Is it me or is the reporting behind this kind of vague? The headlines almost make it seem like Fulop legalized a $15 min. wage for ALL JC workers not just JC public sector employees.
Good for Mayor Fulop - along with mayors and governors in other places - for standing up to the status quo.
The first part of your post may be right, but the irony with the "fight for fifteen" movement is exactly what jerseymom highlighted. The additional increase in wages may very well push many of its beneficiaries into income levels that preclude them from availing themselves of other government largesse and benefits. That could have serious consequences for many individuals and families.
Also, the recent minimum wage increase in San Francisco offers some cautionary tales for proponents of such an increase in other cities. While many have benefited, some businesses (including some that supported the increase) have been forced to close their doors after being unable to turn a profit after their payroll costs increased so much.
For the record, I am neither advocating nor speaking against a minimum wage increase. It is inconsequential to me. Just highlighting some not-so-obvious aspects of the conversation.
The first minimum wage laws were pushed by democrats to protect the low-skilled jobs of whites back in the early century. This was because when blacks started to enter the workforce in large numbers they undercut the wages that whites were already getting in various types of low-skilled jobs. The white workers complained. So democratic politicians pushed for minimum wage laws so that it was impossible for blacks to offer their services at a lower price then whites. The result was that the unemployment rate for blacks grew much higher than that of whites.
The unemployment rate of blacks when compared to whites has been growing ever since - in lock-step with each increase in the minimum wage.
Clearly the minimum wage has done nothing but hurt the people its proponents "say" it helps. The only thing it has been good at is getting votes for politicians like Fulop.
You can't cheat the laws of Nature. If you force employers to pay rates than higher what economics of their business dictates, they will cut service, cut hours, or they will simply replace humans with machines. It's not hard to make a machine to flip burgers.
Oh, and as a Mayor, Fulop is supposed to represent the taxpayers, not our employees. He is supposed to look after our financial interests, not theirs. This is his fiduciary duty, his obligation.
If he feels like he should represent the workers, he should resign as a mayor and then negotiate with a new mayor on their behalf.
As Trenton lawmakers try to line up a way forward on a statewide minimum wage and stare at numerous hurdles in the way, including a veto-threatening Gov. Chris Christie, Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop this morning announced that he readjusted to $15 the minimum wage paid to all of his city employees.
There are 3,000 city workers in Jersey City. The order impacts those making the state minimum wage of $8.38 per hour and will cost the city between $1 million to $1.2 million in the budget this year.
“Today, Jersey City will be first city in New Jersey to enact a $15 minimum wage for all of our employees that work for city government,” said Fulop in a statement. “I can’t in good conscience advocate for something we haven’t implemented ourselves. So today, I signed an Executive Order that will adjust the salaries of 500 employees (nearly a quarter of the city’s work force) to ensure that working for Jersey City provides a base salary, which allows you to live in this region.
New Jersey’s Democratic legislators want to raise the state’s minimum wage to $15 per hour, they just don’t agree on how that bump in wages should be approached. Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D-32) wants wages immediately boosted from where they sit at $8.38 per hour and has introduced a bill that would go through the regular legislative process to do so. Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-3) has said that he will propose a constitutional amendment that would increase wages incrementally to $15 by 2024. Sweeney’s approach would put the question on the 2017 ballot, bypass Republican Governor Chris Christie and, potentially, avoid his veto pen.
The setup for the $15 minimum wage debate is similar to a disagreement the two legislators recently had about opening casinos in North Jersey. While they were eventually able to come to an agreement (which favored Sweeney), the debate was the source of serious contention.
Assembly Speaker Prieto, Assemblyman Wisniewski, Senator Lesniak Introduce $15 Minimum Wage Bill
Workers & Advocates Praise Sponsors, Say Raise Would Give Big Boost to Working Families & Economy
Trenton – Legislators joined NJ Working Families and its partners in New Jersey’s Fight for $15 to unveil a groundbreaking bill that would raise New Jersey’s minimum wage to $15 from its current level of $8.38. Workers and advocates praised the bill as a major step forward in the Fight for $15 campaign to raise the state’s minimum wage to a family-sustaining wage.
“As we continue to review other proposals as part of our new anti-poverty initiative, this will be an integral component in our efforts to stop the decline in the middle class and lift working families out of poverty,” said Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto, a sponsor of the bill. “The constitutional minimum wage that we established a few years ago set a floor, not a ceiling. While that was the best and most feasible thing we could do at the time, we now need to strive for better to reverse the poverty trend in this state.”
Nobody wakes up one morning and says, "I hope I get a job that pays minimum wages when I grow up!"
But in today's economy, many workers – most of them industrious, well-meaning men and women – find themselves cashing a weekly paycheck that barely stretches to cover food, medical expenses and housing.
Last week, the Mercer County Board of Chosen Freeholders took note of their struggles. With a resolution supporting a $15 statewide minimum wage, the lawmakers joined their counterparts in Essex and Hudson counties in a campaign to upgrade the lives of the state's rapidly dwindling middle class.
On the municipal level, Jersey City has also signed on.
They're all part of an initiative led by New Jersey Working Families Alliance, which hopes to spread the word that the state's current minimum wage of $8.38 an hour is too low to sustain a family.
K even thought this topic has nothing to do with JC per se (which is a pet peeve of mine) I thought I'd chime and and and state the obvious: HELLO NO ONE is forcing ANYONE to work at ANY minimum wage/fast food (or barely above minimum wage) job so if you aren't happy with what they pay JUST DON'T work there!!!!!!!!!!!! It's REALLY that simple because last time I checked the Gov't isn't putting a gun to ANYONES head and forcing ANYONE to get a crappy, thankless minimum wage (or barley above it) job at McDonald's!!!!
.....and for those who are gonna chime in about parents who have to provide for their child/children working at a minimum wage job and how that's next to impossible (which I don't dispute one bit) HELLO if you have a child/children to raise and can only find work at a minimum wage job all I can say is SHAME on you for making such a god awful horrific life decision and subjecting your innocent children to the terrible consequences of your god awful horrific life decision!!!
...for the record I'm not even a Republican (Libertarian)
papadage wrote: And yet they still have issues requiring large amounts of housing subsidies, price controls on drugs, and a new supplemental system for inadequate savings.
What's your point? I know the comparison was raised because a poster who was obviously unaware of how things work in other countries tried to act like eliminating a minimum wage is utter insanity.
Singapore conclusively proves that wrong. But as we all know, the "progressive" alternative extreme of a $100 an hour minimum wage is actually pure insanity.
Not saying we should copy Singapore, but they serve as a great real world example to combat "progressive" ignorance.
Now then, there still are some very important questions you keep dodging. What is the rationale for not raising our minimum wage to $100? More importantly, where did this $15 figure come from? Was it drawn from a hat? Chosen for the alliteration?
And yet they still have issues requiring large amounts of housing subsidies, price controls on drugs, and a new supplemental system for inadequate savings.
About 15 years ago I spent some time in Singapore. The paraphrase PJ O'Rouke, it is everything a South Asian city shouldn't be: Clean, well organized, expensive, and boring as hell. Though after trying to travel around Bangkok (pre Sky Train days), the Singapore public transport system was awesome.
Poor.. no.. Closest to poverty you will find are a bunch of low paid Filipina nannies and maids brought in as temporary labor.
Miserable? Might have a point there. Authoritarian, hyper-competitive society... compared to Thailand (aka. The Land of Smiles) Singapore is not a place I would describe as 'cheerful'.
I don't want to give the impression that we should be Singapore. However, I think we can learn a lot from how they did their social safety net and encouraged massive economic growth vs. how we have done for ourselves.
I went to respond to your post but you edited it before I could respond. At least for the benefit of others, you should repost that link which proves the government reports monthly household income numbers.
And yeah, with a median household income of $100,000, I'm sure Singaporeans are as miserable as you keep claiming.
Look what their decision to remove the minimum wage did to everyone!!
papadage wrote: The Gini Coefficient for Singapore is terrible, and the standard of living is based on household income, not GDP, most of which goes to the very wealthy.
Which means the terrible income distribution is even worse.
I don't see how that is in any way admirable?
Continuing to spout incorrect information stemming from ignorance? Please show where Singapore's annual median household income is $8,300.
The Gini Coefficient for Singapore is terrible, and the standard of living is based on household income, not GDP, most of which goes to the very wealthy.
Which means the terrible income distribution is even worse.
Singapore's income isn't low. They have a per capita nearly the same as the United States. Which isn't bad considering they were a rather poor South Asian backwater of the former British Empire about 50 years ago.
The median household income for Singapore, with at least one employed household member was $8,300 last year.
For the US, it was about $55,000 last year.
Calling bullshit on that.
Per capita GDP. Not household income. Sorry.. my bad.. I should have been more clear.
Papadage doesn't know what he's talking about, no need to apologize. He thinks their monthly household income stats are their yearly ones. Only off by a factor of 12!
Singapore's income isn't low. They have a per capita nearly the same as the United States. Which isn't bad considering they were a rather poor South Asian backwater of the former British Empire about 50 years ago.
The median household income for Singapore, with at least one employed household member was $8,300 last year.
For the US, it was about $55,000 last year.
Calling bullshit on that.
Per capita GDP. Not household income. Sorry.. my bad.. I should have been more clear.
Singapore's income isn't low. They have a per capita nearly the same as the United States. Which isn't bad considering they were a rather poor South Asian backwater of the former British Empire about 50 years ago.
The median household income for Singapore, with at least one employed household member was $8,300 last year.
For the US, it was about $55,000 last year.
Calling bullshit on that.
And I call bullshit on your unsourced claim that the median household income for Singapore was only $8,300. Spoken like someone completely ignorant of the country.
I'll give you a hint: Singapore reports their MONTHLY household income stats, not ANNUAL. I'm sure those workers who make 12x than you thought are so miserable.
Singapore's income isn't low. They have a per capita nearly the same as the United States. Which isn't bad considering they were a rather poor South Asian backwater of the former British Empire about 50 years ago.
The median household income for Singapore, with at least one employed household member was $8,300 last year.
Singapore has added the Silver Support Scheme to make up for insufficient savings and has raised taxes on the wealthier as well. They also give a deep five figure grant to subsidize home ownership, especially near other family members.
But that is neither here nor there. We do no need to aspire to be a place where workers are miserable and poor and is VERY authoritarian.
Singapore's income isn't low. They have a per capita nearly the same as the United States. Which isn't bad considering they were a rather poor South Asian backwater of the former British Empire about 50 years ago.
papadage wrote: Singapore also has a very large welfare system
Singapore has nothing like a European style welfare system. They do have a support program for the absolute destitute which gives very little and is strictly means tested. I think they have less than 5,000 people for the entire city state on anything close to traditional welfare.
Singapore does have mandatory savings programs forcing every citizen to pay their own way as much as possible for retirement and medical costs. The retirement program requires a savings rate of over 35%. This isn't a pay as you go program. The money gets invested. The closest we have to such a system is the Federal Government's Thrift Savings plan for government workers and politicians.
Singapore used to have government subsidized health system back in the 1980s. The government realized way back then it was not sustainable. The system was replaced with system health insurance and health savings accounts with mandatory savings. The government ONLY comes in as the provider of last resort when personal and family savings have been exhausted. There are three layers with an extra program for the elderly.
Medisave - Mandatory health savings accounts
Medishield- Acts as a catastrophic insurance. If you are really poor, you can get some subsidies
Medifund - Last resort fund. Money from government surpluses are invested with interest gained used to pay for the last line of support. This is not a pay as you go program like Medicade.
papadage wrote: Singapore also has a very large welfare system to mask the issue with income being low. They have a subsidized national health service, give rebates for food, utilities and rent, and other big government benefits. At the same time though, there is more unrest over stagnant wages.
As for not answering the dumb question.. it's dumb, and a straw man at that.
It certainly is not a dumb question. The logic behind the answer can easily be applied to a $15 an hour rate. Where did this $15 number come from? Picked from a hat?
Considering the individual asking the question is the same person that claimed sick time would cause unemployment... Well, economics isn't their (or your) strong suit.
More cute babble. What were you saying about ad hominem attacks again?
Facts. Not an insult. Go to the thread that talks about sick time...
