Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Against the Minimum Wage

jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 12:22:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1.) Economic logic. Supply and demand determine prices and wages. If you set a price floor (or wage floor) above the market clearing price or wage, you get a surplus of that good. In this case, it is a surplus of low skilled labor which means less employment and higher unemployment. This is just basic economics.

2.) There are some common arguments for the minimum wage. One is that demand for low skilled labor is extremely inelastic so therefore the employment effects are very small. Furthermore, since demand is so inelastic, a higher minimum wage's main effect would be to raise the incomes of low skilled workers without having a big effect on employment. An offshoot of this argument is that a high minimum wage could actually help the economy by boosting the real incomes of the poor.

3.) This argument falls short on a number of counts. First, there is not a ton of evidence that demand for low skilled labor is inelastic. Most low skilled jobs are in the service sector and, with the growing influence of technology substitutions are becoming cheaper and cheaper. Of course, hiring an illegal worker who you need not pay the MW (minimum wage) can also be an attractive option for employers.

4.) Even if the demand for low skilled labor were extremely inelastic, this still would not be a boon to the economy because resources would merely be being transferred from owners and consumers to workers. No new demand would be created this way (classic broken window fallacy).

5.) Another problem with the minimum wage is that it often prices out teenage workers from the workforce. Instead of helping the poor, it hurts middle class teenagers.

6.) The question then turns to the evidence. There is plenty. The most famous pro minimum wage study is Card and Krueger. However, this study was shown to be deeply flawed in its methods:

https://www.youtube.com...

Even if it wasn't, it only looked at one industry over a relatively short time period. In fact, the minimum wage has impacts that are far reaching and long term. A summary of a lot of that research:

http://www.nber.org...

More evidence here:

http://www.nationalreview.com...

(Yes, that is National Review, but there are lots of good links to non biased sources in the piece and my opponents have been citing thinkprogress for weeks)
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 9:51:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Jimtimmy said: "In this case, it is a surplus of low skilled labor which means less employment and higher unemployment.

A higher minimum wage produces a surplus of low skilled labour? LOL

Only if there is labour available for less than the minimum wage! Did you even think that through before you opened your cakehole timmy?

And how does it produce less employment and higher unemployment? Are you actually suggesting that businesses will stop hiring people to work for them if there's a higher minimum wage enacted? Accepting that is about your only way out of this mess you have created for yourself now timmy.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 10:16:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 9:51:50 PM, monty1 wrote:
Jimtimmy said: "In this case, it is a surplus of low skilled labor which means less employment and higher unemployment.

A higher minimum wage produces a surplus of low skilled labour? LOL

Only if there is labour available for less than the minimum wage! Did you even think that through before you opened your cakehole timmy?

And how does it produce less employment and higher unemployment? Are you actually suggesting that businesses will stop hiring people to work for them if there's a higher minimum wage enacted? Accepting that is about your only way out of this mess you have created for yourself now timmy.

Do you know what a surplus is? It's when supply of a good or service is in excess of demand for it?

Which is exactly what a minimum wage produces with regards to low skilled labor.

And, yes, businesses will hire less people if they are forced to pay a higher wage?

Seriously, Monty, I don't even know what to say about how stupid your response was.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 10:27:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 10:16:57 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:51:50 PM, monty1 wrote:
Jimtimmy said: "In this case, it is a surplus of low skilled labor which means less employment and higher unemployment.

A higher minimum wage produces a surplus of low skilled labour? LOL

Only if there is labour available for less than the minimum wage! Did you even think that through before you opened your cakehole timmy?

And how does it produce less employment and higher unemployment? Are you actually suggesting that businesses will stop hiring people to work for them if there's a higher minimum wage enacted? Accepting that is about your only way out of this mess you have created for yourself now timmy.

Do you know what a surplus is? It's when supply of a good or service is in excess of demand for it?

Which is exactly what a minimum wage produces with regards to low skilled labor.

And, yes, businesses will hire less people if they are forced to pay a higher wage?

Seriously, Monty, I don't even know what to say about how stupid your response was.

I would ask you how a surplus of labour could be produced by a higher minimum wage but I know it would be a waste of time. You don't have the least idea of what you are babbling on about. I'm not going to be a part of it.

But here's a lesson in economics for you to consider and maybe get you thinking. Businesses hire exactly the number of people they need to perform the work they require to be performed. Not one more and not one less. Ask a CEO of any publicly owned corp and he will tell you that he would be breaking the law to hire more people than he requires.

You started fukking in economics with the wrong guy this time kid.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 11:29:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 10:27:49 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 10:16:57 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:51:50 PM, monty1 wrote:
Jimtimmy said: "In this case, it is a surplus of low skilled labor which means less employment and higher unemployment.

A higher minimum wage produces a surplus of low skilled labour? LOL

Only if there is labour available for less than the minimum wage! Did you even think that through before you opened your cakehole timmy?

And how does it produce less employment and higher unemployment? Are you actually suggesting that businesses will stop hiring people to work for them if there's a higher minimum wage enacted? Accepting that is about your only way out of this mess you have created for yourself now timmy.

Do you know what a surplus is? It's when supply of a good or service is in excess of demand for it?

Which is exactly what a minimum wage produces with regards to low skilled labor.

And, yes, businesses will hire less people if they are forced to pay a higher wage?

Seriously, Monty, I don't even know what to say about how stupid your response was.

I would ask you how a surplus of labour could be produced by a higher minimum wage but I know it would be a waste of time. You don't have the least idea of what you are babbling on about. I'm not going to be a part of it.

A surplus is when there is more of a product (more supply) than demand. Artificially raising the cost of labor creates a surplus. Just like price ceilings create shortages.

This is very basic economics and it is scary that you think I am the one who doesn't know what he is talking about here since what I am saying can be learned in high school econ.


But here's a lesson in economics for you to consider and maybe get you thinking. Businesses hire exactly the number of people they need to perform the work they require to be performed. Not one more and not one less. Ask a CEO of any publicly owned corp and he will tell you that he would be breaking the law to hire more people than he requires.

If the minimum wage was $100, I can pretty much guarantee that we would see a lot less fast food workers than we see now. Even if an employer "needs" the additional workers, he simply can't afford to expand at certain wages.

They are also substitutions available which you seem to forget.


You started fukking in economics with the wrong guy this time kid.

I know I did. You literally know nothing on the topic. I would prefer to talk to someone who knows what a surplus is and understands that higher forced wages means less demand for that labor. Your ignorance is sad and scary.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 1:05:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 11:29:31 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 10:27:49 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 10:16:57 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 9:51:50 PM, monty1 wrote:
Jimtimmy said: "In this case, it is a surplus of low skilled labor which means less employment and higher unemployment.

A higher minimum wage produces a surplus of low skilled labour? LOL

Only if there is labour available for less than the minimum wage! Did you even think that through before you opened your cakehole timmy?

And how does it produce less employment and higher unemployment? Are you actually suggesting that businesses will stop hiring people to work for them if there's a higher minimum wage enacted? Accepting that is about your only way out of this mess you have created for yourself now timmy.

Do you know what a surplus is? It's when supply of a good or service is in excess of demand for it?

Which is exactly what a minimum wage produces with regards to low skilled labor.

And, yes, businesses will hire less people if they are forced to pay a higher wage?

Seriously, Monty, I don't even know what to say about how stupid your response was.

I would ask you how a surplus of labour could be produced by a higher minimum wage but I know it would be a waste of time. You don't have the least idea of what you are babbling on about. I'm not going to be a part of it.



A surplus is when there is more of a product (more supply) than demand. Artificially raising the cost of labor creates a surplus. Just like price ceilings create shortages.

This is very basic economics and it is scary that you think I am the one who doesn't know what he is talking about here since what I am saying can be learned in high school econ.




But here's a lesson in economics for you to consider and maybe get you thinking. Businesses hire exactly the number of people they need to perform the work they require to be performed. Not one more and not one less. Ask a CEO of any publicly owned corp and he will tell you that he would be breaking the law to hire more people than he requires.


If the minimum wage was $100, I can pretty much guarantee that we would see a lot less fast food workers than we see now. Even if an employer "needs" the additional workers, he simply can't afford to expand at certain wages.

They are also substitutions available which you seem to forget.






You started fukking in economics with the wrong guy this time kid.

I know I did. You literally know nothing on the topic. I would prefer to talk to someone who knows what a surplus is and understands that higher forced wages means less demand for that labor. Your ignorance is sad and scary.

Could you at least get over your stupid idea that I don't understand economics and what a suplus is? Just for a minute while I explain.

You try to talk down to me as if I don't understand but your real problem is that you want to view it all from one side. Let's just call that the supply side for now. I'll explain to you what that entails later bur for now try to understand that supply and demand is the key. NOT one and not the other. BOTH! And if you can't grasp that concept then you can't grasp the capitalist system and you're hopelessly lost in your dogma.

So let's make it really simple. If wages are increased demand for labour doesn't decrease. Prices for the commodity increase. Unless the equilibrium is over balanced with an increase in wages to your $100. Let's rule that out as being uninformed and a ridiculous exaggeration.

So what is it you don't understand, other than your onesided attitude that is pushing you to not accept the simple concept. Yes, I know that some businesses will attempt, and possibly succeed in forcing workers to perform more work when they lay off a worker to compensate for higher wages. Yes, I know all the different arguments on both sides on how employers will act and employees will react.

So here's the reality that you're going to have to accept. Employers will pay higher wages until they can't afford to pay more, at which point they will raise their prices or go out of business. Your only task now is to determine how high that wage will be. It has nothing to do with supply of labour because that remains a constant.

Don't waste any more of my time with your silly elementary arguments. If anything, debate the level of the minimum wage and where supply meets demand. I won't even suggest that level because it's a different argument and it would be fruitless.
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:18:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A few things:

1. The national review article didn't contain a single link.

2. The YouTube video is unavailable.

3. The NBER study you linked to provided a meta-analysis of study lending itself to the conclusion that most studies on the minimum wage have immediate negative employment effects. No one doubts this. Even the CBO placed job losses from a $10.10 minimum wage from 0 to 1 million, with a net negative of 500,000 as its central estimate. This isn't, however, the point; the argument is that the long-run impact of raising the minimum wage -- which, actually may not even be far away -- exceeds the harm inflicted by it.

For instance, if the minimum wage kept pace with inflation since 1968, it'd be about $10.52. If it kept pace with productivity, it'd be about $20. Yet, median wages have flatlined since the 1980s and have fallen as recent, while 95% of income gains since the recovery of 2009 has trickled up to the top 1 percent of income earners.

Also, I ardently reject your assertion that this is "simply basic economics," and we should ignore any empirical data to the contrary simply because a ceteris-paribus microeconomics model of a price ceiling -- this is not a price floor, but a price ceiling, so you were incorrect on that -- leading to a surplus of labor is not compatible with reality. The problem with that model is that it presupposes perfect competition: that workers are paid their marginal product of labor, that value is objective, quantifiable, and available, and that this information is readily available to rational actors (employers) in order to efficiently allocate capital. This simply isn't the case, and asymmetries of bargaining leverage, particularly amid the Great Recession, tends to depress wages even further.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:35:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I quoted from the CBO report proving you wrong, and once again you didn't respond to me -- that makes two different threads that you have ignored me.

Message for everyone: ignore this guy. He hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 11:36:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 5:35:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I quoted from the CBO report proving you wrong, and once again you didn't respond to me -- that makes two different threads that you have ignored me.

Message for everyone: ignore this guy. He hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about.

I made one single claim about the CBO: that it says the minimum wage leads to some job loss. Which it does: a mid estimate of 500,000. That's the only claim I made about the report and that is unambiguously correct.

You can repeat the lie that I don't know what I am talking about but you are simply projecting your own ignorance on me. It's quite sad actually.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 11:42:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 4:18:44 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
A few things:

1. The national review article didn't contain a single link.

Simply not true. There are tons of links embedded in the article. Please look again.


2. The YouTube video is unavailable.

That's my bad. Wrong link. Here is the one I meant to post to:

http://www.epionline.org...


3. The NBER study you linked to provided a meta-analysis of study lending itself to the conclusion that most studies on the minimum wage have immediate negative employment effects. No one doubts this. Even the CBO placed job losses from a $10.10 minimum wage from 0 to 1 million, with a net negative of 500,000 as its central estimate. This isn't, however, the point; the argument is that the long-run impact of raising the minimum wage -- which, actually may not even be far away -- exceeds the harm inflicted by it.

The only reason I posted a study was to show that there are a ton of empirical studies showing a negative effect, which people often claim don't exist. They do. I like debating logic instead of just throwing links as progdem likes too.


For instance, if the minimum wage kept pace with inflation since 1968, it'd be about $10.52. If it kept pace with productivity, it'd be about $20. Yet, median wages have flatlined since the 1980s and have fallen as recent, while 95% of income gains since the recovery of 2009 has trickled up to the top 1 percent of income earners.

I'm not sure that really matters. The minimum wage, in my opinion, was terrible policy from the get go.

And, I don't know if that is true about 95% of income going to the top 1% (though I am skeptical). But, even if it did, that does not imply any policy changes by itself.


Also, I ardently reject your assertion that this is "simply basic economics," and we should ignore any empirical data to the contrary simply because a ceteris-paribus microeconomics model of a price ceiling -- this is not a price floor, but a price ceiling, so you were incorrect on that -- leading to a surplus of labor is not compatible with reality. The problem with that model is that it presupposes perfect competition: that workers are paid their marginal product of labor, that value is objective, quantifiable, and available, and that this information is readily available to rational actors (employers) in order to efficiently allocate capital. This simply isn't the case, and asymmetries of bargaining leverage, particularly amid the Great Recession, tends to depress wages even further.

As I showed, there is tons of empirical evidence that the minimum wage does indeed lower employment.

But, there are also studies that show the opposite. When the empirical evidence is ambiguous, logic can be useful.

But, let me ask you this, where is your evidence that fast food workers are so much more productive than $7.25 an hour. I don't know of any, but if you have some please provide.
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:04:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:42:01 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:18:44 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
A few things:

1. The national review article didn't contain a single link.



Simply not true. There are tons of links embedded in the article. Please look again.

I scanned the article three or four more times and found the links. I suppose I could be part blind. I'd rather wait until I can read them before evaluating them -- a key thing I learned from grad school, actually. So we can discuss those in due time if you're interested.


2. The YouTube video is unavailable.


That's my bad. Wrong link. Here is the one I meant to post to:

http://www.epionline.org...

I'll read this one as well, but the source, a right-wing organization, does raise an eyebrow. It's probably the equivalent of someone citing "thinkprogress."



3. The NBER study you linked to provided a meta-analysis of study lending itself to the conclusion that most studies on the minimum wage have immediate negative employment effects. No one doubts this. Even the CBO placed job losses from a $10.10 minimum wage from 0 to 1 million, with a net negative of 500,000 as its central estimate. This isn't, however, the point; the argument is that the long-run impact of raising the minimum wage -- which, actually may not even be far away -- exceeds the harm inflicted by it.





The only reason I posted a study was to show that there are a ton of empirical studies showing a negative effect, which people often claim don't exist. They do. I like debating logic instead of just throwing links as progdem likes too.

I don't know anyone who claims that a negative effect doesn't exist at all. I'll take a line Krugman used in a similar scenario: "that's not economic, that's theology." Surely there are nuances to this and we should debate the logic of it. But the logic is that the benefits outweigh the costs in the long run, so showing an initial net negative in employment -- which the CBO suggests is negligible -- doesn't say much. Your logic appears to be that "supply and demand disprove this because a very basic model said so, so discussion over." That, my friend, isn't economics, but theology.


For instance, if the minimum wage kept pace with inflation since 1968, it'd be about $10.52. If it kept pace with productivity, it'd be about $20. Yet, median wages have flatlined since the 1980s and have fallen as recent, while 95% of income gains since the recovery of 2009 has trickled up to the top 1 percent of income earners.



I'm not sure that really matters. The minimum wage, in my opinion, was terrible policy from the get go.

And, I don't know if that is true about 95% of income going to the top 1% (though I am skeptical). But, even if it did, that does not imply any policy changes by itself.

It's a widely cited figure actually and is a fairly new statistic, but the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality (I'll see if I can find the link) showed a model of income growth by bracket since the late 1970s, and as you can expect, the more you earned, the more you gained.





Also, I ardently reject your assertion that this is "simply basic economics," and we should ignore any empirical data to the contrary simply because a ceteris-paribus microeconomics model of a price ceiling -- this is not a price floor, but a price ceiling, so you were incorrect on that -- leading to a surplus of labor is not compatible with reality. The problem with that model is that it presupposes perfect competition: that workers are paid their marginal product of labor, that value is objective, quantifiable, and available, and that this information is readily available to rational actors (employers) in order to efficiently allocate capital. This simply isn't the case, and asymmetries of bargaining leverage, particularly amid the Great Recession, tends to depress wages even further.


As I showed, there is tons of empirical evidence that the minimum wage does indeed lower employment.

In the immediate short run, yes, but not in the medium or long run. I'll read the papers, though.

But, there are also studies that show the opposite. When the empirical evidence is ambiguous, logic can be useful.

I wouldn't say that it's ambiguous, nor do I see this as 50-50. The vast majority of data actually supports my position, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Congressional Research Service, etc. have continuously proposed favorable data for proponents of a minimum wage hike.

But, let me ask you this, where is your evidence that fast food workers are so much more productive than $7.25 an hour. I don't know of any, but if you have some please provide.

Productivity has skyrocketed since the late 70s which is reflected in the expansion of real GDP figures. The problem is that, as a percentage of GDP, wages haven't moved, whereas CEO pay has skyrocketed.

So, could I say that fast food workers, per say, have been more productive? I doubt anyone has produced a paper on it, but sure: technological advances tend to enhance productivity, IQ tends to increase by generation lending itself to more productivity, etc. So my deduction is, sure, of course they have. But, truly, I wonder whether or to what extent it even matters, since value is subjective in the labor market, anyway.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:29:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:04:23 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:42:01 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:18:44 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
A few things:

1. The national review article didn't contain a single link.



Simply not true. There are tons of links embedded in the article. Please look again.

I scanned the article three or four more times and found the links. I suppose I could be part blind. I'd rather wait until I can read them before evaluating them -- a key thing I learned from grad school, actually. So we can discuss those in due time if you're interested.

Sounds good.



2. The YouTube video is unavailable.


That's my bad. Wrong link. Here is the one I meant to post to:

http://www.epionline.org...

I'll read this one as well, but the source, a right-wing organization, does raise an eyebrow. It's probably the equivalent of someone citing "thinkprogress."

Ya. This is my bad again. I've always held quite strongly that one should criticize information instead of the source. I was being hypocritical when I made the "thinkprogress" comment. Granted, I do think their work is much weaker than this source, but I should have been consistent.




3. The NBER study you linked to provided a meta-analysis of study lending itself to the conclusion that most studies on the minimum wage have immediate negative employment effects. No one doubts this. Even the CBO placed job losses from a $10.10 minimum wage from 0 to 1 million, with a net negative of 500,000 as its central estimate. This isn't, however, the point; the argument is that the long-run impact of raising the minimum wage -- which, actually may not even be far away -- exceeds the harm inflicted by it.





The only reason I posted a study was to show that there are a ton of empirical studies showing a negative effect, which people often claim don't exist. They do. I like debating logic instead of just throwing links as progdem likes too.

I don't know anyone who claims that a negative effect doesn't exist at all. I'll take a line Krugman used in a similar scenario: "that's not economic, that's theology." Surely there are nuances to this and we should debate the logic of it. But the logic is that the benefits outweigh the costs in the long run, so showing an initial net negative in employment -- which the CBO suggests is negligible -- doesn't say much. Your logic appears to be that "supply and demand disprove this because a very basic model said so, so discussion over." That, my friend, isn't economics, but theology.

That's not my argument. I understand that the existence of negative employment effects does not mean that the minimum wage is bad. It only means costs exist.

Unfortunately, there are some people on this forum who believe no negative employment effects exist whatsoever and that comment was directed at them not you.



For instance, if the minimum wage kept pace with inflation since 1968, it'd be about $10.52. If it kept pace with productivity, it'd be about $20. Yet, median wages have flatlined since the 1980s and have fallen as recent, while 95% of income gains since the recovery of 2009 has trickled up to the top 1 percent of income earners.



I'm not sure that really matters. The minimum wage, in my opinion, was terrible policy from the get go.

And, I don't know if that is true about 95% of income going to the top 1% (though I am skeptical). But, even if it did, that does not imply any policy changes by itself.

It's a widely cited figure actually and is a fairly new statistic, but the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality (I'll see if I can find the link) showed a model of income growth by bracket since the late 1970s, and as you can expect, the more you earned, the more you gained.

I'm interested if you can find it.






Also, I ardently reject your assertion that this is "simply basic economics," and we should ignore any empirical data to the contrary simply because a ceteris-paribus microeconomics model of a price ceiling -- this is not a price floor, but a price ceiling, so you were incorrect on that -- leading to a surplus of labor is not compatible with reality. The problem with that model is that it presupposes perfect competition: that workers are paid their marginal product of labor, that value is objective, quantifiable, and available, and that this information is readily available to rational actors (employers) in order to efficiently allocate capital. This simply isn't the case, and asymmetries of bargaining leverage, particularly amid the Great Recession, tends to depress wages even further.


As I showed, there is tons of empirical evidence that the minimum wage does indeed lower employment.

In the immediate short run, yes, but not in the medium or long run. I'll read the papers, though.

But, there are also studies that show the opposite. When the empirical evidence is ambiguous, logic can be useful.

I wouldn't say that it's ambiguous, nor do I see this as 50-50. The vast majority of data actually supports my position, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Congressional Research Service, etc. have continuously proposed favorable data for proponents of a minimum wage hike.

I would argue that the empirical evidence favors my view. I've posted some support for that but I'll see if I can find more.


But, let me ask you this, where is your evidence that fast food workers are so much more productive than $7.25 an hour. I don't know of any, but if you have some please provide.

Productivity has skyrocketed since the late 70s which is reflected in the expansion of real GDP figures. The problem is that, as a percentage of GDP, wages haven't moved, whereas CEO pay has skyrocketed.

So, could I say that fast food workers, per say, have been more productive? I doubt anyone has produced a paper on it, but sure: technological advances tend to enhance productivity, IQ tends to increase by generation lending itself to more productivity, etc. So my deduction is, sure, of course they have. But, truly, I wonder whether or to what extent it even matters, since value is subjective in the labor market, anyway.

One caveat I have hear is that I would guess the Flynn effect is more the result of productivity increases than the cause.

The point I'm making is that i don't think entry level service workers are really all that productive. But, I'm open to being wrong on that.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 8:10:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:36:45 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:35:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I quoted from the CBO report proving you wrong, and once again you didn't respond to me -- that makes two different threads that you have ignored me.

Message for everyone: ignore this guy. He hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about.

I made one single claim about the CBO: that it says the minimum wage leads to some job loss. Which it does: a mid estimate of 500,000. That's the only claim I made about the report and that is unambiguously correct.

You can repeat the lie that I don't know what I am talking about but you are simply projecting your own ignorance on me. It's quite sad actually.

It isn't unambiguously correct because the range is 0 to 1 million, so there is no 100% certainty that it will kill jobs or even lead to a net job loss.

Don't attempt to call me ignorant, pal. Unlike you, I've been providing you with links and facts -- you even got angry that I gave you so many facts: "Too many facts! My dogmatic brain can't handle it!"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 10:35:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can someone explain why they want to raise it to $10.10 from 7 something? If they are going to increase it, why not do it in smaller increments?
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 11:21:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 8:10:09 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:36:45 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:35:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I quoted from the CBO report proving you wrong, and once again you didn't respond to me -- that makes two different threads that you have ignored me.

Message for everyone: ignore this guy. He hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about.

I made one single claim about the CBO: that it says the minimum wage leads to some job loss. Which it does: a mid estimate of 500,000. That's the only claim I made about the report and that is unambiguously correct.

You can repeat the lie that I don't know what I am talking about but you are simply projecting your own ignorance on me. It's quite sad actually.


It isn't unambiguously correct because the range is 0 to 1 million, so there is no 100% certainty that it will kill jobs or even lead to a net job loss.

There is 100% certainty that there will be less employment, but the loss could be very small. But, I think the evidence favors more loss.


Don't attempt to call me ignorant, pal. Unlike you, I've been providing you with links and facts -- you even got angry that I gave you so many facts: "Too many facts! My dogmatic brain can't handle it!"

Wow. This statement just shows how ignorant you actually are. Heres why:

1.) I literally offered links and facts galore in the OP here which I wrote. So, you can be shown to be entirely wrong or dishonest just by looking above.

2.) Nice attempt to strawman. What I actually said was that just throwing links at each other is a useless exercise. Reasoned argument is much more productive.

Obviously you'd much rather project your own dogmatism and ignorance onto your more well informed opponents. That's fine. I'm sure you'll keep doing it.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 11:28:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This isn't about economics, it's about necessity. Automation and technology has reduced the need for many workers and given the employers' side a "surplus" of workers. Hence, in their greed to earn more they have refused to keep pace with costs of goods to people.

Nobody should need economics 101 to understand that.

What isn't understood by Americans in general is that socially responsible government needs to step in in some instances and bring things back into equilibrium. Hence, the ACA and a higher minimum wage for just two examples.

If there is a kickback with employers laying off people then that is a normal reation of greed and a will to fight 'their supposed right' to pay less and less as the labour pool grows larger. Anybody who can't understand this because os his political ideology just isn't paying attention to the US's rising income inequality. Which is incidentally, the second worst in the world, only 1 place better than Mexico.

There's the debate framed for you Americans. Choose your sides and stop trying to bullsh!t each other about the economics of the issue of a minimum wage.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:25:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 11:21:00 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 8:10:09 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:36:45 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:35:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I quoted from the CBO report proving you wrong, and once again you didn't respond to me -- that makes two different threads that you have ignored me.

Message for everyone: ignore this guy. He hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about.

I made one single claim about the CBO: that it says the minimum wage leads to some job loss. Which it does: a mid estimate of 500,000. That's the only claim I made about the report and that is unambiguously correct.

You can repeat the lie that I don't know what I am talking about but you are simply projecting your own ignorance on me. It's quite sad actually.


It isn't unambiguously correct because the range is 0 to 1 million, so there is no 100% certainty that it will kill jobs or even lead to a net job loss.



There is 100% certainty that there will be less employment, but the loss could be very small. But, I think the evidence favors more loss.

That's not what the CBO said, and if you read the report -- or even the quotes I laid out in another thread -- you'd know that. But you chose not to respond, and you've now done that three times. Why? Because you don't want to argue on the substance -- on the ACTUAL facts.



Don't attempt to call me ignorant, pal. Unlike you, I've been providing you with links and facts -- you even got angry that I gave you so many facts: "Too many facts! My dogmatic brain can't handle it!"

Wow. This statement just shows how ignorant you actually are. Heres why:

You really are the dumbest member of this site, aren't you?

I responded to you in over three threads, gave you facts, quotes, etc. You chose to either not respond, or when responding to someone else, complained that I threw too many links at you. Why did I do that? Because I'm giving you facts, which you hate because they contradict your rigid, ignorant, ideology.

I tried to debate you several times -- I even challenged you to a debate -- and you dodged. Why? Because you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about, and every time someone calls you for your rank stupidity in one thread, instead of responding you simply make another thread.

1.) I literally offered links and facts galore in the OP here which I wrote. So, you can be shown to be entirely wrong or dishonest just by looking above.

I read the NBER report and none of it supports your thesis.

It's curious, actually, since anyone can go on google and look for studies that ostensibly support your position. What I did in another thread -- which you complained about -- was QUOTE from several studies, one of which was from the CBO, which you cited in support of your position. But you, like the joke that are you, dodged those posts.

2.) Nice attempt to strawman. What I actually said was that just throwing links at each other is a useless exercise. Reasoned argument is much more productive.

That's exactly what you did. You posted two links and said "SEE! THE EVIDENCE IS INCONTROVERTIBLE!"

You don't even know what a strawman is. Link to those studies as I have. Respond to my past posts to you where I provided you CBO quotes. Then we'll have a "reasoned argument." The only one derailing a reasonable argument is you.

Obviously you'd much rather project your own dogmatism and ignorance onto your more well informed opponents. That's fine. I'm sure you'll keep doing it.

What a laughable, ridiculous, unsubstantiated ad hominem. Again, I gave you facts, and you walked away.

You aren't the slightest bit informed. To be perfectly honest, you may be a worst poster than monty1, and your dedication to ad hominems may be even worse. I didn't think that was possible. Congratulations, you win the award for most ignorant pontification.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:35:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:25:35 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 11:21:00 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 8:10:09 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:36:45 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:35:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I quoted from the CBO report proving you wrong, and once again you didn't respond to me -- that makes two different threads that you have ignored me.

Message for everyone: ignore this guy. He hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about.

I made one single claim about the CBO: that it says the minimum wage leads to some job loss. Which it does: a mid estimate of 500,000. That's the only claim I made about the report and that is unambiguously correct.

You can repeat the lie that I don't know what I am talking about but you are simply projecting your own ignorance on me. It's quite sad actually.


It isn't unambiguously correct because the range is 0 to 1 million, so there is no 100% certainty that it will kill jobs or even lead to a net job loss.



There is 100% certainty that there will be less employment, but the loss could be very small. But, I think the evidence favors more loss.

That's not what the CBO said, and if you read the report -- or even the quotes I laid out in another thread -- you'd know that. But you chose not to respond, and you've now done that three times. Why? Because you don't want to argue on the substance -- on the ACTUAL facts.



Don't attempt to call me ignorant, pal. Unlike you, I've been providing you with links and facts -- you even got angry that I gave you so many facts: "Too many facts! My dogmatic brain can't handle it!"

Wow. This statement just shows how ignorant you actually are. Heres why:

You really are the dumbest member of this site, aren't you?

I responded to you in over three threads, gave you facts, quotes, etc. You chose to either not respond, or when responding to someone else, complained that I threw too many links at you. Why did I do that? Because I'm giving you facts, which you hate because they contradict your rigid, ignorant, ideology.

I tried to debate you several times -- I even challenged you to a debate -- and you dodged. Why? Because you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about, and every time someone calls you for your rank stupidity in one thread, instead of responding you simply make another thread.


1.) I literally offered links and facts galore in the OP here which I wrote. So, you can be shown to be entirely wrong or dishonest just by looking above.

I read the NBER report and none of it supports your thesis.

It's curious, actually, since anyone can go on google and look for studies that ostensibly support your position. What I did in another thread -- which you complained about -- was QUOTE from several studies, one of which was from the CBO, which you cited in support of your position. But you, like the joke that are you, dodged those posts.


2.) Nice attempt to strawman. What I actually said was that just throwing links at each other is a useless exercise. Reasoned argument is much more productive.

That's exactly what you did. You posted two links and said "SEE! THE EVIDENCE IS INCONTROVERTIBLE!"

You don't even know what a strawman is. Link to those studies as I have. Respond to my past posts to you where I provided you CBO quotes. Then we'll have a "reasoned argument." The only one derailing a reasonable argument is you.



Obviously you'd much rather project your own dogmatism and ignorance onto your more well informed opponents. That's fine. I'm sure you'll keep doing it.

What a laughable, ridiculous, unsubstantiated ad hominem. Again, I gave you facts, and you walked away.

You aren't the slightest bit informed. To be perfectly honest, you may be a worst poster than monty1, and your dedication to ad hominems may be even worse. I didn't think that was possible. Congratulations, you win the award for most ignorant pontification.

It's just US politics between you and jimtimmy. It's all skewed bullsh!t on both sides anyway. With me it's your US politics bullsh!t against a more sane view that is consistent with the rest of the civilized world.

I have no need to pretend that the minimum wage has anything to do with economics. If you weren't so fukked up in your USBS you could come to understand that's a wise position to take for yourself. Really as5hole, you could get it right for what you think is the wrong reason.
el_em_en_oh
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 2:20:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:35:28 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:25:35 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 11:21:00 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 8:10:09 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:36:45 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:35:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I quoted from the CBO report proving you wrong, and once again you didn't respond to me -- that makes two different threads that you have ignored me.

Message for everyone: ignore this guy. He hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about.

I made one single claim about the CBO: that it says the minimum wage leads to some job loss. Which it does: a mid estimate of 500,000. That's the only claim I made about the report and that is unambiguously correct.

You can repeat the lie that I don't know what I am talking about but you are simply projecting your own ignorance on me. It's quite sad actually.


It isn't unambiguously correct because the range is 0 to 1 million, so there is no 100% certainty that it will kill jobs or even lead to a net job loss.



There is 100% certainty that there will be less employment, but the loss could be very small. But, I think the evidence favors more loss.

That's not what the CBO said, and if you read the report -- or even the quotes I laid out in another thread -- you'd know that. But you chose not to respond, and you've now done that three times. Why? Because you don't want to argue on the substance -- on the ACTUAL facts.



Don't attempt to call me ignorant, pal. Unlike you, I've been providing you with links and facts -- you even got angry that I gave you so many facts: "Too many facts! My dogmatic brain can't handle it!"

Wow. This statement just shows how ignorant you actually are. Heres why:

You really are the dumbest member of this site, aren't you?

I responded to you in over three threads, gave you facts, quotes, etc. You chose to either not respond, or when responding to someone else, complained that I threw too many links at you. Why did I do that? Because I'm giving you facts, which you hate because they contradict your rigid, ignorant, ideology.

I tried to debate you several times -- I even challenged you to a debate -- and you dodged. Why? Because you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about, and every time someone calls you for your rank stupidity in one thread, instead of responding you simply make another thread.


1.) I literally offered links and facts galore in the OP here which I wrote. So, you can be shown to be entirely wrong or dishonest just by looking above.

I read the NBER report and none of it supports your thesis.

It's curious, actually, since anyone can go on google and look for studies that ostensibly support your position. What I did in another thread -- which you complained about -- was QUOTE from several studies, one of which was from the CBO, which you cited in support of your position. But you, like the joke that are you, dodged those posts.


2.) Nice attempt to strawman. What I actually said was that just throwing links at each other is a useless exercise. Reasoned argument is much more productive.

That's exactly what you did. You posted two links and said "SEE! THE EVIDENCE IS INCONTROVERTIBLE!"

You don't even know what a strawman is. Link to those studies as I have. Respond to my past posts to you where I provided you CBO quotes. Then we'll have a "reasoned argument." The only one derailing a reasonable argument is you.



Obviously you'd much rather project your own dogmatism and ignorance onto your more well informed opponents. That's fine. I'm sure you'll keep doing it.

What a laughable, ridiculous, unsubstantiated ad hominem. Again, I gave you facts, and you walked away.

You aren't the slightest bit informed. To be perfectly honest, you may be a worst poster than monty1, and your dedication to ad hominems may be even worse. I didn't think that was possible. Congratulations, you win the award for most ignorant pontification.

It's just US politics between you and jimtimmy. It's all skewed bullsh!t on both sides anyway. With me it's your US politics bullsh!t against a more sane view that is consistent with the rest of the civilized world.

I have no need to pretend that the minimum wage has anything to do with economics. If you weren't so fukked up in your USBS you could come to understand that's a wise position to take for yourself. Really as5hole, you could get it right for what you think is the wrong reason.

Insult much, monty? Calling someone names just because you don't agree with their view. Is THAT what DDO has become?!?
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 2:21:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 2:20:00 PM, el_em_en_oh wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:35:28 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:25:35 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 11:21:00 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 8:10:09 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:36:45 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:35:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I quoted from the CBO report proving you wrong, and once again you didn't respond to me -- that makes two different threads that you have ignored me.

Message for everyone: ignore this guy. He hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about.

I made one single claim about the CBO: that it says the minimum wage leads to some job loss. Which it does: a mid estimate of 500,000. That's the only claim I made about the report and that is unambiguously correct.

You can repeat the lie that I don't know what I am talking about but you are simply projecting your own ignorance on me. It's quite sad actually.


It isn't unambiguously correct because the range is 0 to 1 million, so there is no 100% certainty that it will kill jobs or even lead to a net job loss.



There is 100% certainty that there will be less employment, but the loss could be very small. But, I think the evidence favors more loss.

That's not what the CBO said, and if you read the report -- or even the quotes I laid out in another thread -- you'd know that. But you chose not to respond, and you've now done that three times. Why? Because you don't want to argue on the substance -- on the ACTUAL facts.



Don't attempt to call me ignorant, pal. Unlike you, I've been providing you with links and facts -- you even got angry that I gave you so many facts: "Too many facts! My dogmatic brain can't handle it!"

Wow. This statement just shows how ignorant you actually are. Heres why:

You really are the dumbest member of this site, aren't you?

I responded to you in over three threads, gave you facts, quotes, etc. You chose to either not respond, or when responding to someone else, complained that I threw too many links at you. Why did I do that? Because I'm giving you facts, which you hate because they contradict your rigid, ignorant, ideology.

I tried to debate you several times -- I even challenged you to a debate -- and you dodged. Why? Because you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about, and every time someone calls you for your rank stupidity in one thread, instead of responding you simply make another thread.


1.) I literally offered links and facts galore in the OP here which I wrote. So, you can be shown to be entirely wrong or dishonest just by looking above.

I read the NBER report and none of it supports your thesis.

It's curious, actually, since anyone can go on google and look for studies that ostensibly support your position. What I did in another thread -- which you complained about -- was QUOTE from several studies, one of which was from the CBO, which you cited in support of your position. But you, like the joke that are you, dodged those posts.


2.) Nice attempt to strawman. What I actually said was that just throwing links at each other is a useless exercise. Reasoned argument is much more productive.

That's exactly what you did. You posted two links and said "SEE! THE EVIDENCE IS INCONTROVERTIBLE!"

You don't even know what a strawman is. Link to those studies as I have. Respond to my past posts to you where I provided you CBO quotes. Then we'll have a "reasoned argument." The only one derailing a reasonable argument is you.



Obviously you'd much rather project your own dogmatism and ignorance onto your more well informed opponents. That's fine. I'm sure you'll keep doing it.

What a laughable, ridiculous, unsubstantiated ad hominem. Again, I gave you facts, and you walked away.

You aren't the slightest bit informed. To be perfectly honest, you may be a worst poster than monty1, and your dedication to ad hominems may be even worse. I didn't think that was possible. Congratulations, you win the award for most ignorant pontification.

It's just US politics between you and jimtimmy. It's all skewed bullsh!t on both sides anyway. With me it's your US politics bullsh!t against a more sane view that is consistent with the rest of the civilized world.

I have no need to pretend that the minimum wage has anything to do with economics. If you weren't so fukked up in your USBS you could come to understand that's a wise position to take for yourself. Really as5hole, you could get it right for what you think is the wrong reason.

Insult much, monty? Calling someone names just because you don't agree with their view. Is THAT what DDO has become?!?

I wouldn't feed the troll.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 11:09:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Lol progressivedem watch jimtimmy not respond to your post.

He'll make another forum topic though, I'm sure of that :)
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2014 3:20:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:25:35 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 11:21:00 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 8:10:09 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:36:45 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:35:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I quoted from the CBO report proving you wrong, and once again you didn't respond to me -- that makes two different threads that you have ignored me.

Message for everyone: ignore this guy. He hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about.

I made one single claim about the CBO: that it says the minimum wage leads to some job loss. Which it does: a mid estimate of 500,000. That's the only claim I made about the report and that is unambiguously correct.

You can repeat the lie that I don't know what I am talking about but you are simply projecting your own ignorance on me. It's quite sad actually.


It isn't unambiguously correct because the range is 0 to 1 million, so there is no 100% certainty that it will kill jobs or even lead to a net job loss.



There is 100% certainty that there will be less employment, but the loss could be very small. But, I think the evidence favors more loss.

That's not what the CBO said, and if you read the report -- or even the quotes I laid out in another thread -- you'd know that. But you chose not to respond, and you've now done that three times. Why? Because you don't want to argue on the substance -- on the ACTUAL facts.

That is literally exactly what the CBO said, but feel free to parrot.




Don't attempt to call me ignorant, pal. Unlike you, I've been providing you with links and facts -- you even got angry that I gave you so many facts: "Too many facts! My dogmatic brain can't handle it!"

Wow. This statement just shows how ignorant you actually are. Heres why:

You really are the dumbest member of this site, aren't you?

I responded to you in over three threads, gave you facts, quotes, etc. You chose to either not respond, or when responding to someone else, complained that I threw too many links at you. Why did I do that? Because I'm giving you facts, which you hate because they contradict your rigid, ignorant, ideology.

I tried to debate you several times -- I even challenged you to a debate -- and you dodged. Why? Because you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about, and every time someone calls you for your rank stupidity in one thread, instead of responding you simply make another thread.

Actually. I know far more than you and thus debating would be a waste of my time. I only debate well informed opponents because I am well informed.



1.) I literally offered links and facts galore in the OP here which I wrote. So, you can be shown to be entirely wrong or dishonest just by looking above.

I read the NBER report and none of it supports your thesis.

It's curious, actually, since anyone can go on google and look for studies that ostensibly support your position. What I did in another thread -- which you complained about -- was QUOTE from several studies, one of which was from the CBO, which you cited in support of your position. But you, like the joke that are you, dodged those posts.

None of this is true. But, you just keep making patently false statements without evidence. I don't even know what to say.



2.) Nice attempt to strawman. What I actually said was that just throwing links at each other is a useless exercise. Reasoned argument is much more productive.

That's exactly what you did. You posted two links and said "SEE! THE EVIDENCE IS INCONTROVERTIBLE!"

You don't even know what a strawman is. Link to those studies as I have. Respond to my past posts to you where I provided you CBO quotes. Then we'll have a "reasoned argument." The only one derailing a reasonable argument is you.

Lol. Keep telling yourself that.




Obviously you'd much rather project your own dogmatism and ignorance onto your more well informed opponents. That's fine. I'm sure you'll keep doing it.

What a laughable, ridiculous, unsubstantiated ad hominem. Again, I gave you facts, and you walked away.

You aren't the slightest bit informed. To be perfectly honest, you may be a worst poster than monty1, and your dedication to ad hominems may be even worse. I didn't think that was possible. Congratulations, you win the award for most ignorant pontification.

Again, you are projecting your own dogmatism and ignorance onto me. That's okay if it makes you feel better about yourself.
teslarules
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 6:39:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In the US, the minimum wage is certainly high. Setting a minimum wage gives incentives to companies to outsource, or at least potentially move to a different state where labor laws are less restrictive. Additionally, the abolishing of a minimum wage would detract from the incentive companies have to mechanize their production processes. It would mean fewer illegal citizens and a boost to small businesses. Additionally, a minimum wage on a federal level is difficult and impractical to do as cost of living varies so extremely between different parts of the United States. Low paying jobs enable those with few desirable skills to gain employment, as well as charity organizations to run more efficiently. Teens, immigrants, interns, and those willing to work below minimum wage would benefit from more employment opportunities, as a healthy number of economists believe eliminating the minimum wage has the potential to create thousands of jobs. People say that you can't raise a family on minimum wage, and that it is impossible to fully support yourself with a job that just meets minimum wage requirements in many parts of the US, if not altogether. The fact is, that simply isn't what the minimum wage is designed to do. The bottom of the pay grade is supposed to be mainly teens, college students, interns, and immigrants. You're not supposed to be able to support a family off minimum wage. If a minimum wage job is enough to support a family, then it is way too high and inhibiting the economy from functioning properly.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 9:39:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Raising the minimum wage to say 15 dollars an hour without Federal mandates that would force businesses to hire unskilled, uneducated workers (like a protected class, ha) is only going to shift skilled, educated people into those positions while the unskilled stand in the welfare line. Yay.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 2:28:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Minimum wage is $8.60 per hour in Vermont, the third highest in the nation. While a typical Vermont household income was higher than in most states last year, earnings do not go as far. The state's fuel and food costs are among the highest in the nation.

In May, the Connecticut House passed a bill to increase the state's minimum wage to $9 per hour by 2015. Governor Dan Malloy noted the bill would make life "easier for working people in [the] state without adversely impacting the business community." However, as of the third quarter of this year, Connecticut was still one of the most expensive states in the nation to live.

Overall, it is cheaper to live in Illinois than most other states. The state's minimum wage is the highest in the Midwest at $8.25, tied with Nevada and Connecticut.... As of October, the state's 8.9% unemployment rate was one of the highest in the country.

California's minimum wage of $8 per hour is tied with Massachusetts as the seventh highest in the nation. This should change, as California's legislature recently approved plans to increase the state's minimum wage to $9 per hour next year and to $10 per hour by 2016, higher than any other state. The state is among the nation's most expensive, especially due to the high cost of housing, which trails only Hawaii and New York, according to MERIC.

Seems like the tradeoffs these states have to deal with by voluntarily choosing a higher than federal minimum wage is poverty, unemployment, or cost of living increases (a euphemism for poverty imo)

Nevertheless, "bread and circus" union worker advocates will still likely support further mandated increases and find a convenient scapegoat for the real effects of wage inflation.