missouri passes state law forcing cities to lower their minimum wage

[DBT]

You need entry level jobs so people can enter the labor force.

'Entry level' jobs may be the only career option that some workers have (not everyone can be doctors and lawyers). If the work is productive, the pay offered should be more than the pittance that is MW.

We should have been working toward fairer and more reasonable societies long ago. Instead we have economic systems designed by the wealthy to benefit the wealthy and provide cheap labour in order to maximize profits for the rich at the expense of those on the bottom.....even if to achieve that purpose means that production has to be shifted to third world countries to exploit their workforce.

It's obscene.

Yeah because the poor people 100 years ago we're living in Mansions and sailing yachts, capitalism came around and that stopped. The biggest issue with capitalism is that it has become too successful.

More than just successful for those at the top of the heap. More like rorting the system. The point being that the balance has tipped too far in favour of the very rich to the detriment of ordinary workers.

You only have to look at the stats showing the ever increasing gulf between corporate salaries and middle to low income wages during the last few decades to see that this trend is not sustainable in the long term, or even medium term, the next few decades. That was the point.

 

[marc]

What I'm hearing:


P1 - "Gee, it is a little chilly in here. Why don't we turn up the thermostat a couple degrees to make everyone more comfortable"

P2 - "oh sure, why don't you turn it up a thousand degrees then!"

P1 - ????? "Have you tried decaf?"

What you are missing is that we are asking for evidence of what the right amount is, the left keeps saying "more!" Thus we suggest 1000 degrees as evidence there is such a thing as too much.

probably miss it because I never see such question posted, just straw-men and baseless assertions of calamity. Or ridiculous hyperbole, like the 1000 degrees comment, that would indicate no attempt at a serious discussion of the issue.

I have no information on what a 'right amount' would be, and have serious doubts you would accept the evidence even if I did have it. But it doesn't take a PhD to realize that wages should be higher...... I could go on to explain, but is it even worth the attempt? I doubt it.

 

[dismal]

What you are missing is that we are asking for evidence of what the right amount is, the left keeps saying "more!" Thus we suggest 1000 degrees as evidence there is such a thing as too much.

probably miss it because I never see such question posted, just straw-men and baseless assertions of calamity. Or ridiculous hyperbole, like the 1000 degrees comment, that would indicate no attempt at a serious discussion of the issue.

I have no information on what a 'right amount' would be, and have serious doubts you would accept the evidence even if I did have it. But it doesn't take a PhD to realize that wages should be higher...... I could go on to explain, but is it even worth the attempt? I doubt it.

Ok, so what harm is caused by a high minimum wage?

Tip: Your attempts to criticize the other side for it's over-the-top hyper-partisan arguments (that can be found in any economics textbook) look a bit silly while no one on your side is able to muster up enough intellectual honesty to even name the harms caused by the minimum wage.

 

[laughing dog]

probably miss it because I never see such question posted, just straw-men and baseless assertions of calamity. Or ridiculous hyperbole, like the 1000 degrees comment, that would indicate no attempt at a serious discussion of the issue.

I have no information on what a 'right amount' would be, and have serious doubts you would accept the evidence even if I did have it. But it doesn't take a PhD to realize that wages should be higher...... I could go on to explain, but is it even worth the attempt? I doubt it.

Ok, so what harm is caused by a high minimum wage?

Tip: Your attempts to criticize the other side for it's over-the-top hyper-partisan arguments (that can be found in any economics textbook) look a bit silly while no one on your side is able to muster up enough intellectual honesty to even name the harms caused by the minimum wage.

Plenty of posts have been made stating that whether or not a minimum wage increase causes a net benefit or net cost depends on whether the increased income to workers and the subsequent ripple effect from the spending outweighs the costs of lost hours/jobs and spending. And that ignores the social benefits and costs. That argument can be found in any economics textbook.

So, your response is not one of the less retarded posts on this subject.

 

[coloradoatheist]

What you are missing is that we are asking for evidence of what the right amount is, the left keeps saying "more!" Thus we suggest 1000 degrees as evidence there is such a thing as too much.

probably miss it because I never see such question posted, just straw-men and baseless assertions of calamity. Or ridiculous hyperbole, like the 1000 degrees comment, that would indicate no attempt at a serious discussion of the issue.

I have no information on what a 'right amount' would be, and have serious doubts you would accept the evidence even if I did have it. But it doesn't take a PhD to realize that wages should be higher...... I could go on to explain, but is it even worth the attempt? I doubt it.

We could add 3 zeroes to our currency, but would we be 1000 times richer because of that? We don't get richer by just paying more for things.

 

[marc]

probably miss it because I never see such question posted, just straw-men and baseless assertions of calamity. Or ridiculous hyperbole, like the 1000 degrees comment, that would indicate no attempt at a serious discussion of the issue.

I have no information on what a 'right amount' would be, and have serious doubts you would accept the evidence even if I did have it. But it doesn't take a PhD to realize that wages should be higher...... I could go on to explain, but is it even worth the attempt? I doubt it.

We could add 3 zeroes to our currency, but would we be 1000 times richer because of that? We don't get richer by just paying more for things.

which of course no one is suggesting. More of the ridiculous hyperbole to deflect from actually discussing the issue IMO.

 

[coloradoatheist]

We could add 3 zeroes to our currency, but would we be 1000 times richer because of that? We don't get richer by just paying more for things.

which of course no one is suggesting. More of the ridiculous hyperbole to deflect from actually discussing the issue IMO.

No, it's trying to make people artificially more productive than they are. And yes for a short period some people will be better off until inflation caused by the increase in minimum wage catches up and they are where they started. And that dismisses the people who initially lose their jobs and hours to pay for the increased costs.

Prices of goods are tied to the wages that go in. The only to make people better off is to make them more productive, not just paying them more.

 

[LordKiran]

which of course no one is suggesting. More of the ridiculous hyperbole to deflect from actually discussing the issue IMO.

No, it's trying to make people artificially more productive than they are. And yes for a short period some people will be better off until inflation caused by the increase in minimum wage catches up and they are where they started. And that dismisses the people who initially lose their jobs and hours to pay for the increased costs.

Prices of goods are tied to the wages that go in. The only to make people better off is to make them more productive, not just paying them more.

I'm sorry, but can you explain the relationship between what people are paid, and productivity as a measurable statistic?

- - - Updated - - -

which of course no one is suggesting. More of the ridiculous hyperbole to deflect from actually discussing the issue IMO.

No, it's trying to make people artificially more productive than they are. And yes for a short period some people will be better off until inflation caused by the increase in minimum wage catches up and they are where they started. And that dismisses the people who initially lose their jobs and hours to pay for the increased costs.

Prices of goods are tied to the wages that go in. The only to make people better off is to make them more productive, not just paying them more.

Can you cite information which states that any wage increase directly correlates to an equal increase in the cost of products and services? Perhaps a reasonable assumption, but then perhaps not. So can you show this as being the case 100% of the time with every single wage increase? Because one would think if this were true, then management pay hikes would always result in increased costs of a given product or service.

 

[PyramidHead]

When the cost of bananas increases, people may decide to buy fewer bananas. This is because bananas are not a mandatory purchase for anybody. At the same time, the people who grow and/or sell bananas may have more disposable income if the sales don't drop too much as a result of the higher price. They will spend their additional money, if they ever see it, and create a small stimulus that may not even be measurable.

When the minimum cost of labor increases, companies may decide to buy less labor, but some amount of labor is mandatory so they will never stop buying it altogether. Some of the additional cost may be passed onto consumers or detracted from profits. At the same time, the people who sell their labor for minimum cost will have more disposable income if they do not lose their job as a result of the higher cost. They will spend their additional money, creating a much larger stimulus.

The key differences between the two situations are:

1. Not everybody who currently buys bananas needs bananas. Almost every company that buys minimum wage labor needs minimum wage labor.

2. People who grow/sell bananas make up a very small percentage of the population, while minimum wage workers make up a much larger portion by comparison. This makes it reasonable to talk about the possibility of an economic stimulus effect resulting from more money in the hands of minimum wage workers, while you wouldn't expect much of an effect from more money in the banana growers/sellers.

3. When a company increases the price of bananas, customers may simply buy them somewhere else for a lower price. When the government sets the minimum cost of labor, everyone must abide by it, so nobody has a competitive disadvantage as a result of adopting the new policy.

4. A company that increases the price of bananas is not likely to be the beneficiary of whatever tiny economic stimulus is caused by the banana growers/sellers having more disposable income, if they have any. Every company that has minimum wage workers and customers who make minimum wage will potentially see a benefit from more money being in the hands of their customers (e.g. Walmart employees who then spend some of their extra money at Walmart).

These are the obvious ones, but I'm sure there are more. So, can we please not pretend the issue is as simple as fruit.

 

[coloradoatheist]

When the cost of bananas increases, people may decide to buy fewer bananas. This is because bananas are not a mandatory purchase for anybody. At the same time, the people who grow and/or sell bananas may have more disposable income if the sales don't drop too much as a result of the higher price. They will spend their additional money, if they ever see it, and create a small stimulus that may not even be measurable.

When the minimum cost of labor increases, companies may decide to buy less labor, but some amount of labor is mandatory so they will never stop buying it altogether. Some of the additional cost may be passed onto consumers or detracted from profits. At the same time, the people who sell their labor for minimum cost will have more disposable income if they do not lose their job as a result of the higher cost. They will spend their additional money, creating a much larger stimulus.

The key differences between the two situations are:

1. Not everybody who currently buys bananas needs bananas. Almost every company that buys minimum wage labor needs minimum wage labor.

2. People who grow/sell bananas make up a very small percentage of the population, while minimum wage workers make up a much larger portion by comparison. This makes it reasonable to talk about the possibility of an economic stimulus effect resulting from more money in the hands of minimum wage workers, while you wouldn't expect much of an effect from more money in the banana growers/sellers.

3. When a company increases the price of bananas, customers may simply buy them somewhere else for a lower price. When the government sets the minimum cost of labor, everyone must abide by it, so nobody has a competitive disadvantage as a result of adopting the new policy.

4. A company that increases the price of bananas is not likely to be the beneficiary of whatever tiny economic stimulus is caused by the banana growers/sellers having more disposable income, if they have any. Every company that has minimum wage workers and customers who make minimum wage will potentially see a benefit from more money being in the hands of their customers (e.g. Walmart employees who then spend some of their extra money at Walmart).

These are the obvious ones, but I'm sure there are more. So, can we please not pretend the issue is as simple as fruit.

What are you describing is the elasticity of a good. Some good are easily replaced, some aren't. So yes for bananas they are very elastic, you'll switch to other fruit if bananas go too high. For workers, it's not as elastic, but yes they will use less workers. There is no exact anser for things like, "How many tables must one waiter server" With the whole foods acquisition by Amazon they are talking about getting rid of all cashiers.

 

[ksen]

When the cost of bananas increases, people may decide to buy fewer bananas. This is because bananas are not a mandatory purchase for anybody. At the same time, the people who grow and/or sell bananas may have more disposable income if the sales don't drop too much as a result of the higher price. They will spend their additional money, if they ever see it, and create a small stimulus that may not even be measurable.

When the minimum cost of labor increases, companies may decide to buy less labor, but some amount of labor is mandatory so they will never stop buying it altogether. Some of the additional cost may be passed onto consumers or detracted from profits. At the same time, the people who sell their labor for minimum cost will have more disposable income if they do not lose their job as a result of the higher cost. They will spend their additional money, creating a much larger stimulus.

The key differences between the two situations are:

1. Not everybody who currently buys bananas needs bananas. Almost every company that buys minimum wage labor needs minimum wage labor.

2. People who grow/sell bananas make up a very small percentage of the population, while minimum wage workers make up a much larger portion by comparison. This makes it reasonable to talk about the possibility of an economic stimulus effect resulting from more money in the hands of minimum wage workers, while you wouldn't expect much of an effect from more money in the banana growers/sellers.

3. When a company increases the price of bananas, customers may simply buy them somewhere else for a lower price. When the government sets the minimum cost of labor, everyone must abide by it, so nobody has a competitive disadvantage as a result of adopting the new policy.

4. A company that increases the price of bananas is not likely to be the beneficiary of whatever tiny economic stimulus is caused by the banana growers/sellers having more disposable income, if they have any. Every company that has minimum wage workers and customers who make minimum wage will potentially see a benefit from more money being in the hands of their customers (e.g. Walmart employees who then spend some of their extra money at Walmart).

These are the obvious ones, but I'm sure there are more. So, can we please not pretend the issue is as simple as fruit.

What are you describing is the elasticity of a good. Some good are easily replaced, some aren't. So yes for bananas they are very elastic, you'll switch to other fruit if bananas go too high. For workers, it's not as elastic, but yes they will use less workers. There is no exact anser for things like, "How many tables must one waiter server" With the whole foods acquisition by Amazon they are talking about getting rid of all cashiers.

If companies could make do with less workers they'd already be doing it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If companies could make do with less workers they'd already be doing it.

Nope, companies are almost always in a state of flux. They grow, they shrink, they hire and fire and try and find the best combination. They are many times they overhire.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm sorry, but can you explain the relationship between what people are paid, and productivity as a measurable statistic?

Not off hand, but would be a PhD type paper. But yes, salaries do coorrelate with the productivity of the position, of either the financial position or other types of items.

Can you cite information which states that any wage increase directly correlates to an equal increase in the cost of products and services? Perhaps a reasonable assumption, but then perhaps not. So can you show this as being the case 100% of the time with every single wage increase? Because one would think if this were true, then management pay hikes would always result in increased costs of a given product or service.

It's interesting, that when talk about howhow wages are flat over decades they are talking about how wages and prices stay in strict correlation, especially at the bottom. And prices do reflect some of the costs of management, but when a company is huge, even the bonuses of the very few at the top aren't a lot in the scheme of everything. And management has different forms of compensation at times.

 

[PyramidHead]

When the cost of bananas increases, people may decide to buy fewer bananas. This is because bananas are not a mandatory purchase for anybody. At the same time, the people who grow and/or sell bananas may have more disposable income if the sales don't drop too much as a result of the higher price. They will spend their additional money, if they ever see it, and create a small stimulus that may not even be measurable.

When the minimum cost of labor increases, companies may decide to buy less labor, but some amount of labor is mandatory so they will never stop buying it altogether. Some of the additional cost may be passed onto consumers or detracted from profits. At the same time, the people who sell their labor for minimum cost will have more disposable income if they do not lose their job as a result of the higher cost. They will spend their additional money, creating a much larger stimulus.

The key differences between the two situations are:

1. Not everybody who currently buys bananas needs bananas. Almost every company that buys minimum wage labor needs minimum wage labor.

2. People who grow/sell bananas make up a very small percentage of the population, while minimum wage workers make up a much larger portion by comparison. This makes it reasonable to talk about the possibility of an economic stimulus effect resulting from more money in the hands of minimum wage workers, while you wouldn't expect much of an effect from more money in the banana growers/sellers.

3. When a company increases the price of bananas, customers may simply buy them somewhere else for a lower price. When the government sets the minimum cost of labor, everyone must abide by it, so nobody has a competitive disadvantage as a result of adopting the new policy.

4. A company that increases the price of bananas is not likely to be the beneficiary of whatever tiny economic stimulus is caused by the banana growers/sellers having more disposable income, if they have any. Every company that has minimum wage workers and customers who make minimum wage will potentially see a benefit from more money being in the hands of their customers (e.g. Walmart employees who then spend some of their extra money at Walmart).

These are the obvious ones, but I'm sure there are more. So, can we please not pretend the issue is as simple as fruit.

What are you describing is the elasticity of a good. Some good are easily replaced, some aren't. So yes for bananas they are very elastic, you'll switch to other fruit if bananas go too high. For workers, it's not as elastic, but yes they will use less workers. There is no exact anser for things like, "How many tables must one waiter server" With the whole foods acquisition by Amazon they are talking about getting rid of all cashiers.

That doesn't address the other big differences, which are (1) that minimum wage workers spending their extra cash has a much bigger positive effect on the overall economy than banana sellers spending their extra cash; and (2) that people will switch to cheaper fruit if one company raises their banana prices, but if every company is required by government to comply with the minimum wage, nobody will have to fire people or jack up their prices to "remain competitive", because the same pressure is applied to everybody else as well.

 

[PyramidHead]

Can you cite information which states that any wage increase directly correlates to an equal increase in the cost of products and services? Perhaps a reasonable assumption, but then perhaps not. So can you show this as being the case 100% of the time with every single wage increase? Because one would think if this were true, then management pay hikes would always result in increased costs of a given product or service.

It's interesting, that when talk about howhow wages are flat over decades they are talking about how wages and prices stay in strict correlation, especially at the bottom. And prices do reflect some of the costs of management, but when a company is huge, even the bonuses of the very few at the top aren't a lot in the scheme of everything. And management has different forms of compensation at times.

You can just say no.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you are missing is that we are asking for evidence of what the right amount is, the left keeps saying "more!" Thus we suggest 1000 degrees as evidence there is such a thing as too much.

probably miss it because I never see such question posted, just straw-men and baseless assertions of calamity. Or ridiculous hyperbole, like the 1000 degrees comment, that would indicate no attempt at a serious discussion of the issue.

I have no information on what a 'right amount' would be, and have serious doubts you would accept the evidence even if I did have it. But it doesn't take a PhD to realize that wages should be higher...... I could go on to explain, but is it even worth the attempt? I doubt it.

It's not ridiculous hyperbole, but rather a standard means of disproving something: Identify something that meets the stated criteria yet is obviously wrong.

What we hear again and again from the left is that the economy will be better with a higher minimum wage. This is open-ended, so we take it to an extreme that obviously doesn't work. Your side continually makes fools of themselves by arguing against this.

Proper responses are:

1) Showing that the provided example does not meet the criteria.

2) Showing that the provided example is not wrong. (Good luck with that one, people using this approach normally pick something that's insane.)

3) Fixing the original claim.

Attacks on our position normally are based on #1 but they are laughable--no, that's not what I mean. Sorry, but you simply said "higher" and set no limits on it. In practice #3 is almost always the only answer. However, your side is unwilling to actually evaluate the situation because that shows there are limits (and the data strongly suggests that we are at or beyond the point where the harm exceeds the benefit), you can't just keep pushing it higher.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Prices of goods are tied to the wages that go in. The only to make people better off is to make them more productive, not just paying them more.

What they want is redistribution from the wealthy to the poor.

Never mind the reality that those making above minimum wage do so because they have skills that employers will pay for, and thus will be able to demand a higher wage that eats up the gains made through raising the minimum wage.

The only lasting effect will be an inflation tax on people's monetary assets. Never mind that that only applies to those with dollar-denominated assets--mostly the middle class. (The rich mostly have their money in things or stock.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What are you describing is the elasticity of a good. Some good are easily replaced, some aren't. So yes for bananas they are very elastic, you'll switch to other fruit if bananas go too high. For workers, it's not as elastic, but yes they will use less workers. There is no exact anser for things like, "How many tables must one waiter server" With the whole foods acquisition by Amazon they are talking about getting rid of all cashiers.

Yup, the normal result of an increase in the price of labor--the market shifts towards businesses where labor is a smaller percent of their total costs.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That doesn't address the other big differences, which are (1) that minimum wage workers spending their extra cash has a much bigger positive effect on the overall economy than banana sellers spending their extra cash; and (2) that people will switch to cheaper fruit if one company raises their banana prices, but if every company is required by government to comply with the minimum wage, nobody will have to fire people or jack up their prices to "remain competitive", because the same pressure is applied to everybody else as well.

Yes we do. And then you have to talk about the elasticity of other things too, coming back to bananas. If the grocery store has to raise prices to compensate for their additional expenses you now are faced with the elasticity of bananas again. Some people got a little wealthier, but you just made other poorer.

- - - Updated - - -

It's interesting, that when talk about howhow wages are flat over decades they are talking about how wages and prices stay in strict correlation, especially at the bottom. And prices do reflect some of the costs of management, but when a company is huge, even the bonuses of the very few at the top aren't a lot in the scheme of everything. And management has different forms of compensation at times.

You can just say no.

What is the ratio of prices and wages over a long period of time?

How long does a company stay in business if it's wage increases are greater than it's price increases?

 

[PyramidHead]

Yes we do. And then you have to talk about the elasticity of other things too, coming back to bananas. If the grocery store has to raise prices to compensate for their additional expenses you now are faced with the elasticity of bananas again. Some people got a little wealthier, but you just made other poorer.

I have no idea how this relates to what I said. To refresh your memory, I said:

...if every company is required by government to comply with the minimum wage, nobody will have to fire people or jack up their prices to "remain competitive", because the same pressure is applied to everybody else as well.

To which you replied:

Yes we do.

Why would you have to increase your prices to remain competitive with companies that also had to adopt the higher minimum wage?

It's interesting, that when talk about howhow wages are flat over decades they are talking about how wages and prices stay in strict correlation, especially at the bottom. And prices do reflect some of the costs of management, but when a company is huge, even the bonuses of the very few at the top aren't a lot in the scheme of everything. And management has different forms of compensation at times.

You can just say no.

What is the ratio of prices and wages over a long period of time?

How long does a company stay in business if it's wage increases are greater than it's price increases?

I don't know. I was just pointing out that if you don't have any sources that support the contention that wage increases are correlated with equal price increases, you could just say "no, LordKiran, I don't have any sources to support that."