An artificially high minimum wage does indeed cut jobs, and it's the lower-skilled workers who get cut. I don't understand why you think that's OK.
Nobody is enthused whose hours get cut and who have to do the work of those dismissed. Min wage is a disaster. I've seen it. Think about it. A business has only so much it can spend on wages. A higher wage means fewer hours. Fewer hours means a loss of jobs and added pressure on the workers that remain. I don't know why leftwingers think it would or could work any other way.
Mashmont, Congressional Budget office’s projections for the proposed “Raise the Wage” act were contrary to your opinion. They projected the increased rate would reduce the numbers of families with incomes below the poverty level threshold for families of their sizes.
Mashmont, that’s B.S. If employers can obtain similar quality and productivity from fewer employees at lesser net labor costs, they do so. Employers adjust to minimum rate increases.
Mashmont, "An ARTIFICIAL wage minimum [rate]"?
Mashmont, jobs not justified t paying the minimum wage rate are not created but jobs’ wage rates are not of lesser concern than the availability jobs. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s projections for the proposed “Raise the Wage Act” indicated reduced proportions of families below the poverty thresholds for their families’ sizes.
CPWill yes, those are the same CBO reports do not indicate any PROPORTIONAL material increase of USA’s aggregate unemployment rates.This would be the CBO who also projected that the increased rate would throw 1.4 and possibly up to 3.7 million people out of jobs?
I believe that is likely what he was talking about.
Tragically, it turns out, there is no such thing as a free lunch and higher artificial wage floors do, indeed, put the poorest and least skilled out of work.
Our key conclusions are:
(i) there is a clear preponderance of negative estimates in the literature;
(ii) this evidence is stronger for teens and young adults as well as the less-educated;
(iii) the evidence from studies of directly-affected workers points even more strongly to negative employment effects; and
(iv) the evidence from studies of low-wage industries is less one-sided.
We don't call it the Dismal Science for nothin.
Personally, I would find higher MW advocates a lot more persuasive and credible if they were willing to address the utterly predictable - if unintended - negative consequences of their policy recommendations.
Supposn,
I hope that helps you narrow in on what we are talking about when we discuss the fact that we will be harming some low-wage workers when we push them out of the workforce by raising the bottom rung of the ladder out of their reach, ensuring they remain trapped in structural poverty that we have imposed on them, rather than due to any unfortunate natural circumstance, or merely their own decisions.CPWill, can you explain what this, your quoted posted nonsensical tirade was meant to communicate? Respectfully, Supposn
Hardly nonsensical, Supposn. This is an example of a Reductio ad Absurdium, an argument which demonstrates that a particular line of logic, if consistently applied, leads to ridiculous outcomes.CPWill, as you apparently prefer, I’ll present an argumentum ad absurdum.
...
CPWill, CBO reports do not indicate any PROPORTIONAL material increase of USA’s aggregate unemployment rates. They don't even indicate any PROPORTIONAL material increase of USA’s aggregate unemployment rates among only the lowest 1% of USA’s employees or their families. They do indicate proportional reductions of families near or below the poverty thresholds for families of their sizes. Such families include member who are employed or unemployed.
In this case, you appear to be responding to the point that a higher minimum wage will push the most economically vulnerable portions of our workforce out of the labor market and trap them in poverty by appealing to the net effect on wages among low wage workers. So, the argument seems to be that it is okay if we harm some low-wage workers if the net effect is positive because we help more than we hurt. I am using an extreme example of that logic to show that it is problematic.
The CBO has estimated that we will kick ~1.4 million - the bottom 1%, roughly, though it could end up being more - of our workforce out of the labor market by raising MW beyond their ability to compete. Those are real people, the poorest and most vulnerable of our poor, with the least ability to adjust, that we will be trapping in poverty. Higher MW advocates should deal with that openly, and people who oppose a higher MW out of a desire to not harm those people are presenting a fairly reasonable argument.
