.

Obama Coming to Michigan to Sell Minimum Wage Hike: Michigan Patch Poll

President Barack Obama is coming to Michigan next week to build support for increasing the federal minimum wage. Take our poll and tell us how you feel.

President Barack Obama, shown here during the 2012 campaign, plans to visit Michigan Wednesday to build support for increasing the federal minimum wage. (Photo: Beth Dalbey/Patch)
President Barack Obama, shown here during the 2012 campaign, plans to visit Michigan Wednesday to build support for increasing the federal minimum wage. (Photo: Beth Dalbey/Patch)

President Barack Obama is coming to Michigan next week to build support for increasing the federal minimum wage. Details about the president’s trip to the Mitten State – his second since February – are sketchy

The White House said more details will be released later and wouldn’t disclose where he will be speaking, other than to say it will be in Ann Arbor, the Detroit News reports.

The minimum wage, currently at $7.25 for non-exempt employees. Obama wants to increase it to $10.10 per hour. If it happens – the legislation’s future is uncertain, though polls show a majority of Americans favor it, the Detroit Free Press said – it will be the first time minimum wage has increased since 2009.

Before his February visit, Obama hadn’t been in Michigan since soon after his 2012 re-election, when he visited a Detroit Diesel factory in Redford Township. He visited the state repeatedly during auto industry bailout and other economic recovery discussions.

We’d like to know how you feel about increasing the minimum wage. Take our poll.
Tom Thumb April 02, 2014 at 04:10 PM
Cookie, I get what you are saying but it will be the same thing. This will hurt the very people you want to help. really people economics is common sense. As proof i offer you history. 2009 to 2010 we raised the minimum wages from 5.35 to 7.25. Did it do anything? Nothing. But the purchasing power of our dollar fell. therefore the people ended up paying more for the same item. Not to mention the poor and middle class lost money because they pay more taxes now. It is a shell game.
cookiepro2 April 03, 2014 at 12:30 AM
Tom, appreciate your reply. I do get your point that the gov't is getting more tax support, Jane Doe is now a taxpayer, plus there is more more FICA and Medicare tax (which is probably sorely needed) from her and her employer going to the tax rolls. Ideally, you'd want her mega-corporation employer to cut into the executive salaries and bonuses, or reduce the shareholder dividends to cover at least partially the minimum wage increase. I also wonder just how much would item prices rise, and which items. Maybe less buyers chasing goods will keep prices from going too high. I'd be willing and can afford to pay extra for my McDonald's meal or Walmart toilet paper, if it would help that segment of the population (the full time working poor at minimum wage now) make a decent wage. I might be paying a little more for certain consumer goods, but with the Janes of our world off assistance and contributing taxes maybe it will keep all our taxes from needing to be raised. I do wish that there was some assurance that they did some advanced mathematical or economic modelling of the 10.10, and perhaps put some exemptions in for small businesses.
cookiepro2 April 03, 2014 at 12:43 AM
Found this FAQ from the Department of Labor on minimum wage exemptions. Duh, on me, there is already an exemption for small businesses. Also, employers can get a waiver for paying full time students minimum wage (though must be 85% of MW). Someone in an earlier post had mentioned about having to pay handicapped workers MW, no, according to this sheet they are exempted too. Also, off topic but interesting, if your child complains that you are violating child labor laws by making them do chores, this is exempted too! Here's the link: http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm
Tom Thumb April 03, 2014 at 09:47 AM
Cookie, it is nice to have a rational discussion, thank you also. I agree with your perfect world idealism, sadly that is not how it will work. Also, before you go off wishing the bonuses would be less carefully think about where that money goes. This is the fun of economics. For full disclosure my degree is in economics. That bonus money gets spent on, lets call them frivolous things. Boats, cars, vacations, stock purchases etc. Those are the very items that employ many many of the people you are talking about. So take 10k away from XYZ corp Vice President and he doesn't take that trip to florida. A made doesn't work to clean his room, a dishwasher doesn't wash the dishes he ate from at the restaurant and so on and so on. Then take this times thousands and who suffers? So the price of the Big Mac goes up, so the dishwasher can still only buy one and he loses hours to boot. It is a fallacy that the economy trickles up. Well, it does, but it is ever so slow compared to trickling down. Another example. Small business owner A gets a tax break of $50,000. He will most likely (history proves this) spend it on his business. So he puts a new roof on his business. 6 guys get a job roofing, 35 guys get a job making the shingles Etc. Even if he puts it in his savings account he will buy stock which supports a company allowing them to borrow more money and the same result.Now contrast that with trickle up theory. A gets 25 more customers and he makes his margin on their purchases. Average margin (what he makes off his product) is not very much. Instead of fixing his roof, he buys a dinner out. Yes it has increased the economy but not the big drivers on employment. Having said that in aggregate, over years he will make more but as we see with our current economic situation it takes forever. A great way to look at an economy is to look at the purchasing power of a dollar. That is what the real people feel. If it's high they are happy and spending money which in turn employs people. If it is low, we get stagflation. The purchasing power and the wages by the way are at their highest during times of economic upswing and full employment. Reagan, Clinton, somewhat Bush II at least in the beginning. Those were the best times for both the poor and the rich. The gap closed! Contrary to Carter, Obama and Bush II after he lost both the House and the Senate and thus the control of the economy the gap widened. My problem with the current Democratic party is they live in an idealistic world of how they want it should be therefore it will be and that is simply not how it works. Proof is in the history books. Look at the Clinton years, he was dragged all-be-it kicking and screaming into fiscal conservatism but it gave him a record of success. His economic policies were more conservative than either of the Bush's.
TAASMAN April 03, 2014 at 11:30 AM
@tom Thumb, very well put with a great fact based argument which holds true. Reagan and Clinton had opposite issues with the other party controlling, but they Lead by following simple economics. At the end of the day economics should be taught every year so that constituents understand the trickle down theory and that it works. Believing a persons theory's with no fact based ideology, is like a cat chasing a dog.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »