The War On Child Labor Laws: Maine Republicans Want Longer Hours, Lower Pay For Kids

[Burgold]

Help me out here. Who are the "kids who don't need the money" going to work for $5.50 an hour?? Not many at all IMO. Doesn't make sense.

I was one once upon a time. I got a job for spending money, but I lived in a comfortable nice middle class home. I didn't need the money so minimum wage was fine. Although, I suppose you might be right to a degree (it must be April 1st ) because the kids who need a job are the ones that would have to take the sub-minimum wage jobs. That's who this is preying on.

I mean your argument might have some weight if we hadn't been looking at wage and wealth disparitry changes over the last ten plus years. Who are you trying to kid? Almost all wages have remained relatively flat (some have even gone down) though corporate profits and CEO/Executive pay has soared.

[Larry]

Desperate for a paycheck is exactly why this bill makes sense, especially for those unskilled and inexperienced "minor" workers. Job(s) ACCESS is the driver here. I'd venture to say there will be more total "workers" given this bill than less and that's a good thing for EVERYONE.

You keep saying that.

(You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.)

Granted, I'm not personally familiar with the employment situation in Maine, right now. But I suspect that they've got massive unemployment, across the state.

The reason why, in an "employer's market", the state needs to be changing laws so that we can flood the market with more workers, who are given passes to work for even less than current workers, isn't because the GOP wants to improve the bargaining position of the workers.

[Beans]

Total BS. I wonder who actually thought this was a good idea. Sounds like a way to get cheap temp labor, and then fire at will after the 180 days.

[AsburySkinsFan]

When I was 15, I didn't expect that I should make as much money per hour of my time as a 30 year old working beside me.

Maybe I was just brianwashed into thinking my time and work experience was less valuable than theirs.

Well there is a reason that it's called a MINIMUM wage.

[aREDSKIN]

You keep saying that.

(You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.)

Granted, I'm not personally familiar with the employment situation in Maine, right now. But I suspect that they've got massive unemployment, across the state.

The reason why, in an "employer's market", the state needs to be changing laws so that we can flood the market with more workers, who are given passes to work for even less than current workers, isn't because the GOP wants to improve the bargaining position of the workers.

Well business are not hiring at $7.50 anyways. So why not try and make some headway with a segment of the worker class that desperately wants to work and is willing to work at the $5.50 rate and needs work experience? The workers get paid, albeit less, the business get potential long term employees after 6 months of adequate performance, the customers potentially gets lower prices because of reduced labor costs, the gov't gets tax revenues, it's a win win for all as I see it. If i were in this worker class and I needed a job I'd be willing to work for $5.50 demonstrate my competence to the employer and have a job as opposed to no opportunity, no job at $7.50 per gov't edict.

[Burgold]

Total BS. I wonder who actually thought this was a good idea. Sounds like a way to get cheap temp labor, and then fire at will after the 180 days.

Of course that's what this is. The follow-up law will be called the youth obesity recovery act in which Maine's Republicans will declare that to deal with the rising problem of underage obesity that sweat shops will not only be legalized but encouraged be encouraged and any pay above 25 cents/month will be fined unless the employer can demonstrate sufficiently unhealthy and dangerous working standards.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Of course that's what this is. The follow-up law will be called the youth obesity recovery act in which Maine's Republicans will declare that to deal with the rising problem of underage obesity that sweat shops will not only be legalized but encouraged be encouraged and any pay above 25 cents/month will be fined unless the employer can demonstrate sufficiently unhealthy and dangerous working standards.

Some mercury poisoning will help them lose weight too.

[aREDSKIN]

Of course that's what this is. The follow-up law will be called the youth obesity recovery act in which Maine's Republicans will declare that to deal with the rising problem of underage obesity that sweat shops will not only be legalized but encouraged be encouraged and any pay above 25 cents/month will be fined unless the employer can demonstrate sufficiently unhealthy and dangerous working standards.

If that's your position why have the rate at a low $7.50?? Surely you can't agree with that low wage can you? Why not just make it $20.00?

[Larry]

Well business are not hiring at $7.50 anyways. So why not try and make some headway with a segment of the worker class that desperately wants to work and is willing to work at the $5.50 rate and needs work experience? The workers get paid, albeit less, the business get potential long term employees after 6 months of adequate performance, the customers potentially gets lower prices because of reduced labor costs, the gov't gets tax revenues, it's a win win for all as I see it. If i were in this worker class and I needed a job I'd be willing to work for $5.50 demonstrate my competence to the employer and have a job as opposed to no opportunity, no job at $7.50 per gov't edict.

The employers get to cut their labor costs by 1/3, if they'll just fire the person who's been supporting himself for years and replace him with a 19 year old who'll get fired after 6 months to make way for another "temporary" 19 year old. Who could see a problem?

[Burgold]

If that's your position why have the rate at a low $7.50?? Surely you can't agree with that low wage can you? Why not just make it $20.00?

It's always funny when extreme people can't realize that their position is extreme.

[AsburySkinsFan]

If that's your position why have the rate at a low $7.50?? Surely you can't agree with that low wage can you? Why not just make it $20.00?

Gee then on your logic why not force them to work for free? Let's bring back slave labor. See that argument works both ways. A minimum wage is there to make sure that workers are paid a minimum amount for their time and labor and is there to protect them from employers who might take advantage of the fact that the poor are in most cases dependent upon finding whatever work they can in order to make a living. But, hey let's just give businesses greater ability to pay an already poor people even less.

[DCsportsfan53]

Bac, would you not agree that workers wages in America have pushed jobs to illegals and overseas?

It's easy to soap box. It's easy to blame business. But survival in business isn't easy. The key is to manage "expenses". So there has to be a middle ground between employee salaries, and it's cheaper to take the other option.

We could start by tying corporate tax breaks to the % of workers and % of salary paid to American citizens working in America instead of essentially paying companies to send jobs overseas like we have been for decades.

[aREDSKIN]

The employers get to cut their labor costs by 1/3, if they'll just fire the person who's been supporting himself for years and replace him with a 19 year old who'll get fired after 6 months to make way for another "temporary" 19 year old. Who could see a problem?

Red herring for the most part IMO. They are not hiring at the $7.50 rate anyways. Are you aware of the acquisition costs of employees and "good" employee turnover is an area most businesses want to reduce, not churn and increase.

[Larry]

Red herring for the most part IMO.

Says the guy who absolutely refuses to admit that passing a law that allows employers to cut their labor costs by 1/3 won't result in these "new jobs" coming at the expense of existing jobs.

But keep pretending.

[Tweedr01]

It's always funny when extreme people can't realize that their position is extreme.

Gee then on your logic why not force them to work for free? Let's bring back slave labor. See that argument works both ways. A minimum wage is there to make sure that workers are paid a minimum amount for their time and labor and is there to protect them from employers who might take advantage of the fact that the poor are in most cases dependent upon finding whatever work they can in order to make a living. But, hey let's just give businesses greater ability to pay an already poor people even less.

To be honest, both sides are throwing out extreme cases, why don't you guys (not picking on you by quoting you, but I mean you to mean everyone) argue realistically. Doing this will not create sweatshop like environments, and going in the opposite people opposed to this bill aren't looking for $20/ hour for minimum wage. Why can't there be a real debate on this besides making insane cases that won't ever happen?

EDIT: just reiterating, this is not pointed at you two, it was just the most recent examples of it, so please do not take this as a personal attack on you

[AsburySkinsFan]

Red herring for the most part IMO. They are not hiring at the $7.50 rate anyways. Are you aware of the acquisition costs of employees and "good" employee turnover is an area most businesses want to reduce, not churn and increase.

Who isn't hiring at the $7.50 rate? You don't think that there aren't a lot of businesses that are hiring at $7.50? If not I dare you to ask the friendly voice in the drive-thru what she started at in her oh so well paying job the next time you get a burger.

[Larry]

Course, there is a moderate position.

Leave the law alone.

But gee, we can't do that. What a state that probably has double-digit unemployment really needs is to have a bunch more workers entering the labor pool, and large financial incentives to dump existing workers.

[Burgold]

To be honest, both sides are throwing out extreme cases, why don't you guys (not picking on you by quoting you, but I mean you to mean everyone) argue realistically. Doing this will not create sweatshop like environments, and going in the opposite people opposed to this bill aren't looking for $20/ hour for minimum wage. Why can't there be a real debate on this besides making insane cases that won't ever happen?

That's true and fair, but it will result in a lot of people making less than minimum wage and it is without doubt discriminatory.

[Tweedr01]

Course, there is a moderate position.

Leave the law alone.

But gee, we can't do that. What a state that probably has double-digit unemployment really needs is to have a bunch more workers entering the labor pool, and large financial incentives to dump existing workers.

I think that might be best, just leave it as is because changing it makes fists fly from both sides, not sure if it's worth it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

To be honest, both sides are throwing out extreme cases, why don't you guys (not picking on you by quoting you, but I mean you to mean everyone) argue realistically. Doing this will not create sweatshop like environments, and going in the opposite people opposed to this bill aren't looking for $20/ hour for minimum wage. Why can't there be a real debate on this besides making insane cases that won't ever happen?

EDIT: just reiterating, this is not pointed at you two, it was just the most recent examples of it, so please do not take this as a personal attack on you

All I was doing was pointing out the opposite extreme when we were told that our logic should mean that we should be arguing for a $20 minimum wage, I don't think this will end up with slave labor that's ridiculous just as is saying that we should be arguing for a $20 minimum wage, my absurd statement was to show just how absurd the previous statement was. My problem is that there is a minimum wage for a reason and that minimum wage should not be lowered for one group of people on the basis of age, it's a minimum for a reason. This bill is a pro-business bill and an anti-youth worker bill, and if they crack this nut then I believe it to be true that they will look to lower the minimum wage across the board for all workers, all this in a time when people are desperate for any dime they can earn.

I personally would have never been able to survive on $2 less than the minimum when I first started working, and when I first started working I did the exact same job as the 20 year old who would have been earning $2 more just because he or she was born earlier, which is total crap.

[Tweedr01]

That's true and fair, but it will result in a lot of people making less than minimum wage and it is without doubt discriminatory.

no doubt, i can't say for sure if they are just testing something, seeing how it works, and making changes to it once they see if it works well or fails miserably. i'm not an expert on unemployment in maine, but i assume it's just as bad there as it is anywhere. they could be doing this to shake things up a bit, see if it helps, if it doesn't, change it back, or again make a change to it again.

i understand the fact that the bill isn't the best, but what's working right now isn't the best either (i am assuming this as maine is trying to change what is par for the course), so maybe they want to see if they can fix it, maybe this is just the first step? i dunno, again not for or against it as this doesn't really affect me, but my .02

[PeterMP]

When I was 15, I didn't expect that I should make as much money per hour of my time as a 30 year old working beside me.

Maybe I was just brianwashed into thinking my time and work experience was less valuable than theirs.

When I was in my teens I did some pretty physical jobs. During the summer, I'd play basketball during the day, work at night, and then after work go out. And I had more energy than some of the older people I worked with so did the job better.

Many of them complained about how the daily grind of the job wore them out. I had no problems with energy.

[aREDSKIN]

Gee then on your logic why not force them to work for free? Let's bring back slave labor. See that argument works both ways. A minimum wage is there to make sure that workers are paid a minimum amount for their time and labor and is there to protect them from employers who might take advantage of the fact that the poor are in most cases dependent upon finding whatever work they can in order to make a living. But, hey let's just give businesses greater ability to pay an already poor people even less.

Ok by your logic since they are poor and dependent why not make the minimum wage $20.00? They obviously need and deserve it according to you. Why is $7.50 ok with you to force businesses to pay beginner/new entrant workers and not $20? Obviously $20 is much better for those workers. Shouldn't the market decide that? I'd bet that poor worker you describe would like the OPPORTUNITY is work for $5.50 make some cash as opposed to no job, no wages, no cash at $7.50.

Some 50 years of empirical evidence of the effect of a minimum wage on worker and society at large.

Adams, F. Gerard. 1987. Increasing the Minimum Wage: The Macroeconomic Impacts. Briefing Paper, Economic Policy Institute (July).

Finds that an increase in the minimum wage from $3.35 to $4.65 over three years would increase the unemployment rate by less than 0.1% and the inflation rate by 0.2%.

Adie, Douglas K. 1973. Teen-Age Unemployment and Real Federal Minimum Wages. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 81 (March/April): 435-441.

Finds that the minimum wage is responsible for a considerable amount of teenage unemployment.

Al-Salam, Nabeel; Quester, Aline; and Welch, Finis. 1981. Some Determinants of the Level and Racial Composition of Teenage Employment. In Rottenberg (1981a): 124-154.

Notes that in 1954, black teenage males were more likely to be employed than white teenage males. Since that time, the proportion of black teenage males employed has fallen sharply, while employment for white teenage males has risen. Expansion of coverage of the minimum wage appears to be a major factor in this trend. Further notes that more than half of all teenagers would earn more in the absence of a minimum wage.

Bauer, P.T. 1959. Regulated Wages in Under-developed Countries. In The Public Stake in Union Power, ed. Philip D. Bradley. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 324-349.

Argues that the negative effects of minimum wage laws in LDCs is even greater than in industrialized countries, because there is greater diversity of supply and demand for labor in LDCs. Also points out that in South Africa minimum wages helped whites at the expense of blacks.

Behrman, Jere R.; Sickles, Robin C.; and Taubman, Paul. 1983. The Impact of Minimum Wages on the Distributions of Earnings for Major Race-Sex Groups: A Dynamic Analysis. American Economic Review, vol. 73 (September): 766-778.

Finds that the minimum wage has helped white males and females while hurting black males and females.

Bell, Carolyn Shaw. 1981. Minimum Wages and Personal Income. In Rottenberg (1981a): 429-458.

Finds that increases in the minimum wage would benefit few families with incomes below the poverty level. Much of the benefit would accrue to upper income families with secondary earners, such as wives and children.

Continues......http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm

More evidence-

Employment Policies Institute-

On May 24, 2007, Congress passed legislation to increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi captured the general mood in Washington when she exclaimed that “millions of hardworking Americans will be getting a raise.” The public was also supportive, with polls showing broad approval of Congress’ efforts to raise the minimum wage.

This enthusiasm was not universal. Labor economists who had studied past wage hikes warned that higher wages were not a free lunch; there would be a price to pay. Decades of prior research established a basic economic truth: When forced to hire and train unskilled new employees at increased wages, employers search for ways to offset that cost. Sometimes, it translates to higher prices for customers; other times, it translates to fewer hours and fewer jobs for less-experienced employees.

***

Three years after the passage of federal wage legislation, teen employment prospects are suffering tremendously. The unemployment rate for 16 to 19-year-olds remains above 25 percent; for those ages 16 to 17, the unemployment rate is close to 30 percent. While the recession has been a significant cause of teens’ employment woes, some advocacy groups have claimed that it’s the only cause – downplaying any employment loss caused by the more than 40 percent increase in the federal minimum wage that occurred over the same time period.

***

Using state-specific variations in minimum wage growth, and carefully controlling for the effects of the recession and other state economic differences, Even and Macpherson are able to isolate only the decline in teen employment that was caused by the federal wage hike.

For the 19 states affected by all three stages of the federal wage hike, there was a 6.9 percent decline in employment for teens aged 16 to 19. This translates to approximately 98,000 fewer employed teens. Broadening the analysis to include all 32 states impacted by any stage of the federal wage increase, the authors find approximately 114,400 fewer employed teens.

When Even and Macpherson look specifically at 16 to 19-year-olds with less than 12 years of education, the proportional employment loss grows larger. In states impacted by all three wage hikes, there was a 12.4 percent decrease in teen employment.

http://epionline.org/study_Employment Policies Institutedetail.cfm?sid=128

[Tweedr01]

All I was doing was pointing out the opposite extreme when we were told that our logic should mean that we should be arguing for a $20 minimum wage, I don't think this will end up with slave labor that's ridiculous just as is saying that we should be arguing for a $20 minimum wage, my absurd statement was to show just how absurd the previous statement was. My problem is that there is a minimum wage for a reason and that minimum wage should not be lowered for one group of people on the basis of age, it's a minimum for a reason. This bill is a pro-business bill and an anti-youth worker bill, and if they crack this nut then I believe it to be true that they will look to lower the minimum wage across the board for all workers, all this in a time when people are desperate for any dime they can earn.

I personally would have never been able to survive on $2 less than the minimum when I first started working, and when I first started working I did the exact same job as the 20 year old who would have been earning $2 more just because he or she was born earlier, which is total crap.

i understand, it's coming from both sides, next time i'll quote from the other side of the argument

well when you were making minimum wage waaaaaaay back in the day, wouldn't subtracting $2 from your hourly put you at negative and paying to work?

[PeterMP]

But under this law, McDonald's can cut their labor costs by 1/3. All they have to do is to get rid of every adult, long term employee they have, and replace them with 18 and 19 year olds, who they fire every six months.

That's one heck of an incentive.

The other issue is that many kids don't work all year at the same job and many employeers are okay with that.

During the school year, I worked at one place near my home. Then during the summer I made the trip to Ocean City, MD with an older brother in worked at another place.

The place that I worked during the school year was fine with that because they had plenty of other people that were looking to increase their hours during the summer (with no real increase in business), and the place in OC was okay with that because they had a huge decrease in business during the school year.

But I'd bet based on this law every season they could have started me over at the "training" wage.