Posted on 08/16/2019 6:30:54 AM PDT by central_va
With the “Fight for $15 External link ” making headlines, opinions abound about whether raising the federal minimum wage will have a positive or negative effect on unemployment rates. Advocates of an increase cite the impossible task of making ends meet on today’s paltry sum of $7.25 an hour and say an increase would have little effect on the overall economy. Those against such a move predict that doing so would cause employers to lay off more and hire less—raising unemployment rates as a result. As is often the case with such emotionally charged issues, especially in an election year, the broader conversation about the minimum wage tends to involve more feeling than historical fact. To balance such a dynamic, we decided to turn to the data to see what it reveals.
(Excerpt) Read more at onlinebusiness.syr.edu ...
-PJ
Who said it was? Once again, you are grasping at straws and making stuff up rather than simply admitting that you have been wrong.
Liquid. . .
For those with no memory wage and price controls are miserable policy failures...
But okay...any number chosen as a desirable minimum wage is, by definition, arbitrary. It seems to me you are really cheating out those 'in need.' at $15/hr, because your position (not mine) says it has no consequence.
Why would you deny them a vacation every year, the ability to save for retirement? Why do you hate those making minimum wage?
Your side has said, by definition, that increasing the minimum wage has no effect on employment. So $25/hr would benefit them more and, again, has no real world negative consequence. Of course, that study is limited in what could be studied, again, by definition.
But that doesn't matter in the real world, because the study doesn't reflect the real world. In theory, there should be no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is.
There's never been a study on the affect of a doubling of the minimum wage. The study doesn't say to what degree a given minimum wage moves the market, as opposed to 'catching up' with the market. Those of us now free of academia are well aware of its limitations...and the degree to which GIGO applies.
This study has no real world application. Anyone with any experience in operating a minimum wage business knows this well.
You can't answer why not $500/hr...because there's no more or less basis for that than $15.
Why do academics have such a difficult time understanding that price controls don't work, and have unintended consequences?
-PJ
Obtuse; again, go look at what is taking place in Seattle (did I say Wash. state?)
re: “What gives the government (apparently at your behest) the right to force me to pay more for any product?”
First, the Constitution which grants “police powers” to the states, and regulation of “interstate commerce” to itself.
Second, the laws of the state in which you live.
(Gee, I wish all questions were this simple to answer!)
I don’t have time to “put your nose into it” right this very moment ... but you 1) seem to have a very warped view of what is in the Constitution and 2) from a governmental standpoint don’t seem to have any regard for personal property or personal rights.
At the rate you’re going, you must have been all-in for Obama-care.
You said, “You can’t answer why not $500/hr...because there’s no more or less basis for that than $15.”
Huh??? Do you not have the ability to read??? I have answered it several times on this thread. You remind me of the old joke, “How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb???”
One more time, for the slow people here, the statement, “Why not make the minimum wage $500 per hour?” is NOT an argument. A livable minimum wage is an amount necessary to pay for a minimal basic living. Which most of us can easily calculate. It is not an arbitrary amount plucked out of someone’s rear end. It is based on a basic food bill, basic rent, basic utilities, a basic vehicle. Most of us can figure that out. That “$500 / hour” statement is simply deceptive, and meant to deceive people and derail the argument with a gross mischaracterization.
But there are always some folks, who are either very stupid, or very negligent and simply repeat what they heard some other nincompoop say, or work for a conservative think tank.
So, go ahead and tell us why you think $500 per hour is right there on a rational par with $15/hour.
I suggest you will never be able to put my nose in it. However, you are very good at calling names, so if I was you, I would put my efforts in that field! You have a natural talent for it!
I am glad you like it!
I acknowledged that it would improve the quality of work life for those making minimum wage, those still employed anyway.
You don't dare touch the pig in the bathtub, why you think employers can/will pay it.
As a thought exercise, let's turn the discussion upside down. I'm surprised that socialists and communists are talking about a minimum wage when they are always railing against "the rich not paying their fair share." What they really want is a maximum wage, not a minimum wage. They try to achieve that through confiscatory income tax policy instead of outright legislation of maximum wages over minimum wages.
But what if they became so emboldened as to try to pass a maximum wage law one day?
What if liberals tried to cap the wage that people could earn? What if, say, a CEO can't earn any more than $1 million instead of $25 million? The same with athletes, movie celebrities, and recording artists. This would force a realignment of all the wages below in order to reapportion the pay-to-contribution ratio.
More practical, what if a law capped the maximum wage at some multiple of a company's lowest wage (or federal statistical median wage or poverty wage...)? Since a true minimum wage is zero, we obviously can't pay that to the bottom rung (except in slavery conditions) as a zero minimum equals a zero maximum multiple, so a true bottom wage would emerge that aligns with the legislated maximum wage. This is only one example scheme for illustrative purposes.
Today, the sky's the limit regarding the highest wage earners, so there is no pressure from above to fit the lower wages into a cohesive structure. This is why people are legislating minimum wages instead of letting market forces set the wage. Would a maximum wage actually make market forces align a true living wage to it that fits?
I'm not a proponent of any of this, but I wonder if a maverick Republican somewhere might try to throw liberals for a loop by turning the minimum wage debate into a maximum wage debate and box them into agreeing that a maximum wage would better set a livable minimum wage all on its own?
Just to be clear, this would all be anathema to the American Dream, which sets no limits on what a dedicated individual can achieve.
-PJ
Well, they might not pay it. It is very possible that their business model will not permit them to charge an honest price for whatever they do. They may even buy a “bot” to replace them. But I would rather see that than to continue subsidizing their business. Perhaps that would provide more impetus to drive out the cheap working illegal workers, and cheap legal ones, too.
“Just to be clear, this would all be anathema to the American Dream, which sets no limits on what a dedicated individual can achieve. “
But is that what an overpaid corporate executive does to get his pay? There is already a “tax cap” on high wages, IIRC, and that is why many corporations use alternative methods to compensate their executives. I think the limit is 1 Million Dollars, but that is just memory. Beyond that is not deductible. I think most of the high pay is not based on “dedication” but massive conflicts of interest in the boardroom.
“Charge an honest price?” What do you think that means?
Maybe, but that's not the point of my post and doesn't address the thought experiment.
-PJ
Huh, again??? Please try to keep up! If your cheeseburger cost $1, and that is based on your employees getting food stamps, housing vouchers, and other benefits, than $1 is not an honest price. Pay a living wage and the price might become $2, but probably less. Whatever, it would then be an “honest” price.
Well, I would be for it for publicly held corporations. You could do the same thing with super high income taxes.
Where are you buying a cheeseburger for $1?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.