Minimum wage - leads to price increases more regressive than sales tax, only 35% of the benefits go to those under 2x poverty line

[Axulus]

The answer to my proposed question is going to depend on what one's priorities are. Another question is: are the voters and politicians in your state by and large cognizant of which household income groups the minimum wage benefits and by how much?

Actually, no. The reason they supported the raise is because they believed that a person should not earn that low of a wage for any work. Also, many rural residents know several people who work full time at Wal-Mart and are receiving government aid.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I see people living in households below the poverty line as a far more pressing concern for society to address than people earning low wages while living in a household comfortably above the poverty line (especially when one considers they are doing it voluntarily, of their own desire).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It was also established because workers were becoming indentured slaves to corporations, living in corporate housing, shopping at the corporate store, never ever able to catch up.

Research suggests that the company towns were set up almost exclusively in isolated areas (mining, or example),...

In research you mean you looked up a Wikipedia article?

...where there was far higher risk for a non-company entity to set up stores in these towns and build housing. A town dependent on a single economic activity is high risk - something which a company involved in that activity has far more knowledge regarding and could therefore offer lower prices and/or higher wages when the company owned these other things. Research also suggests that few, if any, of these workers wanted to buy their own home in such a town, largely due to the highly cyclical nature of the industry the town was dependent on - they rented, allowing them to remain highly mobile and leave the town when better opportunities arose or layoffs occurred, and they did.

More Wikipedia findings?

The company town indentured servitude idea is basically a myth.

So that whole thing in Homestead? Ludlow? McKees Rocks?

This idea that minimum wage is some sort of ignorant plot is a right-wing fan fiction. Dealing with poverty may not best be helped via minimum wage hikes, but it seems for many right-wingers, not raising minimum wage should be followed by cutting SNAP and other aids to help those in poverty (see current Republican budget proposal). So you can understand why some liberals may react as they do to such things.

What I do find interesting, and if still true, that only 1 in 4 of the bottom quintile family's has a low wage earner.

If people acknowledge the ineffectiveness of the minimum wage compared to alternatives and therefore shift their support more so to these alternatives, that I think is a positive step forward, regardless of what you think the "evil" right wingers are trying to do.

Think they are trying to do?

By the way, the earned income credit has far more support on the right than the minimum wage. There is far less right-wing resistance to it. The program was started under Ford in 1975, strengthened under Reagan in 1986, and again under Bush Sr. in 1990, and again under Bush Jr. in 2001. That is every single Republican administration since Ford in 1975.

Everyone gather around. $1,000 for you... you lazy welfare queen, $150,000 for you... congrats on making money grow in the market... you really worked hard for that.

 

[Axulus]

It's a dumb idea if your goal is to actually help the poor as effectively as possible on a dollar for dollar basis. Can you imagine a charity that [..etc]

Well it isn't and shouldn't be. This nonsense does the rounds in one form or another every few years. MW is NOT an alternative to, or a supplement to, welfare (or, indeed, aid for teenagers or black people). It's nearly the opposite. The idea is to maintain the distinction between wages and welfare. Not blur it.

MW earners not needing welfare suggests, if anything, that it's working. A simple thought experiment reveals the nonsense : if some % of MW earners not needing welfare indicates a MW failure, what would a successful MW look like? One in which they were all so poor they needed welfare? There's no possible successful MW under their criteria, because their goal isn't to examine its efficacy but to denigrate it.

There's a sensible debate to be had about "helping poor as effectively as possible on a dollar for dollar basis," but the really "dumb idea" here is the one authors like this try to smuggle in by imputation : wages as welfare.

Advocates of a minimum wage tell me that their primary concern is people who work and are still in poverty, and the minimum wage is the proposed policy to remedy the problem.

The fact that you think welfare is a dirty word, so we must do our best to reduce it through a minimum wage policy (instead of through an earned income credit for example), rather than focusing on helping low income people, is not often a position I often hear.

 

[Axulus]

Everyone gather around. $1,000 for you... you lazy welfare queen, $150,000 for you... congrats on making money grow in the market... you really worked hard for that.

The fact that you would make such a statement demonstrates just how out of touch you are with the current implementation of the Earned Income Credit (and the amounts involved), why those on the right are far more supportive of it, and, furthermore, the bizarre notion in your head that Republicans consider earned income credit recipients "lazy welfare queens".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Actually, no. The reason they supported the raise is because they believed that a person should not earn that low of a wage for any work. Also, many rural residents know several people who work full time at Wal-Mart and are receiving government aid.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I see people living in households below the poverty line as a far more pressing concern for society to address than people earning low wages while living in a household comfortably above the poverty line (especially when one considers they are doing it voluntarily, of their own desire).

I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about, but okay I agree to disagree.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Well it isn't and shouldn't be. This nonsense does the rounds in one form or another every few years. MW is NOT an alternative to, or a supplement to, welfare (or, indeed, aid for teenagers or black people). It's nearly the opposite. The idea is to maintain the distinction between wages and welfare. Not blur it.

MW earners not needing welfare suggests, if anything, that it's working. A simple thought experiment reveals the nonsense : if some % of MW earners not needing welfare indicates a MW failure, what would a successful MW look like? One in which they were all so poor they needed welfare? There's no possible successful MW under their criteria, because their goal isn't to examine its efficacy but to denigrate it.

There's a sensible debate to be had about "helping poor as effectively as possible on a dollar for dollar basis," but the really "dumb idea" here is the one authors like this try to smuggle in by imputation : wages as welfare.

Advocates of a minimum wage tell me that their primary concern is people who work full time and live below poverty, and the minimum wage is the proposed policy to remedy the problem.

I'm an advocate and it's not what I've told you. Here's another for you : "Without a minimum wage, the bad employer undercuts the good, and the worst undercuts the bad." - Winston Churchill.

The fact that you think welfare is a dirty word, so we must do our best to disguise it in a minimum wage policy (instead of through an earned income credit for example), is not often a position I often hear.

It isn't a fact that I think welfare is a dirty word, and disguising welfare in MW policy is precisely what I'm saying we shouldn't do.

 

[Axulus]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I see people living in households below the poverty line as a far more pressing concern for society to address than people earning low wages while living in a household comfortably above the poverty line (especially when one considers they are doing it voluntarily, of their own desire).

I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about, but okay I agree to disagree.

I was referring to the voters but it also seemed you were in agreement with them. If not, my general position is that resources in society are limited, and therefore we should allocate resources on the problems that are most concerning or are causing the most misery/suffering. Those living in households more than 2x above the poverty line but working and earning a wage deemed unacceptably low by minimum wage advocates are low on my priority list in using these limited resources to help them out.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I do agree with the voters, but I don't see minimum wage as a welfare problem. I see it more as a square deal problem. Honest day's pay for an honest day's work.

 

[Axulus]

Advocates of a minimum wage tell me that their primary concern is people who work full time and live below poverty, and the minimum wage is the proposed policy to remedy the problem.

I'm an advocate and it's not what I've told you. Here's another for you : "Without a minimum wage, the bad employer undercuts the good, and the worst undercuts the bad." - Winston Churchill.

The fact that you think welfare is a dirty word, so we must do our best to disguise it in a minimum wage policy (instead of through an earned income credit for example), is not often a position I often hear.

It isn't a fact that I think welfare is a dirty word, and disguising welfare in MW policy is precisely what I'm saying we shouldn't do.

What is the relevant difference to people's standard of living whether they are earning $10,000 wage income and $10,000 earned income credit ($20,000) vs. $20,000 wages (only obtainable with a minimum wage law)?

If, given the choice, do you think they would prefer $20,000 in wage income or $10,000 wage income and $15,000 earned income credit? The $15,000 earned income credit is actually more affordable for society compared to a minimum wage that gives people $20,000 in wages, if the earned income credit is focused on those below 2x the poverty line. These are the kind of trade-offs one must consider. When minimum wage advocates don't prioritize like this and consider the fact that we could increase incomes for those in poverty without a minimum wage far more with other alternatives, and they don't consider whether this is actually a better outcome for society, the minimum wage seems to be more about making themselves feel good rather than actually helping people.

 

[Axulus]

I do agree with the voters, but I don't see minimum wage as a welfare problem. I see it more as a square deal problem. Honest day's pay for an honest day's work.

But you agree it is a societal problem, apparently one that is high on your priority list and are willing to allocate a decent chunk of societal resources to resolving. That is what I was disagreeing with you about.

From my perspective, "honest pay" is a completely subjective matter, best left to each individual to decide for themselves. What you may consider dishonest pay may be seen as perfectly reasonable and honest to someone else.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I do agree with the voters, but I don't see minimum wage as a welfare problem. I see it more as a square deal problem. Honest day's pay for an honest day's work.

But you agree it is a societal problem, apparently one that is high on your priority list and are willing to allocate a decent chunk of societal resources to resolving. That is what I was disagreeing with you about.

Oh it is a problem, but minimum wage is not the answer. It can be a part, but not the whole.

 

[Axulus]

"Without a minimum wage, the bad employer undercuts the good, and the worst undercuts the bad." - Winston Churchill.

Without a minimum wage, market forces determine the wages. The statement is also demonstrably false: a "bad" employer who tries to pay below market wages will perform worse than the "good" employer who pays market wages.

 

[ksen]

Minimum wage has always been more about getting votes and demonizing opponents than sound economics.

thanks loren!

 

[ksen]

"Thus, our simulations make three related assumptions:

• consumers do not reduce consumption as prices rise,
• all increased labor costs are passed on in higher prices, and
• low-wage workers remain employed at the same number of hours after the minimum wage rises.

That second assumption is awful.

 

[dismal]

"Thus, our simulations make three related assumptions:

• consumers do not reduce consumption as prices rise,
• all increased labor costs are passed on in higher prices, and
• low-wage workers remain employed at the same number of hours after the minimum wage rises.

That second assumption is awful.

So what does happen? You failed to answer last time I asked.

How much gets passed on? What happens to the rest?

 

[ksen]

"Without a minimum wage, the bad employer undercuts the good, and the worst undercuts the bad." - Winston Churchill.

Without a minimum wage, market forces determine the wages. The statement is also demonstrably false: a "bad" employer who tries to pay below market wages will perform worse than the "good" employer who pays market wages.

I miss all those good paying jobs from before the MW was instituted as employers kept bidding wages up in competition with one another.

 

[ksen]

That second assumption is awful.

So what does happen? You failed to answer last time I asked.

How much gets passed on? What happens to the rest?

Each company handles it differently. Some will be able to pass on all the added cost. Some will absorb a portion of the cost through lower profits. Some will change how they employ people.

Assuming all the added cost will be passed on is just overly simplistic and has no basis in reality. But I guess it's right at home in an economics model.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The value of the minimum wage to a society lies not simply in what dollar amount we set, but in how we chose to value work and workers. A minimum wage that cannot sustain the worker without some sort of additional relief, says that we as a nation do not think that worker's labor or contribution to society is worth the necessities to keep that worker alive. Is that how we feel or should feel about other human beings? Is that the place where we wish to live, where people work and starve and the rest of us think this is fine and proper and moral?

I have quoted this scene before, and will again because I like it.

In the movie McLintock, McLintock (John Wayne) explains employment to new hire Devlin Warren (Patrick Wayne).

Devlin Warren: I don't know what to say. Never begged before. Turned my stomach. I suppose I should have been grateful that you gave me the job.

George Washington McLintock: Gave? Boy, you've got it all wrong. I don't give jobs I hire men.

Drago: You intend to give this man a full day's work, don'tcha boy?

Devlin Warren: You mean you're still hirin' me? Well, yes, sir, I certainly deliver a fair day's work.

George Washington McLintock: And for that I'll pay you a fair day's wage. You won't give me anything and I won't give you anything. We both hold up our heads. Is that your plug?

Devlin Warren: Yes sir.

George Washington McLintock: Well, hop on him and we'll go get your gear.
​

That is what work is supposed to be, a fair day's work earns a fair day's wage and at the end of that day both parties can hold their heads up.

in a perfect world a minimum wage wouldn't be necessary. But we don't live in a perfect world.

 

[Sarpedon]

"Thus, our simulations make three related assumptions:

• consumers do not reduce consumption as prices rise,
• all increased labor costs are passed on in higher prices, and
• low-wage workers remain employed at the same number of hours after the minimum wage rises.

That second assumption is awful.

The first assumption is also pretty stupid.

 

[Axulus]

The value of the minimum wage to a society lies not simply in what dollar amount we set, but in how we chose to value work and workers. A minimum wage that cannot sustain the worker without some sort of additional relief, says that we as a nation do not think that worker's labor or contribution to society is worth the necessities to keep that worker alive. Is that how we feel or should feel about other human beings? Is that the place where we wish to live, where people work and starve and the rest of us think this is fine and proper and moral?

I have quoted this scene before, and will again because I like it.

In the movie McLintock, McLintock (John Wayne) explains employment to new hire Devlin Warren (Patrick Wayne).

Devlin Warren: I don't know what to say. Never begged before. Turned my stomach. I suppose I should have been grateful that you gave me the job.

George Washington McLintock: Gave? Boy, you've got it all wrong. I don't give jobs I hire men.

Drago: You intend to give this man a full day's work, don'tcha boy?

Devlin Warren: You mean you're still hirin' me? Well, yes, sir, I certainly deliver a fair day's work.

George Washington McLintock: And for that I'll pay you a fair day's wage. You won't give me anything and I won't give you anything. We both hold up our heads. Is that your plug?

Devlin Warren: Yes sir.

George Washington McLintock: Well, hop on him and we'll go get your gear.
​

That is what work is supposed to be, a fair day's work earns a fair day's wage and at the end of that day both parties can hold their heads up.

in a perfect world a minimum wage wouldn't be necessary. But we don't live in a perfect world.

With a minimum wage, we are also telling people "if you labor isn't worth the minimum wage, then your labor is worthless, we would rather not have you contributing your labor to society".

That also says a lot about how we value those individuals who are in that circumstance.