• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The world's most succinct argument against minimum wage laws

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
15,086
Reaction score
6,809
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
minimum wage.jpg



That's it. As you can see, making low paying jobs illegal only hurts those with low skills. It does not help them in any way.


This is a follow-up to last month's attempt where I tried, apparently in vain, to show how minimum wage laws hurt those at the bottom of the economic ladder:

 
That's it. As you can see, making low paying jobs illegal only hurts those with low skills. It does not help them in any way.

This is a follow-up to last month's attempt where I tried, apparently in vain, to show how minimum wage laws hurt those at the bottom of the economic ladder:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
I'd file your argument as falling under the latter designation.
 
View attachment 67319977



That's it. As you can see, making low paying jobs illegal only hurts those with low skills. It does not help them in any way.


This is a follow-up to last month's attempt where I tried, apparently in vain, to show how minimum wage laws hurt those at the bottom of the economic ladder:


One of the major problems with your graphic is the implication that entry level (MW) jobs are more prevalent than higher paying jobs. The fact (aka reality) is that jobs paying at (or below) the hourly federal MW are held by under 3% of the US workforce.

The graphic seems to assume that over half of all current jobs would disappear with a (huge?) increase in the federal MW. The graphic seems to indicate a raise (from $ to $$$?) which would be well past the current median income, as opposed to some value still (well?) below that point.

As the CBO SWAG indicates, about 1.4M jobs would likely be lost, but that is out of over about 140M current jobs (including part-time jobs) with a doubling of the current federal MW over the next 4 years.
 
One of the major problems with your graphic is the implication that entry level (MW) jobs are more prevalent than higher paying jobs. The fact (aka reality) is that jobs paying at (or below) the hourly federal MW are held by under 3% of the US workforce.

Yes, and that tells us that the damage the current minimum wage law is doing is small. As it goes up, more and more jobs become illegal.

The graphic seems to assume that over half of all current jobs would disappear with a (very large?) increase in the federal MW. The graphic seems to indicate a raise (from $ to $$$?) which would be well past the current median income, as opposed to some value still (well?) below that point.

The point is only to show the general principle that increasing the minimum wage decreases the number of jobs. Do you disagree with that claim?
 
Yes, and that tells us that the damage the current minimum wage law is doing is small. As it goes up, more and more jobs become illegal.



The point is only to show the general principle that increasing the minimum wage decreases the number of jobs. Do you disagree with that claim?

I addressed that point as well, yet you decided not to quote it.

As the CBO SWAG indicates, about 1.4M jobs would likely be lost, but that is out of over about 140M current jobs (including part-time jobs) with a doubling of the current federal MW (from its 2009 value) over the next 4 years.

I favor annually indexing (adjusting?) the federal MW for CPI inflation (as is now done for SS retirement benefits) so that it (better) maintains its (relative) value over time. The problem of decreased jobs resulting from raising the federal MW in excess of general inflation is then eliminated.
 
I favor annually indexing (adjusting?) the federal MW for CPI inflation (as is now done for SS retirement benefits) so that it (better) maintains its (relative) value over time. The problem of decreased jobs resulting from raising the federal MW in excess of general inflation is then eliminated.

SS is indexed to inflation because dollars are in a constant state of devaluation. The dollars you pay into SS today are worth much more than the dollars you will get when you retire. It's basically a hidden tax, because the federal government intentionally miscalculates inflation.

I favor annually indexing (adjusting?) the federal MW for CPI inflation (as is now done for SS retirement benefits) so that it (better) maintains its (relative) value over time.

There is no value to making low paying jobs illegal. Inflation is why the current federal minimum wage law does so little damage.

If you disagree, explain to me the benefit of making low paying jobs illegal.
 
4920F793-EB7E-466E-B8B7-850BA50E5976.jpeg
Saw a politician saying they made $6 an hour in the 70s, so that’s why we shouldnt raise minimum wage.... yea. No excuse not to raise it.

stop exploiting labor
 
View attachment 67319977



That's it. As you can see, making low paying jobs illegal only hurts those with low skills. It does not help them in any way.


This is a follow-up to last month's attempt where I tried, apparently in vain, to show how minimum wage laws hurt those at the bottom of the economic ladder:

I am sure you can point to where, historically, increases in minimum wages have the effect you claim. Hint: historically, it has not been true.
 
SS is indexed to inflation because dollars are in a constant state of devaluation. The dollars you pay into SS today are worth much more than the dollars you will get when you retire. It's basically a hidden tax, because the federal government intentionally miscalculates inflation.



There is no value to making low paying jobs illegal. Inflation is why the current federal minimum wage law does so little damage.

If you disagree, explain to me the benefit of making low paying jobs illegal.

Please explain the benefit of working (full time) and not being able to survive without “safety net” program assistance. The problem is made even worse by the moronic policy of reducing those “safety net” benefits by $1 for each $2 of additional earned income. That effectively cuts the nominal hourly wage in half, meaning that working for $10/hour nets (one getting “safety net” assistance) only $5/hour. Those getting “safety net” assistance would be fools to work ‘on the books’ any more than the minimum required to remain on the dole.

In a ‘free market’ labor environment (one with no “safety net” competition) entry level wages would rise without need of a mandated MW - every “job creator” would have to offer enough to attract and retain qualified labor. Why would anyone work for less than $X/hour (enough to survive on)?

What “safety net” assistance does is artificially depress wages. After all, if one needs $X/month in order to make ends meet then they really don’t care home much of that $X comes from a meager paycheck and how much is added (or made unnecessary) by “safety net” benefits.

It costs “jobs creators” far less to pay some additional taxes to support 12% to 15% of their workforce qualifying for “safety net” assistance than to pay all of their lower wage workers enough to survive (that elusive “living wage”?) without that “safety net” assistance.
 
One of the major problems with your graphic is the implication that entry level (MW) jobs are more prevalent than higher paying jobs. The fact (aka reality) is that jobs paying at (or below) the hourly federal MW are held by under 3% of the US workforce.

The graphic seems to assume that over half of all current jobs would disappear with a (huge?) increase in the federal MW. The graphic seems to indicate a raise (from $ to $$$?) which would be well past the current median income, as opposed to some value still (well?) below that point.

As the CBO SWAG indicates, about 1.4M jobs would likely be lost, but that is out of over about 140M current jobs (including part-time jobs) with a doubling of the current federal MW over the next 4 years.
It is important to note that the CBO report you reference makes the point that all projections in the report have a high degree of uncertainty. A couple years ago, cpwill and I debated the issue using the then current CBO projections, and that report did a much better job of showing the range of possibilities. Going to 15 an hour minimum wage would reduce unemployment from about a quarter million to about 2 million(working from memory here, so take those numbers with a grain of salt) with a confidence of 75 % that it would fall into that range.

On the plus side, in fairly short order, the economy would regain it's equilibrium. It usually does. At that point in time, the minimum wage would have a small at best effect on employment, but with a lower bottom end for working poor.
 
It is important to note that the CBO report you reference makes the point that all projections in the report have a high degree of uncertainty. A couple years ago, cpwill and I debated the issue using the then current CBO projections, and that report did a much better job of showing the range of possibilities. Going to 15 an hour minimum wage would reduce unemployment from about a quarter million to about 2 million(working from memory here, so take those numbers with a grain of salt) with a confidence of 75 % that it would fall into that range.

On the plus side, in fairly short order, the economy would regain it's equilibrium. It usually does. At that point in time, the minimum wage would have a small at best effect on employment, but with a lower bottom end for working poor.

There would be no need to “regain equilibrium” if the federal MW was simply (annually) adjusted for CPI inflation (as is done for SS retirement benefits) - instead of being increased beyond (or allowed to slip below) that level.
 
There would be no need to “regain equilibrium” if the federal MW was simply (annually) adjusted for CPI inflation (as is done for SS retirement benefits) - instead of being increased beyond (or allowed to slip below) that level.
Absolutely true. I am all about incremental change. I personally think the MW should be raised to 10-12 dollars, and adjusted annually. It is not a perfect plan, but I think there is less potential for harmful unintended consequences that way.
 
Breaking news: Republicans just approved the $15 an hour minimum wage.






The incremental increases will culminate in 2796.
 
Please explain the benefit of working (full time) and not being able to survive without “safety net” program assistance. The problem is made even worse by the moronic policy of reducing those “safety net” benefits by $1 for each $2 of additional earned income. That effectively cuts the nominal hourly wage in half, meaning that working for $10/hour nets (one getting “safety net” assistance) only $5/hour. Those getting “safety net” assistance would be fools to work ‘on the books’ any more than the minimum required to remain on the dole.

That may be true, but how does making low paying jobs illegal improve the situation? According to this page, there are some 53 million Americans earning a median wage of $10.22 per hour.

Suppose you own a small construction company and you have an unskilled person working for you who does general cleanup type work. You pay him $10 per hour, because that's all it's worth to you. The worker works for you because you offered him the best option. If he could get more for his labor he would quit working for you and go somewhere else. But he stays working for you because he probably can't do any better at the moment.

Then the wise and benevolent federal government comes along and mandates a $15 per hour minimum wage law. What do you do? Do you give him a 50% raise? No, because the job isn't worth $15 per hour. He gets canned, and you have your skilled workers spend a few minutes each day doing the cleanup.

Note that the idiotic law hurts both the employer, who lost a good employee, and it hurts the unskilled employee, who lost his job.

In a ‘free market’ labor environment (one with no “safety net” competition) entry level wages would rise without need of a mandated MW - every “job creator” would have to offer enough to attract and retain qualified labor. Why would anyone work for less than $X/hour (enough to survive on)?

For the same reason every city has men pushing around a shopping cart collecting bottles for the refund money. Your living expenses have nothing whatsoever to do with what your labor is worth.

What “safety net” assistance does is artificially depress wages. After all, if one needs $X/month in order to make ends meet then they really don’t care home much of that $X comes from a meager paycheck and how much is added (or made unnecessary) by “safety net” benefits.

It costs “jobs creators” far less to pay some additional taxes to support 12% to 15% of their workforce qualifying for “safety net” assistance than to pay all of their lower wage workers enough to survive (that elusive “living wage”?) without that “safety net” assistance.
 
Breaking news: Republicans just approved the $15 an hour minimum wage.






The incremental increases will culminate in 2796.
That may be true, but how does making low paying jobs illegal improve the situation? According to this page, there are some 53 million Americans earning a median wage of $10.22 per hour.

Suppose you own a small construction company and you have an unskilled person working for you who does general cleanup type work. You pay him $10 per hour, because that's all it's worth to you. The worker works for you because you offered him the best option. If he could get more for his labor he would quit working for you and go somewhere else. But he stays working for you because he probably can't do any better at the moment.

Then the wise and benevolent federal government comes along and mandates a $15 per hour minimum wage law. What do you do? Do you give him a 50% raise? No, because the job isn't worth $15 per hour. He gets canned, and you have your skilled workers spend a few minutes each day doing the cleanup.

Note that the idiotic law hurts both the employer, who lost a good employee, and it hurts the unskilled employee, who lost his job.



For the same reason every city has men pushing around a shopping cart collecting bottles for the refund money. Your living expenses have nothing whatsoever to do with what your labor is worth.

First of all, if $10.22/hour is the median low wage that means half of those low wage workers are making more than that. Also your link notes that median annual wage comes out to $18K/year (about $8.65/hour) when the FTE of $10.22/hour is over $21K/year.

Shifting the burden of construction site clean up and other supporting lower skilled labor tasks from a $15/hour (MW) worker to your more skilled (obviously, then making more than $15/hour) workers would not save you any money, but would reduce your daily production.
 
First of all, if $10.22/hour is the median low wage that means half of those low wage workers are making more than that. Also your link notes that median annual wage comes out to $18K/year (about $8.65/hour) when the FTE of $10.22/hour is over $21K/year.

Even if you put just one worker out of a job it's not worth it, and that's because there is no benefit to it. You have yet to explain how making low paying jobs illegal improves the situation for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Shifting the burden of construction site clean up and other supporting lower skilled labor tasks from a $15/hour (MW) worker to your more skilled (obviously, then making more than $15/hour) workers would not save you any money, but would reduce your daily production.

No, it's not obvious. Many entry level jobs which require some degree of training start at $15 per hour. Nursing assistants, carpenters, glaziers, etc, require training and some skills and start at around $15 per hour. The clean up guy in the scenario gets canned, because if the employer has to pay $15 per hour, he might as well hire somebody worth $15 per hour, and that's not the clean up guy. So he gets fired.
 
Yes, and that tells us that the damage the current minimum wage law is doing is small. As it goes up, more and more jobs become illegal.

The point is only to show the general principle that increasing the minimum wage decreases the number of jobs. Do you disagree with that claim?

Increasing the minimum wage would make the existence of entry level jobs illegal? Explain to all of us how that is even possible.

I would rather decrease the number of jobs that pay higher wages than eliminate the job title altogether. But since your claim is nothing more than a biased projection I will not waste time debating the issue. Learn to figure out the difference between facts and fiction.
 
View attachment 67319977



That's it. As you can see, making low paying jobs illegal only hurts those with low skills. It does not help them in any way.


This is a follow-up to last month's attempt where I tried, apparently in vain, to show how minimum wage laws hurt those at the bottom of the economic ladder:

Did you really back up your argument with a link to yourself?
What a crock of shit.
 
is the OP really saying that if we raise the minimum wage that way over half our work force will be illegals???


isn't it currently like 8%?
 
The most succinct argument against minimum wage laws is that they reduce/eliminate the ability of those unable/incapable of performing any form of labour at that value from finding/maintaining employment.
 
The most succinct argument against minimum wage laws is that they reduce/eliminate the ability of those unable/incapable of performing any form of labour at that value from finding/maintaining employment.

Yep, the real MW is zero regardless of any hourly MW established by law.
 
Yes, and that tells us that the damage the current minimum wage law is doing is small. As it goes up, more and more jobs become illegal.



The point is only to show the general principle that increasing the minimum wage decreases the number of jobs. Do you disagree with that claim?

We have had a minimum wage for a long time in this country. The economy has not collapsed. Everytime it has gone up, someone on the right has said the whole economy would collapse. It did not any of those times. When the government said employees were not the property of the business, the whole economy was going to collapse. It did not.


I'm sure this will be the time.
 
View attachment 67319977



That's it. As you can see, making low paying jobs illegal only hurts those with low skills. It does not help them in any way.


This is a follow-up to last month's attempt where I tried, apparently in vain, to show how minimum wage laws hurt those at the bottom of the economic ladder:


Except real life examples disprove your argument.

In 1997 the Labour government in the UK introduced a minimum wage law where previously there had not been one.

The Tory party opposed it, claiming it would increase unemployment; it didn't. The Tory party later admitted it got it wrong and they now support the minimum wage.
 
Back
Top Bottom