Raising minimum wage bad for jobs?

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2005-02-11 10:14pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Hoo boy, I can hear the libertarians and fiscal conservatives screaming now. "That's income redistribution! YOU DIRTY COMMIE!"

Maybe... but maybe not. The idea is attributed to Milton Friedman--the economist whose papers fiscal conservatives creme this pants while reading. And remember, this also eliminates most other forms of welfare. In it's purest form, if you can't get a job and can't live on the $x a year, tough bounce.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-02-12 12:12am

There is no evidence of this, especially seeing how in the past the real dollar value minimum wages were higher.

And unskilled labor was also more of a commodity in the past. So what?

Again with the "all" thing. It's just not the case that a rise in minimum wage will eliminate all current minimum wage jobs nor all part time jobs. A basis understanding of economics should tell you that some jobs will be lost but others will still be kept at higher pay.

Yes but by making them a "real job with a real wage" you're going to severly reduce the number of them available or inflate prices steeply.

Either way it's going to go a long way to cancelling out the effect of what you're trying to do. The simple fact that you have yet to get around has been that adding workers at roughly 50% greater pay by the minimum living wage in the peice you sited is going to drastically raise labor costs. Either way in most jobs that's going to substantially cut profit margins that are relatively thin to begin with. So please explain how it is that business will absorb that cost with out drastically reducing earnings (with out firing people or major inflation)?

So let me get this straight, discretionary income teenage workers over people who need those jobs? I beg to differ. Still, there's no reason to believe that teenagers will lose big on jobs, and no reason to believe that all non-teenage working minimum wagers are dropouts.

If you propose as major an increase in the minimum wage, something like 50% to 120% increases (again according to article you cite), then there will have to be major adjustments in the basic business of minimum wage employees. One of the major things will be cutting employees because there's no company out there that can absorb that kind of labor hike without reducing costs or just plain upping prices. Either way that will hit the minimum wage earners very hard and you have yet to explain how this bullet can be magically dodged.

(in fact doesn't the government gives subsidies for teenage workers?)

Not the US government.

This is also, as a common conservative tactic, to claim that the poor somehow deserve their fate, without any regard to why there are minimum wage workers nor their plight.

Not everyone does, I'm fully prepared to admit that. Bad luck and bad circumstance can happen to anyone. That's one reason I am for things like student grants, job education programs, vocational training, and other programs. I have heartily endorsed such measures in the past and one of my favorite politcians actually was responsible for creating a number of those.

But let's face it, no one should be expecting a part-time fast food to be a career. Some jobs just aren't career making, at best they'll be cheap part time work. They don't magically become economically viable for being legislated that way.

Simply put, give them a livable wage, or something pretty close to offset the regional differences in living wages, and we'll be better off as a whole.

Proof of any of that? I'd love to see hard numbers showing that jobs won't be lost with a 50% to 120% increase in wages. Because personally I'd love to be able to live off a part time job and would jump at it in a heart beat.

What the heck are you smoking? A living wage is $9 a hour on average in this country. In the past, minimum wage in real dollars was around $7-8 in todays money. The difference wasn't that big, and for clarity purposes something pretty close to minimum wage is good enough since it pretty close.

It's not the relative value, it's the effect an increase of 50% in the minimum wage is going to have when instituted. By raising it there will be an economic impact as whatever it was, there's still an impact of $4 per hour in todays money. Some one has to foot that bill and that's going to have to be paid out of one of the following: labor costs (meaning less people), prices, or profit.

One shift + some extra time to survive is not a disaster and fits my bill of livable wages.

That analogy is so flawed. Tacking half again onto the base wage is no where near the same as adding some over time pay. For one thing there is no extra work being performed, it's simply paying half again for regular work.

It's certainly not massive, but the minimum wage now is indeed very low and should be immediately raised.

I would call a 50% percent increase in the base wage massive. I know people that would kill for a ten percent increase and be in heaven to get it. It looks like a cheap increase when looking at it as the dollar per hour figure but once the numbers start adding it really is a very substantial increase.

I won't disagree that life is hard at the bottom rung of the socio-economic scale. Trying to make a living off minimum or near-minimum wage is near impossible and will take it's toll

They haven't in the past. http://salt.claretianpubs.org/ie/2003/11/ie0311.html

There is credible evidence that raising the minimum wage by 2 or so dollars will not create massive unemployment as many conservatives claim.

Funny, but I don't see where that article includes any hard numbers at all? At best they say some living wage increases have been passed, though most are limited to municipal government employees and immediate contractors. If a no numbers, extremely limited samples is the best they offer I have to say that proves exactly nothing for a national economy. Once again you fail to grasp the simple fact that there is a massive disparity in scale.

I'm perfectly willing to listen if you can provide hard numbers to back up what you've said. But I've seen fuzzy generalizations from limited and biased* samples are not good evidence.

*usually government jobs have to be filled. Cashiers at Wal-Mart can be replaced by machines and a good many minimum wage jobs are equally disposable

But like you said, some has to take those crappy jobs, so at least make something worthwhile.

Not always and there's no guarentee at all that it will be painless economically. Some fast food joints might go tits up and the cashiers at the grocery store get replaced with eletronic scans. Not all minimum wage jobs are worthwhile if you increase the cost 50%.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-02-12 12:50am

So therefore, let's screw sustenance workers. Irregardlessly points 1 and 2 can be achieved with a higher minimum wage, just as it was when the min. wage was higher in real dollars in the past.

How in hell does it "screw sustenance workers", indeed if you increase wages without decreasing employment or increasing productivity then the cost will be recouped in price increases otherwise known as inflation. Guess who gets hit hardest by inflation? Oh yes that's right sustenance workers

Read above. A higher minimum wage prevents none of this.

I oppose any minimum wage. If one has to be had for political reasons then let it be as diminishingly small as possible. Again though I ask if there is no cost to raising the minimum wage to create more "real jobs" why stop at a living wage? Why not mandate a luxury wage so everyone can afford yahts?

Now you are just being stupid. I was clearly refering to the fact jobs do not disappear instantaneously when the minimum wage is raised, just as has happened everytime it was raised in the past. No one is dumb to promote a min wage higher than living wages.

Do you understand the term ceteris parabis? In economics a question like does increasing the minimum wage lead to job loss it is understood unless otherwise stated that the ceteris parabis condition is true. That condition means roughly that all other things are equal. In the real world condition is never met, other economic forces confound the data and mask the impact of any single economic policy.

Take for instance the last minimum wage increase. Did it occur during a stable job market? No it happened in the midst of an economic boom with record low unemployment and spiraling labor costs. Under such circumstances even though minimum wage does destroy jobs, other processes are creating more. The real world measure in a dynamic and confounded market isn't wether jobs are lost or not, but how many more would have been gained had the minimum wage increase not gone through.

Dredge it up and let us see. Anyways, might as well raise minimum wages if there's going to be little pain. You've already admitted that there do exists extended minimum or near minimum wage jobs that should be paying better and few other jobs are going to be affected, at least according to your argument.

Why "should" they pay better? Why not just use welfare instead of risking inflating prices and harming the poor disportionately? Why should certain employers and consumers pay for what amounts to social welfare rather than society at large?

And again if there is a little pain why not just go to 30 dollars an hour as minimum wage?

As if a minimum wage job will sustain a college education... Once again, going back to the beginning of this exchange, you've yet to show why we need this particular and current minimum wage in order for any of this to happen instead of a higher one. So far you produced nothing but a giant strawman argument.

I advocate getting rid of ALL minimum wages and increasing social welfare to compensate for those who cannot subsist without the minimum wage.

Again if there is no harm from going up a dollar, why not two? Why not ten? Why not hundred? There are costs, and I for one don't favor taxing the poorest in order to subsidize the poor.

Because we're not communists. We want people to work for a living, but it should be a livable living.

Oh please

Welfare comes out of taxes which reflect themselves in the price of goods.

Minimum wage comes out of employers earnings (fat chance), reflect themselves in the price of goods, or aggregate higher unemployment.

Given that you deny minimum wage can lead to a destruction of jobs then either you have to find a way for people to blow their profit margin or you have to reflect increased labor costs in prices. The only net difference between the two is that minimum wage's impacts are not evenly spread throughout society (let alone weighted through a progressive income tax). The prices most likely to go up due to minimum wage are the ones which most directly impact the poor. When you look at hiring patterns the people who lose their jobs when firms are forced to observe wage floors you see that the unskilled, uneducated are hardest hit on that side. If nothing else this means that the poorest bear the highest transition costs.

It's just not the case that a rise in minimum wage will eliminate all current minimum wage jobs nor all part time jobs. A basis understanding of economics should tell you that some jobs will be lost but others will still be kept at higher pay.

So who gets fired? Oh yes the bottom of the barrel who cannot underbid their better competitors. Taxes on the poorest.

So let me get this straight, discretionary income teenage workers over people who need those jobs? I beg to differ.

People who "need jobs" need them for a reason. Maybe they dropped out of highschool (exceedingly likely), maybe they have responsibility issues, maybe they suffer from diminished intelligence. The people who most need jobs are the LEAST likely people to retain them when you institute a wage floor.

Think about it. You have Vinny and Vern both vying for the same job Vinny has a highschool diploma and is taking a few night classes at the local community college. Vern dropped out of highschool, stutters profoundly, and has an IQ in the second quartile. If you are forced to pay the same which one is going to be hired? Vinny. The only way Vern can compete with Vinny for the job is to offer his labor at a cheaper rate.

Minimum wages might help the poor, but only at the expense of the poorest.

What the heck are you smoking? A living wage is $9 a hour on average in this country. In the past, minimum wage in real dollars was around $7-8 in todays money. The difference wasn't that big, and for clarity purposes something pretty close to minimum wage is good enough since it pretty close. One shift + some extra time to survive is not a disaster and fits my bill of livable wages.

9 dollars an hour at 40 a weak gives itself 18,720 dollars a year (yes I know I'm ignoring taxes). That number is decent for certain parts of the country, but laughable in places like NYC. A federal minimum wage is more moronic than minimum wage itself. The average minimum wage is going to be ridiciously low in many communities - thus doing squat for your goal - and ridiciously high in many others - and amounting to a much greater burden on the economy. If you are going to have a minimum wage then it makes far more sense to set it locally (state or municipal) than federally.

How did I know it would be Card and Krueger you'd link. Not their data mind you, just a third hand quote of the conclusion

Kim and Taylor rehashed some of them, and showed several points where Card and Krueger ignored confounding factors. For instance they ignored the relative rates of economic growth between states when they went hunting for the effects on low wage earners. An increase in minimum wage leads to a decrease in emloyment, ceteris parabis. Other factors mask that decrease, but in the end fewer jobs exist that would have without the wage hike.

But like you said, some has to take those crappy jobs, so at least make something worthwhile.

It is worthwhile, for people who want supplemental income.

Obloquium · Post by **Obloquium** » 2005-02-12 01:42am

Storm cited an advocacy article that in turns "cites" Alan Krueger and David Card's Myth and Measurement that represents one end (the contrarian one) of a debate between 1992-6 Here's a Powerpoint lit review.

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2005-02-12 08:27am

Those who say that a minimum wage is intrinsicly a bad idea; shouldn't we have seen some negative effects over here since it was introduced by labour?

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2005-02-12 12:26pm

If I recall my econ class properly, minimum wage is neither an intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad idea in terms of the results it gets, but rather it's no more likely to do good than bad, and as such is pointless unless you can determine under which economic conditions it should be used.

That's obviously a bit simplistic, but it's all I remember.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-02-12 01:01pm

Those who say that a minimum wage is intrinsicly a bad idea; shouldn't we have seen some negative effects over here since it was introduced by labour?

Not necessarily, other economic forces can confound appearances. If you institute a minimum wage during a time of economic expansion, particularly high job creation expansion, then you will only "see" the negivate impacts as a decrease in the rate of growth. This decrease will also lag the decision as it takes time for the market to adjust. Everything from social welfare policy to tax codes to boom-bust cycles can mask the macroeconomic damage of a minimum wage.

Really it comes down to microeconomics. You are a firm that faces an immediate increase in labor costs. Market value had previously dictated that labor was "worth" a certain value, you now must pay more to get the same thing you bought for less before. So your costs increase without any increase in productivity. This hits the bottom line and you are forced to trim profits, increase prices, or trim expenses. Trimming profits leads to bad long term policy - like encouraging outsourcing, buyout, and insolvency; if your profitability is less then your competitors then you can expect them to push you from the market until you adapt, get acquired, or go broke. Trimming expenses revolves in huge part around employment. A common viewpoint of business owners is that if you are forced to pay a floor regardless, you may as well shop extensively for the most profitable employees to be had.

Looking at minimum wage in a microeconomic vacuum one sees that you cut profits (not going to happen), increase prices (hello inflation), or reduce employment. Either of the latter two options ends up helping the poor at the expense of poorest.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-02-12 01:11pm

Obloquium wrote:Storm cited an advocacy article that in turns "cites" Alan Krueger and David Card's Myth and Measurement that represents one end (the contrarian one) of a debate between 1992-6 Here's a Powerpoint lit review.

I didn't cite anything, it was Hyperion that cited that article.

HyperionX · Post by **HyperionX** » 2005-02-12 05:06pm

Stormbringer wrote:
There is no evidence of this, especially seeing how in the past the real dollar value minimum wages were higher.
And unskilled labor was also more of a commodity in the past. So what?

Uh, the more a commodity something is the cheaper it is. That would make a minimum wage raise more expensive in the past.

Again with the "all" thing. It's just not the case that a rise in minimum wage will eliminate all current minimum wage jobs nor all part time jobs. A basis understanding of economics should tell you that some jobs will be lost but others will still be kept at higher pay.
Yes but by making them a "real job with a real wage" you're going to severly reduce the number of them available or inflate prices steeply.

Since you keep on repeating the same argument over and over again, let me make my primary point.

PRIMARY POINT: The minimum wage increase did not increase neither prices nor unemployment in a substancial degree in the past, and there is no reason to believe it will happen again, especially considering that most money is made through professional work in the country, and the minimum wage is not much of a deal to them but not for unskilled labor. In fact, the main point of a minimum wage is to force corporations to send more of their profits to the workers. That is a real cost yes, but ultimately a positive one. Last, these jobs do not pay livable wage, and thus should be eliminated regardless of what ultimately minor effect it will have.

Either way it's going to go a long way to cancelling out the effect of what you're trying to do. The simple fact that you have yet to get around has been that adding workers at roughly 50% greater pay by the minimum living wage in the peice you sited is going to drastically raise labor costs. Either way in most jobs that's going to substantially cut profit margins that are relatively thin to begin with. So please explain how it is that business will absorb that cost with out drastically reducing earnings (with out firing people or major inflation)?

Primary point.

So let me get this straight, discretionary income teenage workers over people who need those jobs? I beg to differ. Still, there's no reason to believe that teenagers will lose big on jobs, and no reason to believe that all non-teenage working minimum wagers are dropouts.
If you propose as major an increase in the minimum wage, something like 50% to 120% increases (again according to article you cite), then there will have to be major adjustments in the basic business of minimum wage employees. One of the major things will be cutting employees because there's no company out there that can absorb that kind of labor hike without reducing costs or just plain upping prices. Either way that will hit the minimum wage earners very hard and you have yet to explain how this bullet can be magically dodged.

It was "magically dodged" in the past. Go back to the primary point.

(in fact doesn't the government gives subsidies for teenage workers?)
Not the US government.

This is also, as a common conservative tactic, to claim that the poor somehow deserve their fate, without any regard to why there are minimum wage workers nor their plight.

Not everyone does, I'm fully prepared to admit that. Bad luck and bad circumstance can happen to anyone. That's one reason I am for things like student grants, job education programs, vocational training, and other programs. I have heartily endorsed such measures in the past and one of my favorite politcians actually was responsible for creating a number of those.

But let's face it, no one should be expecting a part-time fast food to be a career. Some jobs just aren't career making, at best they'll be cheap part time work. They don't magically become economically viable for being legislated that way.

More reason to raise the minimum wage. Having to work 60+ hours a day to survive reduces the time one is able to get ahead through education, job training, job hunting, etc. It could be a good thing.

Simply put, give them a livable wage, or something pretty close to offset the regional differences in living wages, and we'll be better off as a whole.
Proof of any of that? I'd love to see hard numbers showing that jobs won't be lost with a 50% to 120% increase in wages. Because personally I'd love to be able to live off a part time job and would jump at it in a heart beat.

Primary point. Also, don't put words in my mouth, I'm not proposing a 120% pay increase. Also, did you forget my link? Hell, here's another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

What the heck are you smoking? A living wage is $9 a hour on average in this country. In the past, minimum wage in real dollars was around $7-8 in todays money. The difference wasn't that big, and for clarity purposes something pretty close to minimum wage is good enough since it pretty close.
It's not the relative value, it's the effect an increase of 50% in the minimum wage is going to have when instituted. By raising it there will be an economic impact as whatever it was, there's still an impact of $4 per hour in todays money. Some one has to foot that bill and that's going to have to be paid out of one of the following: labor costs (meaning less people), prices, or profit.

Massively bolded, italicized, underlined, and enlarged to point out where much of this is suppose to come from, so thanks for making my primary point again.

One shift + some extra time to survive is not a disaster and fits my bill of livable wages.
That analogy is so flawed. Tacking half again onto the base wage is no where near the same as adding some over time pay. For one thing there is no extra work being performed, it's simply paying half again for regular work.

You've missed my point, a 7-8 dollar minimum wage allows for livability with one full time job + some overtime pay. Current minimum pay of $5.15 an hour in the US requires 60-80 hours of work per week to survive, which is arguable inhuman.

It's certainly not massive, but the minimum wage now is indeed very low and should be immediately raised.
I would call a 50% percent increase in the base wage massive. I know people that would kill for a ten percent increase and be in heaven to get it. It looks like a cheap increase when looking at it as the dollar per hour figure but once the numbers start adding it really is a very substantial increase.

Nonsense, in economics it has been found that for very low cost items demand is very inflexible. A 50% increase in items like chewing gum, toliet paper, milk, etc., cause almost no change in demand. The same is true for a minimum wage worker, as show by history the effects on unemployment were never that big.

I won't disagree that life is hard at the bottom rung of the socio-economic scale. Trying to make a living off minimum or near-minimum wage is near impossible and will take it's toll

Ok, I agree.

They haven't in the past. http://salt.claretianpubs.org/ie/2003/11/ie0311.html

There is credible evidence that raising the minimum wage by 2 or so dollars will not create massive unemployment as many conservatives claim.
Funny, but I don't see where that article includes any hard numbers at all? At best they say some living wage increases have been passed, though most are limited to municipal government employees and immediate contractors. If a no numbers, extremely limited samples is the best they offer I have to say that proves exactly nothing for a national economy. Once again you fail to grasp the simple fact that there is a massive disparity in scale.

I'm perfectly willing to listen if you can provide hard numbers to back up what you've said. But I've seen fuzzy generalizations from limited and biased* samples are not good evidence.

*usually government jobs have to be filled. Cashiers at Wal-Mart can be replaced by machines and a good many minimum wage jobs are equally disposable

Hint: Go to the bottom of that link. If that's not good enough for you, go to my other link.

But like you said, some has to take those crappy jobs, so at least make something worthwhile.
Not always and there's no guarentee at all that it will be painless economically. Some fast food joints might go tits up and the cashiers at the grocery store get replaced with eletronic scans. Not all minimum wage jobs are worthwhile if you increase the cost 50%.

Repeat of old arguments. I've addressed this already.

PS: Um, cashiers already use electronic scans...

PPS: tharkun is just repeating Storm, so I'm ignoring most of it, except for his advocation of welfare over a minimum wage. I disagree with that since we should work for a living, not depend on welfare. Local places with higher cost of living will have their own minimum wages, so I don't think a federal minimum wage is a big deal; they're for the conservative areas that refuse to do so

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-02-12 05:30pm

tharkûn wrote:Why not just raise the minimum wage to 100 dollars an hour then?

Fine by me.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-02-12 05:40pm

Obloquium wrote:I'm really curious. Why are people taking such strong positions on the relationship between the minimum wage and employment? A quick lit review reveals no consensus on the matter, so wouldn't that lead a good empiricist to leave it at "I don't know yet?"

From my side of things, it's partly political and partly self interest. When a company pays its fulltime workers such lousy wages, it means those of us who do make good money end up paying for welfare, medicaid, food stamps, you name it. So in effect, we are subsidizing cheapskate employers. My employer pays me a decent wage and so should places like Wal-Mart. If these companies insist on effectively using the U.S. Treasury to make up the pay difference then it's only proper that the government compel these greedy corporations to stop it.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-02-12 05:56pm

Elfdart wrote:
tharkûn wrote:Why not just raise the minimum wage to 100 dollars an hour then?
Fine by me.

Are you serious? That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Why don't we just replace every one dollar bill with a million dollar bill, so everyone can be rich!?!

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-02-12 05:59pm

tharkûn wrote:
Why not just raise the minimum wage to 100 dollars an hour then?

Fine by me

Why not make it 10,000 dollars an hour then

From my side of things, it's partly political and partly self interest. When a company pays its fulltime workers such lousy wages, it means those of us who do make good money end up paying for welfare, medicaid, food stamps, you name it. So in effect, we are subsidizing cheapskate employers. My employer pays me a decent wage and so should places like Wal-Mart. If these companies insist on effectively using the U.S. Treasury to make up the pay difference then it's only proper that the government compel these greedy corporations to stop it.

When the employer pays good wages you still up paying for it. Instead of it coming from the government it comes from the consumer in the form of higher prices, assuming of course that they don't just reduce employment.

Of course this way you have the added joys of inlfationary pressures, increased unemployment for the very bottom tier of the economic ladder, and a push to move jobs overseas or to automate. We can also ignore the small businesses which simply have neither the volume, margin, or niche that allows them to raise prices to cover the difference, guess they just go out of business and are SOL.

Of course you complete ignore the point that the vast majority of minimum wage earners are working for supplemental incomes or are recent hires. The majority of people who would get a raise would be people looking for supplemental income (who don't get food stamps, welfare, etc.) and not trying to live off it.

But remember it is all okay because corporations are greedy and evil m'kay

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-02-12 06:19pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Elfdart wrote:
tharkûn wrote:Why not just raise the minimum wage to 100 dollars an hour then?
Fine by me.
Are you serious?

Master of Ossus wrote: That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

Go re-read your own post. What I wrote doesn't compare.

Master of Ossus wrote:Why don't we just replace every one dollar bill with a million dollar bill, so everyone can be rich!?!

Fine by me.

OK, I'll explain:

Are you familiar with the phrase "Brevity is the soul of wit"? Apparently not. Tardkûn tried the usual right-wing bluff of "Why not $100 an hour!" I called it, showing (I hoped) how completely tired, ignorant and moronic it was. I cannot be bluffed. I heard the same bullshit back in 1993 when that godless commie Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich by a whopping two percent

. All the dittoheads were whining "Why not just take 100%!"

. My response then and now:

Fine by me.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-02-12 06:26pm

There ought to be a Godwin's Law variant for bringing up Clinton. Even funnier is that Elfpenis brings up something of that era more than our righties due.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2005-02-12 06:34pm

What a rediculously low minimum wage, I'd be lucky to buy a gallon of petrol or my lunch with that, that's like £2.80 an hour, jesus, I thought the minimum wage of £4.85 ($9.05) per hour here was pitiful. *Shakes Head*

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-02-12 06:39pm

Bitch, bitch, bitch...

Clinton is relevant here because he raised the minimum wage and all the ditto heads were shrieking in terror because according to them, Clinton's budget, wage hike and other reforms would wreck the economy. Ask most people today which economy they would prefer: Clinton's or the current one.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-02-12 06:46pm

Elfdart wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:Why don't we just replace every one dollar bill with a million dollar bill, so everyone can be rich!?!
Fine by me.

You truly are a retard, Elfdart.

OK, I'll explain:

Are you familiar with the phrase "Brevity is the soul of wit"? Apparently not. Tardkûn tried the usual right-wing bluff of "Why not $100 an hour!" I called it, showing (I hoped) how completely tired, ignorant and moronic it was. I cannot be bluffed.

In other words, you have no legitimate reason for advocating such a change.

I heard the same bullshit back in 1993 when that godless commie Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich by a whopping two percent . All the dittoheads were whining "Why not just take 100%!" . My response then and now:

Fine by me.

Right, because you're a fucking idiot who has no ability to think ahead.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-02-12 06:50pm

h, the more a commodity something is the cheaper it is. That would make a minimum wage raise more expensive in the past.

Since you keep on repeating the same argument over and over again, let me make my primary point.

PRIMARY POINT: The minimum wage increase did not increase neither prices nor unemployment in a substancial degree in the past, and there is no reason to believe it will happen again, especially considering that most money is made through professional work in the country, and the minimum wage is not much of a deal to them but not for unskilled labor. In fact, the main point of a minimum wage is to force corporations to send more of their profits to the workers. That is a real cost yes, but ultimately a positive one. Last, these jobs do not pay livable wage, and thus should be eliminated regardless of what ultimately minor effect it will have.

So you're saying that all minimum wage jobs can and should be replaced by "living wage jobs" or just elminated entirely? And further more that regardless of this increasing the cost of labor (by the closest thing you give to a hard number) by 75% to 130% per hour there will be no significant economic impact? Fine, prove that frankly extrodinary claim. I look forward to seeing what proof you can come up with this.

It was "magically dodged" in the past. Go back to the primary point.

Once again, I would love to see proof that a 75% increase in labor cost can be dodged. That is essential to your claim that a major shift in the minimum wage is even feasible. Most increases have been far less substantial and have come at times when the economy was far more robust than it was, thus negating in part the increased cost of business.

More reason to raise the minimum wage. Having to work 60+ hours a day to survive reduces the time one is able to get ahead through education, job training, job hunting, etc. It could be a good thing.

In theory, but in the real world all that living wage is going to do is reduce the attractiveness of education to those chronically unemployed. Besides, there are currently social aid programs in place for most of those unemployed by bad luck and circumstance.

Primary point. Also, don't put words in my mouth, I'm not proposing a 120% pay increase.

The link you did claimed a minimum living wage of $8.00 per hour was necessary with something like 12.00 being an ideal. That runs between a 75% (8) and 135% percent increase. If you wish to repudiate those numbers at all go ahead but so far that is indeed what the living wage increases would mean.

Also, did you forget my link? Hell, here's another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

A good link to begin with but there's the simply problem that as revprez's link showed (ack how I hate agreeing with that troll) on the first page that study has come under serious fire and the authors themselves have downgraded their results seriously, so much so that they've acknowledged it could have no effect at all. And need I remind you that as tharkun pointed out that was in a far more robust economy than today's.

You've missed my point, a 7-8 dollar minimum wage allows for livability with one full time job + some overtime pay. Current minimum pay of $5.15 an hour in the US requires 60-80 hours of work per week to survive, which is arguable inhuman.

Actually, the minimum after taxes to stay above the poverty line on the barebones is actually 8-9 dollars for a family of three, with kids adding another 3-4 dollars an hour for any beyond one.

Never the less, yes that is long hours. Generally why those jobs are not meant to be career jobs. There's a reason the low end workforce is generally teenagers or those of equivalent earning potential due to circumstances (high school drop out, mental handicap, liberal arts degree, etc).

Nonsense, in economics it has been found that for very low cost items demand is very inflexible. A 50% increase in items like chewing gum, toliet paper, milk, etc., cause almost no change in demand. The same is true for a minimum wage worker, as show by history the effects on unemployment were never that big.

And a peice of goods is equivalent to the labor of a human being how now? Just because you claim and equivalency and a resisliance in the face of major prices increases doesn't make them so. Feel free to back them up however.

Hint: Go to the bottom of that link. If that's not good enough for you, go to my other link.

It's not my job to hunt down your evidence for you. Either copy and paste the information relevant to your posts or direct link to them because I am not going to do your work for you.

Repeat of old arguments. I've addressed this already.

How's the weather in Fantasyland? It must be nice to be so deluded. You have addressed the points in that you've made some handwaving and hope your Obi-wan act will cover the blatant lack of substantive proof.

PS: Um, cashiers already use electronic scans...

No, I mean the U-scan type terminals that replace people entirely. Or at least have one person for a half dozen or so terminals each.

Obloquium · Post by **Obloquium** » 2005-02-12 08:46pm

Elfdart wrote:From my side of things, it's partly political and partly self interest. When accompany pays its fulltime workers such lousy wages, it means those of us who do make good money end up paying for welfare, medicaid, food stamps, you name it. So in effect, we are subsidizing cheapskate employers. My employer pays me a decent wage and so should places like Wal-Mart. If these companies insist on effectively using the U.S. Treasury to make up the pay difference then it's only proper that the government compel these greedy corporations to stop it.

The problem here is no one is making an absolute causative argument that increasing the minimum wage will lead to a decrease in employment. The claim is that increasing the minimum wage will absent other factors decrease employment and then only generally so. Anecdotes and continential rationalism will not falsify this claim or its reciprocal. So all we've done here is make a thread longer than it need be. The answer is we don't know.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-02-12 09:36pm

When the employer pays good wages you still up paying for it. Instead of it coming from the government it comes from the consumer in the form of higher prices, assuming of course that they don't just reduce employment.

From what I have read on the topic, that is exactly what economists say will happen. Same with high business taxes

The more their resources cost (labour, taxation, rental/interest income), the higher they will have to charge to offset the losses, unless it gets too high and they end up losing profitability.

My problem is that I don't know how many people DO live off of min wage. I think you said over half does not, though. Is that good or bad? I was reading the BLS, and it said there there was a double increase in the ammount of part time and min-wage jobs. We had some quiz on it in Economics or something.

If not that many people have to survive on minimum wage, and most people have real jobs that provide them income, like say: (professor, teacher, engineer etc) wouldn't Utility be served by not raising minimum wage and just finding a different way to help the people who need supplemental income to survive?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-02-12 11:04pm

By the logic of the "we can't raise minimum wage" argument, we would produce a tremendous amount of job creation by lowering the minimum wage. Whee!

Let's just drop it to $0.25/hr, and we'll wipe out unemployment! Won't it be awesome? I love conservative logic.

Pssst! For those who are too fucking stupid to get the point I was trying to make, let me spell it out: there is an optimum minimum wage for whatever your socio-economic priorities are. Simply saying "higher = bad" is oversimplistic and foolish.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-02-12 11:30pm

Darth Wong wrote:By the logic of the "we can't raise minimum wage" argument, we would produce a tremendous amount of job creation by lowering the minimum wage. Whee!

Let's just drop it to $0.25/hr, and we'll wipe out unemployment! Won't it be awesome? I love conservative logic.

Actually, it might well. That doesn't mean the job would even be worth the effort getting there though.

Darth Wong wrote:Pssst! For those who are too fucking stupid to get the point I was trying to make, let me spell it out: there is an optimum minimum wage for whatever your socio-economic priorities are. Simply saying "higher = bad" is oversimplistic and foolish.

And most of us were arguing where that optimum wage falls and what the merits are and aren't.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-02-12 11:32pm

Stormbringer wrote:And most of us were arguing where that optimum wage falls and what the merits are and aren't.

Using the assumption that your socio-economic priorities were shared by the others. That's really where the distinction between left-wing and right-wing opinion on this matter lies: they have different socio-economic priorities. In the extreme cases, hardcore left-wingers have purely social priorities while hardcore right-wingers have purely economic priorities.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-02-12 11:42pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:And most of us were arguing where that optimum wage falls and what the merits are and aren't.
Using the assumption that your socio-economic priorities were shared by the others. That's really where the distinction between left-wing and right-wing opinion on this matter lies: they have different socio-economic priorities. In the extreme cases, hardcore left-wingers have purely social priorities while hardcore right-wingers have purely economic priorities.

True, but there's also a fair amount of the ostrich mentality when it comes to basic, uncomfortable facts too. One shared by the more extreme members of both sides.