Minimum Wage Study - MW Does Not Kill Jobs

[Elixir]

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.

Not to mention typesetters, Conestoga wagon makers, whalers, milkmen, elevator operators, bowling alley pin setters, telephone switchboard operators …
According to Loren, we should be so swamped with unemployed people that hiring at $1/hr should generate a line around the block.

That said, I am grateful for the one old guy in town who works on small ICEs.

 

[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.

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.

Please shove that idiotic claim about "the infinite pool of money you always pretends exists" back into the cesspool from where you pulled it out. It just reinforces my observation that you have no clue what you are going on about.

Why would anyone think idled workers sit around waiting to manna to fall from heaven. They either sit around and die, enter into a life of crime, receive voluntary assistance from friends and/or family or charity, take advantage of existing income maintenance programs from society or society, or they start an enterprise (become self-employed) or they find another job. Except for the death or crime option, all the other outcomes are examples of society becoming better off. Unless you are claiming that the first two outcomes are the only ones possible (a truly ridiculous claim), it should be bleeding obvious that your view is unsupported by reason or reality.

When covid started, my youngest brother was laid off from the job he had held for over 30 years - it had become obsolete. Even though unemployment benefits with the federal covid top up meant he would have netted more not working, he bought a laptop and taught himself how to use it in order to search and apply for a job (up to that time, he used the computers at the public library, which was closed during covid). He found a job that paid him more for working fewer hours and he had better benefits. There was no fucking pot of infinite money (almost, he works for Amazon). Now, I think it is clear that society is better off. I know he thinks he is better off.

Which is why my observation about empirical question is relevant. Whether or not such outcomes result in an increase or decrease is welfare tends to be an empirical question.

 

[Worldtraveller]

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.

Sounds to me like an argument for UBI. Glad you're finally on board, Loren.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You might play musical chairs with the workers you idled but that doesn't address my point at all.

You reduced the number of people working. What happens to those you drove out of the labor force? Remember, productivity is down, government support will be less, not more.

 

[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.

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.

And yet again you completely fail to address the actual issue.

You're talking about "should". I'm talking about reality. Reality is often very unpleasant, but sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the tough decisions go away.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

You might play musical chairs with the workers you idled but that doesn't address my point at all.

You reduced the number of people working. What happens to those you drove out of the labor force? Remember, productivity is down, government support will be less, not more.

More economic ignorance. People who lose jobs are still in the labor force until they are no longer looking for work. Since there are always job vacancies, people can find jobs or gain skills to find jobs.

When people lose jobs, it is an empirical question as to whether productivity rises or falls. For example, when a technology replaces a person, productivity ( output per person) rises.

 

[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.

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.

Pretending you aren't saying there is an infinite pool of money doesn't mean you aren't actually arguing it.

The problem is that you are trying to shift costs in a way that can't be done. In the long run commodity products (which include most things we buy) are priced by the market, not by the manufacturer. Likewise, you can't dictate profit in a commodity market--if the profit is too low when a producer fails for whatever reason there will be no replacement. The supply will slowly drop until the profit comes back to the right level or until the product is no longer on the market. On the other side, if the profit is too high new competitors will enter the market and drive down profits.

It occurs to me we have a practical, often-repeated example of the problem with price. Look at what happens with price controls--the supply and quality of the good drops.

Yet you continue to think there's always enough money to fund whatever thing you want. You do no analysis to demonstrate it, you just decree it. The only way that could be determined without analysis is if the pool were infinite. Hence you are actually arguing that there is an infinite pool of money. But of course that's nonsense--we have a if p then q, but q is obviously wrong and you refuse to admit that proves p is wrong.

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.

In the short run they are complicated. In competitive situations in the long run the market sets the terms and it's generally quite simple.

 

[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.

And yet again you completely fail to address the actual issue.

You're talking about "should". I'm talking about reality. Reality is often very unpleasant, but sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the tough decisions go away.

You aren't talking about anything just handwriting and labeling and bullshit repeated comments about heads in samd.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You might play musical chairs with the workers you idled but that doesn't address my point at all.

You reduced the number of people working. What happens to those you drove out of the labor force? Remember, productivity is down, government support will be less, not more.

More economic ignorance. People who lose jobs are still in the labor force until they are no longer looking for work. Since there are always job vacancies, people can find jobs or gain skills to find jobs.

When people lose jobs, it is an empirical question as to whether productivity rises or falls. For example, when a technology replaces a person, productivity ( output per person) rises.

Once again, a supposed response that utterly misses the point.

I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about populations. Eliminating the crap jobs took many of their workers out of the labor force. The crap jobs are gone, nobody's going to hire them. Telling people to "find a job" doesn't work when there aren't jobs to be had.

 

[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.

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.

And yet again you completely fail to address the actual issue.

You're talking about "should". I'm talking about reality. Reality is often very unpleasant, but sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the tough decisions go away.

You aren't talking about anything just handwriting and labeling and bullshit repeated comments about heads in samd.

Saying I'm not talking about anything is just a refusal to address the problem I identified.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

You might play musical chairs with the workers you idled but that doesn't address my point at all.

You reduced the number of people working. What happens to those you drove out of the labor force? Remember, productivity is down, government support will be less, not more.

More economic ignorance. People who lose jobs are still in the labor force until they are no longer looking for work. Since there are always job vacancies, people can find jobs or gain skills to find jobs.

When people lose jobs, it is an empirical question as to whether productivity rises or falls. For example, when a technology replaces a person, productivity ( output per person) rises.

Once again, a supposed response that utterly misses the point.

I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about populations. Eliminating the crap jobs took many of their workers out of the labor force. The crap jobs are gone, nobody's going to hire them. Telling people to "find a job" doesn't work when there aren't jobs to be had.

Populations consist of individuals, so once again you miss the point.

The labor force consists of those with jobs and those who are actively seeking work. The elimination of jobs does not mean the idled workers are not in the labor force. So once again, you display economic ignorance.

Your response ignores the reality that the labor market is dynamic and fluid, and it makes the counterfactual assumption that people who lose “ crap jobs” are literally unemployable forever.

Responses based on false premises and bizarrely counter factual arguments cannot be taken seriously.

 

[laughing dog]

Saying I'm not talking about anything is just a refusal to address the problem I identified.

In this particular instance, it is an indisputable statement of fact.

 

[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.

And yet again you completely fail to address the actual issue.

You're talking about "should". I'm talking about reality. Reality is often very unpleasant, but sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the tough decisions go away.

You aren't talking about anything just handwriting and labeling and bullshit repeated comments about heads in samd.

Seriously?! You mess up handwaving but completely miss same?! And I thought I turned this off, because spellchecker in Android is nowhere near as good as Apple.

 

[Elixir]

Saying I'm not talking about anything is just a refusal to address the problem I identified.

The problem you “identified” (invented) is a figment of your imagination.
If losing a job means their removal from the labor force and the end of an individual’s productivity, they are suffering like you are, from a complete lack of vision, imagination and basic willingness to get out of bed.
You are stuck in your regressive belief that labor is a zero-sum game. I recommend reading some biographies of extraordinarily productive people, and marvel at how many jobs such people have “lost”. Their job losses did NOT send the government into default. In fact those job losses often lit the fuse that resulted in an explosion of productivity. But for some reason, you can’t see that.

 

[bilby]

Saying I'm not talking about anything is just a refusal to address the problem I identified.

The problem you “identified” (invented) is a figment of your imagination.
If losing a job means their removal from the labor force and the end of an individual’s productivity, they are suffering like you are, from a complete lack of vision, imagination and basic willingness to get out of bed.
You are stuck in your regressive belief that labor is a zero-sum game. I recommend reading some biographies of extraordinarily productive people, and marvel at how many jobs such people have “lost”. Their job losses did NOT send the government into default. In fact those job losses often lit the fuse that resulted in an explosion of productivity. But for some reason, you can’t see that.

That's because all people who do minimum wage jobs are either teenagers, or interchangeable and identical NPCs who have zero skills, zero enthusiasm, and zero initiative.

Most right wing "thinking" on economics for poor people falls into the error of not believing that poor people are, well, people. Wealthy individuals are individuals; But the poor are a monolithic block of barely useful drones who need to be forced into working, because despite the best efforts of Job Creators^TM to incentivise them with poor pay, lousy conditions, and sub-standard benefits, they still, inexplicably, don't love their jobs.

The entire basis of right wing "thought" is that I and my colleagues, and people like us, are the stars of the show, and everyone else is an extra, with no important role, no significant lines, and no more value than any other part of the scenery. They are "your side", or "the left", or "the blacks", or "women"; They aren't real, and they don't have desires, goals, thoughts, fears, or feelings, like people do.

They can be incentivised only by threats of punishment. Positive incentives just don't work, and if you give them more money, they waste it on stuff they want to spend it on such as food, rent, clothing, entertainment and (bizarrely) giving it away to needy family or friends, or to charities; Rather than wisely investing it in stuff that real people think they should spend it on, like building a portfolio of assets, such as real estate or stocks and shares, so they can be productive members of society who add value, by telling people what to do, or by simply owning things; Instead of valueless labourers, who add no value at all, by actually doing things.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Populations consist of individuals, so once again you miss the point.

The labor force consists of those with jobs and those who are actively seeking work. The elimination of jobs does not mean the idled workers are not in the labor force. So once again, you display economic ignorance.

Your response ignores the reality that the labor market is dynamic and fluid, and it makes the counterfactual assumption that people who lose “ crap jobs” are literally unemployable forever.

Responses based on false premises and bizarrely counter factual arguments cannot be taken seriously.

Just because there's a bunch of quoting levels in between doesn't mean you get to ignore the original point.

You drive up the price of labor by reducing supply. Fundamentally, that's the only thing that works.

In removing the bad jobs you idled most of the people who were working at them. Don't say to find another job--there isn't one. If there had been they wouldn't have been working in a bad job in the first place!

Weaseling does not get away from this fundamental problem with your position.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Saying I'm not talking about anything is just a refusal to address the problem I identified.

The problem you “identified” (invented) is a figment of your imagination.
If losing a job means their removal from the labor force and the end of an individual’s productivity, they are suffering like you are, from a complete lack of vision, imagination and basic willingness to get out of bed.
You are stuck in your regressive belief that labor is a zero-sum game. I recommend reading some biographies of extraordinarily productive people, and marvel at how many jobs such people have “lost”. Their job losses did NOT send the government into default. In fact those job losses often lit the fuse that resulted in an explosion of productivity. But for some reason, you can’t see that.

You fell for his mischaracterization of my position. This is a strawman attack although I do not think you realize it.

 

[Elixir]

if you give them more money, they waste it on stuff they want to spend it on such as food, rent, clothing, entertainment and (bizarrely) giving it away to needy family or friends, or to charities; Rather than wisely investing it in stuff that real people think they should spend it on, like building a portfolio of assets, such as real estate or stocks and shares, so they can be productive members of society who add value, by telling people what to do, or by simply owning things; Instead of valueless labourers, who add no value at all, by actually doing things.

OTOH, the amoral unethical billionaire class whose only north star is greed, serve the purpose of providing an illusion for the rabble. It sees billionaires as "elite", even while they are instructed to reject intellectuals as "elite". And they want to be elite. They're never going to be smarter or more educated than they are, but (believe that) they sure as hell can grab up enough stuff in life to join the elite (lots of stuff=elite) through sheer power of greed, as their exemplars have done - if only the damn democrats would stop stealing their money and giving to funny colored communists.

Saying I'm not talking about anything is just a refusal to address the problem I identified.

The problem you “identified” (invented) is a figment of your imagination.
If losing a job means their removal from the labor force and the end of an individual’s productivity, they are suffering like you are, from a complete lack of vision, imagination and basic willingness to get out of bed.
You are stuck in your regressive belief that labor is a zero-sum game. I recommend reading some biographies of extraordinarily productive people, and marvel at how many jobs such people have “lost”. Their job losses did NOT send the government into default. In fact those job losses often lit the fuse that resulted in an explosion of productivity. But for some reason, you can’t see that.

You fell for his mischaracterization of my position. This is a strawman attack although I do not think you realize it.

Feel free to clearly differentiate what you think I believe from what your "point" is. You did not address the post wherein I laid out the basis for my stance. Should I go find and re-post it?

 

[laughing dog]

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

Populations consist of individuals, so once again you miss the point.

The labor force consists of those with jobs and those who are actively seeking work. The elimination of jobs does not mean the idled workers are not in the labor force. So once again, you display economic ignorance.

Your response ignores the reality that the labor market is dynamic and fluid, and it makes the counterfactual assumption that people who lose “ crap jobs” are literally unemployable forever.

Responses based on false premises and bizarrely counter factual arguments cannot be taken seriously.

Just because there's a bunch of quoting levels in between doesn't mean you get to ignore the original point.

You drive up the price of labor by reducing supply. Fundamentally, that's the only thing that works.

A minimum wage does not reduce the supply of labor. It may affect how much labor employs demand but it does affect the supply of labor -as anyone who passed Econ 101 knows.

In removing the bad jobs you idled most of the people who were working at them. Don't say to find another job--there isn't one. If there had been they wouldn't have been working in a bad job in the first place!

Perhaps in your La La land of make believe but not in the real world, People sometimes need a push. Contrary to your unfounded religious beliefs, workers are not constantly looking to upgrade jobs. Losing a job sometimes prompts people to move to find another job.

Weaseling does not get away from this fundamental problem with your position.

Making insulting and idiotic whines about weaselling and avoiding the blatant economic fallacies and ignorance does not change the reality that your argument has no basis in fact or theory.

 

[Elixir]

In removing the bad jobs you idled most of the people who were working at them.

WTF does "removing bad jobs" mean? If someone has a bad job... I dunno ... maybe cleaning your clogged sewer drain, are you just going to let it back up into your house because they "lost their job"?, No, (I assume) you'd look for someone else to do the job - which they wouldn't have otherwise had. That's why there's another job. If the good or service becomes harder to get, the price goes up. The entire expensive turnover debacle is largely avoidable simply by paying a decent wage, charging the 'gone up' price up front, and in the process creating a whole new class of consumers above the current bottom end of the income scale, reducing crime and creating a less fearful environment.
It ain't rocket surgery.
Unless you're disproportionately wealthy and are trying to rationalize that fact, in which case rocket surgery is not nearly complicated enough to make predictions about something as chaotic and yet fragile, as the economy. So screw the burger flipper. If he ever scraped together the money for a car, he'd probably drive to the polls and vote Democrat, anyway.