I thought grade school teachers are on hourly minimum wage?

Nope. My daughter-in-law (in NYC) makes about $75,000 a year. She has taught three years. One of the parents of my client is a highschool teacher in this area - $82,000 per year but she has taught 22 years. Oklahoma doesn't pay that. I got about $17,000 a year back in '89.

But are you sure illegal immigrants don't try to speak up and try to settle for higher than minimum wage pay? They didn't come all the way to this country just to work for peanuts.

Try no payroll taxes, insurance, labor restrictions, blah, blah blah - there are reasons employers hire them and many do it under the table.

Minimum wage is generally reserved for teenagers and part time employees.

And as soon as it raises to a certain level, people get laid off and the teens and part timer employees are out of luck - as are the consumers.

I think minimum wager earners shouldnt have to pay any taxes because of low wages.
Minimum wage is generally reserved for teenagers and part time employees.

Nope. My daughter-in-law (in NYC) makes about $75,000 a year. She has taught three years. One of the parents of my client is a highschool teacher in this area - $82,000 per year but she has taught 22 years. Oklahoma doesn't pay that. I got about $17,000 a year back in '89.

I used to have these thoughts about becoming one and teach at the deaf school down there in Sulphur. The issue was the location. They never did move to OKC.

Hmmm, I would support a MAPS project to relocate and build an entirely new campus in OKC. If that ever happen, then it is likely that I seek some sort of a degree to teach.

If I remember correctly your wife is a school teacher, so I trust you know of which you speak regarding their employment issues. There are those(not inferring you do or don't) who oppose a public school system for any number of reasons. I believe one of the arguments is that public schools can not get rid of bad teachers. If a bad teacher runs the risk of his, or her contract not being renewed then how does that particular argument have merit?

In most public schools, after three years a teacher has tenure. Once a teacher has tenure, she can only be fired for some non-specific purpose, e.g., the school is closing, or for cause. If she's fired for cause, all that notice and a hearing stuff is required. It can still be done, but it's a big PITA. Tenure does not apply to charter schools or non-public schools.

Tenure is an idea which I think has a little bit of merit because the step pay system compensates teachers with experience at a much higher level than teachers without it. Without tenure, I'm afraid that experienced teachers would be replaced with neophytes in cost-cutting exercises by cash-strapped districts. That'd likely be actionable by itself, but that doesn't mean administrators wouldn't probably try it. In that respect, tenure sort of makes sense.

The academic freedom justification though is bunkem.

In most public schools, after three years a teacher has tenure. Once a teacher has tenure, she can only be fired for some non-specific purpose, e.g., the school is closing, or for cause. If she's fired for cause, all that notice and a hearing stuff is required. It can still be done, but it's a big PITA. Tenure does not apply to charter schools or non-public schools.

Tenure is an idea which I think has a little bit of merit because the step pay system compensates teachers with experience at a much higher level than teachers without it. Without tenure, I'm afraid that experienced teachers would be replaced with neophytes in cost-cutting exercises by cash-strapped districts. That'd likely be actionable by itself, but that doesn't mean administrators wouldn't probably try it. In that respect, tenure sort of makes sense.

The academic freedom justification though is bunkem.Thanks

7.25$/hr !!!!WOW how do people even get bye w/that amount! I guess with a spouse/other dependant or with state/govt. help?

7.25$/hr !!!!WOW how do people even get bye w/that amount! I guess with a spouse/other dependant or with state/govt. help?

Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a livable wage.

Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a livable wage.


Where is that stated and even more, why not?

The more legitimate question would be why SHOULD the gov't even THINK about guaranteeing a "living" wage.

In my opinion, the government has good intentions, but they just don't take the time to thoroughly think the issue through.

If I made minimum wage I would most likely be happy in the short term about the minimum wage increasing, for obvious reasons, and in the long term, would probably still be happy about it because I just wouldn't notice the effects that raising the min wage would have on my life.

I might not notice that the cost of everything around me has increased (so my cost of living is still the same as before the wage increased)...

I might not notice that the demand for labor has significantly decreased (so I get laid off or fired from my minimum wage job), and that alternatively, the supply of labor has significantly increased (so I am added to the millions of other unemployed 'minimum wage' victims joining the rolls of unemployment)...

I might not notice that this increase in the unemployment rate begins to cause the state coffers to run dry, and I might not notice that the state, desperate to balance their budget raises taxes on everyone in that state in order to meet their unemployment obligations....


In the above scenario, not only does raising the minimum wage not help anyone in the long term, but it effectively levels a tax on everyone. I don't know about Oklahoma, but this scenario has happened here in Michigan.. maybe not exactly as I've described, but pretty close.

In my opinion, the government has good intentions, but they just don't take the time to thoroughly think the issue through.

If I made minimum wage I would most likely be happy in the short term about the minimum wage increasing, for obvious reasons, and in the long term, would probably still be happy about it because I just wouldn't notice the effects that raising the min wage would have on my life.

I might not notice that the cost of everything around me has increased (so my cost of living is still the same as before the wage increased)...

I might not notice that the demand for labor has significantly decreased (so I get laid off or fired from my minimum wage job), and that alternatively, the supply of labor has significantly increased (so I am added to the millions of other unemployed 'minimum wage' victims joining the rolls of unemployment)...

I might not notice that this increase in the unemployment rate begins to cause the state coffers to run dry, and I might not notice that the state, desperate to balance their budget raises taxes on everyone in that state in order to meet their unemployment obligations....


In the above scenario, not only does raising the minimum wage not help anyone in the long term, but it effectively levels a tax on everyone. I don't know about Oklahoma, but this scenario has happened here in Michigan.. maybe not exactly as I've described, but pretty close.

An insightful post.

Where is that stated and even more, why not?

I stated it.

Why? Because nobody can live on minimum wage (without government assistance maybe).

Do you believe that it is currently a livable wage?

Lastly, the government should not be in the business of telling private entities how to run their business, including how much they should compensate their workers.

I am a CPA who does payroll tax reporting for 60 or more small businesses in the state of OK. Only one of those pays minimum wage. And that client is paying her mom that because she wants to pay her something. Oh, and me. I pay my children minimum wage to clean my office and clerical work for spending money. Assuming a person works full time or 2080 hours a year a year's wages at the new rate of $7.25 is 15,080. See here for the 2009 US poverty levels.

http://www.coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdf

Thanks for the link CCOKC.
Supporting documents helps in a debate.

The more legitimate question would be why SHOULD the gov't even THINK about guaranteeing a "living" wage.

If decades from now robots have taken over most of the jobs, the government has best start figuring out how to come up with a living wage for everyone affected. A tax on robots?

Bunty, you are channeling Thunder.

If decades from now robots have taken over most of the jobs, the government has best start figuring out how to come up with a living wage for everyone affected. A tax on robots?No problem, the world will need 8 billion robot mechanics and those suckers all make top dollar. It'll all be good because everyone will be making a million bucks per year. Minimum Wage will not be needed. Finally the world will be fixed.

Uh wait i have to work then ?
if so the world needs to be fixed a bit longer.

If decades from now robots have taken over most of the jobs, the government has best start figuring out how to come up with a living wage for everyone affected. A tax on robots?

Right, because it is the government's job to take care of us.

Go to the Journal Record website of homes over $1 million, we have a few, whether or not they in debt to their eyesballs trying to keep with with the Bennetts, or the McClendons eh who cares.
I know a few folks who have worked hard,saved, and oh my GOD! sacrifice a few wants and sometimes a few needs to have million dollar homes if they wanted too.
But instead sent their kids to good colleges/universities and gave them a good head start,after they taught them hard work is important, birthrights is not part of the real world or not a measurement of potential.
Its what responsible parents do.
LIFE ISNT FAIR, BUT SOCIETY SHOULD BE in giving out a shot at reaching potential.

I just read the notes posted for everyone to read at Crest last Tuesday and it was saying that everyone's hours must be cut due to the raise. They have not cut mine (yet) and I am still at 20 hours a week. People will be furious when they keep on hiring, because there is no point in hiring when everyone is losing their hours.

Personally, they should raise everything in that store by 10 cents, rather than cutting people's hours. Crest make a bunch of profits, so honestly, I do not see the need to cut people's hours. Walmart and Target pays above minimum wage and do just fine.

Go to the Journal Record website of homes over $1 million, we have a few, whether or not they in debt to their eyesballs trying to keep with with the Bennetts, or the McClendons eh who cares.
I know a few folks who have worked hard,saved, and oh my GOD! sacrifice a few wants and sometimes a few needs to have million dollar homes if they wanted too.
But instead sent their kids to good colleges/universities and gave them a good head start,after they taught them hard work is important, birthrights is not part of the real world or not a measurement of potential.
Its what responsible parents do.
LIFE ISNT FAIR, BUT SOCIETY SHOULD BE in giving out a shot at reaching potential.

Didn't you already post this in the OKC Millionaires thread? What does millionaires homes have to do with the minimum wage recently going up?

Didn't you already post this in the OKC Millionaires thread? What does millionaires homes have to do with the minimum wage recently going up?

It is in several threads. Don't know what is up with that.

As predicted, they hired another Sacker. Whats the point? Oh well.