Ontario raising minimum wage to $15

[Crazy Eddie]

It isn't a shit job if the person still agrees to do it without coercion

I see you are under the misguided impression that people do not take shit jobs without coercion.

There would be a legitimate complaint from those who are producing useful work and creating revenue and being taxed heavily on it, supporting those who do useless but fun hobby-like work. So a minimum wage may make sense for that reason, but note how different an approach that is from where you are coming from.

In other words, the only reason you can think of for a minimum wage is some sort of vague ethical argument that sidesteps the inanities of your fantasy world entirely.

Because they feel that they need the job and the employers know this.

No. Because there are fifty other people competing for that same job who may also be more qualified than they are. It doesn't MATTER whether they need the job or how much they need it; employees are in no position to request a more favorable deal, because any such request immediately makes them less attractive than the other 50 applicants for the same job. The only way they can improve their bargaining power is with credible work experience, and that takes a lot of time and effort to collect.

So an employee can indeed choose not to work a shit job because the terms of his employment are terrible. Sure, he won't starve to death, but he ALSO won't gather any relevant work experience that will put him in a better position the next time he applies for one. The one who took the job INSTEAD of him gains the experience he would have gained, and can now bargain for slightly better wages and working conditions at his next job or at the same company as an internal hire. Two years from now, the guy who passed up the shit job is now competing with a whole new crop of just-starting-out young workers on exactly the same terms as before. No matter how many times he passes up that shit job offer, he'll never get a better one as long as SOMEBODY is willing to take it.

If they don't really need the job, this becomes much much less potent, and sometimes vanishes altogether. For some jobs (dirty or dangerous jobs nobody wants but they do so they can fee their families) wages could actually drastically increase.

You continue to push the fantasy that employers put any conscious thought to the financial situations of their employees in making hiring decisions. I told you this already: Employers do not care. They will pay you exactly what they think they can afford to pay you, and as little as they think they can get away with paying you. They don't know if you're on food stamps or living off your rich uncle's trust fund, and they don't WANT to know, because they don't care.

What CAN happen is an employer can effectively blackmail his employees if he knows he is in a unique position to boost or hinder their career paths. This is a PROFESSIONAL calculation and not a financial one; it is common, for example, for employees who are also part-time students to be passed over for promotion for long periods of time, because the employers know that those employees have constrains on their schedules and don't really have time to look for a better job.

This thing you expect to "vanish altogether" is just a figment of your imagination. Employers are NOT using the survival value of employment as leverage against wages, they're using OTHER EMPLOYEES as that leverage and playing potential applicants against each other.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It isn't a shit job if the person still agrees to do it without coercion, even if they are volunteering or doing an unpaid internship.

That is a pretty idiosyncratic definition of a "shit job". I've known plenty of interns who lived through an abusive job in order to put a positive listing on their resume.

Depending on who you ask, this is pretty much the DEFINITION of "unpaid internship."

 

[Horatio Parker]

"very credible"

nah, it's already started to get torn apart.

No doubt. But how is it being torn apart ? I've not had a chance to read much about it.

The employment responses estimated by the authors are well outside the bounds of most published research, and indeed all of the research cited by the authors implies much smaller and even no employment changes in response to wage increases similar to those experienced so far in Seattle. After accounting for Seattle’s much higher wage structure, the increase of the minimum wage to $13.00 in the city is within the range of increases that other research has found to have had little to no effect on employment.

The study implausibly finds employment changes due to the minimum wage in parts of the labor market where there should have be none. The study’s own estimates inaccurately imply the minimum wage caused large gains in the number of jobs paying above $19.00 per hour and in the number of hours worked in those jobs—even though those jobs are well above the wage range where the $13.00 minimum wage should be having measurable effects. These spurious results strongly suggest that the study’s methodology fails to account properly for the booming Seattle labor market during the period being studied—a labor market that has been shifting employment from lower-paid to higher-paid jobs.

The study excludes an important group of workers, representing roughly 40 percent of the workforce: those working for employers with businesses in multiple locations. By omitting all multi-location businesses, such as chains, in Seattle, the authors bias their results toward showing job loss if there has been a shift in employment from small, single-location establishments toward larger firms with multiple locations.

http://www.epi.org/publication/the-...s-new-analysis-of-seattles-minimum-wage-incr/

 

[Elixir]

It isn't a shit job if the person still agrees to do it without coercion, even if they are volunteering or doing an unpaid internship.

That is a pretty idiosyncratic definition of a "shit job". I've known plenty of interns who lived through an abusive job in order to put a positive listing on their resume.

There's an outfit that sells slaves... calls us regularly trying to get us to pay them to make unpaid interns do a lot of work that the slave sellers say will benefit us greatly.

 

[dismal]

No doubt. But how is it being torn apart ? I've not had a chance to read much about it.

The employment responses estimated by the authors are well outside the bounds of most published research, and indeed all of the research cited by the authors implies much smaller and even no employment changes in response to wage increases similar to those experienced so far in Seattle. After accounting for Seattle’s much higher wage structure, the increase of the minimum wage to $13.00 in the city is within the range of increases that other research has found to have had little to no effect on employment.

The study implausibly finds employment changes due to the minimum wage in parts of the labor market where there should have be none. The study’s own estimates inaccurately imply the minimum wage caused large gains in the number of jobs paying above $19.00 per hour and in the number of hours worked in those jobs—even though those jobs are well above the wage range where the $13.00 minimum wage should be having measurable effects. These spurious results strongly suggest that the study’s methodology fails to account properly for the booming Seattle labor market during the period being studied—a labor market that has been shifting employment from lower-paid to higher-paid jobs.

The study excludes an important group of workers, representing roughly 40 percent of the workforce: those working for employers with businesses in multiple locations. By omitting all multi-location businesses, such as chains, in Seattle, the authors bias their results toward showing job loss if there has been a shift in employment from small, single-location establishments toward larger firms with multiple locations.

http://www.epi.org/publication/the-...s-new-analysis-of-seattles-minimum-wage-incr/

Well that's obviously crap because it says there is not some fixed number of jobs.

It also seems to suggest there is competition in the labor market that bids up wages even without the government passing laws, which can't be true because we all know there are people out there selling slave labor .

 

[Loren Pechtel]

With sufficient UBI, there wouldn't be any shit jobs. People would take jobs because they enjoy the work, or they are being paid enough to make it a good job for them, or a combination of the two.

It is undeniable that in utopia that everything is wonderful by definition. But what makes you think that
1) there will be agreement on what constitutes a sufficient UBI,
2) there are the resources to fund that sufficient UBI, and
3) attaining that UBI in our lifetime is feasible?

In this week's Economist, there is a short article (I cannot reproduce a link here) about Finland's current UBI experiment. In it, it reports that 70% of Finns like the idea until they find out the income tax will have to raised to support it (then the favorable ratio is about 35%).

Yup, this is the problem. I don't think there's any place on Earth that currently has an economy that's good enough to support UBI. Thus I do not support UBI yet, but I believe the situation will in time change to make it a good answer. I do not know how long that will take.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is undeniable that in utopia that everything is wonderful by definition. But what makes you think that
1) there will be agreement on what constitutes a sufficient UBI,
2) there are the resources to fund that sufficient UBI, and
3) attaining that UBI in our lifetime is feasible?

In this week's Economist, there is a short article (I cannot reproduce a link here) about Finland's current UBI experiment. In it, it reports that 70% of Finns like the idea until they find out the income tax will have to raised to support it (then the favorable ratio is about 35%).

This will always be the case, of a UBI as it is for the US type welfare. This is why it is always better to raise the wages of the poor rather than dreaming up elaborate government programs like an UBI or even US's welfare. The government programs will always be demonized by the most powerful people in our society, the very rich, who pay for these programs.

The problem is that you end up raising their wage to $0 (destroying their jobs.)

• it is better for all if people make their livelihoods by working rather than having money handed to them
• when the government subsidizes something it creates more of that something

Welfare for the working poor or a UBI subsidizes low wages. This means that we will get more low wages, not fewer.

So? Low pay jobs wouldn't be the problem under UBI that they are now because a job improves your lot over not having a job.

These two accepted economic truths together point to raising the wages of the working poor as the best solution for the country. We even know how to do this since we have arrived at where we are now by intentionally lowering wages for the last forty years. Simply reverse those economic policies that the supply-siders instituted some forty years ago.

And bomb the rest of the world? You can't go back to the old days when we had no real industrial competition and could outsource the shit jobs to blacks and foreigners.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I see you are under the misguided impression that people do not take shit jobs without coercion.

Nope. And I think you know that.

In other words, the only reason you can think of for a minimum wage is some sort of vague ethical argument that sidesteps the inanities of your fantasy world entirely.

Nope. And I think you know that too.

Because there are fifty other people competing for that same job who may also be more qualified than they are.

There MAY be. They may not be. Sometimes the opposite is true, with employers competing for employees.

It doesn't MATTER whether they need the job or how much they need it

If they don't need the money, why are you upset about them not earning a "living wage"?

employees are in no position to request a more favorable deal, because any such request immediately makes them less attractive than the other 50 applicants for the same job.

So, you are upset that supply and demand is a thing, and that when there is more supply than demand the price goes down?

The only way they can improve their bargaining power is with credible work experience, and that takes a lot of time and effort to collect.

No, that's not the only way they can improve their bargaining power. That is only one way. Another way that comes immediately to mind is to get an education that gives them knowledge or skills in high demand. UBI can give them the income they need to get by while going to school. Without UBI, this isn't much of an option for somebody who needs to work to live.

So an employee can indeed choose not to work a shit job because the terms of his employment are terrible. Sure, he won't starve to death, but he ALSO won't gather any relevant work experience that will put him in a better position the next time he applies for one. The one who took the job INSTEAD of him gains the experience he would have gained, and can now bargain for slightly better wages and working conditions at his next job or at the same company as an internal hire. Two years from now, the guy who passed up the shit job is now competing with a whole new crop of just-starting-out young workers on exactly the same terms as before.

Or he gets an education that enables him to skip the job category completely. Or he goes self employed.

You continue to push the fantasy that employers put any conscious thought to the financial situations of their employees in making hiring decisions.

Nope. But the financial desperation of the applicants allow them to do this to a much lower price point:

They will pay you exactly what they think they can afford to pay you, and as little as they think they can get away with paying you. They don't know if you're on food stamps or living off your rich uncle's trust fund, and they don't WANT to know, because they don't care.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A very credible study from University of Washington that is interesting;



WaPo

"very credible"

nah, it's already started to get torn apart.

Attacked, yes, but that doesn't prove it's being torn apart.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You still have not addressed the point that your desires amount to preferring people to be unemployed than working a shit job.

- - - Updated - - -

So you would prefer that people are unemployed so they don't have a chance to do bad things to you?

No frankly. I'd rather people be employed in fields that actually interest them, with pay rates that afford them a proper living and the ability to maintain a family. In either case though, you are still missing the point I'm making.

You don't accomplish that by getting rid of their jobs, though.

And I already told you it doesn't matter what I want, because it's going to happen regardless and all we can do is hope our social net for the people is sufficient to get them back on their feet. Don't blame your inability to read properly on me.

Saying what you want isn't going to change things doesn't change the effects of what would happen if what you want were implemented. You don't get to dodge responsibility just because it's a hypothetical.

 

[ksen]

"very credible"

nah, it's already started to get torn apart.

Attacked, yes, but that doesn't prove it's being torn apart.

No, it's being torn apart.

 

[dismal]

Attacked, yes, but that doesn't prove it's being torn apart.

No, it's being torn apart.

Yes, it's only 100x as thorough and relevant as the Kreuger-Card study leftists have been jacking off to for decades.

 

[LordKiran]

You still have not addressed the point that your desires amount to preferring people to be unemployed than working a shit job.

- - - Updated - - -

So you would prefer that people are unemployed so they don't have a chance to do bad things to you?

No frankly. I'd rather people be employed in fields that actually interest them, with pay rates that afford them a proper living and the ability to maintain a family. In either case though, you are still missing the point I'm making.

You don't accomplish that by getting rid of their jobs, though.

And I already told you it doesn't matter what I want, because it's going to happen regardless and all we can do is hope our social net for the people is sufficient to get them back on their feet. Don't blame your inability to read properly on me.

Saying what you want isn't going to change things doesn't change the effects of what would happen if what you want were implemented (Which nowthat I think of it, I can coun the number of times I consumed fast food over the last few years on one hand..) You don't get to dodge responsibility just because it's a hypothetical.

there is no responsibility for hypotheticals. That's the whole point. I didn't even say I want these people out of a job, merely that I benefit from it happening. But by all means continue twisting my words to serve your lame character assassination.

 

[ksen]

No, it's being torn apart.

Yes, it's only 100x as thorough and relevant as the Kreuger-Card study leftists have been jacking off to for decades.

nah.

I mean did Kreuger-Card exclude nearly half of the relevant workers?

 

[LordKiran]

Yes, it's only 100x as thorough and relevant as the Kreuger-Card study leftists have been jacking off to for decades.

nah.

I mean did Kreuger-Card exclude nearly half of the relevant workers?

But they're poor people with minimum wage jobs so they don't matter.

 

[dismal]

Yes, it's only 100x as thorough and relevant as the Kreuger-Card study leftists have been jacking off to for decades.

nah.

I mean did Kreuger-Card exclude nearly half of the relevant workers?

Well, lessee they attempted to assess the effect of a minimum wage increase in New Jersey by calling up 364 fast food restaurants in NJ, 30 of which declined to talk to them.

So, no, not "nearly half". Probably closer to 99%.

 

[ksen]

Statistics, how do they work?

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, it's only 100x as thorough and relevant as the Kreuger-Card study leftists have been jacking off to for decades.

nah.

I mean did Kreuger-Card exclude nearly half of the relevant workers?

The Krueger- Card study was peer-reviewed and published in one of the most prestigious economics journals. They collected a sample from from original sources.

The study that excludes half the relevant workers is a working paper (i.e. not peer reviewed). It did not collect a sample of original data.

 

[ksen]

Fake economics!!!

 

[SimpleDon]

"The left" are only resistant to the idea of trying to implement UBI at the expense of other priorities, like universal healthcare, corporate tax reform, Glass-Stiegel and the Volker Rule.

Bullshit. UBI isn't even on the table.

It is in THIS thread.

Agreed. It's like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Exactly. And assuming that one could count those angels (i.e. specify the level of UBI and how it is implemented) there is no UBI in practice, nor is there likely to have any UBI anytime soon. So comparing the expected outcomes of change in current policy tool (the minimum wage) with the expected outcomes of an untried, theoretical policy that has no chance of current enactment is, at best, a pointless exercise.

The only reason UBI isn't "on the table" is because people refuse to put it there. That includes each of you if you are not putting it there. Arguing against something because it "won't happen" is very much a self fulfilling prophecy.

I don't support the UBI because it is an obvious welfare, redistribution program and as such it will be demonized at every turn and underfunded. I would prefer a job guarantee program mentioned briefly above that would provide a job to all who apply. The work would be what we now class as volunteer work, teaching and nursing aides, neighborhood cleanup, youth team coaches, etc.

They would pay the minimum wage, in fact they could replace the minimum wage requirement because they would set the minimum wage and the minimum benefits for paid work because the job guarantee program would compete for workers. Employers would have to pay more than the job guarantee program to hire any workers. It is using competition to establish a minimum wage rather than government regulation.

It is much better if people work for their money instead of it being handed to them.

These programs have been tried on a limited basis in Israel and Brazil. Those programs were successful to the point that they had more people applying than the government was willing to fund. There were many more people than they thought there would be, especially mothers who because the programs offered child care, preferred to work for pay and let someone else watch their children, even though they had to pay for the child care out of their earnings.