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

[Nice Squirrel]

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 work to society".

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

Have you ever worked for minimum wage?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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 work to society".

I'm willing to call it a year if others are and award this statement the Most Perposterous Spin Award for the year of 2015. Easily a candidate for the decade of 2010 to 2020.

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

All it says about anything is your imagination and ability to spin even the most obviously pro-compassion labor demands in to an ugly sentiment. I can just see Eugene Debs and Samuel Gompers talking about how they despise those who labor is "worth" less than minimum wage.

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh of course, and we know just how much our rich corporate masters value each and every person's contribution to society. They love us so much that they will pay us as little as possible to maximize their profits, the warmth of their love will keep us warm when the gas is cut.

Yeah, right. That is exactly why people are in favor of paying dirt wages. Because they care so much about everyone's contribution to society. "Why pay a man a dollar, when you can pay a boy a dime, because it is important that the boy's contribution to society, no matter how small, is recognized."

That fig leaf is way too small, no matter how miserably endowed you are. I mean, how can you say such a thing? It's just so absurd. Argue that minimum wage is not good for the economy all you want, but don't argue that people pay low wages because they value people's contribution to society. What a shitty lie. C'mon. Aint you ashamed? Aint you? How can you type something like that without blushing? I blushed when I read it, it was so embarrassing, that I became embarrassed for you.

 

[Axulus]

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.

You mean the ~150% real wage increase from the middle of the 19th century to the end of it didn't actually happen, and the ~50% increase from 1900-1929 didn't happen either (all before the minimum wage was introduced)?

- - - Updated - - -

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 work to society".

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

Have you ever worked for minimum wage?

In college I earned ~$1.50 (~16% above it). What is the relevance?

 

[Axulus]

The minimum wage is really all about about a bunch of self righteous moralizing and sticking it to the "corporate masters" , as demonstrated by the past several posts. It really isn't actually about helping people (whatever extent it actually helps people is just the cherry on top). It's refreshing to see some honesty on the real underlying motivations on the issue.

 

[Canard DuJour]

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.

Well they very much do consider outcome for society, but the most efficient form of welfare - what you're talking about - is only one facet of outcome for society, while MW is intended primarily to address others. And will be remain so however many times you try to frame the issue as if wages were a competing form of welfare or societal good measured in welfare dollars.

I also doubt the assertions about welfare being more affordable to society since they're probably projections of some economist's model rather than fact, and don't take into account knock-on effects in the labour market i.e those which MW is intended to address

 

[Axulus]

I also doubt the assertions about welfare being more affordable to society since they're probably projections of some economist's model rather than fact, and don't take into account knock-on effects in the labour market i.e those which MW is intended to address

I already posted the data on the distribution of benefits to those 2x below the poverty line vs. those above it. It demonstrates that we could triple the benefits received to those 2x below the poverty line for a lower cost than the minimum wage (increased to a proposed $10.10/hr), even if we take on the more than generous assumption that zero people lose their jobs or have their hours reduced with a 33% minimum wage increase.

 

[Sarpedon]

The minimum wage is really all about about a bunch of self righteous moralizing and sticking it to the "corporate masters" , as demonstrated by the past several posts. It really isn't actually about helping people (whatever extent it actually helps people is just the cherry on top). Good to see some honesty on the real underlying motivations on the issue.

Then argue that instead of making up ridiculous lies!

I went over the top in my reply because your stupid fairy tale was so farcical that it beggared the imagination! I was being sarcastic, and my only regret is that the written language is incapable of fully expressing the level of sarcasm your fatuously absurd fabulism inspired. When you post such laughable nonsense, you shouldn't be surprised that you don't get serious responses. And then you are so lacking in self awareness to accuse ME of having ulterior motives? No honest person would make the argument you just did. You made a bleeding heart liberal argument about valuing the contributions of everyone in society, while attacking a program which is aimed (misguidedly or not) at reducing poverty! And not coincidently, you are arguing on the same side of the rich and conservative politicians who consistently show that they care about nothing other than profits.

 

[Canard DuJour]

"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.

What does that even mean? As long as he can find employees he is paying market wages.

 

[Axulus]

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.

What does that even mean? As long as he can find employees he is paying market wages.

That is false. Market wages are the "going rate" or "average rate" in the market as a whole for other similar such employees. An individual transaction does not determine the market rate, but rather the market rate is determined by all the transactions taken as a whole.

A company that pays below the going rate or market rate may still find some employees, but will suffer from higher turnover, lower employee morale, lower qualified employees, and substandard profits compared to competitors.

 

[Axulus]

The minimum wage is really all about about a bunch of self righteous moralizing and sticking it to the "corporate masters" , as demonstrated by the past several posts. It really isn't actually about helping people (whatever extent it actually helps people is just the cherry on top). Good to see some honesty on the real underlying motivations on the issue.

Then argue that instead of making up ridiculous lies!

I went over the top in my reply because your stupid fairy tale was so farcical that it beggared the imagination! I was being sarcastic, and my only regret is that the written language is incapable of fully expressing the level of sarcasm your fatuously absurd fabulism inspired. When you post such laughable nonsense, you shouldn't be surprised that you don't get serious responses. And then you are so lacking in self awareness to accuse ME of having ulterior motives? No honest person would make the argument you just did. You made a bleeding heart liberal argument about valuing the contributions of everyone in society, while attacking a program which is aimed (misguidedly or not) at reducing poverty! And not coincidently, you are arguing on the same side of the rich and conservative politicians who consistently show that they care about nothing other than profits.

If you thought my post was a serious response to the nonsense that Athena posted about how not having a minimum wage means we as a nation are fine with people working and starving, and shows how we as a nation think their contribution to society is not worth enough to keep them alive, you really need to get your head examined.

 

[Canard DuJour]

What does that even mean? As long as he can find employees he is paying market wages.

That is false. Market wages are the "going rate" or "average rate" in the market as a whole for other similar such employees. An individual transaction does not determine the market rate, but rather the market rate is determined by all the transactions taken as a whole.

A company that pays below the going rate or market rate may still find some employees, but will suffer from higher turnover, lower employee morale, lower qualified employees, and substandard profits compared to competitors.

OK, you mean average rate. I don't accept that employers who can find employees at below average rate suffer from "substandard profits," especially at the unskilled end of the labour market we're talking about. Their costs are reduced and, as long as they're actually in business, they're taking some market share and putting downward pressure on wages.

 

[Axulus]

That is false. Market wages are the "going rate" or "average rate" in the market as a whole for other similar such employees. An individual transaction does not determine the market rate, but rather the market rate is determined by all the transactions taken as a whole.

A company that pays below the going rate or market rate may still find some employees, but will suffer from higher turnover, lower employee morale, lower qualified employees, and substandard profits compared to competitors.

OK, you mean average rate. I don't accept that employers who can find employees at below average rate suffer from "substandard profits," especially at the unskilled end of the labour market we're talking about. Their costs are reduced and, as long as they're actually in business, they're taking some market share and putting downward pressure on wages.

All I can tell you is from my experience with Wal-Mart (I worked there for 2.5 years in college) to think about how businesses like that put it into practice in the real world (I don't have time to make a lengthy empirically supportable case at the moment). When I worked there, they were frequently comparing their wages to the average rate in the area for other retail businesses, such as Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, etc. At one point, they had determined that the average wages in the area were going up, and they announced an unexpected $.50/hr raise for everyone to keep up. They did not increase the wages to be charitable.

Furthermore, after Wal-Mart announced their recent $9 minimum wage to be phased in in 2015 and $10 to be phased in by 2016, we saw other several large retailers follow suit - the going rate in the market went up with Wal-Mart's announcement, and the competitors were forced to follow suit to prevent substandard profits from resulting. These companies didn't just do it out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[Canard DuJour]

OK, you mean average rate. I don't accept that employers who can find employees at below average rate suffer from "substandard profits," especially at the unskilled end of the labour market we're talking about. Their costs are reduced and, as long as they're actually in business, they're taking some market share and putting downward pressure on wages.

All I can tell you is from my experience with Wal-Mart (I worked there for 2.5 years in college) to think about how businesses like that put it into practice in the real world (I don't have time to make a lengthy empirically supportable case at the moment). When I worked there, they were frequently comparing their wages to the average rate in the area for other retail businesses, such as Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, etc. At one point, they had determined that the average wages in the area were going up, and they announced an unexpected $.50/hr raise for everyone to keep up.

What I said. This doesn't contradict it.

 

[Canard DuJour]

I also doubt the assertions about welfare being more affordable to society since they're probably projections of some economist's model rather than fact, and don't take into account knock-on effects in the labour market i.e those which MW is intended to address

I already posted the data on the distribution of benefits to those 2x below the poverty line vs. those above it. It demonstrates that we could triple the benefits received to those 2x below the poverty line for a lower cost than the minimum wage (increased to a proposed $10.10/hr), even if we take on the more than generous assumption that zero people lose their jobs or have their hours reduced with a 33% minimum wage increase.

And how is the cost of the MW calculated?

 

[Axulus]

All I can tell you is from my experience with Wal-Mart (I worked there for 2.5 years in college) to think about how businesses like that put it into practice in the real world (I don't have time to make a lengthy empirically supportable case at the moment). When I worked there, they were frequently comparing their wages to the average rate in the area for other retail businesses, such as Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, etc. At one point, they had determined that the average wages in the area were going up, and they announced an unexpected $.50/hr raise for everyone to keep up.

What I said. This doesn't contradict it.

It doesn't contradict it, but it demonstrates the obsession of a large company to make sure it was not paying below the going rate or average rate and to remedy it when it is. They are not doing it to be charitable but to prevent substandard profits.

 

[Axulus]

I already posted the data on the distribution of benefits to those 2x below the poverty line vs. those above it. It demonstrates that we could triple the benefits received to those 2x below the poverty line for a lower cost than the minimum wage (increased to a proposed $10.10/hr), even if we take on the more than generous assumption that zero people lose their jobs or have their hours reduced with a 33% minimum wage increase.

And how is the cost of the MW calculated?

At the most basic level, we look at how much additional wages are being paid in total before and after. There are other costs (the costs resulting in reductions of total hours employed by people effected by it), but I don't even need to get into that. Just using the total cost of the increased wages themselves demonstrate the point I made.

 

[Canard DuJour]

What I said. This doesn't contradict it.

It doesn't contradict it, but it demonstrates the obsession of a large company to make sure it was not paying below the going rate or average rate and to remedy it when it is. They are not doing it to be charitable but to prevent substandard profits.

Well no, it apparently doesn't since they were and probably continued (since it's WalMart) to pay below average wages. They also, as I and Churchill said, undercut the competition with their reduced costs, gaining them market share. Assuming their competitors aren't running charities, this means downward pressure on wages even if there's the occasional diddy rise. Employees everywhere will have fewer better paying alternatives and less bargaining power.

 

[Axulus]

It doesn't contradict it, but it demonstrates the obsession of a large company to make sure it was not paying below the going rate or average rate and to remedy it when it is. They are not doing it to be charitable but to prevent substandard profits.

Well no, it apparently doesn't since they were and probably continued (since it's WalMart) to pay below average wages. They also, as I and Churchill said, undercut the competition with their reduced costs, gaining them market share. Assuming their competitors aren't running charities, this means downward pressure on wages even if there's the occasional diddy rise. Employees everywhere will have fewer better paying alternatives and less bargaining power.

Where is your data to demonstrate below average wages compared to the going rate for those kind of jobs?

 

[Canard DuJour]

And how is the cost of the MW calculated?

At the most basic level, we look at how much additional wages are being paid in total before and after. There are other costs (the costs resulting in reductions of total hours employed by people effected by it), but I don't even need to get into that. Just using the total cost of the increased wages themselves demonstrate the point I made.

Additional to what? Assuming MW (which we have), it'd be additional to a hypothetical market clearing wage, which you'd have to project from some economist's model, probably with all sorts of absurd assumptions.

And you'd still be accepting the faulty frame - that the increased wages are a cost to society comparable to the welfare bill. But they aren't. Those increased wages go back into society and with greater velocity than whatever proportion employers and investors would have retained. On the contrary, they become a cost to society when you take them away and turn them into more welfare.