Minimum wage

[ludin]

He doesn't have a valid reason. Studies show different things about the MW from all sides, one thing is clear: Unemployment constantly changes and a MW increase can effect unemployment to some degree, usually adjusting itself as time goes on. Removing the minimum wage simply leaves low skill workers to be exploited for laughable wages, which will then cause them to rely on assistance, which most conservatives want to cut.

Sure a business can try and pay lower wages but when people refuse to work and no one will take the job then they will raise the wage till someone will work.
While having a floor is a decent idea that is what it is supposed to be a floor. that is what minimum wage. the lowest paid salary for the lowest skilled work.

This is why I can't take conservative discussion on the minimum wage seriously, they're so far out of touch with reality that they truly believe getting rid of the minimum wage will help people, all while cutting the safety net and deregulating. Conservatives, by the very term, always seem to fight against progress, they have for decades..

Very few conservatives actually support getting rid of minimum wage. what we do argue is that raising minimum wage has a negative effect on the people that get it and on the job market and businesses that have to pay it which is true. No we fight against stupidity. there is a difference. arbitrary demanding 15 an hour for work that doesn't call for that simply is stupid.

Conservatives who oppose the minimum wage might have a valid point if they supported a strong safety net, which would make up for the low wages, which is happening now because WAGES ARE STILL LOW. The MW needs to be adjusted on a state by state basis as well, since, yes, there is a valid point to a $15 MW not working effectively in a place like Kentucky, outside of the cities. From what I can see, wills argument appears to be a ridiculous revision of why the MW was invented, and cherrypicking studies that show some harmful effects while ignoring the greater positive effects of the MW.

Wages are low for minimum skilled work. if you have job skills then you will be fine.
sure you can love flipping burgers but you probably aren't going to make more than minimum wage for it.

there is no valid point for a 15 mw anywhere. it is not practical and the states that have done it are now seeing the consequences.
so are business owners. a bag boy at a grocery store doesn't require the skill of an entry level computer person.

MW can have positive effects if it is simply done for what it was intended which was to define the lowest pay for the lowest skilled work.

everything else operates off of that floor lvl.
if you raise the floor level everything else raises with it.

 

[cpwill]

I didn't find anything worth quoting.

Ah. Well, as to intent, then, let me help you:

Remember that the original controversy over the minimum wage (Might be a delay getting your Big Mac today.) centered on what to do about what Sidney Webb called the "unemployable class." It was Webb's belief, shared by many of the progressive economists affiliated with the American Economic Association, that establishing a minimum wage above the value of the unemployables' worth would lock them out of the market, accelerating their elimination as a class. This is essentially the modern conservative argument against the minimum wage, and even today, when conservatives make it, they are accused of — you guessed it — social Darwinism. But for the progressives at the dawn of the fascist moment, this was an argument for it. "Of all ways of dealing with these unfortunate parasites," Webb observed, "the most ruinous to the community is to allow them unrestrainedly to compete as wage earners."

Ross put it succinctly: "The Coolie cannot outdo the American, but he can underlive him." Since the inferior races were content to live closer to a filthy state of nature than the Nordic man, the savages did not require a civilized wage. Hence if you raised minimum wages to a civilized level, employers wouldn't hire such miscreants in preference to "fitter" specimens, making them less likely to reproduce and, if necessary, easier targets for forced sterilization. Royal Meeker, a Princeton economist and adviser to Woodrow Wilson, explained: "Better that the state should support the inefficient wholly and prevent the multiplication of the breed than subsidize incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their kind."..​

There it is

You are referring to introductory analysis of supply and demand, where markets are perfectly competitive, goods are homogeneous, there are no substitutes, etc.

Nope Did you not read the thread?

When you start to peel away these assumptions, the "artificially reduce demand" argument doesn't hold much... wait, i get it, you still believe all workers are price setters?

Strawman much, or only when taking indefensible positions?

 

[David_N]

Will and i go way back.

Trust me, it's the gods.

I'll take your word for it

 

[David_N]

Sure a business can try and pay lower wages but when people refuse to work and no one will take the job then they will raise the wage till someone will work.
While having a floor is a decent idea that is what it is supposed to be a floor. that is what minimum wage. the lowest paid salary for the lowest skilled work.



Very few conservatives actually support getting rid of minimum wage. what we do argue is that raising minimum wage has a negative effect on the people that get it and on the job market and businesses that have to pay it which is true. No we fight against stupidity. there is a difference. arbitrary demanding 15 an hour for work that doesn't call for that simply is stupid.



Wages are low for minimum skilled work. if you have job skills then you will be fine.
sure you can love flipping burgers but you probably aren't going to make more than minimum wage for it.

there is no valid point for a 15 mw anywhere. it is not practical and the states that have done it are now seeing the consequences.
so are business owners. a bag boy at a grocery store doesn't require the skill of an entry level computer person.

MW can have positive effects if it is simply done for what it was intended which was to define the lowest pay for the lowest skilled work.

everything else operates off of that floor lvl.
if you raise the floor level everything else raises with it.

Your point about businesses raising wages when people refuse to work simply wasn't the case for many low skilled laborers, who were, and are, desperate for work. This allows businesses to freely exploit these people, as was done in the past, even on children! Have you listened to conservatives lately? I agree many conservatives voters don't want to remove the minimum wage, but what matters are those in office, and the rhetoric they use. A $15 MW is good for some cities and bad for many other places, which is why me and others don't support it, I support a MW adjusted on a state by state basis, which helps alleviate the problem you describe. Yeah, "define the lowest pay." Which is why we have to raise it every so often so these laborers don't get left behind with rising prices and a rising cost of living.

 

[cpwill]

He believes it because he is told to by his ideological gods.

No, I believe it because it A) makes sense and B) seems to demonstrate itself in testing.

To his final point, I agree that MW hikes will result in wage increases for plenty of workers... just as ya'll should agree that it will result in job loss for others, and that those experiencing job loss are likely to be concentrated on the lowest end of the skill/experience spectrum, indicating that they will not be able to find jobs elsewhere at a rate higher than their ability to provide value-added. That's not crazy cpwill's take - it's the CBO's. I am simply don't think that we should harm the poorest of the poor in order to benefit higher-paid poor, especially in a context that reduces the efficient allocation of resources and subsequent growth.

 

[David_N]

No, I believe it because it A) makes sense and B) seems to demonstrate itself in testing.

To his final point, I agree that MW hikes will result in wage increases for plenty of workers... just as ya'll should agree that it will result in job loss for others, and that those experiencing job loss are likely to be concentrated on the lowest end of the skill/experience spectrum, indicating that they will not be able to find jobs elsewhere at a rate higher than their ability to provide value-added. That's not crazy cpwill's take - it's the CBO's. I am simply don't think that we should harm the poorest of the poor in order to benefit higher-paid poor, especially in a context that reduces the efficient allocation of resources and subsequent growth.

MW hikes help these laborers keep up with a rising cost of living, and we do agree some people lose their jobs, that is why we have a strong safety net and why I support government employment of those who can't find work. I sympathize with your point, and I just don't see how it makes sense to put so many low skill workers at risk by removing the MW when there are much better solutions to the problem.

 

[Kushinator]

Strawman much, or only when taking indefensible positions?

You've gotten caught peddling econ 101 analysis on a topic that requires a far more complicated approach. The run-of-the-mill approach of ascertaining the dead weight loss on a labor market simply won't cut it! Change the underlying assumptions and you change the slopes with respect to supply and demand.

So i'll ask again, are all workers price takers?

 

[cpwill]

You've gotten caught peddling econ 101 analysis on a topic that requires a far more complicated approach.

:yawn: No, but I'm not going to go back and rehash the entire thread for you. Again, this isn't crazy ole cpwill saying this stuff - it's the CBO. Feel free to go read

Or, you know, feel free to add something, rather than trying to get away with airs

So i'll ask again, are all workers price takers?

Of course not. However, those with the least bargaining power are effected the most by reducing labors' bargaining power via price floors.

 

[Kushinator]

No, I believe it because it A) makes sense and B) seems to demonstrate itself in testing.

To his final point, I agree that MW hikes will result in wage increases for plenty of workers... just as ya'll should agree that it will result in job loss for others, and that those experiencing job loss are likely to be concentrated on the lowest end of the skill/experience spectrum, indicating that they will not be able to find jobs elsewhere at a rate higher than their ability to provide value-added. That's not crazy cpwill's take - it's the CBO's. I am simply don't think that we should harm the poorest of the poor in order to benefit higher-paid poor, especially in a context that reduces the efficient allocation of resources and subsequent growth.

Efficient allocation of resources!!!!!! Now that's a hilarious argument for removing the minimum wage.

 

[Kushinator]

However, those with the least bargaining power are effected the most by reducing labors' bargaining power via price floors.

What is this bargaining power you speak of; the ability to work for a lower wage than the next guy?

 

[cpwill]

What is this bargaining power you speak of; the ability to work for a lower wage than the next guy?

That's one of them. Or the ability to work for no wage, but pre-tax benefits, such as the older habit of working for room, board, and experience.

Yes, the ability to work for cheaper is one of the bargaining tools of those who lack the skills and experience to compete with other job-seekers. For jobs where little or no skill sets and experience is required, that ability can gain them entry to the workforce, so that they can begin to build experience and their skill sets.

Efficient allocation of resources!!!!!! Now that's a hilarious argument for removing the minimum wage.

:shrug: and a solid one, though not the one I find most personally compelling.

 

[Kushinator]

That's one of them.

That's a result of monopsony! :lol:

and a solid one, though not the one I find most personally compelling.

No, it's nonsense.

It is far more efficient for McDonald's to automate the majority of what's left of their retail food service operations, it's just not nearly as profitable in the short run. Reason being, long term capital investment typically has a long term return on investment schedule.

 

[cpwill]

That's a result of monopsony!

No it's not - we had those kinds of options for most of our history.

Unless you want to argue that for the first 150 odd years of American history, there was only one employer?

No, it's nonsense.

No, it is correct. Government price controls distort the market, and lead to less effective allocation of resources as it distorts price signals.

It is far more efficient for McDonald's to automate the majority of what's left of their retail food service operations, it's just not nearly as profitable in the short run.

:shrug: perhaps. But the people who should be making that decision is McDonalds. They have the greatest expertise and incentive to make that allocation wisely. Capital is not always more profitable than labor, absent government intervention.

Though I note (again), that in the end the eventual response to the point that MW hikes will cost the poor people their jobs is "oh well - ****'em".

 

[Kushinator]

No it's not - we had those kinds of options for most of our history.

Unless you want to argue that for the first 150 odd years of American history, there was only one employer?

The idea behind monsoponistic forces in low skilled labor markets has to do with an upward sloping labor supply curve (what you describe in the other post). In the absence of a minimum labor price floor, the employer (acting as a monopsonist) can hire an employee for less than the market rate, which IS an inefficient allocation of resources, e.g. deadweight loss.

But the people who should be making that decision is McDonalds. They have the greatest expertise and incentive to make that allocation wisely. Capital is not always more profitable than labor, absent government intervention.

The people in charge (shareholders) of McDonalds don't want to wait 10 years to justify their ROI. Many of them will be retired, dead, or both! Which is why a focus on short term profits takes precedent.

Though I note (again), that in the end the eventual response to the point that MW hikes will cost the poor people their jobs is "oh well - ****'em".

No, that is your appeal to emotion argument.

 

[Kushinator]

[[LATER EDIT]] I would like to point out that I deeply enjoy the fact that David_N has "liked" your post mocking concern for the poor.

He probably liked that i called you on your faux concern for the boor.

FWIW

 

[ludin]

Your point about businesses raising wages when people refuse to work simply wasn't the case for many low skilled laborers, who were, and are, desperate for work.

Would you work for 2 dollars an hour? I don't know to many people that would. so no employer is going to get anyone unless they are an illegal alien to work for that.

This allows businesses to freely exploit these people, as was done in the past, even on children! Have you listened to conservatives lately? I agree many conservatives voters don't want to remove the minimum wage, but what matters are those in office, and the rhetoric they use. A $15 MW is good for some cities and bad for many other places, which is why me and others don't support it, I support a MW adjusted on a state by state basis, which helps alleviate the problem you describe. Yeah, "define the lowest pay." Which is why we have to raise it every so often so these laborers don't get left behind with rising prices and a rising cost of living.

none of this has to do with being smart about minimum wage and the effects that it has.
raising the floor continues to raise the prices that you are complaining about.

the fact is without job skills you are left to do nothing but work minimum wage it is a fact.

 

[Kushinator]

Would you work for 2 dollars an hour? I don't know to many people that would. so no employer is going to get anyone unless they are an illegal alien to work for that.

That settles it! Since you don't know many people who would, nobody would. :lamo

none of this has to do with being smart about minimum wage and the effects that it has.
raising the floor continues to raise the prices that you are complaining about.

If minimum wage is $7.25/hr, and we make a conservative assumption that there are 3.3 million full time minimum wage earners (40 hrs/week 50 weeks/yr), that is 3.3 mil * 200hrs/yr * $7.25/hr = $47.85 billion/ year in minimum wages. That is less than 1/3 of 1% of gross national income.

The inflation argument fails.

the fact is without job skills you are left to do nothing but work minimum wage it is a fact.

That is a highly flawed assumption. People do typically upskill... all the time. Maybe not Motzart, but the rest of us.

 

[ludin]

That settles it! Since you don't know many people who would, nobody would. :lamo

prove that people would work for 2 dollars an hour, and yea I never said no one would. you didn't read.

If minimum wage is $7.25/hr, and we make a conservative assumption that there are 3.3 million full time minimum wage earners (40 hrs/week 50 weeks/yr), that is 3.3 mil * 200hrs/yr * $7.25/hr = $47.85 billion/ year in minimum wages. That is less than 1/3 of 1% of gross national income.

The inflation argument fails.

not at all. when you subject businesses to what would be a 100% increase in pay then you will see massive price increases.
on top of that you will see even higher prices increases because everyone above that will demand more wages.
a person making 15 now isn't going to stand to make the same as a burger flipper.

That is a highly flawed assumption. People do typically upskill... all the time. Maybe not Motzart, but the rest of us.

not at all
some of these people claiming to work 10 years at minimum wage have never up skilled themselves.

 

[Kushinator]

not at all. when you subject businesses to what would be a 100% increase in pay then you will see massive price increases.

What businesses? Remember, we are talking about less than 1/3 of 1% of gross national income. That is less than what Americans spend every year on their pets!

on top of that you will see even higher prices increases because everyone above that will demand more wages.
a person making 15 now isn't going to stand to make the same as a burger flipper.

If you are talking about more than doubling the national minimum wage, then yes, there would likely be disemployment effects, as a portion of the 3.3 million MW earners will have their skill set price them out of the market. Then again, it will also create different jobs and greater value added as companies invest in more automation. The income will still be there, it will just shift to a smaller, higher skilled, pool of workers.

some of these people claiming to work 10 years at minimum wage have never up skilled themselves.

So? Does that mean they are entitled to a job?

 

[ludin]

What businesses? Remember, we are talking about less than 1/3 of 1% of gross national income. That is less than what Americans spend every year on their pets!



If you are talking about more than doubling the national minimum wage, then yes, there would likely be disemployment effects, as a portion of the 3.3 million MW earners will have their skill set price them out of the market. Then again, it will also create different jobs and greater value added as companies invest in more automation. The income will still be there, it will just shift to a smaller, higher skilled, pool of workers.



So? Does that mean they are entitled to a job?

Let me know when you can make an actual logical argument you are just all over the place and posting nonsense.

1. Raising the minimum wage displaces all the workers making that, and unless they have new job skills they are either priced out of the market
or replaced with no where to go.

that hurts entry workers like teenagers that are wanting to get jobs. again minimum wage is meant for low skill no skill workers to attempt
to gain better skills.

2. no one owes you a job. you get a job because you have value to the person that is hiring. they are willing to pay for your skills.

 

[Absentglare]

:yawn: No, but I'm not going to go back and rehash the entire thread for you. Again, this isn't crazy ole cpwill saying this stuff - it's the CBO. Feel free to go read

Or, you know, feel free to add something, rather than trying to get away with airs



Of course not. However, those with the least bargaining power are effected the most by reducing labors' bargaining power via price floors.

Can you cite your claim that the CBO declared the MW is a liberal-fascist plot to purge negroes from the American landscape ?

Cue crickets.

 

[Absentglare]

That's one of them. Or the ability to work for no wage, but pre-tax benefits, such as the older habit of working for room, board, and experience.

Yes, the ability to work for cheaper is one of the bargaining tools of those who lack the skills and experience to compete with other job-seekers. For jobs where little or no skill sets and experience is required, that ability can gain them entry to the workforce, so that they can begin to build experience and their skill sets.




:shrug: and a solid one, though not the one I find most personally compelling.

In other words, it'd be great for all the rich people if they could pay the poor people in shacks to live in, gruel to eat, and a bucket to **** in.

Why? Because our prosperity was built on slavery and the powers that be simply aren't smart enough to comprehend that there's a better way to be economically productive.

 

[imagep]

...

the fact is without job skills you are left to do nothing but work minimum wage it is a fact.

Everyone has job skills, or why else would an employer hire someone?

Not that far back in history, just being able to read and do simple math was considered to be significant job skills. Tending store was once considered to be an honorable profession, and a higher level and often higher paying job than being a field hand. Now we often make ugly remarks about retail sales clerks not having any job skills.

I suppose times change. One day, unless we have a 160+ IQ and 30 years experience in computer programming, we will all be considered to be no skill workers.

 

[Kushinator]

Let me know when you can make an actual logical argument you are just all over the place and posting nonsense.

Your entire position is based on a misunderstanding of the minimum wage labor market.

Raising the minimum wage displaces all the workers making that, and unless they have new job skills they are either priced out of the market
or replaced with no where to go.

It might be an incentive for fire lazy Larry and promote punctual Pete, but the idea that low skilled individuals cannot upskill is nonsense.

that hurts entry workers like teenagers that are wanting to get jobs. again minimum wage is meant for low skill no skill workers to attempt
to gain better skills.

The economy has changed. Automation will eventually drive out nearly all low-skilled employment. Those wishing to be employed in the not too distant future will be required to take on additional training outside of the low-skill labor market, e.g. education, vocational, volunteer, military, etc....

 

[imagep]

prove that people would work for 2 dollars an hour, and yea I never said no one would. you didn't read....

I don't personally know anyone who would work for $7.25/hr, yet I know that people do work for that.