Minimum Wage Study - MW Does Not Kill Jobs

[Loren Pechtel]

It is in the interest of employers to keep wage costs down, consequently they tend to pay as little as possible regardless of what they can afford or the market value being produced by their employees. Human nature 101. Therefore the need for an independent arbiter - the government - to set a minimum wage.

There is no way the government can possibly determine the market value that a given employee brings to a business because that's not a one-size-fits-all answer.

Thus your argument is inherently wrong.

Apparently it can, and it has worked. We have had minimum wage and conditions for many decades:

"The Australian Federal Minimum Wage has long historical roots going back to the 1907 Harvester Decision which established a 'fair and reasonable' wage to meet the needs of a working man and his family."

They can say that, but that doesn't make it true.

Basically all methods of driving up wages are ways of reducing the labor pool. Someone has to lose.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

your side

You aren't in a conversation with a "side"; Your reply is to an individual, and you have a moral and social obligation to respond only to the points made by the individual(s) you're addressing, and not to points you might expect, hope, prefer, or imagine they might make.

Literally every time I see you reference "your side" on these fora (something you do with monotonous regularity), I immediately think "Loren is talking bollocks again".

That might well be unreasonable of me; But I would be derelict in my duty as a member of this odd little society if I didn't point out to you that this habit of yours is highly corrosive to the strength of your arguments; And if I didn't offer the following advice as a constructive criticism:

I would strongly recommend that if ever you type the phrase "your side" in a response to any post here, you stop; Reflect; And then re-word your post to only address actual claims made by the specific person you are responding to.

If you can replace "your side" with "you", without your post becoming a falsehood, then you should do so. If you can't, then you could significantly improve your reputation here by striking that part of your post before hitting "Post reply".

I say "your side" because the position of the left on this is pretty uniform.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A living wage should simply be a part of doing business. If you can't pay it then your goods/services are not desirable enough to the customer.
The needs of the disabled and a decent life for them should be seen to by the rest of us.

Here parents of disabled children banded together and created a decent life for them complete with housing and employment for those who want it. We have housing for the disabled. Nice little free standing houses and they operate businesses: a cafe, horse ranch, ice cream shop, pet services, sell produce and coffee. And in this, they need not worry about being taken advantage of by moneygrubbing employers.

If your goods/services aren't desirable enough they won't exist--and the worker will be unemployed rather than in a low-wage job.

That's what your side always misses about this issue. If there were enough "good" jobs then the bad jobs would not find anyone they could hire. Thus the existence of the bad jobs proves that there aren't enough good jobs. "Living wage" is simply another incarnation of the infinite pool of wealth idea. (Since you make no attempt to determine if they can afford it the only conclusion is that the money you are trying to tap is infinite.)

No. There would be no bad jobs, ones that cannot afford food and shelter and the necessities in the area of the country the job is offered. What I propose is how the federal government operates. The lowest paying jobs are food service workers that are between $15-$20 an hour plus locality pay which is a minimum of 16.5% across the US and can be as high as 44.15% in San Francisco. Of course the feds throw in healthcare, retirement, and TSP. But one step at a time. We'll have to work on employers show some responsibility for the health of its employees and their well being after a lifetime of service at a later date.

You aren't Harry Potter, you don't have a magic wand. While you could remove bad jobs you would end up with many of the people in them ending up unemployed instead. Society would be worse off.

 

[Elixir]

I see no rebuttal, you're demanding we stick our heads in the sand rather than address an unpleasant reality.

Au contraire, I not only acknowledge, but embrace the reality that you find so unpleasant. People will get jobs lose jobs, do jobs that go in and out of demand and be compensated at whatever rate they can get from others trying to give them as little as possible.
Fear of change is not a good excuse for failure to meet the moment that demands change. Metrics like unemployment rates, wage rates etc. are generally used as proxies for happiness that otherwise defies measurement. Poor Americans today live like lords and kings of yore, and better. But the fact that there are individuals flying around in their Company jets just to have lunch with other such folk here and there, makes the rest unhappy. In fact, the person next door having a newer shitty car than you makes a lot of Murkins mad. (At Biden, usually.)
It's crazy. I don't condone the excessive lifestyles of billionaires but don't see a good way to stop it. I vehemently oppose the aggregation of political power under their purview though. Raising minimum wage? GMAFB !! No brainer for the collective "happiness", no matter what is reflected in gathered employment data this week. If it reduces some hundredbillionaires to mere tenbillionaires, cry me a river.

While you could remove bad jobs you would end up with many of the people in them ending up unemployed instead.

You can find examples where that has occurred and examples where it has not - in fact the opposite in some cases, as already put forth.

It's a big Republican talking point, and a big SO WHAT? AFAICS.
The diminishment of the middle class and growth of the poverty class are all that are needed to see the benefit of letting minimum wage rise with cost of living.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you are assuming that they can produce $15/hr of value. Many of them can't.

$15 /hr isn't what it used to be. See so many people complaining about $15 /hr. I haven't worked for $15 an hour or less in nearly 25 years! $15 an hour is $31,200 a year (at 40 hours). I'd imagine the health care would cost at least 1/3 that.

But you aren't supposed to work there for a living... yeah... we are a services economy now, so this is one of those jobs.

Once again you completely fail to address the actual issue.

And quit bashing the "service" economy. Most high-skill jobs these days are actually "service" jobs. Hint: is your doctor a manufacturer or a service worker?

 

[bilby]

Basically all methods of driving up wages are ways of reducing the labor pool. Someone has to lose.

Only if economics is zero sum.

It's not.

 

[lpetrich]

Basically all methods of driving up wages are ways of reducing the labor pool. Someone has to lose.

Only if economics is zero sum.

It's not.

Capitalism apologists like to say that their critics believe in zero-sumism, that for someone to win, someone else must lose. But when it comes to policies that they dislike, they treat zero-sumism as an absolute truth, not as an economics fallacy.

 

[bilby]

I say "your side" because the position of the left on this is pretty uniform.

Yeah, "the left" isn't any better, for the exact same reasons.

Seriously, just stop it. Broad-brushing everyone who disagrees with you as being effectively interchangeable zombies with identical ideologies and beliefs, identical skills and experience, and identical arguments and reasoning just makes you look stupid, and eliminates any likelihood that people will pay attention to the substance of what you're saying.

 

[bilby]

While you could remove bad jobs you would end up with many of the people in them ending up unemployed instead. Society would be worse off.

That rather depends on whether unemployment is worse than being stuck in a bad job; Which in turn depends on how society treats unemployed people.

There's no law of nature that says unemployed people must be forced into homelessness, crime, and poverty; That's just an idiosyncrasy of your national obsession with selfishness.

Taking people who are incapable of doing good jobs out of bad jobs, and giving them the means to live a fulfilled life (whether or not it is sufficiently productive in the immediate term to cover their entire cost of living), would definitely make society better off.

So much so that it would be well worth while for taxpayers to fund that immediate term shortfall. Which might well turn into a long term surplus.

 

[DBT]

It is in the interest of employers to keep wage costs down, consequently they tend to pay as little as possible regardless of what they can afford or the market value being produced by their employees. Human nature 101. Therefore the need for an independent arbiter - the government - to set a minimum wage.

There is no way the government can possibly determine the market value that a given employee brings to a business because that's not a one-size-fits-all answer.

Thus your argument is inherently wrong.

Apparently it can, and it has worked. We have had minimum wage and conditions for many decades:

"The Australian Federal Minimum Wage has long historical roots going back to the 1907 Harvester Decision which established a 'fair and reasonable' wage to meet the needs of a working man and his family."

They can say that, but that doesn't make it true.

Basically all methods of driving up wages are ways of reducing the labor pool. Someone has to lose.

It was not only said, it was done. Not only done then, but now. It is no longer the 'living wage' of the Harvester era, but we still have laws to govern minimum wages and conditions for casual and permanent jobs in order to prevent excessive exploitation of vulnerable workers.

 

[laughing dog]

You aren't Harry Potter, you don't have a magic wand. While you could remove bad jobs you would end up with many of the people in them ending up unemployed instead. Society would be worse off.

Neither are you Harry Potter. Hell, you are not even a good practioner of economics. Whether or not the people who end are priced out of bad jobs end up unemployed is an empirical question. Whether or not society ends up worse off is an empirical question depending on how society treats those people and how those people react to their situation.

Sorry, but you really have no clue what you are going on about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Basically all methods of driving up wages are ways of reducing the labor pool. Someone has to lose.

Only if economics is zero sum.

It's not.

You utterly missed the point.

Anything you do to restrict the labor pool is going to make some workers unemployed. Now, the demand might be inelastic enough that you can tax them enough to support the unemployed ones and yet end up with everyone having more but we have no indication that this is the case and you're not even trying to argue it. It's just the pervasive fallacy that you can improve worker's positions by getting rid of bad jobs--never mind that good jobs would get rid of bad jobs anyway, thus inherently there can't be enough good jobs to go around if there are bad jobs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While you could remove bad jobs you would end up with many of the people in them ending up unemployed instead. Society would be worse off.

That rather depends on whether unemployment is worse than being stuck in a bad job; Which in turn depends on how society treats unemployed people.

There's no law of nature that says unemployed people must be forced into homelessness, crime, and poverty; That's just an idiosyncrasy of your national obsession with selfishness.

Taking people who are incapable of doing good jobs out of bad jobs, and giving them the means to live a fulfilled life (whether or not it is sufficiently productive in the immediate term to cover their entire cost of living), would definitely make society better off.

So much so that it would be well worth while for taxpayers to fund that immediate term shortfall. Which might well turn into a long term surplus.

But you'll have to tax the workers in the good jobs enough to afford this. This seems inherently impossible as by taking workers out of the labor pool you reduced productivity. Thus, fundamentally, this reduces to the standard infinite pool of money fallacy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You aren't Harry Potter, you don't have a magic wand. While you could remove bad jobs you would end up with many of the people in them ending up unemployed instead. Society would be worse off.

Neither are you Harry Potter. Hell, you are not even a good practioner of economics. Whether or not the people who end are priced out of bad jobs end up unemployed is an empirical question. Whether or not society ends up worse off is an empirical question depending on how society treats those people and how those people react to their situation.

Sorry, but you really have no clue what you are going on about.

Where does the money come from to support the workers you idled? Not from the infinite pool of money you always pretend exists for any good cause.

 

[lpetrich]

Anything you do to restrict the labor pool is going to make some workers unemployed. ...

But that's good for preserving the value of money, right?

Preserving it meaning fighting inflation.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm still waiting for a maximum rent law, quickly followed by a maximum insurance premium law. If society were truly concerned about the welfare of business, small or large, they would address the real impediments to operating at a profit.

If rent and insurance weren't taking such a bite out of revenue, there'd be plenty left over for higher wages, but no one wants to tell the landlord that his rates are bad for the economy and will result in lower employment levels.

I'm not buying into the "higher minimum wage will raise unemployment" mantra, when I drive past a dozen vacant commercial properties with faded "For Lease" signs out front.

The business person who wants to rent the space, but can't make a profit at the demanded cost is told, "You need to find a better business model." There's no such thing as "entry level" rent.

 

[Elixir]

Where does the money come from to support the workers you idled?

Have you ever lost a job or changed jobs, Loren?
It's possible, you know... or maybe you don't.
In case you have never experienced losing a job or changing jobs, a little insight - here's what you DON'T do:
You don't go home and sit idle, wondering who is going to bring money to support you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And you are assuming that they can produce $15/hr of value. Many of them can't.

$15 /hr isn't what it used to be. See so many people complaining about $15 /hr. I haven't worked for $15 an hour or less in nearly 25 years! $15 an hour is $31,200 a year (at 40 hours). I'd imagine the health care would cost at least 1/3 that.

But you aren't supposed to work there for a living... yeah... we are a services economy now, so this is one of those jobs.

Once again you completely fail to address the actual issue.

What, that people need to eat, that people in their 60s are whining about $15 an hour and how a meal and a tavern wench used to cost a nickel?

The argument of value is not nearly as cut and clean as you want it to be. If Burger King charges $1 for a value meal, if'd be impossible to pay a worker $10 an hour. So does this mean wages need to be below a point so value meals can cost $1? So the required value of the worker is a gray area. We can't make wages absurdly high, but keeping them too low has costs too, like having subsidize health care, housing, access to food.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You aren't Harry Potter, you don't have a magic wand. While you could remove bad jobs you would end up with many of the people in them ending up unemployed instead. Society would be worse off.

Neither are you Harry Potter. Hell, you are not even a good practioner of economics. Whether or not the people who end are priced out of bad jobs end up unemployed is an empirical question. Whether or not society ends up worse off is an empirical question depending on how society treats those people and how those people react to their situation.

Sorry, but you really have no clue what you are going on about.

Where does the money come from to support the workers you idled? Not from the infinite pool of money you always pretend exists for any good cause.

Can you please stop this. No one is arguing there is an infinite amount of money. The question is what is the balancing point between wages, profits, revenue, and a sustainable economy and population as it comes to meeting the minimum level that should be expected in a first world nation.

You keep talking about this like it is simple (and strawman'ing the opponent into some ridiculous position). This is economics. Economics aren't simple. They are complicated by psychology, sociology, history, trade policy, education, and sometimes even math and currency.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Okay, here's the plan. All medical facilities are bought out by the federal government. The healthcare insurance industry is wiped out. All employers pay into the Social Healthcare Administration, an expansion of Medicare that hire many of the folks from the now defunct insurance industry. Ninety percent of these folks get to work from home. And the people they did cheer. Minimum wage is set at twenty-five dollars an hour plus locality pay, a minimum a single earner would need to support a partner and 2.5 kids. The fast food industry is decimated. Dining out (eating that godawful crap) becomes a rare occurrence. Healthcare cost plummet as a result. Business owners benefit from those decreased healthcare costs. Critical shortages among healthcare workers is alleviated due to the decrease in obesity related illnesses to tend to.

What happens to all the fast food workers? The same thing that happened to the people that developed film, made typewriters, maintained pay phones, sold encyclopedias, worked on internal combustion engines, etc.