Minimum Rage: The remix

[Alcoholic Actuary]

When the MW goes up, it doesn't just go up for one store. MW goes up for all employers, so any cost will be absorbed or passed on to customers. McDonald's and Burger King will both have to pay higher wages and I doubt if either place will go out of business because of it.

Most "Mom and Pop" businesses pay above MW already. most MW employees work for big chains and they make their money many different ways, not just by paying low wages.

A dime more for a two piece at KFC isn't going to send the economy into a tizzy.

Technically, we're already paying a few dimes more for chicken than when the minimum wage was last increased (1997 or so). I don't see why we can't raise minimum wage without price increases. We've already payed for it.

aa

 

[KeepTalking]

Your hope is inflation occurs first prior to the increase in the expenses of the store. McDonalds won't go out and have more hamburgers sold, they have to increase prices to offset their increased costs.

Inflation has been occurring, and MW has not been keeping up, that is part of the problem. Time to get the MW in line with the inflation that has occurred, and fix it to keep up with the inflation that will occur in the future at the very least.

Except the minimum wage influences the other and will be a let go, inflate, rehire, back to where they were and repeat. But I am also very curious at the minimum wage what people in the 1950/60s where buying on minimum wage that they can't buy now.

Given that the inflation adjusted MW from 1968 would be equal to $10.86 now, the answer is "more".

 

[Togo]

Except the minimum wage influences the other and will be a let go, inflate, rehire, back to where they were and repeat.

This sounds made up. I'm struggling to think of a reason why a wage hike that represents a very small part of the overall money supply would somehow drive inflation. Can you suggest one?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Your hope is inflation occurs first prior to the increase in the expenses of the store. McDonalds won't go out and have more hamburgers sold, they have to increase prices to offset their increased costs.

Inflation has been occurring, and MW has not been keeping up, that is part of the problem. Time to get the MW in line with the inflation that has occurred, and fix it to keep up with the inflation that will occur in the future at the very least.

Except the minimum wage influences the other and will be a let go, inflate, rehire, back to where they were and repeat. But I am also very curious at the minimum wage what people in the 1950/60s where buying on minimum wage that they can't buy now.

Given that the inflation adjusted MW from 1968 would be equal to $10.86 now, the answer is "more".

yes and no. that number is derived from taking the billions of transactions in a year and massaging it to come to the "correct" answer that is inflation. It's known to be wrong for a long time. And I'm talking about the inflation numbers for the poor, not the overall numbers. How many teenagers in the 50s and 60s had cell phones, laptops, internet access. Did they spend more or less of their budget on food, etc.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except the minimum wage influences the other and will be a let go, inflate, rehire, back to where they were and repeat.

This sounds made up. I'm struggling to think of a reason why a wage hike that represents a very small part of the overall money supply would somehow drive inflation. Can you suggest one?

For those businesses that employ mw workers they have to recoup the costs lost. They do it with a combination of higher prices, less staff, less hours, etc. That is also what people are saying will happen. Give them more money and there is more demand. And last, since the charts supposedly show the trend of income being flat over a period of time, prices are directly correlated with labor costs, and hence no raising wages.

 

[maxparrish]

The traditional view of minimum wage employment has been as a training opportunity for young adults and teens as well as a supplementary source of income for a member of a family - not as a sole source for a head of family. One half of all minimum wage earners are 24 and younger and 2/3rds of MW earners are in middle income families. Only a quarter are in poor families. Moreover only 4 percent have a single adult raising one or more dependents. And 2/3rds MW wage employees earn more than minimum wage after one year of working. Hence, the traditional concern has been over young and unskilled getting job learning opportunities, especially for black youth (over 50 percent).

Source?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...jobs-and-wages-not-from-higher-minimum-wages/

 

[maxparrish]

Automation. And once you drive companies to replace jobs with automation they won't come back even if you back off on the policies that caused the change in the first place.

-You're also ignoring the point that many of these large chains, particularly Wallmarts, are often accused of driving rivals out of business with their low prices. Remove a Wallmarts, and local business can return, and they're a much more labour-intensive industry.

And people's costs go up.

-At the very least, you must recognise that a business that can survive when their employees are subsidised with unemployment benefit, but can not survive when their employees are not receiving unemployment benefit, must have been relying on a state subsidy to stay in business. Given that they are taking market share from rivals, how can that be a good thing?

This is still making the fundamental assumption that driving out bad jobs makes good jobs available.

The traditional view of minimum wage employment has been as a training opportunity for young adults and teens as well as a supplementary source of income for a member of a family - not as a sole source for a head of family. One half of all minimum wage earners are 24 and younger and 2/3rds of MW earners are in middle income families. Only a quarter are in poor families. Moreover only 4 percent have a single adult raising one or more dependents. And 2/3rds MW wage employees earn more than minimum wage after one year of working. Hence, the traditional concern has been over young and unskilled getting job learning opportunities, especially for black youth (over 50 percent).

Source?

He's describing the usual labor market in America. It's *NOT* accurate now but we shouldn't be making changes that will help now but hurt down the road let reality get in the way of a good argument.

FIFY.[/QUOTE]

It is accurate NOW. The traditional view, in light of that reality, is that the minimum wage issue is one that most effects (proportionally) the young and unskilled worker.

The current view, of the left, is that of "who cares". That is, they would like such jobs to be career choices.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, it seems like your view, max, is that unskilled and young workers just don't need to eat, get medical attention, or have shelter.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#1
AthenaAwakened

from Card and Krueger to present, the findings about raising the MW are throwing the right wing into a tizzy.

What "findings"? The only conclusion from all the "studies" is that they don't know, or cannot measure, the impact of minimum wage. They don't know what impact it has, from empirical data. They have not determined whether it has a negative or positive impact on employment levels.

What if it isn't just supply and demand?

You mean the law of supply and demand does not apply to labor? Does it apply to independent contractors -- like janitors or shoe shiners? What other occupations are not impacted by supply and demand? Why is wage labor the only thing bought and sold which is exempt from the law of supply and demand?

You mean if the wage offered for a job opening is doubled, this does not cause an increase in the number of applicants?

What if workers aren't a commodity?

Is the store owner or entrepreneur a commodity? Aren't they impacted by supply-and-demand?

What is a "commodity"? Isn't it something that is supposed to give some benefit to the buyer, and higher benefit for higher price? If this does not apply to workers, does that mean that workers don't have to provide a greater benefit in return for a higher price? So then a more skillful worker is not entitled to a higher price?

A worker who is in greater demand or shorter supply is not entitled to a higher price?

If the worker, or the labor, is not a commodity, then why is a price paid for labor? Why shouldn't labor be FREE if labor is not a commodity? How can something command a price and be bought and sold and not be a commodity?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

#1
AthenaAwakened



What "findings"? The only conclusion from all the "studies" is that they don't know, or cannot measure, the impact of minimum wage. They don't know what impact it has, from empirical data. They have not determined whether it has a negative or positive impact on employment levels.

What if it isn't just supply and demand?

You mean the law of supply and demand does not apply to labor? Does it apply to independent contractors -- like janitors or shoe shiners? What other occupations are not impacted by supply and demand? Why is wage labor the only thing bought and sold which is exempt from the law of supply and demand?

You mean if the wage offered for a job opening is doubled, this does not cause an increase in the number of applicants?

What if workers aren't a commodity?

Is the store owner or entrepreneur a commodity? Aren't they impacted by supply-and-demand?

What is a "commodity"? Isn't it something that is supposed to give some benefit to the buyer, and higher benefit for higher price? If this does not apply to workers, does that mean that workers don't have to provide a greater benefit in return for a higher price? So then a more skillful worker is not entitled to a higher price?

A worker who is in greater demand or shorter supply is not entitled to a higher price?

If the worker, or the labor, is not a commodity, then why is a price paid for labor? Why shouldn't labor be FREE if labor is not a commodity? How can something command a price and be bought and sold and not be a commodity?

when you address what I actually wrote, I'll answer your questions.

Toodles

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, it seems like your view, max, is that unskilled and young workers just don't need to eat, get medical attention, or have shelter.

Most of them don't--because they're still living at home.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't see how that changes the expectation that if a business wants someone to do a job for which human labor is necessarily the cheapest option, that they pay at least enough to maintain that person without subsidy. Instead of the government, you are placing the expectation of the subsidy on parents. Well guess what: it is even less equitable when you shrug that burden onto parents, particularly since it disproportionately harms parents and young adults in low income families who cannot afford to subsidize their young adults.

 

[Togo]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...jobs-and-wages-not-from-higher-minimum-wages/

This is an Op-ed by the director of an extreme right wing think tank. It cites no sources for the data.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So, it seems like your view, max, is that unskilled and young workers just don't need to eat, get medical attention, or have shelter.

Most of them don't--because they're still living at home.

so by that logic, a job should pay a wage based on the need of the worker. Teens don't need as much money so they can be paid less than adults. Well, then you can also pay single people less than married people and childless couples less than those with children since they don't have as many bills.

 

[DBT]

So, it seems like your view, max, is that unskilled and young workers just don't need to eat, get medical attention, or have shelter.

Most of them don't--because they're still living at home.

What about the one's who aren't? Perhaps those who are trying to get through Uni, pay the rent, transport costs, food, clothing, buy books, etc?

 

[Derec]

What about the one's who aren't? Perhaps those who are trying to get through Uni, pay the rent, transport costs, food, clothing, buy books, etc?

Look for a better paying job?

 

[Derec]

so by that logic, a job should pay a wage based on the need of the worker. Teens don't need as much money so they can be paid less than adults. Well, then you can also pay single people less than married people and childless couples less than those with children since they don't have as many bills.

No, but one's financial needs play a role in what kind of job to seek and accept, vis-a-vis pay vs. other factors like job satisfaction, hours, commute distance, skills needed etc.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, it seems like your view, max, is that unskilled and young workers just don't need to eat, get medical attention, or have shelter.

Most of them don't--because they're still living at home.

so by that logic, a job should pay a wage based on the need of the worker. Teens don't need as much money so they can be paid less than adults. Well, then you can also pay single people less than married people and childless couples less than those with children since they don't have as many bills.

Your side is the one arguing that wages must support a person. I'm simply showing that your argument is generally invalid.

 

[Jarhyn]

LP, we argue that nobody but the employer who pays a person for doing the thing they do ought need to subsidize the person for doing the thing. If I need a human to do a stupid human trick, I need to pay enough to sustain that human to the extent anyone can be expected to sustain doing the trick and otherwise remain a well adjusted member of society. I object outright to your request that I must pay taxes so that mcdonalds can maintain wage slavery.

Either way, the same amount of work gets done. But in the higher work/wage situation, the worker gets robbed of less of their value added, and the owners still have more, they just don't have AS MUCH more. Will you really scoff at someone for wanting less of their value added taken from them by people whose only contribution was accidental?

 

[Jayjay]

LP, we argue that nobody but the employer who pays a person for doing the thing they do ought need to subsidize the person for doing the thing. If I need a human to do a stupid human trick, I need to pay enough to sustain that human to the extent anyone can be expected to sustain doing the trick and otherwise remain a well adjusted member of society. I object outright to your request that I must pay taxes so that mcdonalds can maintain wage slavery.

If MacDonalds' didn't pay enough to sustain its work force, nobody would work there because it'd be an outright losing proposition. What makes it wage slavery is your latter point, the deprivation of individual's opportunities to gain a better station in life and the mental stress caused by having to live in poverty, and that's a much harder thing to quantify. I think that a ore elegant solution than legally mandated minimum wage would be unionization and letting said unions negotiate reasonable terms case by case, but barring that some sort of minimum wage is probably better than nothing. The problem with minimum wage across the board is that different industries and jobs have different externalities so it will hit some workers and businesses harder than others, regardless of where they rank on the evil megacorp scale.