeing with her.  

She does not care that a minimum wage of 10.10 per hour,  effects different industries,  differently. In fact,  she ignores the comments of a restaurant association representative/owner trying to point out that McDonalds is better suit for a minimum wage increase than other businesses.  She has no clue as to the fact that a three dollar raise in hourly  wages,  translates into  6 dollars per hour, to a building contractor,  when workman’s comp is figured,  when insurances based on total wages is figured, when liability insurance is recalculated, and when benefit packages are refigured.   

More than that,  she is talking about a minimum wage,  originally designed as a safety net,  not as a guaranteed "living wage."  To keep qualified people on the payroll,  wages well above the minimums must be paid.  

At any rate,  her approach to justifying wage increases is laughable and incomptent,  all at the same time.