- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
There really isn't any need for it to exist at all. It is a price control. Government institute price controls for any number of reasons. Price controls negate the very concept of indexing it to inflation. You either want wages to be dictated by market demands or you don't. More often than not, the minimum wage defeats that very purpose less employers are willing to demand labour at higher prices.
Monopsony describes the low skill labor market.
Yes, that's horrible compared to your "Here's nothing more. Now go starve, because I said so"
There's that phrasing again. "Supposed to."
Why do people keep declaring that minimum wage isn't "supposed to" let you feed yourself?
Monopsony describes the low skill labor market.
do you have a source that can refute the data I linked from the bls?
.....because it's not? The minimum wage was originally intended to price minorities out of labor competition in a move to protect Decent White Workers' Decent White Wages.
You have source data showing that 4 people are constantly competing for every 1 low-wage position?
That seems, on its face, to be so wildly inaccurate, that I can only assume you have a more complex argument that you are using this as a shorthand for.
The wikipedia article indicated that it doesn't absolutely have to be just one buyer, just that the number of sellers have to significantly outnumber the amount of buyers. So it seems at least somewhat fitting to me. We have zillions of low skilled workers, but only so many employers that need low skilled employees.
You clearly did not read it.
Someone else said it was to boost demand, someone else said it was to outprice the value of child labor, someone else said it was to incentivize capital investment.
I wish you guys could make up your mind.
But if the things they are buying cost as much or more then the added money in their pockets, they save nothing. I have explained this several times in other threads.
If you are seriously going to argue that inefficiency is the way to economic prosperity, then, with respect, I strongly think you should rethink your position.
Anyway, if you have a problem with what I am saying, I suggest you take it up with those that wrote the CBO report...they can probably explain it better (or at least, use much bigger words) then I can.
And we have explained that an increase in minimum wage does not equal a direct amount increase in the cost of goods generated by that minimum wage.
You dont think there are employers out there that need help but cannot afford it?
It equals increased costs to the employer-which will be passed on to the consumer or come out of the pockets of the employee.
More detrimental leftist legislation that harm those it pretends to help. The laws of economics dont change, maybe one day the left will take an econ class instead of relying on emotion.
And econ class taught by who? Mises?
The most celebrated economist of the 90's all but denounced that theory. Look it up.
I'm just telling you why we got one originally. The purpose of a MW now, as near as I can tell, is to give Democrats a wedge issue to use against Republicans. "incentivizing capital investment" is another way of saying "firing low wage workers and replacing them with machines", which I would agree is often a result, but I'm not sure it should be a goal...
The most celebrated economist of the 90's? Who was that?
Greenspan.
It equals increased costs to the employer-which will be passed on to the consumer or come out of the pockets of the employee.
Firing people and replacing them with machines would be the result even if the MW were set at 2 bucks an hour, PERIOD. Even China is moving towards automation. Would you have us accept the living standards of the typical Chinese worker in order to laud your so celebrated economic beliefs? I volunteer YOU to go first.
His views worked real well on the housing bubble. :lol:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?