Minimum wage gap grows wider between states

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Minimum wage gap grows wider between states
By MIKE BAKER, Associated Press | December 31, 2012 | Updated: December 31, 2012 5:06pm

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — With a bump in the Washington state minimum wage to $9.19 an hour, high school student Miranda Olson will edge closer to her goal of buying the black Volkswagen Beetle she's been researching online.

Olson is only able to pick up part-time hours working at a cafe after classes and on weekends. But the extra pennies she'll earn in 2013 will add up over the coming weeks and months.

"It's not much, but it's something," said Olson, 16, who works at Wagner's European Bakery and Cafe in Olympia. "Every bit helps."

Many workers around the country won't be as lucky as residents of Washington state, which is raising its minimum wage Tuesday by 15 cents an hour even though it already has the highest state baseline in the country.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Minimum-wage-gap-grows-wider-between-states-4157971.php

[burrowowl]

1. K&R!!!!!

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. Yeah, Washington is pretty cool.

Highest state minimum wage in the country. Gay marriage. Oh, and you know what I just did? Like 15 minutes ago? I just took a toke of pot of my pot pipe. Legally.

Washington State has had a great spirit for a long time, and it's produced great things. When we buy local for instance, we go on to Amazon (local) and purchase something from Microsoft(local), then go out to Starbucks (local) to get a mocha, then hop on a Boeing (local) plane to another state if we want to stop buying local. Here, we know that things like civil rights for gays don't interfere with a state's ability to perform economically. We know that an economically empowered consumer class drives the economy, rather than shrinking it, those with that higher minimum wage buy from the local companies we love.

The bottom line is this: Washington, with its respect for civil rights and economically strong consumer class state will continue to preform, and those who starve their consumer class for money will continue to be welfare queens living off the federal dime:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-18/politics/30039546_1_blue-states-federal-taxes-red-states

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

3. "welfare queens"? I hope you never need a little help ...

Nice stereotype.

[awoke_in_2003]

5. I think what was meant....

is the red states, which preach a lot about welfare queens, take more from the Feds than they return in tax money.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

9. Ok, I think I get it ... maybe I over-reacted

I just hate the term. It feels racist.

[awoke_in_2003]

11. It happens...

we all have hot buttons.

[napoleon_in_rags]

14. The low wages in red states are pushing people on to welfare:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10/1141724/-Walmart-fuels-inequality-epidemic-taking-advantage-of-our-safety-net

"Wal-Mart's poverty wages force employees to rely on $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store. In state after state, Wal-Mart employees are the top recipients of Medicaid. As many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores use food stamps."

And the blue states are paying for it with federal taxes. Yet despite this strong drain on our economy, Washington's high minimum wage is empowering a strong consumer class to keep our local economy running stronger than many other areas.

[QED]

10. corporations are the real welfare queens

[awoke_in_2003]

12. Very true...

with the MIC and big oil being the biggest pigs at the trowel.

[stultusporcos]

4. The Red States are going to reach Third World status and the Blue States

will move forward we are already seeing it, which is fine by me it is what the Red States want and waht the majority vote for. Now we if could just pass a law that allows no state to receive more in federal funds then they pay in.

[former9thward]

6. With this law who gets cut?

Who would you cut off from the federal funds?

[stultusporcos]

7. Red States

If citizens of state pay x in taxes they get x back, period.

They can live within their means and what it citizens vote for.

[former9thward]

8. That is not how federal funds work.

Do you get a check in the mail called "federal funds"? I didn't think so. So who exactly would be cut? Apparently you would cut all the salaries and benefits of federal workers in those states. You would cut all federal pensions in those states including social security. If not, who or what would you cut? Please be specific.

[stultusporcos]

13. That is up to the voters of the state

The voters elect Representatives to the state Legislature and they make the call. If I don’t live in that state, I do not care how they run it or how they spend their money. Give the people what they vote for; if they want austerity then they can have it if they want something else they can have that too as long as they can afford it.

[former9thward]

15. So federal workers and people on federal pensions would be at the mercy of the voters.

I live in a state where most of the land is controlled by the federal government (national parks, forests, native American lands). These lands consume a great deal of the federal funds coming into the state. So according to you the voters could cut off funds to all of this. Sorry, but that is just crazy.