Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Minimum wage revisited.

Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 11:04:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So I asked a senior if she thought increases in the minimum wage would hurt her and she said it could only help her. I asked why and she pointed to her text that most minimum wage jobs go to teens and not the poor.

It's known that union leveraged wage increases shrinks the number of workers for that pool. The same effect for minimum wage increases competition for those jobs. Employers can't sustain productivity below what a set wage is worth.

So what I ask is would it not make more sense for the consideration for more scarce minimum wage jobs to go to the poor low skilled worker over the unskilled teen? Wouldn't the teen be more adversely affected having no skills at all than a poor low skilled worker? I think the textbook might have gotten it wrong on that point, but what do you guys think?
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 12:25:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The jobs should go to whoever is the most productive. Businesses don't care about anything more than high profits, not someone's political manifesto.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 1:38:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, as a matter of course, the reason that leveraging bargaining power for higher wages shrinks the job pool is because the model treats it as all else equal, i.e., the employer won't dip into gross profit to pay the workers more, so the "payroll" part of the budget is static. There are some businesses in which the employer can't actually afford it, but I suspect there are far more where the employer just wants to keep a larger share of the pie, irrespective of the documented effect on productivity of paying workers more than the minimum you can scrape by with.

One thing I'd be willing to try is substituting wage hikes for taxes. If you give someone a raise, or pay someone above a certain amount, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to write that off as a tax deduction. At least hypothetically, it would get people to consider the trade (even if only because the employer is a tea-partier who doesn't like taxes), and perhaps even incentivize them to make the switch (since, if paying workers more increases their productivity, you're getting a better return on that money than if you had just paid it out to the government).

Not sure what the deduction would be, though. You could do 1:1 correspondence between payroll increases and deductions, or, if you calculated your expected rate of return on payroll increases, where you could do 50% of the increase as a deduction with the expectation that you'll more than make it back from the increase in worker productivity.
lannan13
Posts: 23,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 2:23:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 12:25:20 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
The jobs should go to whoever is the most productive. Businesses don't care about anything more than high profits, not someone's political manifesto.

Exactly which is why I truely hate Affirmative Action.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 4:09:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 12:25:20 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
The jobs should go to whoever is the most productive. Businesses don't care about anything more than high profits, not someone's political manifesto.

I was specifically asking why an UNSKILLED teen would be preferred over a LOW SKILLED person.

(caps for clarification)
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 4:13:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 4:09:06 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/15/2015 12:25:20 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
The jobs should go to whoever is the most productive. Businesses don't care about anything more than high profits, not someone's political manifesto.

I was specifically asking why an UNSKILLED teen would be preferred over a LOW SKILLED person.

(caps for clarification)

Unskilled people are willing to work for less. However, if there is a minimum in place, the low skilled would be chosen. This will prevent the unskilled teen from being trained to become a low skilled person.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 4:15:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/15/2015 4:13:41 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 5/15/2015 4:09:06 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/15/2015 12:25:20 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
The jobs should go to whoever is the most productive. Businesses don't care about anything more than high profits, not someone's political manifesto.

I was specifically asking why an UNSKILLED teen would be preferred over a LOW SKILLED person.

(caps for clarification)

Unskilled people are willing to work for less. However, if there is a minimum in place, the low skilled would be chosen. This will prevent the unskilled teen from being trained to become a low skilled person.

Hence this High School senior's textbook was wrong. Minimum wage increases hurt her more than any other group in the workpool.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 4:29:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hence this High School senior's textbook was wrong. Minimum wage increases hurt her more than any other group in the workpool.

What exactly did this person's textbook say about the minimum wage? I hate propaganda in textbooks.