Minimum Rage: The remix

[Ford]

Since the protofascists are against raising the minimum wage, this means they are OK with the current arrangement in which billions of taxpayer dollars are spent providing government services keeping all of these underpaid workers and their families alive.

Ah, but you see, they're not okay with taxes going to these underpaid workers.


They'd like to cut that off, too.


Can't feed your family on 8 bucks an hour? Too fucking bad! In fact I think the protofascists (the new conservolibertarians?) want people at the low end of the income scale to suffer. They think it builds character somehow, and that if we just inflicted a little more pain on those guys working in the dish room at Denny's they'd go out there and start a "small business," become "job creators," and of course vote Republican.

They've managed to convince themselves that by pushing wages down, then tearing the social safety net out from the least of us, they're actually being helpful.

Of course even a quick glance at history would show that low wages and no social safety nets does not lead to prosperity among the working class, and that higher wages that could potentially lift people into the middle class are not only not detrimental but have a positive impact on the economy, but then of course these folks would have to take a look at history.

We can't have that, now, can we?

Instead, we're supposed to accept that any increase in the minimum wage will do irreparable harm to the economy while at the same time accepting that low wage workers are "lazy" and that cutting off their assistance would somehow inspire them to earn more money...somehow.

 

[coloradoatheist]

LOL... I have read the show notes - nothing there.

As far as listening to it, no I don't care to.

so you are talking about something you know nothing about.

Deja vu all over again.

Most people do know that there is an issue. Could we raise minimum wage to $1million an hour?

and another voice from the wilderness chimes in.

That too is addressed and dismissed in the podcast.

It can't just be dismissed. Either it is OK to raise minimum wage, or it isn't.

Unless you are going to try to argue that there is a difference between, say, $5 and $1,000,000, which is just silly. They are both numbers; increasing the minimum wage by one is the same as increasing it by the other.

coloradoatheist clearly understands that they are exactly the same thing; which is why I plan to swap this nice, crisp $5 bill for $1,000,000 of his savings. I am sure he will be happy to oblige me.

If raising the minimum wage doesn't cause job loss then we must have a laffer curve with minimum wage and job loss and we are on the other side of the laffer curve or if the argument is that raising the minimum doesn't cause job loss then raising the minimum wage to a million dollars an hour would not cause job loss and we would be millionaires. So in your mind, which is it? Laffer curve, or job loss?

- - - Updated - - -

Since the protofascists are against raising the minimum wage, this means they are OK with the current arrangement in which billions of taxpayer dollars are spent providing government services keeping all of these underpaid workers and their families alive.

Ah, but you see, they're not okay with taxes going to these underpaid workers.


They'd like to cut that off, too.


Can't feed your family on 8 bucks an hour? Too fucking bad! In fact I think the protofascists (the new conservolibertarians?) want people at the low end of the income scale to suffer. They think it builds character somehow, and that if we just inflicted a little more pain on those guys working in the dish room at Denny's they'd go out there and start a "small business," become "job creators," and of course vote Republican.

They've managed to convince themselves that by pushing wages down, then tearing the social safety net out from the least of us, they're actually being helpful.

Of course even a quick glance at history would show that low wages and no social safety nets does not lead to prosperity among the working class, and that higher wages that could potentially lift people into the middle class are not only not detrimental but have a positive impact on the economy, but then of course these folks would have to take a look at history.

We can't have that, now, can we?

Instead, we're supposed to accept that any increase in the minimum wage will do irreparable harm to the economy while at the same time accepting that low wage workers are "lazy" and that cutting off their assistance would somehow inspire them to earn more money...somehow.

It depends on the increase and how much job loss it will cause. One side hopes inflation is faster than job loss

 

[bilby]

The loss of unsustainable jobs is no cause for alarm. Unemployment is bad; under paying people is worse, because it distorts the entire economy, and traps people in poverty.

Reduce unemployment by creating real jobs for the unemployed; or training the unemployed to do real jobs, or both. Hiding some unemployment under the rug, by subsidising big corporations to 'employ' people for less than they need to live is bloody stupid. Pretending that not continuing the farce causes loss of jobs is bloody stupid. The jobs 'lost' will not be missed; the people doing them hate every minute of it, and would stop today if they had a choice.

If your businesses can't find a way to get double-digit dollars per hour worth of work out of an extra employee, they shouldn't be in business at all.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

When someone actually proposes raising the MW to one million dollars, we will talk about it.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The loss of unsustainable jobs is no cause for alarm. Unemployment is bad; under paying people is worse, because it distorts the entire economy, and traps people in poverty.

Reduce unemployment by creating real jobs for the unemployed; or training the unemployed to do real jobs, or both. Hiding some unemployment under the rug, by subsidising big corporations to 'employ' people for less than they need to live is bloody stupid. Pretending that not continuing the farce causes loss of jobs is bloody stupid. The jobs 'lost' will not be missed; the people doing them hate every minute of it, and would stop today if they had a choice.

If your businesses can't find a way to get double-digit dollars per hour worth of work out of an extra employee, they shouldn't be in business at all.

Exactly.

Saying MW necessarily causes unemployment is saying CONSUMERS WOULDN'T BUY THE BURGERS UNLESS THEY WERE SUBSIDISED.

No real free market advocate would say it's the proper role of gov't to ensure those same businesses can afford beef, electricity etc that consumers aren't willing to pay for.

It's tacit admission that the 'free market' can't produce results acceptable to a decent society and we should intervene anyway.

 

[Underseer]

The loss of unsustainable jobs is no cause for alarm. Unemployment is bad; under paying people is worse, because it distorts the entire economy, and traps people in poverty.

Reduce unemployment by creating real jobs for the unemployed; or training the unemployed to do real jobs, or both. Hiding some unemployment under the rug, by subsidising big corporations to 'employ' people for less than they need to live is bloody stupid. Pretending that not continuing the farce causes loss of jobs is bloody stupid. The jobs 'lost' will not be missed; the people doing them hate every minute of it, and would stop today if they had a choice.

If your businesses can't find a way to get double-digit dollars per hour worth of work out of an extra employee, they shouldn't be in business at all.

Exactly.

Saying MW necessarily causes unemployment is saying CONSUMERS WOULDN'T BUY THE BURGERS UNLESS THEY WERE SUBSIDISED.

No real free market advocate would say it's the proper role of gov't to ensure those same businesses can afford beef, electricity etc that consumers aren't willing to pay for.

It's tacit admission that the 'free market' can't produce results acceptable to a decent society and we should intervene anyway.

But minimum wage does cause unemployment. If corporations can get away with paying nothing, then they can afford to hire everyone. I mean, before the civil war, slavery was legal and we had zero unemployment then, didn't we?

Look at it this way: if you're forced to compete against slaves for jobs, then you're more motivated to work, thus removing the minimum wage creates jobs. See how it works?

 

[coloradoatheist]

The loss of unsustainable jobs is no cause for alarm. Unemployment is bad; under paying people is worse, because it distorts the entire economy, and traps people in poverty.

Reduce unemployment by creating real jobs for the unemployed; or training the unemployed to do real jobs, or both. Hiding some unemployment under the rug, by subsidising big corporations to 'employ' people for less than they need to live is bloody stupid. Pretending that not continuing the farce causes loss of jobs is bloody stupid. The jobs 'lost' will not be missed; the people doing them hate every minute of it, and would stop today if they had a choice.

If your businesses can't find a way to get double-digit dollars per hour worth of work out of an extra employee, they shouldn't be in business at all.

Exactly.

Saying MW necessarily causes unemployment is saying CONSUMERS WOULDN'T BUY THE BURGERS UNLESS THEY WERE SUBSIDISED.

No real free market advocate would say it's the proper role of gov't to ensure those same businesses can afford beef, electricity etc that consumers aren't willing to pay for.

It's tacit admission that the 'free market' can't produce results acceptable to a decent society and we should intervene anyway.

So the only jobs out there are burger makers? You don't believe that there might be some types of jobs that people could go without or?

Black teen unemployment is what now? Around 50%. I guess 75% is okay.

- - - Updated - - -

The loss of unsustainable jobs is no cause for alarm. Unemployment is bad; under paying people is worse, because it distorts the entire economy, and traps people in poverty.

Reduce unemployment by creating real jobs for the unemployed; or training the unemployed to do real jobs, or both. Hiding some unemployment under the rug, by subsidising big corporations to 'employ' people for less than they need to live is bloody stupid. Pretending that not continuing the farce causes loss of jobs is bloody stupid. The jobs 'lost' will not be missed; the people doing them hate every minute of it, and would stop today if they had a choice.

If your businesses can't find a way to get double-digit dollars per hour worth of work out of an extra employee, they shouldn't be in business at all.

Exactly.

Saying MW necessarily causes unemployment is saying CONSUMERS WOULDN'T BUY THE BURGERS UNLESS THEY WERE SUBSIDISED.

No real free market advocate would say it's the proper role of gov't to ensure those same businesses can afford beef, electricity etc that consumers aren't willing to pay for.

It's tacit admission that the 'free market' can't produce results acceptable to a decent society and we should intervene anyway.

But minimum wage does cause unemployment. If corporations can get away with paying nothing, then they can afford to hire everyone. I mean, before the civil war, slavery was legal and we had zero unemployment then, didn't we?

Look at it this way: if you're forced to compete against slaves for jobs, then you're more motivated to work, thus removing the minimum wage creates jobs. See how it works?

Actually when we think of corporations, they can probably handle the minimum wage increases a little better. It's small businesses that are hurt the most. Wal-Mart wanted the minimum wage increased so it would help drive out competitors.

 

[Togo]

Actually when we think of corporations, they can probably handle the minimum wage increases a little better. It's small businesses that are hurt the most. Wal-Mart wanted the minimum wage increased so it would help drive out competitors.

Quite the opposite. There are very few small business jobs paying the minimum wage, precisely because they have few employees. The benefits of paying a bit over are a greatly expanded selection of employees and greater loyalty, for a small amount per employee that stays a small amount.

Most of the minimum wage jobs are with large companies, where driving down employment costs actually makes a difference to the bottom line, or to the performance statistics of middle managers, and a small saving per employee turns into large saving overall.

 

[ksen]

Actually when we think of corporations, they can probably handle the minimum wage increases a little better. It's small businesses that are hurt the most.

They are?

Wal-Mart wanted the minimum wage increased so it would help drive out competitors.

They do?

 

[Canard DuJour]

The loss of unsustainable jobs is no cause for alarm. Unemployment is bad; under paying people is worse, because it distorts the entire economy, and traps people in poverty.

Reduce unemployment by creating real jobs for the unemployed; or training the unemployed to do real jobs, or both. Hiding some unemployment under the rug, by subsidising big corporations to 'employ' people for less than they need to live is bloody stupid. Pretending that not continuing the farce causes loss of jobs is bloody stupid. The jobs 'lost' will not be missed; the people doing them hate every minute of it, and would stop today if they had a choice.

If your businesses can't find a way to get double-digit dollars per hour worth of work out of an extra employee, they shouldn't be in business at all.

Exactly.

Saying MW necessarily causes unemployment is saying CONSUMERS WOULDN'T BUY THE BURGERS UNLESS THEY WERE SUBSIDISED.

No real free market advocate would say it's the proper role of gov't to ensure those same businesses can afford beef, electricity etc that consumers aren't willing to pay for.

It's tacit admission that the 'free market' can't produce results acceptable to a decent society and we should intervene anyway.

So the only jobs out there are burger makers?

No, burger here means low-margin, easily substituted good/service consumers wouldn't be willing to buy if the welfare bill were on the price tag. "Burger-flipper" is common shorthand for low-wage workers, most of whom do prepare and/or serve food, particularly fast food.

You don't believe that there might be some types of jobs that people could go without or?

..eh?

Black teen unemployment is what now? Around 50%. I guess 75% is okay.

Do you?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

unemployment among black teens is not due to the minimum wage. Teens tend to work in their neighborhoods and not commute across town or out to the 'burbs. Since a disproportionate number of black teens live in areas with a severely depressed job market, a disproportionate number of teens are unemployed.

This really isn't deep.

 

[coloradoatheist]

unemployment among black teens is not due to the minimum wage. Teens tend to work in their neighborhoods and not commute across town or out to the 'burbs. Since a disproportionate number of black teens live in areas with a severely depressed job market, a disproportionate number of teens are unemployed.

This really isn't deep.

And minimum wage affects the least productive the most, which are teenagers. To hire them they have to be more productive than the cost and in most cases they aren't, so they aren't hired. We should at least have a two tiered system where we have a much lower minimum wage for kids under 18.

- - - Updated - - -

The loss of unsustainable jobs is no cause for alarm. Unemployment is bad; under paying people is worse, because it distorts the entire economy, and traps people in poverty.

Reduce unemployment by creating real jobs for the unemployed; or training the unemployed to do real jobs, or both. Hiding some unemployment under the rug, by subsidising big corporations to 'employ' people for less than they need to live is bloody stupid. Pretending that not continuing the farce causes loss of jobs is bloody stupid. The jobs 'lost' will not be missed; the people doing them hate every minute of it, and would stop today if they had a choice.

If your businesses can't find a way to get double-digit dollars per hour worth of work out of an extra employee, they shouldn't be in business at all.

Exactly.

Saying MW necessarily causes unemployment is saying CONSUMERS WOULDN'T BUY THE BURGERS UNLESS THEY WERE SUBSIDISED.

No real free market advocate would say it's the proper role of gov't to ensure those same businesses can afford beef, electricity etc that consumers aren't willing to pay for.

It's tacit admission that the 'free market' can't produce results acceptable to a decent society and we should intervene anyway.

So the only jobs out there are burger makers?

No, burger here means low-margin, easily substituted good/service consumers wouldn't be willing to buy if the welfare bill were on the price tag. "Burger-flipper" is common shorthand for low-wage workers, most of whom do prepare and/or serve food, particularly fast food.

You don't believe that there might be some types of jobs that people could go without or?

..eh?

Black teen unemployment is what now? Around 50%. I guess 75% is okay.

Do you?

I do think it has a major impact on them and as I said, we should have a much lower minimum wage for teenagers at the very least.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And minimum wage affects the least productive the most, which are teenagers. To hire them they have to be more productive than the cost and in most cases they aren't, so they aren't hired. We should at least have a two tiered system where we have a much lower minimum wage for kids under 18.

so why isn't the unemployment among white kids in the suburbs higher?

 

[coloradoatheist]

And minimum wage affects the least productive the most, which are teenagers. To hire them they have to be more productive than the cost and in most cases they aren't, so they aren't hired. We should at least have a two tiered system where we have a much lower minimum wage for kids under 18.

so why isn't the unemployment among white kids in the suburbs higher?

Higher than what group?

 

[Canard DuJour]

And minimum wage affects the least productive the most, which are teenagers. To hire them they have to be more productive than the cost and in most cases they aren't, so they aren't hired.

That may be true but it isn't really relevant. The same burger flipped by Steve Jobs or a neurosurgeon wouldn't fetch a cent more. The limiting factor is what consumers will pay for a burger (or whatever low-margin, easily substituted good), not the burger flipper. If that's less than living costs, the good is essentially subsidised.

We should at least have a two tiered system where we have a much lower minimum wage for kids under 18.

Dunno about "much" lower, but lower seems sensible. We actually have that here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

unemployment among black teens is not due to the minimum wage. Teens tend to work in their neighborhoods and not commute across town or out to the 'burbs. Since a disproportionate number of black teens live in areas with a severely depressed job market, a disproportionate number of teens are unemployed.

This really isn't deep.

While local jobs are a factor that doesn't mean minimum wage is not also a factor. There are things like buses, they can take other jobs!

- - - Updated - - -

And minimum wage affects the least productive the most, which are teenagers. To hire them they have to be more productive than the cost and in most cases they aren't, so they aren't hired. We should at least have a two tiered system where we have a much lower minimum wage for kids under 18.

How about a different approach:

A starting wage. It's not based on age but on years worked (use the quarter count that we currently use for SS and SSDI.)

- - - Updated - - -

And minimum wage affects the least productive the most, which are teenagers. To hire them they have to be more productive than the cost and in most cases they aren't, so they aren't hired. We should at least have a two tiered system where we have a much lower minimum wage for kids under 18.

so why isn't the unemployment among white kids in the suburbs higher?

Why isn't the sky blue?



(In case you haven't noticed, teen unemployment is higher even in the suburbs.)

- - - Updated - - -

That may be true but it isn't really relevant. The same burger flipped by Steve Jobs or a neurosurgeon wouldn't fetch a cent more. The limiting factor is what consumers will pay for a burger (or whatever low-margin, easily substituted good), not the burger flipper. If that's less than living costs, the good is essentially subsidised.

This is making the implicit assumption that there are enough jobs to go around.

Since this assumption is false your argument about a subsidy is false.

 

[Canard DuJour]

That may be true but it isn't really relevant. The same burger flipped by Steve Jobs or a neurosurgeon wouldn't fetch a cent more. The limiting factor is what consumers will pay for a burger (or whatever low-margin, easily substituted good), not the burger flipper. If that's less than living costs, the good is essentially subsidised.

This is making the implicit assumption that there are enough jobs to go around.

Since this assumption is false your argument about a subsidy is false.

It's nothing to do with any such assumption.

 

[KeepTalking]

(In case you haven't noticed, teen unemployment is higher even in the suburbs.)

I don't suppose you can bother to back that up with any sort of evidence?

 

[bilby]

Unemployed people have one, and only one, asset - they have plenty of time. Time they can use to look for real work, or to learn the skills needed to get real work.

An enlightened nation will grant its unemployed people sufficient funds to survive during this time, without being driven to crime.

A stupid nation will make the unemployment benefits contingent on accepting a job at a rate of pay that is too low to get the person off benefits altogether; and then subsidise them with benefits that again, allow them to survive, without the need to resort to crime. By so doing, not only has the stupid nation decided to subsidise goods and services for which in a free market there would be little or no demand; they have simultaneously robbed the poor person of their only asset - time. Trapped in a job that pays less than they need to survive, with the threat of losing even their unemployed person's benefits should they quit, the poor person no longer has time to learn a new skill, or to prepare applications for real jobs, or to attend interviews for real jobs, or even to walk the streets going from business to business asking if there are any vacancies.

Minimum wage needs to be sufficiently high that people earning that amount do not require any further benefits from government in order to obtain food, shelter, and transportation. If a person needs government help to get these things, then it is cruel and unusual punishment to make him work as well.

A high unemployment rate is bad; steps to reduce it are, by and large, good; but not if those steps do not decrease the number of people who remain reliant on government payments for their basic needs.

A measure which increases unemployment but without increasing the number of persons dependant on benefits is not a particularly bad thing.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Loren

Sorry I did not make myself clearer

Why isn't teen unemployed in the suburbs higher than what it is and equal to teen unemployment in the inner city?