>> SUPPORT FOR THIS PROGRAM IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOUNDATION FOR
EXCELLENCE IN LOUISIANA PUBLIC
BROADCASTING.
>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO
"LOUISIANA PUBLIC SQUARE."
I'M BETH COURTNEY, PRESIDENT OF
LOUISIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING.
>> AND I'M SHAUNA SANFORD,
COHOST OF LOUISIANA, THE STATE
WE'RE IN.
IN 1938, UNITED STATES
ESTABLISHED A MINIMUM WAGE OF
25 CENTS PER HOUR UNDER THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.
OVER THE YEARS, IT HAS BEEN
RAISED MORE THAN 25 TIMES, MOST
RECENTLY IN 2009 TO ITS CURRENT
RATE OF $7.25.
45 STATES HAVE THEIR OWN
MINIMUM WAGE LAWS AND 21 OF
THEM PAY HIGHER THAN THE
FEDERAL RATE.
LOUISIANA IS ONE OF THE FIVE
STATES THAT DOES NOT HAVE ITS
OWN MINIMUM WAGE LAW.
>> BUT THAT COULD CHANGE THIS
SESSION.
14 BILLS HAVE BEEN FILED THAT
WOULD GIVE THE STATE AND EVEN
MUNICIPALITIES THE POWER TO SET
A MINIMUM WAGE.
ONE LAW STARTS THE RATE AT
$10.10 PER HOUR.
SO, SHOULD LOUISIANA DEVELOP
ITS OWN MINIMUM WAGE?
HOW HIGH SHOULD IT BE?
AND WOULD SUCH A MOVE HELP THE
STATE'S WORKING POOR OR
ULTIMATELY HURT THEM?
TONIGHT "LOUISIANA PUBLIC
SQUARE" LOOKS FOR ANSWERS ON
LOUISIANA AND THE MINIMUM WAGE.
>> AS PART OF HIS 2014 STATE OF
THE UNION ADDRESS, PRESIDENT
OBAMA CALLED ON CONGRESS TO
RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE FROM ITS
CURRENT RATE OF $7.25 AN HOUR
TO OVER $10 AN HOUR.
IN THE INTERIM, OBAMA OFFERED A
CHALLENGE.
>> TO EVERY MAYOR, GOVERNOR,
STATE LEGISLATOR IN AMERICA, I
SAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR
CONGRESS TO ACT.
AMERICANS WILL SUPPORT YOU IF
YOU TAKE THIS ON.
>> FIVE LOUISIANA LAWMAKERS
ACCEPTED THE CHALLENGE AND
PROPOSED A TOTAL OF 14 BILLS TO
ADDRESS THE MINIMUM WAGE.
AMONG THEM, REPRESENTATIVE
MARCUS HUNTER, A DEMOCRAT WHO
REPRESENTS MONROE.
>> WE HAVE CONTINUED AS A STATE
TO INCENTIVIZE CORPORATIONS,
BIG BUSINESSES, SMALL
BUSINESSES FOR DECADES.
AND IT IS TIME FOR THAT MONEY
TO TRICKLE DOWN TO SOME OF THE
EMPLOYEES.
>> HUNTER IS SPONSORING
LEGISLATION TO NOT ONLY CREATE
A STATE MINIMUM WAGE BUT ALLOW
MUNICIPALITIES THE FLEXIBILITY
TO SET THEIR OWN.
FACING PUSH-BACK FROM COMPANIES
IN HIS DISTRICT, HUNTER SENT
THEM A CLEAR MESSAGE.
>> I HAVE NO INTEREST IN
BANKRUPTING YOUR BUSINESS, BUT
I ALSO EQUALLY HAVE NO INTEREST
IN YOU FLEECING THE EVERYDAY
HARD-WORKING PERSON.
>> LOUISIANA IS ONE OF THE
THREE STATES WITH THE HIGHEST
PERCENTAGE OF HOURLY-PAID
WORKERS EARNING AT OR BELOW THE
FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE.
A FULL-TIME MINIMUM WAGE
EMPLOYEE EARNS $15,080
ANNUALLY.
ACCORDING TO 2012 CENSUS DATA,
LOUISIANA IS THE THIRD POOREST
STATE IN THE COUNTRY.
>> WE THINK THE BEST
ANTIPOVERTY PROGRAM THAT YOU
COULD HAVE IS A LIVING WAGE FOR
PEOPLE.
>> MOLLER IS THE DIRECTOR OF
THE LOUISIANA BUDGET PROJECT.
HIS GROUP RECENTLY RELEASED A
REPORT SUPPORTING THE STATE
MINIMUM WAGE.
MOLLER FAVORS TYING THE MINIMUM
WAGE TO THE COST OF LIVING.
>> THE VALUE OF THE FEDERAL
MINIMUM WAGE HAS ERODED AS THE
COST OF LIVING HAS GONE UP.
SO IF THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE
HAD KEPT UP WITH INFLATION FROM
1968, IT WOULD BE OVER $10
TODAY.
>> SUPPORTERS OF RAISING THE
MINIMUM WAGE SAY THAT AN
INCREASE NOT ONLY AFFECTS
WORKERS PRESENTLY MAKING THE
RATE BUT ALSO WORKERS WHO EARN
BETWEEN THE CURRENT AND
PROPOSED NEW ONE.
ACCORDING TO THE LOUISIANA
BUDGET PROJECT, AN INCREASE TO
$10.10 PER HOUR WOULD EITHER
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY RAISE
THE LIVELIHOOD OF OVER 550,000
LOUISIANANS.
ALTHOUGH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR INDICATES THAT 74,000
TOTAL WORKERS EARN AT OR BELOW
MINIMUM WAGE.
>> WHEN THE PRICE OF SOMETHING
GOES UP, PEOPLE BUY LESS.
PRICE OF APPLES GO UP, PEOPLE
BUY LESS APPLES --
>> ECONOMISTS LOREN SCOTT SAYS
A MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE PRICES
LOW SKILLED ENTRY LEVEL
WORKERS, ESPECIALLY THE YOUNG
OUT OF THE MARKETPLACE.
>> THERE IS A CERTAIN SET OF
PEOPLE OUT THERE, ESPECIALLY
YOUNG TEENAGERS THAT HAVE NO
LABOR MARKET SKILL AT ALL, WHO
AT BEST ARE WORTH $7.35 AN
HOUR.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE WORTH.
THAT IS WHAT THEY ADD TO THE
VALUE OF THE FIRM.
YOU FORCE A SITUATION WHERE YOU
HAVE TO PAY THAT PERSON $10 AN
HOUR, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HIRE
THE PERSON.
>> A CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFFICE ANALYSIS OF THE
PRESIDENT'S MINIMUM WAGE
INCREASE NOTED THAT WHILE IT
WOULD LIFT 900,000 WORKERS OUT
OF POVERTY, 500,000 JOBS WOULD
BE LOST.
FOR SMALL BUSINESS OWNER
PATRICIA FELDER, A MINIMUM WAGE
INCREASE MEANS SHE WILL BE
UNABLE TO TAKE ON NEW WORKERS.
>> IF I HAVE A CHOICE BETWEEN
ASKING MY EMPLOYEES IF THEY
WANT TO MAKE MORE ADDITIONAL
OVERTIME, OR TAKING ON THAT ONE
ADDITIONAL PERSON THAT I
PERHAPS WOULD HAVE HIRED, I'LL
CHOOSE NOT TO DO SO.
AS WILL MOST SMALL BUSINESSES.
>> ACCORDING TO THE SMALL
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
BUSINESSES EMPLOYING FEWER THAN
500 WORKERS ACCOUNT FOR OVER
97% OF LOUISIANA'S EMPLOYERS.
DAWN STARNS THE STATE DIRECTOR
OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES
CONDUCTED A SURVEY ON PROPOSED
MINIMUM WAGE LEGISLATION.
>> WE HAVE OVER 4,300 MEMBERS
STATEWIDE IN LOUISIANA.
WE HAD 90% OF OUR MEMBERS TELL
US THAT THIS WAS -- THAT THIS
WAS SOMETHING THAT WE HAD TO
WORK FOR THEM AND OPPOSE THIS
FOR THE SESSION.
>> STARNS SAYS SMALL BUSINESSES
FACE THREE CHOICES FROM THE
INCREASE.
LAY OFF EMPLOYEES, ADD INCREASE
ON TO THE CONSUMER --
>> SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WE
REPRESENT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO
HAVE THE ABILITY TO PASS THAT
ALONG BECAUSE THAT MEANS
INCREASING THE COST OF GOODS AR
SERVICES AND --
>> HIGHER LABOR COSTS OFFSET BY
INCREASED CONSUMER SPENDING.
>> SOME SMALL BUSINESSES, SURE,
THEY'RE GOING TO PAY A LITTLE
MORE.
INCREASE THE COST OF DOING
BUSINESS.
BUT BUSINESSES WILL ALSO GET
MORE CUSTOMERS FROM THE HIGHER
WAGES AND THAT IS GOING TO
SUPPORT JOBS.
>> SCOTT SAYS INCREASED
CONSUMER PRICES WILL FURTHER
HURT THE POOR PLUS DRIVE
UNEMPLOYMENT HIGHER.
>> ONCE YOU RAISE THE PRICE OF
HAMBURGER 10%, GUESS WHAT,
PEOPLE BUY FEWER HAMBURGERS AND
PIZZA SO YOU NEED FEWER PEOPLE
AROUND TO PRODUCE THEM.
>> RATHER THAN INCREASING THE
MINIMUM WAGE, SCOTT SUPPORTS
BROADENING THE FEDERAL EARNED
INCOME TAX CREDIT THAT LOW TO
MODERATE INCOME WORKERS RECEIVE
WHEN FILING THEIR INCOME TAX
RETURNS.
>> IF YOU THINK THAT PEOPLE --
THAT YOU WANT TO HELP PEOPLE
WHO ARE POOR, GET THEM MONEY,
AND THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF
THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT
WAS TO HAVE A WAY OF TAKING
MONEY AWAY FROM, IF YOU LIKE,
MY WIFE AND I, AND GIVING IT TO
PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT DOING NEARLY
AS WELL AS MY WIFE AND I ARE.
>> AS THE MINIMUM WAGE DEBATE
HEATS UP THIS SESSION,
REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER WILL JOIN
FOUR OF THE DEMOCRATIC
COLLEAGUES FOR PUSHING IN WHAT
THEY SEE AS THE BEST
ALTERNATIVE FOR THE LOW INCOME
CONSTITUENTS.
>> WE HAVE GONE TO GREAT
LENGTHS TO PROTECT
CORPORATIONS, BIG BUSINESS,
EMPLOYERS.
I THINK IT IS TIME TO GET TO
THE NITTY-GRITTY AND TRY TO
PROTECT THE EVERY-DAY WORKER.
THE PEOPLE WHO WORK HARD, THE
PEOPLE WHO SENT US HERE, THE
PEOPLE WHO STAND TOGETHER FOR
LOUISIANA.
>> STANDING TOGETHER FOR
LOUISIANA AND OUR STUDIO
AUDIENCE ARE RESIDENTS FROM THE
GREATER BATON ROUGE AREA.
MEMBERS OF THE YOUNG DEMOCRATS
OF LOUISIANA, THE YOUNG
AMERICANS FOR LIBERTY, AND THE
LEGISLATIVE YOUTH ADVISORY
COUNCIL.
ALSO JOINING US ARE BUSINESS
OWNERS AND A REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE WORKPLACE JUSTICE PROJECT.
WELCOME ALL OF YOU TO THE SHOW.
LOOKING FORWARD TO A GREAT
DISCUSSION.
LSU PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH LAB
SURVEYED NEARLY 150 CITIZENS ON
THE TOPIC TONIGHT.
AND HERE IS A LOOK AT SOME OF
THEIR RESPONSES.
WHEN ASKED IF THEY WOULD
SUPPORT LOUISIANA HAVING ITS
OWN STATEWIDE MINIMUM WAGE LAW,
56% SAID YES.
30% WOULD OPPOSE SUCH A MOVE,
AND 12% WERE UNSURE.
AS FAR AS RAISING THE FEDERAL
MINIMUM WAGE FROM $7.25 TO
$10.10 PER HOUR, 54% SUPPORT
THE INCREASE.
43% OPPOSE IT, AND 3% WERE NOT
SURE.
BUT WHEN GIVEN THE FINDINGS OF
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
THAT SUCH AN INCREASE COULD
RESULT IN THE LOSS OF ROUGHLY
500,000 JOBS, SUPPORT FOR A
FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE
DROPS, WITH 56% OF THOSE
OPPOSING SUCH A MOVE.
39% SUPPORTING THE INCREASE.
AND 5% UNSURE.
AND WHEN GIVEN THE CHOICE OF
EITHER EXPANDING THE EARNED
INCOME TAX CREDIT AS A WAY TO
HELP THE WORKING POOR OR
RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE, 46%
WOULD OPT TO INCREASE THE
MINIMUM WAGE.
38% WOULD EXPAND THE TAX
CREDIT.
AND 10% WOULDN'T DO EITHER ONE.
THE REMAINING 6% WERE EITHER
UNSURE OR REFUSED TO ANSWER.
SO, TONIGHT TO GET THIS
DISCUSSION GOING, LET'S START
THERE.
YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHETHER THE
MINIMUM WAGE, RAISING THE
MINIMUM WAGE WOULD HELP THE
WORKING POOR OR DO YOU THINK
THAT IT WOULD HURT MORE THAN IT
WOULD ACTUALLY HELP THEM?
AND LET'S START WITH YOU.
>> I THINK INCREASING THE
MINIMUM WAGE WOULD ACTUALLY
HURT THE WORKING POOR.
INCREASE OF EMPLOYMENT --
STIRRED BY THE INCREASE IN
MINIMUM WAGE WOULD JUST CAUSE
MORE POVERTY --
>> YOU ARE FOR NOT RAISING THE
MINIMUM WAGE.
>> YES.
>> TIFFANY, DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVE OR DO YOU SHARE THE
SAME THOUGHTS?
>> I THINK IT REALLY IS A
PERSONAL SITUATION, AND IN SOME
INSTANCES IT WILL HELP.
BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
UNIVERSALLY, AND SO AT THE SAME
TIME, I DO SEE WHERE THERE WILL
BE AN IMPACT.
SO, IT'S -- FOR ME IT'S
BORDERLINE.
AND I THINK IT REALLY BOILS
DOWN TO THAT INDIVIDUAL
HOUSEHOLD.
>> LEWIS.
>> I BELIEVE IT WOULD HURT THE
POOR AND THE WORKER IN
LOUISIANA OVERALL.
>> OKAY.
TIMOTHY.
>> WELL, I THINK IT WOULD BE --
IT NEEDS TO BE RAISED, AND I
THINK THAT IT IS -- IT IS
ASHAME THAT IF A PERSON WORKS
40 HOURS A WEEK AND THEY GET A
CHECK THAT IS THAT LITTLE TO
SUPPORT A FAMILY.
I THINK NOBODY SHOULD BE
WORKING 40 HOURS AND LIVING IN
POVERTY.
BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE NEEDS
TO BE A TRANSITIONAL PERIOD OF
WHEN YOU RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE
AND DO IT AT A RATE WHERE
BUSINESSES CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE
DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD.
>> MAYBE PHASE IT IN INSTEAD OF
ALL AT ONCE?
>> CORRECT.
>> WE HAVE BUSINESS OWNERS HERE
IN THE AUDIENCE.
GARRETT, DO YOU THINK THAT IT
WILL HURT THEM MORE THAN HELP
THEM OR DO YOU THINK THAT
RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE WILL
HELP THOSE LOW EARNING
EMPLOYEES?
>> ECHOING HIS -- I DO BELIEVE
IT SHOULD BE PHASED IN OVER
TIME.
I BELIEVE THE MINIMUM WAGE IS
MORE OF A BAND-AID ON THE
PROBLEM.
I THINK WE SHOULD FOCUS MORE ON
SKILLED FORMATION AND
ADVANCEMENT IN THE WORKPLACE.
I THINK THAT IS THE WAY TO
REALLY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AND
I BELIEVE THAT IF WORKERS ARE
TO BE CUT BY THE EMPLOYERS,
THOSE THAT ARE IMPOVERISHED
EARNING MINIMUM WAGE ARE THE
FIRST TO BE CUT DUE TO
UNRELIABLE TRANSPORTATION
AND --
>> LET'S HEAR FROM SOME OF THE
BUSINESS OWNERS.
SCOTT YOU OWN A SMALL BUSINESS.
TELL US ABOUT THAT AND WHERE
YOU STAND ON THE ISSUE.
>> WELL, WE OPPOSE BEING FORCED
TO PAY A SPECIFIC AMOUNT.
IT SHOULD BE UP TO THE
BUSINESSES THEMSELVES.
WE'RE A SPECIALTY COMPANY,
SPORTING GOODS STORE.
YOU HAVE TO BE UNIQUE ON THE
PERSONNEL THAT YOU'RE HIRING,
IN THAT THAT PERSON AT LEAST
HAS TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE
PRODUCTS THAT YOU'RE SELLING.
WE ACTUALLY PAY ABOVE A
STARTING MINIMUM WAGE, BUT
FORCING ME TO PAY A CERTAIN
AMOUNT DOESN'T GIVE ME THAT
LEEWAY.
PLUS WHEN I LOOK AT THE STAFF
THAT I ACTUALLY HAVE, WHAT DO I
HAVE TO DO TO THEM TO GET THEM
THEIR SENIORITY THAT THEY
CURRENTLY HAVE AS WELL?
IT DOMINO EFFECTS DOWN THE
LINE.
>> YOU ARE CURRENTLY PAYING
BEFORE $7.25.
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA OF
PHASING THAT INCREASE OVER A
PERIOD OF TIME.
HOW DO SMALL BUSINESSES FEEL
LIKE THAT?
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE NOT
AGAINST RAISING THE MINIMUM
WAGE --
>> I'M NOT AGAINST BEING TOLD
WHAT I HAVE TO PAY SOMEONE.
I'M AGAINST BEING TOLD --
EXCUSE ME.
>> YOU ARE AGAINST BEING TOLD
WHAT YOU HAVE TO PAY.
NOT NECESSARILY AGAINST RAISING
IT.
>> CORRECT.
SETTING A LIMIT FOR US, FOR A
SMALL BUSINESS ITSELF, GIVE US
THE LEEWAY OF GOING ABLE TO
STAIR STEP PEOPLE UP THE
LADDER.
WE DO THAT NOW.
MOST BUSINESSES DO THAT NOW
BASED ON SENIORITY AS WELL.
IF YOU EARN YOUR JOB, THEN YOU
WILL GET PAID ACCORDINGLY.
BUT BEING, SETTING A SET LIMIT
AT SUCH UNSKILLED LABOR AT THIS
TIME IS ONLY GOING TO RELATE TO
INCREASED PRICES SOMEWHERE
ELSE, OR THE FACT THAT WE WON'T
HIRE SOMEONE.
>> JOHN, YOU ARE A BUSINESS
OWNER AS WELL.
YOUR PERSPECTIVE.
>> I HAVE AN I.T. COMPANY, AND
SO PEOPLE MIGHT THINK I DON'T
HAVE A DOG IN THIS HUNT.
BUT I DO.
BECAUSE WE HAVE AN INTERNSHIP
PROGRAM.
AND THOSE INTERNS, WE PAY $8 OR
$9 AN HOUR, BUT THEN WE INVEST
REALLY HEAVILY IN THEM IN
MENTOR SHIP FROM THE OTHER I.T.
PROFESSIONALS AND ALSO TRAINING
RESOURCES.
SO, FROM A BUSINESS OWNER'S
PERSPECTIVE, ANY TIME YOU ADD
SIGNIFICANT OVERHEAD TO
SOMETHING, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT
WHERE ARE WE GOING TO MAKE THAT
UP?
FOR US CURTAILING THE NUMBER OF
INTERNS THAT WE CAN HIRE IN A
YEAR.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE.
IT REDUCES THE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE VERY LITTLE
EXPERIENCE, VERY LITTLE
EDUCATION, TO GET AN ENTRY INTO
A HIGH-PAYING, GREAT
PROFESSIONAL CAREER.
>> SO, FOR YOU, RAISING THE
MINIMUM WAGE WOULD DEFINITELY
HURT BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE
ACCESS TO THOSE OPPORTUNITIES.
THAT'S HOW YOU SEE IT?
>> WELL, IT WOULD HURT US, BUT
I THINK IT WOULD EQUALLY HURT
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO
JUST GET A LEG UP.
SOMETHING BETTER THAN A MINIMUM
WAGE JOB.
>> WELL, LET'S TALK TO
CHRISTIAN, WHO IS A YOUNG
STUDENT HERE WITH US.
VERY HAPPY TO HAVE YOU HERE
WITH US TONIGHT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUNGSTERS
EARNING MINIMUM WAGE OR IN
MINIMUM WAGE JOBS.
HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS?
>> I DO FEEL LIKE MINIMUM WAGE
SHOULD BE INCREASED TO REALLY
GIVE PEOPLE EARNING THE MINIMUM
WAGE AN ABILITY TO KEEP UP WITH
THE COST OF LIVING.
I THINK THAT THE MINIMUM WAGE
SHOULD BE A LIVABLE WAGE.
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME --
THERE ARE SOME TIMES LIKE HE
WAS SAYING WHERE, YOU KNOW,
INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE
MIGHT HURT PEOPLE TRYING TO
GAIN AN INTERN EXPERIENCE OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
LIKE SHE WAS SAYING, IT'S
DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT
SITUATIONS.
BUT I THINK AS A WHOLE, THERE
ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE TRYING TO
MAKE A LIVING AT THE MINIMUM
WAGE, AND I THINK WE DO NEED TO
RECOGNIZE THAT AND SAY, YOU
KNOW, SOMEONE WORKING 40 HOURS
A WEEK, SOMEONE DOING WHAT THEY
NEED TO BE DOING, WORKING A
FULL-TIME JOB SHOULD BE ABLE TO
HAVE A WAGE THAT THEY CAN LIVE
OFF OF COMFORTABLY AND WITHOUT
HAVING TO LIVE PAYCHECK TO
PAYCHECK, WITHOUT HAVING TO
WORRY ABOUT AM I GOING TO BE
ABLE TO EAT NEXT WEEK?
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE
THAT COMFORT AS A FULL-TIME
WORKER.
>> YOU SEE THAT BY RAISING THE
MINIMUM WAGE, IT WOULD HELP THE
LOW-INCOME EARNERS.
>> I DO.
OBVIOUSLY THERE WILL BE SOME
PEOPLE WHO WILL BE NEGATIVELY
AFFECTED BY THE MINIMUM WAGE.
THAT IS DEFINITELY TRUE.
BUT I THINK AS A WHOLE, IT WILL
BENEFIT MORE PEOPLE THAN IT
WILL HURT.
>> DR. THOMAS, YOUR THOUGHTS.
>> I FEEL THE SAME WAY, TOO.
IT WILL HELP SOME, AND OTHERS
IT WILL HINDER, BUT OVERALL,
EVERYTHING IS CHANGING.
AND THE BASIC NECESSITY, THE
STEADY INCREASING, THE COST OF
LIVING, EVERYDAY LIVING, AND IT
IS VERY DIFFICULT TO LIVE ON
THE MINIMUM WAGE.
>> UH-HMM.
MATTHEW, YOUR THOUGHTS.
>> I DISAGREE WITH THEM.
I THINK IT IS AN IMMORALE TRADE
OFFTO GIVE ONE GROUP AN
INCREASE IN THE WAGE AND GIVE
THE OTHER GROUP PINK SLIPS.
I WOULD BE NOT IN FAVOR OF
RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE
BECAUSE IT -- IT -- IT MAKES IT
MORE EXPENSIVE TO GIVE YOUNG
PEOPLE OPPORTUNITIES, LIKE JOHN
SAID, AND ALSO THAT'S THE MAIN
POINT.
>> YEAH, YEAH.
YOU SAID YOU THINK IT WOULD BE
IMMORAL IS THAT RIGHT?
>> IT IS IMMORAL TO PASS A BILL
THAT HELPS ONE GROUP, BUT THEN
JUST COMPLETELY BRINGS ONE
GROUP FROM $7.25 PER HOUR OR A
LITTLE ABOVE, DOWN TO ZERO
DOLLARS AN HOUR.
>> ERICA, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU
TO JUMP IN ON THIS.
I HAVE A FEELING THAT YOU
DISAGREE WITH THAT.
>> I DO DISAGREE.
I SUPPORT AN INCREASE IN THE
MINIMUM WAGE.
I DON'T WANT TO REITERATE WHAT
I THINK SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE
SAID ELOQUENTLY HERE.
SOME OF THE POINTS BROUGHT OUT
IN THE PRESENTATION.
THE MINIMUM WAGE IN PARTICULAR
HAS BEEN KEPT ARTIFICIALLY LOW
BECAUSE MINIMUM WAGE WAS NEVER
INDEXED TO INFLATION.
AS MR. MULLER SAID IN THE
PRESENTATION, IF THE MINIMUM
WAGE HAD KEPT PACE WITH
INFLATION BY BEING INDEXED, FOR
EXAMPLE, CONSUMER PRICE INDEX,
IT WOULD BE OVER $10 AN HOUR
NOW AND SMALL BUSINESSES WOULD
HAVE HAD, ALL BUSINESSES, BUT
PARTICULARLY SMALL BUSINESSES
WOULD HAVE HAD THAT KNOWLEDGE
ANNUALLY THAT THEY WERE GOING
TO HAVE TO INCREASE WAGES EVERY
YEAR.
I THINK THESE PERIODIC JUMPS
THAT HAD TO BE LEGISLATED GIVE
BUSINESSES A SHOCK.
I ALSO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, AS
OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID HERE,
PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING FOR A
LIVING SHOULD NOT ALSO HAVE TO
WORK TWO AND THREE JOBS JUST TO
MAKE IT AND SHOULD NOT NEED TO
RELY ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TO
MAKE IT THROUGH THE WEEK.
>> VERY, VERY INTERESTING POINT
HERE.
MICHAEL, BEFORE WE GO TO BREAK,
I WOULD LIKE TO GET YOUR
THOUGHTS.
IT WAS INTERESTING THAT MATTHEW
LOOKED AT IT IN TERMS OF
WHETHER IT IS MORAL OR IMMORAL
AND HE FALLS ON THE SIDE OF
ITTING -- IT BEING AN IMMORAL
THING TO DO.
>> I GUESS AT THIS POINT, A
MORAL LOOK, I LOOK AT IT AS
PERHAPS A POLITICAL LOOK.
IN REGARDS TO WHY THE
MARKETPLACE SHOULD NOT TAKE
CONTROL OF WHAT THE WAGES THEY
PAY ARE AND WHY IT NEEDS TO BE
LEGISLATED AS ERICA BELIEVES,
IS THERE IS A SET PRICE OR
BOTTOM-LINE PRICE, IF YOU
WILL --
>> YOU ARE AGAINST RAISING --
>> I AM.
I AM.
PREDOMINANTLY FOR THE REASONS
OF ECONOMICS AND WHEN FOLKS
LIKE DR. SCOTT AND OTHER
ECONOMISTS COME OUT AND SAY
IT'S A BAD IDEA, THEY'RE
SMARTER THAN I AM.
>> OKAY.
WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT RIGHT
THERE FOR RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S ALL OF THE TIME WE HAVE
FOR THIS PORTION OF OUR SHOW.
WHEN WE RETURN, WE WILL BE
JOINED BY A PANEL OF EXPERTS TO
FURTHER EXPLORE LOUISIANA AND
THE MINIMUM WAGE.
STAY WITH US.
WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.
>>> WELCOME BACK TO
"LOUISIANA PUBLIC SQUARE."
TONIGHT WE'RE DISCUSSING
LOUISIANA AND THE MINIMUM WAGE.
JOINING US NOW IS OUR PANEL
OF EXPERTS.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE HERBERT
DIXON HAS BEEN SERVING
DISTRICT 26, WHICH INCLUDES
ALEXANDRIA AND PINEVILLE,
SINCE 2007.
HE CURRENTLY CHAIRS THE
LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS COMMITTEE AND IS
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION TO
ESTABLISH A STATE MINIMUM
WAGE.
DR. ROBERT HEBERT IS AN
ECONOMIST AND EMERITUS
PROFESSOR OF ENTREPRENEURIAL
STUDIES AT AUBURN.
A LOUISIANA NATIVE,
AND THE UNIVERSITY OF
LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE.
HE IS A FULBRIGHT SENIOR
RESEARCH SCHOLAR.
DAVID GRAY IS A POLICY
ANALYST FOR THE LOUISIANA
BUDGET PROJECT, AN INDEPENDENT
NONPROFIT THAT STUDIES HOW
FISCAL ISSUES IMPACT
LOUISIANA'S LOW AND MODERATE
INCOME FAMILIES.
HIS MOST RECENT REPORT
"LOUISIANA NEEDS A HIGHER
WAGE" EXPLORES THE BENEFITS
OF ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM
WAGE IN LOUISIANA.
JIM PATTERSON IS THE VICE
PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENTAL
RELATIONS FOR THE LOUISIANA
ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS AND
INDUSTRY, OR LABI.
SO BEFORE WE GO TO OUR
AUDIENCE, I'M GOING TO FIRST OF
ALL THANK ALL OF YOU FOR BEING
HERE WITH US TONIGHT.
A GREAT TOPIC, A GREAT
AUDIENCE.
I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A
GREAT DISCUSSION.
BEFORE WE GET TO THE AUDIENCE
QUESTIONS, LET'S START WITH YOU
ALL BRIEFLY EXPLAINING WHERE
YOU ARE ON THIS ISSUE.
REPRESENTATIVE DIXON, LET'S
START WITH YOU.
YOU ARE ACTUALLY PROPOSING
LEGISLATION DURING THIS SESSION
THAT ADDRESSES THE MINIMUM WAGE
ISSUE.
>> YES, I THINK THE AUDIENCE
KNOW RIGHT OFF I'M FOR A
MINIMUM WAGE.
WHAT I TRY TO DO IS PHASE IN
THE INCREASE.
I THINK SOME OF THE AUDIENCE
MEMBERS MENTIONED THE PHASE-IN
MAY BE A BETTER WAY FOR
BUSINESSES TO COPE WITH THE
INCREASE OF THE MINIMUM WAGE.
MY BILL IS GOING TO BE
INTRODUCED THIS SESSION.
AND IT GOES FROM $7.25, TO
$8.25, NOT THIS YEAR BUT NEXT
YEAR, AND THEN A DOLLAR ADDED
ON TOP OF THAT, 75 CENTS ADDED
ON TOP OF THAT A YEAR LATER TO
GET IT TO $9.
AND THEN THE CONSUMER PRICE
INDEX THEN WILL SET THE MINIMUM
WAGE FROM THAT PERIOD ON.
STARTING IN 2017.
>> DR. HEBERT.
>> WELL, SHAUNA, YOU MENTIONED
IN THE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
THAT THERE IS A HISTORY OF
MINIMUM WAGE LEGISLATION.
WE HAD OUR FIRST MINIMUM WAGE
SET IN 1938.
AND IT HAS BEEN, AS YOU SAID,
INCREASED 25 TIMES SINCE THEN.
SO, WE HAVE A HISTORY.
IT SEEMS TO ME WE OUGHT TO USE
THIS HISTORY, TRY TO USE THIS
HISTORY IN ORDER TO GAUGE
WHETHER OR NOT OVER THE 25
TIMES THAT THE MINIMUM WAGE HAS
INCREASED HOW EFFECTIVE HAS IT
BEEN IN ALLEVIATING POVERTY.
THE STUDIES THAT I'VE SEEN,
UNFORTUNATELY, JUST DON'T BEAR
OUT THE EXPECTATIONS THAT
PEOPLE HAD FOR PROPOSING A
MINIMUM WAGE.
EACH AND EVERYONE OF THE 25
TIMES IT CAME UP FOR
CONSIDERATION.
WHY IS THAT?
I THINK THERE ARE THREE MAIN
REASONS.
FIRST YOU HAVE WHAT WE CALL,
WHAT ECONOMISTS CALL TARGET
INEFFICIENCY.
THE BENEFITS SIMPLY DON'T GET
TO THE PEOPLE THEY'RE INTENDED
TO GO TO.
LESS THAN 12%, ACCORDING TO THE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION, LESS
THAN 12% OF MINIMUM WAGE
WORKERS ACTUALLY LIVE IN POOR
HOUSEHOLDS.
AND CLOSE TO HALF OF MINIMUM
WAGE WORKERS LIVE IN A
HOUSEHOLD THAT HAVE THREE TIMES
THE LEVEL, SO-CALLED POVERTY
LEVEL.
THAT'S BECAUSE IN MANY
HOUSEHOLDS, YOU HAVE SECOND AND
THIRD WAGE EARNERS.
THESE WAGE EARNERS ARE
INVARIABLY YOUNG.
IN FACT, ONLY 3% OF MINIMUM
WAGE EARNERS ARE ABOVE 25 YEARS
OLD.
SECOND CONSIDERATION THAT I
THINK WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE --
>> DR. HEBERT, I WILL LET YOU
MAKE THAT POINT.
BUT IF WE COULD HAVE THE OTHERS
TO BRIEFLY GIVE THEIR POINT, WE
WILL COME BACK TO YOU.
THANK YOU.
DO YOU TAKE ISSUE WITH WHAT DR.
HEBERT HAS SAID?
>> I THINK DR. HEBERT'S
COMMENTS ARE MADE FROM ECONOMIC
STUDIES AND THEORIES ARE GOOD.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE REALITY IN
STATES AND CITIES THAT HAVE
RAISED THE MINIMUM WAGE,
PUTTING MORE MONEY IN THE
RESIDENTS' POCKET, THEY HAVE
SPENT THE MONEY IN THE LOCAL
ECONOMIES, SUPPORTED SMALL
BUSINESSES AND HAVE ALLOWED
THOSE CITIES AND THOSE STATES
TO GROW AND INCREASE JOBS.
SO, A LOT OF OUR ANALYSIS AT
THE LOUISIANA BUDGET PROJECT
LOOKS AT OUR STATE, NOT
NATIONALLY, WHAT THE ECONOMIC
IMPACT OF A MINIMUM WAGE WOULD
BE IN LOUISIANA.
WE FOUND IF WE RAISE THE
MINIMUM WAGE TO $10.10 AS YOU
MENTIONED IN THE OPENING, THAT
WOULD HELP CLOSE TO 500,000
EMPLOYEES IN LOUISIANA PUT
CLOSE TO $700 MILLION IN THE
STATE ECONOMY AND ULTIMATELY
PRODUCE 3,300 NEW JOBS AT A
TIME WHEN LOUISIANA NEEDS MORE
JOBS.
>> JIM, I WOULD LIKE TO GET
YOUR COMMENTS.
YOU REPRESENT THOSE EMPLOYERS.
>> YES, WE DO.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR
YOUR VIEWERS AND THE FOLKS HERE
IN THE AUDIENCE TO APPRECIATE
THAT THE KIND OF
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS THAT
EMPLOYERS WOULD GO THROUGH IF
FACED WITH A COST INCREASE IS
NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE THAT
THEY MAKE AS -- AS CONSUMERS.
IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU GO AND YOU
BUY A CUP OF COFFEE, AS YOU GO
TO WORK IN THE MORNING.
LET'S SAY THE GOVERNMENT
DECIDES TO RAISE THE PRICE ON
THAT COFFEE TO A DOLLAR MORE.
NOW YOU HAVE A DECISION TO
MAKE.
PERHAPS YOU CAN GO TO YOUR
PLAYER -- EMPLOYER AND GET THE
EMPLOYER TO UNDERWRITE THAT
COST WITH A RAISE.
WE ARE TALKING LIKE $5 A WEEK
AND SOMETHING CLOSE TO $250 A
YEAR.
IF THE EMPLOYER SAYS NO, THEN
YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT ANOTHER
WAY OF DEALING WITH THAT.
AND YOU MIGHT DECIDE, WELL,
I'LL FORGO THAT CUP OF COFFEE.
MAYBE YOU ARE USED TO GETTING A
DANISH WITH THAT COFFEE.
EMPLOYERS ARE GOING TO GO
THROUGH THE SAME KIND OF
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS WHERE
IT REGARDS THEIR WORKERS IF
MADE TO PAY CLOSE TO $3 AN HOUR
MORE FOR THEIR WORKERS.
>> LET'S GET SOME REACTION FROM
OUR AUDIENCE MEMBERS AND
QUESTIONS.
I KNOW THAT YOU ALL HAVE A LOT
OF QUESTIONS FOR OUR GUESTS.
LET'S START WITH YOU.
>> MY QUESTION IS, IF AUSTRALIA
HAS A MINIMUM WAGE AT $15 AN
HOUR AND THEY HAVE AN
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE LOWER THAN
OURS, 5.6% AS OF LAST AUGUST.
WHY IS IT SO CONTROVERSIAL FOR
US TO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE
WHEN CLEARLY THEIR ECONOMY IS
DOING BETTER?
>> I THINK YOU BRING A GOOD
POINT.
CITIES AND STATES THAT HAVE
RAISED THE MINIMUM WAGE, AND
THAT HAVE MINIMUM WAGES HIGHER
THAN THE FEDERAL LEVEL, YOU
DON'T SEE MASSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT.
YOU DON'T SEE MASS LAYOFFS IN
SMALL BUSINESSES.
THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
THE REASON THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN,
WHEN EMPLOYEES ARE PAID MORE,
THEY'RE MORE MOTIVATED TO WORK,
WHICH MEANS BUSINESSES ARE NOT
SPENDING MONEY TO GO OUT AND
FIND NEW EMPLOYEES, TRAIN NEW
EMPLOYEES, PUT OUT
ADVERTISEMENTS.
THAT IS A SAVINGS.
WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THE
INCREASED COST OF PAYROLL, BUT
YOU DON'T HEAR TALK ABOUT
SAVINGS FROM REDUCED TURNOVERS
AND INCREASED EFFICIEEFFICIENCIES.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR AUSTRALIA'S
ECONOMY, BUT THAT IS WHAT HAS
HAPPENED IN OTHER STATES AND IT
IS TIME FOR LOUISIANA TO GET ON
THE SAME COURSE.
>> SCOTT AND JOHN, DOES THAT
GEL WITH WHAT YOU ARE
EXPERIENCING WITH YOUR
BUSINESSES?
>> FOR EXAMPLE, WE RECENTLY RAN
ADS IN LOCAL NEWSPAPERS LOOKING
FOR EMPLOYEES.
AND WE ACTUALLY RECEIVED -- YOU
HAVE WHAT, 32, 33,000 -- TWO
PHONE CALLS?
SO, MY QUESTION IS, HOW MANY
PEOPLE ACTUALLY OUT THERE
LOOKING FOR JOBS.
>> WELL, WHAT ABOUT YOUR
EXPERIENCE?
WHAT ABOUT WHAT HE SAID IN
TERMS OF TURNOVER?
IF YOU PAY WORKERS MORE, ARE
THEY MORE PRODUCTIVE?
DO THEY STAY LONGER?
DO YOU GET BETTER WORK OUT OF
THEM?
WHAT HAS BEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE?
BECAUSE YOU DO PAY MORE THAN
THE MINIMUM WAGE.
FIRST OF ALL, WHY DO YOU DO
THAT?
>> WE A SPECIALTY COMPANY.
AS A SPORTING GOODS STORE
OWNER, WE ARE A UNIQUE
BUSINESS.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAVE UNIQUE
PERSONNEL.
I HATE TO USE THE WORD, BUT
WE'RE NOT THE AVERAGE GAS
STATION, SO TO SPEAK.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE UNIQUE
PRODUCTS IN IT.
LOOKING FOR THAT PERSON WHO IS
WILLING TO TAKE ON THAT
RESPONSIBILITY IS SOMEWHAT
DIFFICULT TO FIND.
SO, THEREFORE, WHEN WE DO FIND
THEM, WE DO PAY A LITTLE MORE
THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE.
MY SITUATION, AS A BUSINESS
OWNER, BEING TOLD OR BEING
FORCED TO DO SOMETHING
SPECIFICALLY JUST GOES AGAINST
EVERYTHING THAT I'M FOR.
GIVE ME THAT OPPORTUNITY, IF I
WANT TO RAISE THAT PERSON'S
SALARY, BUT DON'T FORCE IT ON
ME.
>> DR. HEBERT I WOULD LIKE TO
BRING YOU IN ON THIS.
>> ONE THING YOU HAVE TO
REALIZE, THE PEOPLE IN THE
MINIMUM WAGE CATEGORY ARE IN A
FLUID SITUATION FOR THE MOST
PART.
PEOPLE DON'T STAY IN THERE ALL
OF THEIR WORKING LIVES.
IN FACT, YOU NEED TO HAVE THE
UNSKILLED AND THE YOUNG, WHICH
IS WHERE THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
ARE EXCESSIVELY HIGH, 16-24 AGE
GROUP, UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN
THIS COUNTRY IS 16%.
AMONG AFRICAN-AMERICAN YOUNG
PEOPLE IN THE SAME AGE GROUP,
IT IS 38%.
I THINK THAT IS A SHOCKING
STATISTIC THAT PEOPLE DON'T
TALK ABOUT.
WHAT IS HAPPENING IS WE'RE
THROTTLING DOWN, KEEPING,
DELAYING, IN SOME CASES E
ELIMINAING THE LIFETIME
EARNING TRAJECTORY OF YOUNG
WORKERS WHO NEED TO GET THE ON
THE JOB EXPERIENCE, THE SKILLS,
LEARNING, SO FORTH, TO LIFT
THEMSELVES UP AND GET HIGHER
WAGES AND GET OUT OF THE
MINIMUM WAGE CATEGORY AND
INCREASE THEIR LIFETIME
EARNINGS.
>> IF I MAY, TO RESPOND TO
JOSHUA'S QUESTION REGARDING
AUSTRALIA, I HAD A CONVERSATION
WITH A YOUNG LADY WHO HAD SPENT
SOME TIME IN AUSTRALIA.
AND ONE OF THE POINTS THAT SHE
MADE WAS, YES, THEY DO PAY
HIGHER WAGES THERE, BUT THE
COST OF LIVING IS SUCH THAT YOU
DON'T WANT TO LIVE THERE.
AND, SO SHE FOUND A WAY TO LIVE
AS FRUGALLY AS SHE COULD
MANAGE, MAKE THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY THAT SHE WAS MAKING THERE
AND GET BACK HERE AS QUICK AS
SHE CAN.
AND I THINK IT IS MISUNDERSTOOD
IN THE STATES WHERE YOU HAVE,
IN FACT, HIGHER MINIMUM WAGES,
YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE A
HIGHER COST OF LIVING, WHICH
WILL DIMINISH THE BENEFIT THAT
IS BEING SOUGHT BY THOSE THAT
WOULD PROPOSE DOING A MINIMUM
WAGE -- DOING A MINIMUM WAGE,
AN INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM
WAGE.
>> I HAVE TO RESPOND TO SCOTT'S
ORIGINAL QUESTION, WHERE ARE
THE JOB APPLICANTS.
A CITY IN OREGON, SEA-TRAC,
RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $15
AN HOUR.
THE SECOND THAT LAW TOOK
EFFECT, IT WAS FLOODED WITH JOB
APPLICANTS.
YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT DRIVE FROM
THE STATE OF IDAHO TO THE STATE
OF WASHINGTON TO GO TO WORK.
BUSINESS OWNERS ALONG THE
BORDER OF WASHINGTON FLOODED
EVERY DAY WITH JOB
APPLICATIONS.
PEOPLE DO APPLY.
TEENAGERS, TEENAGE EMPLOYMENT.
AS DR. HEBERT SAID, THE
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR TEENAGERS
AND YOUNG ADULTS IN AMERICA IS
16%.
IN LOUISIANA, I THINK IT IS
CLOSER TO 25%.
THE STATE OF VERMONT, SECOND
HIGHEST STATE MINIMUM WAGE IN
THE NATION.
THEIR TEENAGE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
HAVE ONLY 14%.
IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER STATES
THAT HAVE RAISED THE MINIMUM
WAGE, THEY HAVE EFFECTIVELY
FOUND A WAY TO INCREASE
CONSUMER SPENDING, ESPECIALLY
IN SMALL BUSINESSES, GROW THE
ECONOMY, AND CREATE JOBS.
AND I THINK THAT IS A POINT
WORTH REPEATING CONSTANTLY.
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT EXEMPTIONS,
UNDER THE CURRENT FEDERAL
MINIMUM WAGE, THERE ARE SOME
EXEMPTIONS IN THERE.
I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO ADDRESS
THIS AND ADDRESS IT
SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO
YOUR BILL, BECAUSE YOUR BILL --
>> TOUCHES ON WHAT I SAID
EARLIER.
A PHASE-IN OF THE MINIMUM WAGE.
THE REQUIREMENT OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WAGE AND
HOUR DIVISION, IT GIVES
EMPLOYEES -- EMPLOYERS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HIRE YOUNG FOLKS
AND HAVE THOSE YOUNG FOLKS
SERVE AT A LOWER RATE THAN THE
CURRENT MINIMUM WAGE FOR
SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME.
IT ALSO GIVES OTHER
CONSIDERATION FOR EMPLOYERS TO
HIRE INDIVIDUALS THAT MAY HAVE
SOME DISABILITIES TO WORK AT A
LOWER MINIMUM WAGE RATE.
SO, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
EMPLOYERS NOT TO BE CAPTIVATED
BY THIS SLOW RISE OF THE
MINIMUM WAGE THAT I'M PROPOSING
AND GETTING READY FOR AN
INCREASE, BUT THERE ARE
OPPORTUNITIES THAT EXIST RIGHT
NOW AND THIS WILL BE -- NOTHING
TO INFRINGE ON THOSE EMPLOYER
RIGHTS TO HIRE YOUNG FOLKS AND
GIVE THEM THOSE WORK
EXPERIENCES THAT WAS MENTIONED
HERE EARLIER.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS SOME
FLEXIBILITY IN THERE.
IT GETS BACK TO SCOTT'S POINT
THAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE TOLD
HOW MUCH HE HAS TO RAISE THE
WAGE LEVEL.
>> WELL, THAT'S ADMIRABLE.
BUT I'M SURE SCOTT HAS TOLD
APRIL 15th, HE BETTER HAVE HIS
INCOME TAXES IN BUT HE PROBABLY
DOESN'T LIKE THAT EITHER.
AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THEM IN
BY SEPTEMBER, SCOTT WILL GO
SOMEWHERE THAT PROVIDES FOR
INDIVIDUALS THAT FEEL LIKE
THEY -- THAT SOUNDS GOOD, BUT
WE ARE TOLD EVERY DAY IN SOME
FORM OR OTHER, THAT'S WHY WE'RE
IN THE LEGISLATURE NOW.
WE'RE MAKING LAWS THAT IS
TELLING INDIVIDUALS HERE IS HOW
CERTAIN THINGS WILL WORK.
>> WE WILL GET TO YOUR QUESTION
IN JUST A MOMENT.
LET'S HEAR FROM JOHN, ANOTHER
SMALL BUSINESS OWNER.
>> I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT
POINT.
I THINK WE'RE TOLD ENOUGH.
WE GET TOLD SO MUCH.
AND THE MORE THE GOVERNMENT
GETS INVOLVED IN MY BUSINESS,
THE MORE I WANT TO GET OUT OF
BEING A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER.
YOU ARE TAKING IT OUT OF OUR
HEART TO BE THE MASTERS OF OUR
OWN DESTINY.
WHAT IS IN HEART OF SOME OF MY
EMPLOYEES IS NOT MONEY.
YOU SAY IF YOU PAY PEOPLE A
COUPLE OF EXTRA BUCKS THAT WILL
BE MOTIVATED TO WORK HARD.
THAT -- SOME PEOPLE AREN'T
MOTIVATED BY MONEY.
THEY'RE MOTIVATED BY A QUALITY
OPPORTUNITY TO GROW THEIR
CAREER.
YES, SOME ARE JUST MOTIVATED BY
THE BUCKS.
WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE TOLD THIS,
AND YOU NEED TO BE TOLD MORE,
THAT KIND OF GETS THE IRE UP OF
A LOT OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.
>> IT SHOULDN'T.
DEMOCRACY, THE RIGHT TO VOTE TO
PUT IN INDIVIDUALS THAT THINK
THE WAY YOU THINK OR THE WAY
THAT I THINK.
AS WE'RE BEING TOLD, WE'RE
LIVING BY A SET OF RULES THAT
HAVE BEEN -- OVER 200 YEARS
THAT WE LIVE BY, AND WE ARE NOT
THE FIRST SET OF CITIZENS IN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
THAT HAVE BEEN TOLD THINGS.
I GRANT YOU, THERE IS A LOT OF
THINGS THAT STATE GOVERNMENT
AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAY TO
ME THAT EXCITES ME THAT I MAY
NOT WANT TO HEAR, BUT YOU TAKE
SOME OF THE GOOD WITH SOME OF
THE BAD.
AND STILL WE'RE IN THE GREATEST
COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.
>> LET'S HEAR FROM A YOUNG MAN,
CHRISTIAN, WHO IS IN HIGH
SCHOOL AND YOU HAVE A JOB.
BUT IT IS NOT A MINIMUM WAGE
JOB, RIGHT?
>> NO, IT IS AT $10 AN HOUR.
>> YOU SAID ALL OF THE JOBS --
>> I HAVE ONLY WORKED AT THIS
ONE PLACE.
THEY DIDN'T START ME AT MINIMUM
WAGE.
>> OKAY.
STARTED YOU OUT AT $10 --
>> NO, $8 AN HOUR.
I HAVE TWO THINGS TO SAY.
ONE ABOUT THE MOTIVATION OF
MONEY IN THE WORKPLACE.
NO, I DON'T THINK ALL PEOPLE
ARE MOTIVATED SOLELY BY MONEY
TO DO WELL.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO
ARE TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING AND
TRYING TO PROVIDE FOR
THEMSELVES, TRYING TO HAVE FOOD
TO EAT NEXT WEEK AND TRYING TO
HAVE A ROOF OVER THEIR HOUSE --
A ROOF OVER THEIR HEAD, SORRY.
THEY WILL BE MOTIVATED MORE BY
MONEY BECAUSE THEY DO NEED A
PLACE TO LIVE AND THEY NEED THE
NECESSITIES OF LIFE.
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR
BILL.
YOU SAID THAT IT HAS LIKE A
STIPULATION FOR YOUNGER
WORKERS, THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE
TO BE PAID --
>> NO, MY BILL DOESN'T INFRINGE
UPON THE CURRENT FEDERAL WAGE
AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE
DEPARTMENT -- U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, WHICH GIVES
OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG FOLKS TO
WORK RIGHT NOW WITH EMPLOYERS
AS TEENAGERS FOR LOWER THAN THE
MINIMUM WAGE FOR A SPECIFIED
PERIOD OF TIME.
AND IT ALSO MAKES PROVISIONS
FOR DISABLED INDIVIDUALS THAT
CAN WORK BELOW THE MINIMUM WAGE
IN CERTAIN FIELDS.
SO, THAT EXISTS -- MY IDEA
DOESN'T INFRINGE OR TOUCH ON
ANY OF THOSE SUBJECTS.
>> HOW LONG A TIME IS THAT?
>> FOR ONLY -- I THINK 90 DAYS.
FOR THREE MONTHS.
>> OKAY.
>> AND THEY CAN'T BACKPACK
INDIVIDUALS INTO THOSE JOBS.
IT IS TRULY THERE FOR TEENAGERS
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF, GAIN
EXPERIENCE, AND THEN THOSE
INDIVIDUALS START TO MAKE THE
MINIMUM WAGE.
>> GOSH, WE HAVE A LOT OF
QUESTIONS.
IF I COULD GET YOUR COMMENT ON
DR. LOREN SCOTT IN THE PIECE
THERE, THE ECONOMIST, WHO
TALKED ABOUT THE EARNED INCOME
TAX CREDIT THAT THAT WOULD BE
MORE VIABLE THAN RAISING THE
MINIMUM WAGE.
YES, DR. HEBERT.
>> THE THING YOU HAVE TO KEEP
IN MIND IS THAT THIS ISSUE
ABOUT RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE
WILL CAUSE MORE SPENDING.
ANY TIME PEOPLE GET AN INCREASE
IN MONEY, THEY WILL SPEND MORE.
THE POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO
MAKE IS THAT THERE ARE WAYS OF
INCREASING SPENDING, RAISING
HOUSEHOLD INCOME, AND BY THE
WAY, IT IS HOUSEHOLD INCOME
THAT IS IMPORTANT IN THE FIGHT
AGAINST POVERTY.
IT IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL WAGE.
IT IS HOUSEHOLD INCOME.
THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THAT
WITHOUT THE DOWNSIDE OF THE
MINIMUM WAGE.
MINIMUM WAGE HAS THREE DOWN
SIDES AS I SEE IT.
IT MISSES THE TARGET, CAUSES
UNEMPLOYMENT EFFECTS, GOOD AND
BAD, AND WE CAN DEBATE ALL
NIGHT LONG ABOUT WHICH ONE
PREDOMINATES, BUT THE NET
EFFECT, IT IS FIGHTING AGAINST
ITSELF TO SOME EXTENT.
SOME PEOPLE LOSE THEIR JOBS AND
OTHER PEOPLE GAIN.
AND THE THIRD THING IT DEPRIVES
YOUNG PEOPLE OF ESTABLISHING
THE SKILLS, OR AT LEAST DELAYS
THEIR ESTABLISHING SKILLS THAT
THEY NEED TO BUILD THE LIFETIME
PROFILE.
THE THING ABOUT THE EARNED
INCOME TAX CREDIT IT PUTS MONEY
INTO THE HOUSEHOLD WITHOUT ANY
OF THE DOWN SIDES.
>> IT IS WIN-WIN AS YOU SEE IT.
>> WELL, YOU STILL HAVE TO FUND
IT.
OKAY.
TAXPAYERS PAY FOR IT.
TAXPAYERS PAY FOR EVERYTHING.
>> I THINK IT -- FIRST OF ALL,
I WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT
CHRISTIAN STARTED OFF GETTING
PAID AT $8 AN HOUR.
NOW YOU ARE AT $10 AN HOUR.
I AM SURE THAT YOU DON'T FEEL
DEPRIVED OF ANY TYPE OF WORK
FORCE TRAINING OR LIKE YOUR
CAREER IS NOT BEING DEVELOPED.
YOU ARE A PRIME EXAMPLE OF THE
FACT THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU PAY
YOUNG PEOPLE MORE DOESN'T MEAN
THEY ARE GOING TO BE DEPRIVED
OF ANY REAL LESSONS.
RIGHT NOW TAXPAYERS ARE
SUBSIDIZING MINIMUM WAGE
COMPANIES.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, 40 YEARS
AGO, IF YOU WORKED AND YOU WERE
THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD AND
YOU EARNED THE MINIMUM WAGE,
YOU MADE ENOUGH MONEY TO
SUPPORT A FAMILY OF FOUR.
TODAY YOU DON'T MAKE ENOUGH
MONEY TO SUPPORT A FAMILY OF
TWO WITHOUT BEING ON FOOD
STAMPS OR SOME TYPE OF HOUSING
ASSISTANCE OR SOME OTHER TYPE
OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
GUESS WHO IS PAYING FOR THAT?
WE ARE.
IF YOU TAKE THAT INDIVIDUAL AND
YOU PAY THEM A LIVING WAGE AND
THEY'RE NO LONGER DEPENDENT ON
FOOD STAMPS TO PUT BREAD ON THE
TABLE OR EGGS ON THE TABLE FOR
BREAKFAST, NO LONGER DEPENDING
ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE TO KEEP A
ROOF OVER THEIR HEAD OR
ASSISTANCE FROM ENERGY TO KEEP
THE LIGHTS ON, THAT IS MONEY
THAT WE'RE SAVING AS TAXPAYERS
THAT CAN GO TO THINGS LIKE
EXPANDING THE EITC OR
REINVESTMENT IN THE WORK FORCE
DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING
PROGRAMS OR EVEN PAYING FOR
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION.
FOR EVERY ONE IN TAXPAYER
DOLLARS, YOU GET $11 BACK IN
ECONOMIC RETURN.
IT IS INTERESTING THAT WE HAVE
A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE EITC
WHEN THE FACT OF THE MATTER
INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE HAS
PROVEN TO BE THE BEST
ANTIPOVERTY POLICY OUT THERE.
AND THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN IN
EVERY STATE AND CITY THAT HAS
DONE IT.
>> I'M NOT SURE --
>> YES.
>> RELATIVE TO CHRISTIAN'S
LAUDABLE CONCERN FOR THOSE
INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE NOT
NECESSARILY MAKING THE WAGE
THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO, THESE
ARE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE A
CERTAIN VALUE TO THE EMPLOYER.
AND IF YOU ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE
THAT -- THAT AMOUNT THAT
THEY'RE PAID, THE VALUE DOESN'T
CHANGE.
THEY STILL HAVE THE SKILLS THAT
THEY HAVE AND NO MORE THAN
THAT.
SUDDENLY THAT EMPLOYER MAY BE
LOOKING AT SOMEONE ELSE RATHER
THAN THAT INDIVIDUAL TO REMAIN
IN THAT POSITION.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, SAY AN OLDER
INDIVIDUAL IN SUCH A JOB IS NOT
ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, IS NOT ABLE
TO WORK WITH COMPUTERS THE WAY
THAT YOU CAN, SUDDENLY YOU LOOK
A LOT MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN THAT
INDIVIDUAL AND THAT INDIVIDUAL
MAY LOSE THEIR JOB.
THIS IS THE CONCERN WE HAVE
ABOUT A GAIN.
HERBERT'S INTENTIONS ARE VERY,
VERY GOOD BUT I THINK THE
CONSEQUENCES WILL NOT BE AS
STRAIGHTFORWARD AS BELIEVED.
>> I THINK THAT THE OPPONENTS
AND THE ADVOCATES, IT IS JUST
ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE YOU
HAVE TO FIND THAT BALANCE.
I AM A LONG-TIME STATE CIVIL
SERVANT.
AND I HAVEN'T BEEN IN IT FOR
THE MONEY.
I LOVE WHAT I DO.
I'VE WORKED FOR EVERY STATE
AGENCY POSSIBLE, WHETHER IT IS
HOUSING, DHS, FOOD STAMPS WHICH
IS NOW CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES.
I HAVE SEEN THE WHOLE SPECTRUM
OF POVERTY AND HOW PEOPLE TRY
TO RISE OUT OF IT FROM PUBLIC
HOUSING SECTION 8 AND OWNING A
HOME.
THERE ARE A LOT OF TOOLS OUT
THERE FOR EMPLOYERS.
I KNOW MR. PATTERSON TRIES TO
DO EVERYTHING THAT HE CAN FOR
EMPLOYERS TO BUILD THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT THERE IS
LIKE REPRESENTATIVE DIXON SAID,
THERE IS THE WORK OPPORTUNITY
TAX CREDIT.
I THINK EMPLOYERS HAVE TO DO
THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND THE JOB
SEEKERS, THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
RIGHT NOW IN LOUISIANA IS
EXTREMELY LOW.
THERE ARE SO MANY ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT WINS TAKING PLACE
ACROSS THE STATE, SO THERE IS A
DEMAND FOR EMPLOYEES AND A LOT
OF THOSE WORKERS ARE UNSKILLED
AND WE ALSO HAVE TO PUT IN THE
INFRASTRUCTURE IN OUR
EDUCATION.
SO MANY WRAP-AROUND SERVICES --
THE MINIMUM WAGE IS GOING TO
HELP IN SOME RESPECTS, BUT,
AGAIN, IT IS GOING TO HURT.
I DO BELIEVE THE PHASE-IN
APPROACH WILL HELP, BUT IT IS A
WHOLE LOT OF OTHER PIECES TO
THIS PUZZLE TO MAKE THINGS
WORK, AND I REALLY SUGGEST THAT
YOU DO WORK WITH THE WORK FORCE
DEVELOPMENT AND BUSINESS AND
CAREER SOLUTION CENTERS TO HELP
YOU MEET YOUR EMPLOYMENT NEEDS.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE THERE FOR.
AND THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO
SPEND MONEY ON ADVERTISING.
THAT'S WHAT THAT STATE AGENCY
IS THERE TO DO FOR YOU AS A
BUSINESS OWNER.
>> LET'S GET TIMOTHY IN.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS FOR
THE GENTLEMAN THAT REPRESENTS
THE BUSINESSES OF LOUISIANA, IS
THAT WITH THE FEEDBACK THAT YOU
HAVE ABOUT BUSINESS, HOW MANY
OF THEM ACTUALLY SAY THAT THEY
WOULD RAISE THEIR RATES OF
THEIR EMPLOYEES WITHOUT A
MANDATE?
BECAUSE I THINK WHAT IS A REAL
DISCUSSION HERE IS IT REALLY
NUMBERS OR IS IT REALLY A
DISCUSSION OF ARE WE HAVING --
WE'RE BEING FORCED TO, A
MANDATE?
AND I THINK FROM THE FEEDBACK
THAT YOU GET MOSTLY FROM A LOT
OF PEOPLE IS THAT IT IS A
MANDATE.
IS IT REALLY SOMETHING THEY ARE
FEELING AGAINST BECAUSE OF THE
NUMBERS OR IS IT BECAUSE IT IS
A MANDATE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?
>> BUSINESSES WILL MAKE A
DECISION THAT LOGICALLY WORKS
FOR THEM IN TERMS OF THEIR GOAL
TO MAKE A PROFIT.
THAT IS WHY PEOPLE GET INTO
BUSINESS TO MAKE A PROFIT.
JUST AS YOU CHOOSE TO ENGAGE IN
EMPLOYMENT IN ORDER TO MAKE
MONEY, THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE
MONEY.
SO, THEY WILL NECESSARILY MAKE
THE DECISION GOING FORWARD THAT
BEST SUITS THE SITUATION THAT
THEY'RE IN.
IF, IN FACT, YOU HAVE AN
INCREASED DEMAND FOR THE KINDS
OF EMPLOYEES THAT THEY ARE
LOOKING FOR, THEY ARE
NECESSARILY GOING TO HAVE TO
PAY MORE IN ORDER TO ATTRACT
THOSE EMPLOYEES.
THAT IS A PART OF THE
MARKETPLACE.
THAT IS HOW IT OPERATES IN
NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
WHEN WE GO AND START TINKERING
WITH IT AT A GOVERNMENT LEVEL,
YOU START TO CREATE
CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE
UNINTENDED AND ARE ACTUALLY
ADVERSE TO MANY PEOPLE THAT YOU
ARE TRYING TO HELP, WE BELIEVE.
>> AREN'T SMALL BUSINESSES
ALREADY DOING THAT?
WE HAVE TWO SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS WITH US TONIGHT.
BOTH OF YOU PAY YOUR EMPLOYEES
MORE THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE.
SO YOU ARE TRYING TO ATTRACT
SKILLED WORKERS, OR YOU ARE
TRYING TO ATTRACT A CERTAIN
TYPE OF WORKER BY THAT
INCENTIVE?
YOU ARE USING MONEY AS AN
INCENTIVE?
ISN'T THAT ALREADY HAPPENING?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
AND IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO
HAPPEN.
>> TO ANSWER HIS QUESTION, NOT
NECESSARILY THE RAISE, BUT
BEING FORCED TO DO SOMETHING OR
BEING TOLD THAT YOU HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING, IS THAT MORE THE
ISSUE?
>> NO, I THINK IT REALLY IS THE
CONSEQUENCE OF THE INCREASE.
AND WE ALL NEED TO REALIZE THAT
WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT
THE INCREASE IN THE -- THE WAGE
RATE, THE HOURLY RATE.
IT HAS A CONSEQUENCE BEYOND
THAT BECAUSE I, AS AN EMPLOYER,
HAVE TO PAY TAXES AND INSURANCE
PREMIUMS ON THE PAYROLL THAT I
HAVE.
SO, WHEN YOU ARBITRARILY TELL
ME NOW THAT I HAVE TO PAY THIS
MUCH MORE, THEN I'VE ALSO GOT
TO PAY THAT MUCH MORE IN OTHER
EXPENSES THAT WERE NOT
CONTEMPLATED NECESSARILY.
>> I THINK IT IS INTERESTING
THAT WE TALK ABOUT BUSINESSES
AND THE PRIMARY DRIVER BEING
PROFIT.
IF YOU LOOK AT LOUISIANA AND
MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS IN
LOUISIANA, THE VAST MAJORITY OF
THEM ARE EMPLOYED BY
INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES AND
NATIONAL COMPANIES, NATIONAL
FRANCHISES AND CHAINS THAT MAKE
MILLIONS IN PROFITS, BILLIONS
EVEN.
EVEN THROUGH THE MOST RECENT
RECESSION, COMPANIES LIKE
WALMART, McDONALD'S -- LOOK AT
COSTCO.
COSTCO IS OPENING UP A NEW
BEAUTIFUL FACILITY HERE IN
BATON ROUGE.
GUESS WHAT, THEY PAY ALL OF
THEIR EMPLOYEES ABOVE THE
MINIMUM WAGE.
SO, IT CAN WORK.
IT CAN HAPPEN.
THESE BUSINESSES CAN ABSORB
THAT COST.
BUT GETTING BACK TO THE POINT
THAT MR. TIMOTHY MADE EARLIER,
WE AS AMERICANS, WE VALUE HARD
WORK.
IF YOU A MINIMUM WAGE WORKER
WORKING 40 HOURS A WEEK, 52
WEEKS A YEAR, THAT MEANS YOU
TOOK NO VACATION, NO SICK DAYS
AND YOU ARRIVED ON TIME FOR
YOUR HOURLY JOB EVERY SINGLE
DAY, YOU'RE STILL IN POVERTY IF
YOU HAVE ONE CHILD.
>> VERY FEW MINIMUM WAGE
WORKERS WORK 40 HOURS A WEEK.
MOST ARE ON PART-TIME.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS AN
ISSUE ABOUT THE REACTIONS OF
PEOPLE IF THEY'RE FORCED TO DO
THIS.
I DON'T HAVE INFORMATION FOR
LOUISIANA.
BUT I KNOW THAT DUKE UNIVERSITY
IN CONJUNCTION WITH GLOBAL,
SOMETHING OR OTHER MAGAZINE,
DID A SURVEY AND THEY ASKED
CEO'S OF BIG COMPANIES IN DIRNT
DIRNT -- DIFFERENT SECTORS OF
OF THE ECONOMY, WOULD YOU
REDUCE HIRING IF THE MINIMUM
WAGE WAS INCREASED?
WHEN THEY LEFT IT OPEN-ENDED
LIKE THAT, THE MAJORITY DIDN'T
SAY THAT THEY WOULD REDUCE
HIRING.
OKAY, BUT WHEN THEY ASKED THE
QUESTION, WOULD YOU REDUCE
HIRING IF THE MINIMUM WAGE WENT
TO $10?
BETWEEN 81 AND 93% OF THEM SAID
YES, WE WOULD.
SO, THE SIZE OF THE ADJUSTMENT
MATTERS.
THE RESPONSIVENESS OF HOW
EMPLOYERS ACTUALLY REACT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS VERY
DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT.
ECONOMISTS TRY, BUT, YOU KNOW,
YOU CAN'T REALLY -- IT IS THE
KIND OF THING THAT YOU DON'T
KNOW UNTIL AFTER THE FACT.
THAT'S WHY I SAY, YOU LOOK AT
PAST EXPERIENCE AND YOU TRY TO
GAIN SOME KNOWLEDGE --
>> IF I CAN BRIEFLY, BECAUSE I
WAS CUT OFF.
ACTUALLY WE HAVE LOUISIANA
NUMBERS AT THE LOUISIANA BUDGET
PROJECT.
66% OF MINIMUM WAGE EARNERS IN
THIS STATE ARE FULL-TIME
WORKERS.
FOR EVERY ONE TEENAGER THAT
WOULD GET A PAY RAISE AS A
RESULT OF MINIMUM WAGE
INCREASE, THREE PEOPLE OVER THE
AGE OF 40.
THREE TIMES OF -- OVER THE AGE
OF 40, AND 300,000 CHILDREN IN
OUR STATE WHO HAVE AT LEAST ONE
PARENT WHO WOULD RECEIVE A PAY
RAISE AS A RESULT OF A MINIMUM
WAGE INCREASE.
YOU'RE RIGHT, SIR, PEOPLE ARE
NOT NECESSARILY MOTIVATED BY
MOM.
BUT IF YOU ARE A SINGLE MOM,
YOU CAN WORK AT COMPANY A,
$7.75 ON COMPANY THAT PAYS YOU
$10.10.
SHE IS GOING TO CHOOSE THE
$10.10.
>> ONE THING THAT I'M INTRIGUED
BY, I KNOW YOU MENTIONED
REPRESENTATIVE THAT YOUR BILL
INCREMENTS IT.
LET'S JUMP.
WE'RE TALKING $10.10.
THAT IS ROUGHLY, AS I FIGURED
IT OUT, A 38% INCREASE.
NOW, HOW MANY BUSINESSES AND
WHAT DO THE BUSINESSES HAVE TO
DO IN RESPONSE TO ABSORBING
THAT 38%, AND AS YOU JUST
MENTIONED, NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT
HIGHER WORKMEN'S COMP, HIGHER
TAXES, EVERYTHING THAT GOES UP
WITH THEIR PAYROLL.
THE ECONOMISTS CAN TELL US, I
DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THAT COMES
OUT OF THE 42% RAISE FOR THE
BUSINESS.
HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO SUCK
THAT UP?
>> YES, AND I WANT TO -- I HEAR
YOU.
ANY BUSINESS WITH THAT
INCREASE, THAT OUGHT TO BE
DIFFICULT.
AND SO, I'M LOOKING AT 2016,
AND LOOKING AT THIS HISTORY OF
MINIMUM WAGE GOING UP.
WE CAN HAVE THE ECONOMIC
FORECAST ALL WE WANT.
70% OF AMERICANS SAY THAT THE
MINIMUM WAGE OUGHT TO GO UP AND
THAT CROSSES ALL OF THE
DYNAMICS, WHETHER IT IS BLACK,
WHITE.
WHAT I'M TELLING YOU, IN MY
BILL, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS
IN INCREMENTS, FROM $7.25, NOT
JULY 1, THE FIRST OF THIS FIZZ
FISCAL YEAR, BUT THE NEXT
FISCAL YEAR RAISE IT $1 AND LET
BUSINESSES ACCLIMATE THEMSELVES
TO THAT.
THEN IN 2016, YOU PUT 75 CENTS
ON TOP OF THAT.
YOU GET IT AT $9.
YOU ARE RIGHT AROUND THE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
I SUBMIT TO YOU, IF WE HAD THIS
SETTING AGAIN IN A YEAR AND A
HALF, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THAT
70% OF FOLKS THAT -- THEY ARE
GOING TO SAY TO THEIR
LEGISLATORS AND CONGRESSMAN,
VOTE FOR THE MINIMUM WAGE --
>> IF WE HAVE TO --
>> LET'S JUST HEAR FROM HIM.
YOU'RE AGAIN, REPRESENTING THE
BUSINESSES.
IS THE PHASE-IN APPROACH A WAY
TO DEAL WITH IT BETTER?
WOULD BUSINESSES BE MORE APT TO
ACCEPTING A PHASED-IN APPROACH?
>> I DON'T NECESSARILY THEY
WOULD BE MORE APT TO ACCEPT IT.
DOES IT HURT AS MUCH?
PERHAPS NOT.
BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH
THAT COST INCREASE AND WHATEVER
CLOSE MARGINS YOU'RE DEALING
WITH.
AND THAT IS THE THING WE NEED
TO UNDERSTAND.
A LOT OF BUSINESSES PAYING THAT
MINIMUM WAGE ARE DOING SO
BECAUSE THEY HAVE A VERY NARROW
MARGIN.
SO, EVEN A DOLLAR, OR 75 CENTS,
CAN REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT
INCREASE FOR THEM.
YOU KNOW, IT MAY NOT BE SO FOR
MICHAEL.
BUT IT CAN BE FOR CERTAIN
BUSINESSES.
AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO END UP HAVING
SOME SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON
INDIVIDUALS' LIVES TO THE
ADVERSE.
AND WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT
HAPPENING.
WE LIKE THE FACT THAT IN
LOUISIANA, WE HAVE AN ECONOMY
DICTATING WHAT PEOPLE ARE PAID.
THAT'S THE WAY THAT WE BELIEVE
THAT IT SHOULD BE.
>> OKAY.
YES.
>> I THINK MR. MICHAEL -- I
THINK MR. MICHAEL BRINGS A
GREAT POINT ACTUALLY.
HAD THE VALUE OF THE MINIMUM
WAGE, ACTUAL PURCHASING POWER
OF THE MINIMUM WAGE REMAINED
CONSISTENT SINCE 1968, IT WOULD
ALREADY BE MORE THAN $10 HOUR.
IT HAD INCREASED WITH WORKER
PRODUCTIVITY, ACTUALLY UP
AROUND $15 AN HOUR.
OF COURSE, JUST LIKE YOU
MENTIONED, IF A BILL DICTATES
THAT A BUSINESS HAS TO PAY ALL
OF ITS EMPLOYEES FROM $7.25 TO
$15, IF MY BOSS HAD TO DEAL
WITH THAT, HE WOULD PROBABLY
FIRE ME.
I HEAR YOU 100% ON THAT.
THE POINT THAT YOU GET TO IS
WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT TO NOT
ONLY ESTABLISH THE MINIMUM WAGE
BUT TIE THAT MINIMUM WAGE WITH
THE COST OF INFLATION.
THAT WAY BUSINESSES DON'T HAVE
TO DEAL WITH THE SHOCK WHILE AT
THE SAME TIME THE AMOUNT THAT
EMPLOYEES ARE GETTING PAID
STILL ALLOWS THEM TO BUY
EVERYDAY GOODS LIKE MILK, BREAD
AND STUFF FOR THEIR FAMILY.
THE ONLY REASON WHY WE'RE
HAVING THIS CONVERSATION IS
BECAUSE $5.25 A COUPLE OF YEARS
AGO BOUGHT YOU MORE THAN WHAT
$7.25 BUYS YOU TODAY.
THAT IS THE ONLY REASON WE'RE
HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.
>> DR. HEBERT, GET YOUR
THOUGHTS ON THIS.
>> THE MARKET HAS ALREADY TAKEN
CARE TO THAT TO A LARGE EXTENT.
WHY THIS GENTLEMAN GOT MORE
THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE IS HIS
EMPLOYER FELT HE WAS
CONTRIBUTING AT LEAST THAT MUCH
TO THE BOTTOM LINE.
INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTIVITY, NOT
AGGREGATE PRODUCTIVITY.
AGGREGATE PRODUCTIVITY, WE
SHOULD GET $15 AN HOUR.
SOME OF US GET $50, SOME GET
$10, SOME GETS $7.75.
THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
IF YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE OR
ALLEVIATE POVERTY, YOU HAVE
TO -- GARRETT SAYING RAISING
THE MINIMUM WAGE IS A BAND-AID.
THAT PRECISELY WHAT IT IS.
BAND-AIDS HELP FOR AWHILE BUT
DON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
WE HAVE TO GET DOWN TO WHY TO
PEOPLE MAKE LESS THAN WHAT THEY
SHOULD BE MAKING.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE
PRODUCTIVITY, THE SKILLS, THEY
DON'T HAVE THE EDUCATION OR
EXPERIENCE.
PUBLIC POLICY IN MY OPINION --
>> I WANT TO ADD THAT AGAIN
WE'RE IGNORING THE INFLATIONARY
IMPACT OF DOING THIS.
THERE IS GOING TO BE A GREATER
COST OF GOODS AND SERVICES TO
THE CONSUMERS AS A RESULT OF
THIS.
THESE COMPANIES THAT DAVE WAS
REFERRING TO, THEY DON'T ABSORB
IT.
THEY GO AND SEND IT ALONG TO
THE CONSUMER, AND THAT IS WHAT
CAUSES STATES THAT DO HAVE A
HIGHER MINIMUM WAGE TO HAVE A
HIGHER COST OF LIVING AS A
RESULT.
>> UH-HMM.
>> WE HAVE A LOW KOZ OF LIVING
RELATIVELY SPEAKING.
WE ARE NOT NCESSARILY GOING TO
BE BETTER OFF.
>> WE HAVE ACTUALLY COME TO THE
END OF THE SHOW.
WE HAVE RUN OUT OF TIME.
THIS GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT
THE DEBATE IS GOING TO BE LIKE
AT THE CAPITOL -- THERE ARE 14
BILLS ACTUALLY THAT DEAL WITH
THE MINIMUM WAGE.
AND YOUR'S IS ONE OF THEM.
WE ARE GOING TO FOLLOW THAT
VERY, VERY CLOSELY.
THANK YOU ALL SO VERY MUCH FOR
BEING HERE.
YOU HAVE GIVEN US A LOT OF
INFORMATION.
AND THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH AS
WELL.
WE HAVE RUN OUT OF TIME FOR
THIS SEGMENT.
WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL OF
THE PANELISTS, REPRESENTATIVE
DIXON, DR. HEBERT, MR. GRAY AND
MR. PATTERSON FOR THEIR
INSIGHTS ON THIS MONTH'S TOPIC.
WHEN WE COME BACK, WE WILL HAVE
A FEW CLOSING COMMENTS.
SO STAY TUNED.
>>> SHAUNA, I THINK WE HAD A
PREVIEW OF, AS YOU SAID, OF
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE
CAPITOL PERHAPS.
>> YEAH.
GREAT, GREAT DISCUSSION FROM
OUR AUDIENCE AND FROM THE
PANELISTS AND YOU CAN TELL THIS
IS AN ISSUE THAT PEOPLE ARE
VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT.
SOMETIMES IT CAN BE
CONTENTIOUS.
I THINK TONIGHT WE LEARNED A
LOT FROM THE PANELISTS AND OUR
GUESTS AS WELL.
>> WE LEARNED A LOT.
I WILL LOOK AT ALL OF THE DATA
TO SEE HOW IT ALL PANS OUT.
IT WAS GREAT TO HAVE SO MANY
WONDERFUL EXPERTS.
THAT'S ALL OF THE TIME WE HAVE
FOR THIS EDITION OF "LOUISIANA
PUBLIC SQUARE."
WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO VISIT OUR
WEB SITE.
WHILE THERE, TAKE THIS MONTH'S
SURVEY.
EXTENDED INTERVIEW CLIPS AND
COMMENT ON TONIGHT'S SHOW.
WE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU
LIKE WE DID LAST MONTH
FOLLOWING ENERGIES
ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT, AND
THAT WAS QUITE A SHOW.
LYNN WRITES TO US, AAPPLAUD LPB
FOR THIS EPISODE OF "LOUISIANA
PUBLIC SQUARE" WHICH WAS
HANDLED IN AN INFORMATIVE,
BALANCED MANNER.
RYAN WRITES, GREAT SHOW ON A
VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC.
WHILE LOUISIANA'S OIL AND GAS
COMPANIES ARE VITAL FOR
GOOD-PAYING JOBS THEY MUST BE
FORCED TO COMPLY WITH OUR
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.
BRIAN WRITES, THERE IS ROOM FOR
A COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP.
TOO MANY FOLKS SAY IT IS EITHER
JOBS OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
BOTH ARE NECESSARY AND BOTH CAN
BE PROTECTED AND ADVANCED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
>>> PROPOSED BILL -- JINDAL
ADMINISTRATION SAYS THAT THE
NUMBER OF STATE CONTRACTS IS
ALREADY BEING REDUCED AND THE
BIGGEST ONES PROVIDE ESSENTIAL
SERVICES.
HOW COST EFFECTIVE ARE
PRIVATIZATION EFFORTS WITH
OUTSIDE VENDORS AND HOW
NECESSARY ARE THE MAJORITY OF
THESE CONTRACTS?
"LOUISIANA PUBLIC SQUARE"
EDUCATES VIEWERS NEXT MONTH ON
STATE CONTRACTS 101.
SHOULD BE VERY INTERESTING.
THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.
AND HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.
>> GOOD NIGHT EVERYONE.
>> FOR A COPY OF THIS PROGRAM,
CALL 1-800-973-7246 OR GO
ONLINE TO WWW.lpb.org.
>> SUPPORT FOR THIS PROGRAM IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOUNDATION FOR
EXCELLENCE IN LOUISIANA PUBLIC
BROADCASTING.