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 ...
“We’ve already established what you are; now we’re just haggling about the price.”
There was always one response to MW increases, since customers would only tolerate so much price increase the only place to recoup profits was by cutting hours and shrinking the the number of personnel.
What is left out of every article I see is what happens to all the people who don't get a wage increase, people like those on social security or higher wage earners that don't get a increase, when all other prices go up in response to MW increases, or the fact that the only people who win from increases are local, state and federal governments from increased tax revenue.
Certainly the minimum wage worker doesn't, as prices go up, hours go down and that wonderful other effect of only the strong survive as marginal employees can no longer be carried and are laid off so that the strong capable employees can be kept on payroll.........albeit working harder with less support.
This has been the historic result of MW increases and anyone paying attention can see it happening now wherever the $15 'Living Wage' has been implemented. Oh with one other accelerated result, businesses giving up and shutting down because the owners simply cannot afford to stay open.
Charts and graphs don't always reflect the reality at the bottom of the pond, plus what I noticed that the earliest dates used reflected a time when America had many more factory and retail jobs than we do today.
I did not read the entire piece, and I have not read every single comment in this thread. But so far what I notice is that the other implications of minimum wage and high minimum wage are being ignored.
How do you calculate lost work experience for the youngest and least qualified in our society, primarily teenagers?
When minimum wages go up businesses that can stay in business and absorb it tend to fill these positions with more experienced people, rather than inexperienced first time job Seekers. So, we end up with a generation or two with no understanding of the things that are needed to earn their way in life. Reliability, initiative, an understanding that if you don’t work you will be flipping burgers for the rest of your life.
When I was young I had the usual jobs at minimum wage, it taught me that I was never going to spend my life in that position.
Well, you could make the same argument for slavery. You know, if they ain’t out here picking cotton for us for darn near free, then they will never get any job experience. My opinion is, most of what minimum wage workers will come away with is that working doesn’t pay enough to live on. Might as well stay in Mommy’s basement and smoke dope.
No, actually “haggling” would be: “I think it should be $16 per hour! No, it should be $18.25!”
When it’s “Minimum wage should be $16 per hour! Well, why not make it $750 per hour???” - that is not haggling. That is somebody trying to shut down the argument by intentionally misrepresenting what minimum wages are all about. Somebody trying to deceive the reader into thinking that minimum wages are just some arbitrary amount plucked out of mid air. Or, just somebody who is not very smart.
Who owns the jobs that are created by a business and its owner? Is it the worker or the business? If it is the business, then essentially you are saying that the owner of that business has NO RIGHT to negotiate what he is willing to pay to have a certain job performed.
If you think the worker owns the job, you just may be a socialist/commie. They own their own labor, but not the capital spent or the infrastructure built to create the means for doing the job.
We do agree on one thing, many of the same people who advocate the minimum wage are the same people who make it necessary by continuing to import low skilled or third world labor from other countries via legal and illegal immigration, thereby depressing the market for wages.
I am a free-marketeer and business friendly. However, some businesses and their owners tick me off to no end. The other day, I saw an ad for a Sales Manager position posted. It REQUIRED a MBA. It’s pay? $15.74 an hour. The owner of that business will then whine about how they cannot find qualified workers and ask for more immigration to “fill the gap”.
The reality is when you raise minimum wage everything around starts to increase, including inflation, which in turn means the increased minimum wage has done zilch to make the minimum wage a wage from which you can sustain keeping body & soul together. Raising the minimum wage in the long run is worthless. In fact it makes those who are living on fixed incomes even worse off. There are just some jobs that were never meant to provide what you suggest.
In time that is correct, however, initially it would impact unemployment. What raising the minimum wage doesn’t do is create what people call a living wage, at least not in the long run. That’s because everything will rise along with that minimum wage, creating inflation, and in very short order those making minimum wage are in the same situation they were previously. History has proven that axiom to be true. It’s like raising the IQ standards, those that are 50 will be 150, but they will never catch up or be any better off than those with 400 IQs.
No. I am not saying he can not negotiate. BUT, he can not negotiate lower than a livable point for the worker. If that freedom in a business is inviolate or something, then there is nothing wrong with Mexicans crossing the borders and working for $5 per hour. BUT, as a society, we know that is not good for us as a whole. Similarly, it is not good for employers to pay so little that their workers are on food stamps, getting housing subsidies, medical subsidies, and/or just not working at all and sponging off the rest of us. The thing about a minimum wage is, that it levels the playing field responsible employers and the low-ball boys who could care less about the damage they do.
What jobs??? What jobs should people not make enough to cover their basic living expenses if they work a 40 hour week? What people are supposed to live like peons??? Is it fast food workers? Sorry, but this is no longer the day when Pop’s was the only hamburger joint in town, and the local high school kids worked there to earn a few bucks to fix up their 1938 hot rod or something for the High School Sock Hop. Nope, it is 2019 and a whole lot of people work in those businesses now. And, if the business and the customers don’t pay a fair wage/price, then they basically just want cheap labor.
You got it, perfect definition.
“Livable Point” for the worker? Who determines this? So, an arbitrary value is assigned to the job instead of the value it creates for the business? So flipping Burgers now must have a living wage? Even though this type of job was never intended to be used as a living wage kind of position? So, he actually cannot negotiate nor allow the position to assign value based on it’s productivity can he? Who, instead of the market, shall make these determinations? Democrat politicians?
How about we make employers responsible by not allowing them to import low-skill workers into the economy, thereby depressing wages. Then they will have to pay what the market will bear, instead of having a job assigned a made up value by a Social Justice Warrior.
Arbitrary value??? Where are you getting that from. There ain’t a person here on this forum who doesn’t have a pretty good idea how much they would have to make each month to pay a basic home/apt rent, a basic car note, a basic grocery bill, etc. Not one of us.
So, no it ain’t arbitrary. Of course there will be wage differentials, because it requires less skills to flip burgers than do brain surgery. But should the burger flipper have to get food stamps to survive?
Sadly, there are a lot of Sekrit Socialists among the business class, who like to privatize their profits, and socialize their costs out to the general public. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
A job that requires no training and does not have much marketable value. That is the kind of job (Burger Flipper) that cannot, and should not, provide a living wage. This is why people better themselves, get an education and learn a trade. So they can obtain more marketable and valuable skills and earn more money. If all work provided everything that we need to live, then where would the incentive be to improve oneself?
No one who works is a Peon. There is honor in a days work. But, some work is more valuable than other work. If ALL work provides a living wage, then eventually, due to inflation, very little will. These are the laws of economics, like it or not.
Any value assigned that is not due to productivity is arbitrary. Only a socialist thinks that one can JUST DECIDE, based on need, what the value of a job is. So yes, it IS arbitrary.
I do not know what universe you live in, but in the Real World, hardly nobody gets a wage based on their productivity unless they get a commission, or are paid by piece work. I mean, who would even decide such a thing? The higher up the totem pole people are, the more they think they are worth, but it has been my experience that most of the actual work is done near the bottom ranks. I think that you are living in Theory Land, but at least you will have lots of company!
I live in the real world, not one where because you need something you get it just for showing up 40 hours per week. I live in a world where you EARN what you make.
Don’t like your wage, get another job. Don’t like your options, create more by bettering yourself. What you don’t get to do is determine what others have to pay out based on what YOU think they should be paying.
If you think I live in Theory Land, where do you live? Free Lunch Land? Give Me Something For Nothing Land? Why do you and your ilk get to decide what others who own something HAVE to pay out to have work done. You accuse others of being Socialists, but it is you who seems to not believe in free markets or personal freedom. What are you even doing on this forum? Shouldn’t you be on DU or something?
I am a business owner and have been self-employed for more than 20 years. I tell ya what, if workers want a bigger cut, great. Then they are also gonna pony up some cash when their shoddy work causes a business to lose money too, right? No, in your world it is a one way street. How much can I get for the least amount of effort. Sound about right?
Nope, you don’t sound right at all. In fact, you sound like the kind of person who would pay his employees as little as he could get away with in order to pocket more for himself. Which, I guess is your idea of “pay based on productivity.” I would see it as, “Pay based on what I can get away with.” If I am right, then you are the best reason why the country needs minimum wage laws, and increases thereof. I just hope the rest of us aren’t having to pony up for food stamps and housing vouchers for your employees.
And if I don’t pay them enough then they can go work somewhere else and then I bear the costs of hiring and training new people and take the chance that the new person cannot do the job at all. In the end, if that happens too much I lose money. As an owner, I am incentivized to keep my employees because in the long run it is cheaper than churning and burning them.
Do you have the slightest understanding about how business or the free market works? Competition? Any of it? It does not sound like it.
And why WOULD I pay more than I have to? I guess if I believed that a business was there to provide jobs instead of make a profit I would do that. I bet you think that is why businesses exist, huh? To provide jobs, profits be damned. As the owner I take on a ton of liability and risk, but in your world I just oughta do that for free, right? I get to shoulder the losses myself but I am greedy and the reason that we need minimum wage laws if I don’t give away my profits to employees who are not as well trained or educated as I am, or who risk nothing right?
You know nothing- minimum wage laws are a detriment. But there is no way you will ever understand because of your entitlement mentality.
I see by your profile page that you’re an attorney. How much do you bill per hour for your secretary’s work? How much do you pay her per hour? Are those numbers equal? Bet not!!! Bet you, like most attorneys, charge the customers at least double or triple what you pay her per hour. And we won’t even discuss the outrageous prices attorney’s charge per hour.
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.