CO Minimum Wage Dropping

[BeatFreq]

If any of you are making minimum, get ready for $4.80 less a month (if you're working 40hrs/week)...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_bi_ge/us_minimum_wage_drop



DENVER – Colorado will become the first state to reduce its minimum wage because of a falling cost of living.
The state Department of Labor and Employment ordered the wage down to $7.24 from $7.28. That's lower than the federal minimum wage of $7.25, so most minimum wage workers would lose only 3 cents an hour.
Colorado is one of 10 states where the minimum wage is tied to inflation. The indexing is thought to protect low-wage workers from having flat wages as the cost of living goes up.
But because Colorado's provision allows wage declines, the minimum wage will drop because of a falling consumer price index. It will be the first decrease in any state since the federal minimum wage law was passed in 1938.
"We can't see that there would be any other option" except lowering the wage, department spokesman Bill Thoennes said Tuesday. He said there will still be a public hearing on the question in early November, though the drop appears inevitable. The lower wage will take effect Jan. 1.
Advocacy groups for the poor have been warning of the wage drop since August, when the consumer price index for the Denver area was released. The index fell 0.6 percent between the middle of 2008 and the middle of 2009, mostly as a result of falling fuel prices.
Other states with adjustable minimum wages have seen their consumer price indexes fall, such as Ohio. But Colorado is one of the few states where the law is interpreted to mean the wage can fall. Other states are planning to keep wages flat.
In Florida, deflation would reduce the minimum wage to $7.21, but the state's minimum wage already matches the federal wage, so Florida workers' paychecks won't change.
Other states with minimum wages that rise with inflation are Arizona, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.
Colorado voters approved an adjustable minimum wage in 2006. Supporters of that amendment said they did not intend for wages to fall, but the provision allowing it to fall was crucial to its passage. They have pointed out employers of the estimated 50,000 to 70,000 Coloradans making minimum wage are free to leave wages flat.
Ben Hanna, Colorado organizer for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, said the difference is small but significant for poor workers.
"I can't imagine many employers would see this as an opportunity to lower wages," Hanna said in August.

[Erik Mitchell]

Do you have ANY idea how much ramen you can buy with $4.80? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

[isaac h.]

that's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard...

[DMinus]

you're the ones who keep electing these fucking assholes.

[jCole]

you're the ones who keep electing these fucking assholes.


:first:

[BeatFreq]

you're the ones who keep electing these fucking assholes.

if i understand correctly, you'd prefer to elect somebody who would do away with the minimum wage altogether, no?

[Math You]

Blame deflation. You're the one that elected THOSE assholes, DMinus.

[jCole]

O snap, here we go... lol

;)

[nommo]

hahaha yeah this change is a result of how we post our minimum wage laws. one state of ten that work this way. Kinda like tabor... we're all fucked.

this is more political fodder than anything.

[DMinus]

BANISH TO ACTIVIST ARE.... oh wait....

;)

[nommo]

3 days son... 3 days...

[Erik Mitchell]

you're the ones who keep electing these fucking assholes.

Nuh uh, you do! :mmph:

[M.I.J.]

poor people should be proportionally poor.. lol

zero sum mothafuckas!

btw, this was a citizen initiated ballot measure that we all voted for... Colorado Minimum Wage, Amendment 42 (2006)

[dave]

psst...

i didn't vote for that...

[M.I.J.]

on/for/against

passed by the people!

[(DJ)Elroy]

lowering the min wage will save or create more jobs.

[DMinus]

lowering the min wage will save or create more jobs.

racist

[(DJ)Elroy]

racist

:lalala:

[Brandon]

racist

You mean...

http://i35.tinypic.com/no8svd.gif

[cybr]

http://www.rumorsdaily.com/brd/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/rapist_search.jpg

THATS RAPIST!

[(DJ)Elroy]

http://www.rumorsdaily.com/brd/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/rapist_search.jpg

THATS RAPIST!

fucking classic. :third:

[DMinus]

You mean...

http://i35.tinypic.com/no8svd.gif

wheres the one of the little black kid saying it, that one is funnier

[Brandon]

bam

http://www.ep.tc/problems/seven/thats_racist.gif

[Mad_Cat]

falling cost of living?

what the fuck are these morons smoking?

the dollar is inflated.
wages have not increased in 3 decades.
i can't think of a single thing that costs less than it did 10 years ago. (including fuel)

fuck you obama! fuck you!

someone needs to jam that nobel peace prize down your cockhole.

falling cost of living - that's the bullshit line of the century

[Brandon]

wages have not increased in 3 decades.
Mine certainly has. Not sure where you're working that your wage hasn't increased.

[DMinus]

fuck you obama! fuck you!


although i agree with that statement 150%, obama has virtually nothing to do with state min wage laws.

[(DJ)Elroy]

although i agree with that statement 150%, obama has virtually nothing to do with state min wage laws.

X2 :nerd:

next step: tax rate cuts. then maybe we can get the economy back online.

[Mad_Cat]

although i agree with that statement 150%, obama has virtually nothing to do with state min wage laws.


fed supercedes state does it not?

[BeatFreq]

fed supercedes state does it not?


it does. as the article says, this would be a $0.04/hr cut, but that extra cent would put it below the federal minimum, which takes precedence.

but yeah, i agree - my first thought was 'cost of living is decreasing? where? how?'

[DjGhettoSteve]

obama has virtually nothing to do with state min wage laws.

Exactly, misplaced anger here people. Obama didn't cause this crap, a whole lot of factors did, and is partly the voter's fault for being irresponsible with low-end loans, credit cards, etc. Better personal money management could have prevented a lot of this crap, but people wanted their escalades and hummers and other gas guzzlers then bitch that gas is too expensive since they have to fill up every other day. People took way too long to embrace eco-fuels that can and do reduce our demand for gas, etc.

[dave]

yeah, but using corn to make fuel raises other costs....


if they can get the algae farming/biofuel production thing going...

we could grow more sugarcane too... i think that is the crop brazil is using a BUNCH of

[nommo]

un11truth.org

[BeatFreq]

if they can get the algae farming/biofuel production thing going...


we should follow sweden's model and use cute little bunnies as biofuel - who could possibly object to that? ;)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,654916,00.html

[Math You]

wages have not increased in 3 decades.

Hmm, what happened when Reagan came in office that would have caused that, do you think?


i can't think of a single thing that costs less than it did 10 years ago. (including fuel)Ya if you go back that far then things are more expensive, sure. But do you remember $4 gas?

We just went through months of deflation for the first time since the 50's. The CPI is down 1.5% over the past 12 months. The CPI finally rose in August, and we shall see if it rose again in September tomorrow morning when the new numbers come out. Inflation is going to be the Fed's concern from here on out, but when it is going to rear it's ugly head has yet to be seen.

[DMinus]

un11truth.org

please tell me you bought that domain.

[dave]

we should follow sweden's model and use cute little bunnies as biofuel - who could possibly object to that? ;)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,654916,00.html

not just for cute furry little animals....

bye bye social security/medicare/eldercare woes too....

:tinfoil3:

[Math You]

next step: tax rate cuts. then maybe we can get the economy back online.

Starve the beast during a recession, brilliant idea. :rolleyes:

[dave]

Starve the beast during a recession, brilliant idea. :rolleyes:

are you suggesting it's better to give freely to the govt. extra $$$ to spend on 'stimulus' and 'social welfare'?


the IRS does have a "conscience fund" where you can make additional contributions to go to the General Fund,
if you so desire....

http://noquarters.blogspot.com/2005/12/my-conscience-is-clean.html

[DjGhettoSteve]

yeah, but using corn to make fuel raises other costs....


if they can get the algae farming/biofuel production thing going...

we could grow more sugarcane too... i think that is the crop brazil is using a BUNCH of

not just corn, but ethanol was kind of the jumping off point for alt fuels imo. my main point though was personal responsibility, but I'm sleep deprived and none too focused. if people would live within their means, they wouldn't have crazy amounts of debt that cause such a strain on the economy in general. people would be able to afford private health insurance if they weren't flushing extraneous funds on a too expensive house/car/etc. But at this point, and since humans refuse to be responsible in general (across the board/generalization), we have to play clean up, which requires fundage - hence needing tax increases and such. I need to find the chart again but I saw a great comparison of presidents and gross GDP changes during their tenures. Basically, whenever there were tax increases and such following a recession, there would be a large amount of growth, while terms that saw tax cuts showed much less growth and sometimes a loss.

[M.I.J.]

we should follow sweden's model and use cute little bunnies as biofuel


son of a bitch! did i ever tell you guys my idea about turning old people in to oil?

[dave]

I need to find the chart again but I saw a great comparison of presidents and gross GDP changes during their tenures. Basically, whenever there were tax increases and such following a recession, there would be a large amount of growth, while terms that saw tax cuts showed much less growth and sometimes a loss.


i really think the chart you are referring to simplifies things too much...

IMHO tax cuts and increases & periods of growth and retraction are not really bound by the timing of administrative terms.....
and any attempt to correlate administrative terms with the two is misguided....

[Math You]

But at this point, and since humans refuse to be responsible in general (across the board/generalization)

It has nothing to do with people in general, but rather the great wealth divide, which is increasing due to tax cuts for the upper class and stripping of funds from things like education.

"A generation ago, top executives typically took home not much more than 30 times what their workers made. Now they typically take home over 300 times their worker pay."
http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/executive_excess_2009

"The top one percent of households received 21.8 percent of all pre-tax income in 2005, more than double what that figure was in the 1970s. (The top one percent's share of total income bottomed out at 8.9 percent in 1976.) This is the greatest concentration of income since 1928, when 23.9 percent of all income went to the richest one percent."
http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm

"In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth


I need to find the chart again but I saw a great comparison of presidents and gross GDP changes during their tenures.

http://www.laprogressive.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/table.jpg

What drives real growth is of less interest to the upper class than something like a tax cut for them, which allows them to control an even bigger piece of the pie.

[Math You]

i really think the chart you are referring to simplifies things too much...

IMHO tax cuts and increases & periods of growth and retraction are not really bound by the timing of administrative terms.....
and any attempt to correlate administrative terms with the two is misguided....

So how much lag do you think there is after a policy decision? We can bring up those numbers too, if you'd like.

[dave]

So how much lag do you think there is after a policy decision? We can bring up those numbers too, if you'd like.


yes, please parrot some more talking points you find on the internet...

:peace:

[BeatFreq]

So how much lag do you think there is after a policy decision? We can bring up those numbers too, if you'd like.


well, and has been discussed in numerous previous discussions, that graph doesn't account for who controls congress at any given point, which arguably has a greater influence on economic policy than who occupies the white house.

[Erik Mitchell]

son of a bitch! did i ever tell you guys my idea about turning old people in to oil?

Solve the energy & healthcare crisis at the same time! BRILLIANT!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__jFgOqdirRY/Sp_3nME9y0I/AAAAAAAACkc/j0YBZw1s5vg/s400/brilliant_medium.jpg

[Joy]

Come on guys.... I *know* you want the activist arena back.... ;)

[s.p.e.c.t.r.e.]

Come on guys.... I *know* you want the activist arena back.... ;)



here ya go ;)
http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewforum.php?f=46

[DjGhettoSteve]

It has nothing to do with people in general, but rather the great wealth divide, which is increasing due to tax cuts for the upper class and stripping of funds from things like education.

"A generation ago, top executives typically took home not much more than 30 times what their workers made. Now they typically take home over 300 times their worker pay."
http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/executive_excess_2009

"The top one percent of households received 21.8 percent of all pre-tax income in 2005, more than double what that figure was in the 1970s. (The top one percent's share of total income bottomed out at 8.9 percent in 1976.) This is the greatest concentration of income since 1928, when 23.9 percent of all income went to the richest one percent."
http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm

"In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth


I don't dispute that there is a great desparity between the classes. I am all for spreading the wealth, being the pinky commie I am. However, I don't see a lot of averaging out happening in the very near future since it has long since been trending in the favor of the upper class. Therefore, those of us not in the upper class have to be that much more careful, but the vast majority are not.

So, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a levelling of the playing field, fiscally speaking, but that until that eventually happens, people need to be smart with their money or expect harsh consequences that extend beyond themselves.

[kamikazekato]

Damn Deflation is right.... my econ class is going to get a kick out of this!

[DMinus]

Damn Deflation is right.... my econ class is going to get a kick out of this!

LOL - especially if they subscribe to the douchebag nonsequitur philosophy that doesn't actually include free market economics.

we really are fucked.

[rolfmonster]

Come on guys.... I *know* you want the activist arena back.... ;)

maybe it should be called

mass debate

;)

[Brandon]

fed supercedes state does it not?
Only when state contradicts fed. That's not the case here AND it only pertains to written law, not authority.

[Brandon]

lol... oh yea.. and this thread is exactly why the political forum shuold be created again. :D

[M.I.J.]

hahahahahaha, banmit, i mean it!

http://images0.cafepress.com/product/399979560v1_350x350_Front_Color-Black.jpg