Comments:U.S. minimum wage gets first federal boost in a decade

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Guess what? Big business owns your government.

So, if you're flipping burgers in 2009 in the United States you'll get $7.25 an hour.

On the other hand, if you're flipping burgers in the United Kingdom today you'll get £5.52 which I calculate to be $11.39. (Source: Dept. for Business National Minimum wage.

The United States government obviously doesn't care about poor people - just like with Katrina. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the (without really knowing) that the National Restaurant Association, along with possibly lobbiest from agriculture, helped hold up federal legislation that lagged far behind more local state interests. It goes to show how Washington is maybe not the answer when it comes to U.S. national interests. States had to lead the way with wage increases. -Edbrown05 09:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with making such a direct comparison as you are doing Brian, is that it doesn't take into account potential differences in living costs. The biggest one that I can think of is the cost of petrol, in the UK it is nearly £1 per litre, whereas in the US it seems to be about $3 per gallon. According to w:Gasoline usage and pricing we in the UK pay over $7 per gallon, a substantial difference. Of course, there may be examples where living costs are lower in the UK than in the US, I'm not sure. Adambro 10:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware that there are differences in the cost of living, fuel costs do have big differences, but if you're in the position of being on minimum wage a car is a luxury. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

NZ

The minimum wage for New Zealand teenagers is higher than your minimum wage of adults (even with the high NZ dollar). (preceding unsigned comment by Nzgabriel 12:35, 24 July 2007)

Say What!?

So even after the increase we're still behind? Kinda odd that the "richest" country has a lower min wage than AUSTRALIA? What the he!! is that?!

Maybe the issue comes from the top heavy economy we have? If a bit less of the countries fiscal resources sat in an upper class bank to make them more rich. How'd a land founded on freedom of thought and religion turn into such a aristocratic (and therefore bureaucratic) beast of capitalism?

A minimum wage of US$5.85 (UK£2.43) seems a ridiculously low amount by UK standards. However, if you compare living costs I would imagine that the UK at over $11 an hour is still below that of the USA. Shows how expensive it is to live in the UK!

I doubt it, unfortunately efforts to find usable statistics find the same information presented in a different way. The UK defines poverty of 60% of the median income, not what you need to live on. I'm guessing beyond this point, but that is going to set the poverty income amount higher than the U.S., so you need to compare percentage of the population living in poverty.

The simple fact of the matter is that both the U.S. and the U.K. should be ashamed of themselves. They are amongst the richest countries in the world, yet there are citizens within their borders living in poverty. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)