Not to mention Walmart buys goods made in China, making its supply costs rather unaffected by an increase to the minimum wage.

Although I'm in favor of raising the Fed minimum wage somewhat, I do wish that they'd index it on a county-by-county basis.

$ 5.15 is a living wage in most of Kansas, for instance, and a lot of Florida and Georgia too.
No doubt there are many other places where such is true.

The bit about the federal minimum wage falling "far short of the income needed to place a family at the federal poverty level" is complete and unadulterated rubbish.

Two full-time jobs, at the federal minimum wage, produces an annual gross of $ 21,400, whereas the Federal poverty line is around $ 18,500 annually, for a family of four.

Now, one might point out that my example means either that one person must work hard, or else that both parents must work, but in the first place most couples already do one or the other, and in the second place, why on Earth would we expect that a person could put in a few hours a day at one of society's least valued jobs, and earn enough to support four people in luxury ?

Further, almost nobody earns minimum wage for their entire working life, or even most of it.
It's typically an entry-level wage.
Unemployment among those aged 21 years and up, of all races, is currently around 3.5%.
Unemployment among those aged 16 - 20 is slightly less than 20%.

Therefore, it seems as though it might be prudent to exclude those under 20 years of age from any increase in the minimum wage, or at least to have a sliding scale, a "training wage", so that those employed by any given company could be paid a sub-minimum wage for six months, with all appropriate caveats to prevent employers from cycling their employees.

It may well be that the minimum wage is now so low that, even raised, it will fall under the actual market wage for unskilled, entry level workers. Let's hope so. The only effect that raising the minimum wage ever has, if it has any at all, is to increase black teenage unemployment.

Michael, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the minimum wage was ever meant to be a "living wage."

Bartman:

From workingpeople.org:

The minimum wage was originally established by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which set the minimum at $.25 per hour. The intent of Congress in establishing a wage floor was to provide for the "maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency and general well-being of workers." [...]

In urging passage of minimum wage legislation, Franklin Roosevelt stated: "No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level -- I mean the wages of a decent living."

Also, I see that current law does have a "training wage" provision; the law establishes a youth sub-minimum wage of $4.25 that employers can pay employees under 20 years of age during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer.

Michael, the minimum wage was to keep women at home.

Via Marginal Revolution:

The secret history of the minimum wage
It's no surprise that progressives at the turn of the twentieth century supported minimum wages and restrictions on working hours and conditions. Isn't this what it means to be a progressive? Indeed, but what is more surprising is why the progressives advocated these laws. A first clue is that many advocated labor legislation "for women and for women only."

Progressives, including Richard Ely, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, the Webbs in England etc., were interested not in protecting women but in protecting men and the race. Their goal was to get women back into the home, where they belonged, instead of abandoning their eugenic duties and competing with men for work.

Unlike today's progressives, the originals understood that minimum wages for women would put women out of work - that was the point and the more unemployment of women the better!

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/10/the_secret_hist.html

Besides, why do CA union dock workers making $100g+++/y need a raise?

Michael:

Thanks for the info.