Support NeoGAF

[Fenderputty]

And like I said, there would be a new profit maximization point (expenses would be higher) so they would possibly accept lower revenue if the net profit was higher. Get it?

Sure. I got this the entire time. Your post even includes the "ifs" and "possibles" required because you know your envisioned scenario depends on a lot. Industry type, labor costs as a percentage of total expense, increased revenue due to an increase in buying power etc etc.

 

[Black Mamba]

How about we actually try to develop real bills that will help the poor now? While it's true that minimum wage doesn't have a great affect on unemployment it also doesn't have a great affect decreasing poverty. Almost 80% of people living on minimum wage are teens anyway so bills such as these will only really affect industries that have teen work forces.

How about we focus more on the bullshit tax deductions, property tax zones, and the broken higher education system if we really want to help the poor.

While I agree with focusing on the other things too, your first paragraph is mostly incorrect.

 

[M3d10n]

I find it disgusting how big business and Republicans are against the minimum wage increase and for gutting welfare and foodstamps. How the fuck are low-income families supposed to make due then?

Crime, which increases the demand for firearms, security equipment and personal, prisons, police, etc.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

You keep saying this and it keeps being wrong. Your entire theory depends on the idea that there are no jobs that businesses would hire for at $1 per hour that they wouldn't hire for at $7.25 per hour. That's a pretty outrageous claim. You don't think a grocer would hire somebody to bag groceries for the customers and carry them to their cars if they only had to pay $3/hr? You don't think an office building would keep a full time coffee staff on hand to take orders during meetings with clients if they only had to pay the staff $3/hr? Both of those happen in my country. These are the type of jobs that you look to eliminate when you are forbidden to pay less than X amount.

The next thing you look to eliminate are low-quality employees. Sally, who has mental or physical disabilities which prevent her from operating at the same level as your other employees, may be worth keeping around at $7.25 per hour. But is she worth keeping around at $10/hr? You just upped her cost by almost 50%. Bob, who is not particularly reliable and has the worst people skills out of all of your personnel because he grew up in the ghetto, may be worth putting up with at $7.25 per hour. How about at $10? Why not cut back Bob's hours or eliminate him entirely and pick up the slack with Steve, who grew up in a great area, was given a car by his parents so he is never late, etc.?

There are arguments for the minimum wage that are at least worth debating, but your argument is based on a premise which sounds good until you actually think about it.

That's not a real argument. You just created a hypothetical scenario that in no way can be related to the sort of job loss the republicans are trying to argue. Companies are sometimes forced to get leaner, but there is a baseline of productive, value-added work that has to be done in order to do business, and that baseline demand will not change regardless of the price they have to pay for it. Walmart and McDonalds are already at that baseline. They can't get any leaner. Even the greeting person is there for a reason. Walmart would not have greeters unless they knew it generated more sales.

Maybe in a law firm there are a few extra low-skill workers, but that is because they work in an industry where they can afford a few luxuries, and they will stay pay for those luxuries if it costs a little more.

 

[Black Mamba]

That's not a real argument. You just created a hypothetical scenario that in no way can be related to the sort of job loss the republicans are trying to argue. Companies are sometimes forced to get leaner, but there is a baseline of productive, value-added work that has to be done in order to do business, and that baseline demand will not change regardless of the price they have to pay for it. Walmart and McDonalds are already at that baseline. They can't get any leaner. Even the greeting person is there for a reason. Walmart would not have greeters unless they knew it generated more sales.

Maybe in a law firm there are a few extra low-skill workers, but that is because they work in an industry where they can afford a few luxuries, and they will stay pay for those luxuries if it costs a little more.

In America those "extra low-skill wokers" are interns and they work for free, regardless.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

You keep saying this and it keeps being wrong. Your entire theory depends on the idea that there are no jobs that businesses would hire for at $1 per hour that they wouldn't hire for at $7.25 per hour. That's a pretty outrageous claim. You don't think a grocer would hire somebody to bag groceries for the customers and carry them to their cars if they only had to pay $3/hr? You don't think an office building would keep a full time coffee staff on hand to take orders during meetings with clients if they only had to pay the staff $3/hr? Both of those happen in my country. These are the type of jobs that you look to eliminate when you are forbidden to pay less than X amount.

The next thing you look to eliminate are low-quality employees. Sally, who has mental or physical disabilities which prevent her from operating at the same level as your other employees, may be worth keeping around at $7.25 per hour. But is she worth keeping around at $10/hr? You just upped her cost by almost 50%. Bob, who is not particularly reliable and has the worst people skills out of all of your personnel because he grew up in the ghetto, may be worth putting up with at $7.25 per hour. How about at $10? Why not cut back Bob's hours or eliminate him entirely and pick up the slack with Steve, who grew up in a great area, was given a car by his parents so he is never late, etc.?

There are arguments for the minimum wage that are at least worth debating, but your argument is based on a premise which sounds good until you actually think about it.

While I have my own opinions on whether the minimum wage is necessary or not I'm going to point out that that argument has already been proven wrong. Companies in America are not like those in Hong Kong or Paris , they operate on a fixed labor cost that doesn't like to be tampered with by some useless employees designed fix some cost gaps. If a business wants a coffee staff to boss around they will make the secretaries do it; if they need some bottom floor bookkeeping done they will hire interns to do it for nothing; if they need some basic janitorial work done them they will hire a dirt cheap janitorial service that employs immigrants to do the work. Businesses already fill those gaps that you think don't exist because of her minimum wage.

 

[polyh3dron]

You keep saying this and it keeps being wrong. Your entire theory depends on the idea that there are no jobs that businesses would hire for at $1 per hour that they wouldn't hire for at $7.25 per hour. That's a pretty outrageous claim. You don't think a grocer would hire somebody to bag groceries for the customers and carry them to their cars if they only had to pay $3/hr? You don't think an office building would keep a full time coffee staff on hand to take orders during meetings with clients if they only had to pay the staff $3/hr? Both of those happen in my country. These are the type of jobs that you look to eliminate when you are forbidden to pay less than X amount.

The next thing you look to eliminate are low-quality employees. Sally, who has mental or physical disabilities which prevent her from operating at the same level as your other employees, may be worth keeping around at $7.25 per hour. But is she worth keeping around at $10/hr? You just upped her cost by almost 50%. Bob, who is not particularly reliable and has the worst people skills out of all of your personnel because he grew up in the ghetto, may be worth putting up with at $7.25 per hour. How about at $10? Why not cut back Bob's hours or eliminate him entirely and pick up the slack with Steve, who grew up in a great area, was given a car by his parents so he is never late, etc.?

There are arguments for the minimum wage that are at least worth debating, but your argument is based on a premise which sounds good until you actually think about it.

Businesses will always pay such workers the absolute minimum, regardless of performance. Bob and Sally are competing for the same job and Sally will not make the cut.

 

[Kevitivity]

Ya, ya, republicans are evil and hate poor people! Insert other childish knee-jerk reactions here...

It's just my opinion, but government should have no-say in how much business pay their employees for many reasons. Minimum wage laws are used by cynical politicians to essentially buy votes, and higher wages will just be offset by higher prices - which will affect the poor disproportionately.

And remember, the higher the minimum wage, the sooner the robots will take over.

Robot Serves Up 360 Hamburgers Per Hour
http://singularityhub.com/2013/01/22/robot-serves-up-340-hamburgers-per-hour/

 

[Black Mamba]

Ya, ya, republicans are evil and hate poor people! Insert other childish knee-jerk reactions here...

It's just my opinion, but government should have no-say in how much business pay their employees for many reasons. Minimum wage laws are used by cynical politicians to essentially buy votes, and higher wages will just be offset by higher prices - which will affect the poor disproportionately.

Empirically false. Been shown wages rise much faster than prices with a hike.

 

[Tesseract]

While I have my own opinions on whether the minimum wage is necessary or not I'm going to point out that that argument has already been proven wrong. Companies in America are not like those in Hong Kong or Paris , they operate on a fixed labor cost that doesn't like to be tampered with by some useless employees designed fix some cost gaps. If a business wants a coffee staff to boss around they will make the secretaries do it; if they need some bottom floor bookkeeping done they will hire interns to do it for nothing; if they need some basic janitorial work done them they will hire a dirt cheap janitorial service that employs immigrants to do the work. Businesses already fill those gaps that you think don't exist because of her minimum wage.

too true, this.

 

[linsivvi]

Could someone fluent on this explain me this bit:

"It will actually hurt more people than it helps,"

How?

It will hurt rich people. (Actually it wouldn't, but let's just go along with this...)

Poor folks aren't people.

Understood?

Minimum wage laws are used by cynical politicians to essentially buy votes, and higher wages will just be offset by higher prices - which will affect the poor disproportionately.

Yeah more bullshit by the same people who insist global warming is false. Fuck science and maths and logic.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

And remember, the higher the minimum wage, the sooner the robots will take over.

Robot Serves Up 360 Hamburgers Per Hour
http://singularityhub.com/2013/01/22/robot-serves-up-340-hamburgers-per-hour/

Robots are coming either way. You would be surprised how highly-automated manufacturing is Mexico, India and China.

 

[Sandfox]

Everyone in America is willing to screw everyone else over just to help themselves.

I find it disgusting how big business and Republicans are against the minimum wage increase and for gutting welfare and foodstamps. How the fuck are low-income families supposed to make due then?

Big business is disgusting in general.

 

[linsivvi]

Also LOL at that robot argument. That one's new.

Whatever excuse they can use to keep fucking the poor.

 

[ISOM]

Everyone in America is willing to screw everyone else over just to help themselves.



Big business is disgusting in general.

Everyone? No just republicans. People need to stop being obtuse when they are talking politics.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

While I agree with focusing on the other things too, your first paragraph is mostly incorrect.

There is about 21 million people between the ages of 15-23 in the workforce so that graph does not surprise me. Also, affected=/=actual results. I said that minimum wage increases do not affect the poverty line much, which is true. This article makes a pretty good debate about it:
http://www.thebigquestions.com/2013/02/18/thoughts-on-the-minimum-wage/

 

[Brakke]

Everyone in America is willing to screw everyone else over just to help themselves.

No.

 

[DedValve]

Yes, yes Americans let the hate flow through you! Embrace the dark side and the new galactic empire!

 

[Fenderputty]

Also LOL at that robot argument. That one's new.

Whatever excuse they can use to keep fucking the poor.

If anything the robot argument is reason to reevaluate capitalism, wage laws and our social programs. Not reason to double down.

 

[linsivvi]

If anything the robot argument is reason to reevaluate capitalism, wage laws and our social programs. Not reason to double down.

Exactly. Robots is an argument to justify socialism, not against it.

 

[Amir0x]

At this point I'm just sad for the state of this country, paralyzed by literal fucking idiots.

 

[Foffy]

Everyone in America is willing to screw everyone else over just to help themselves.

This may be part of our culture, but not everyone. It seems like a minority don't fit that bill at times, but it is never everyone acting like vultures.

 

[mattiewheels]

At this point I'm just sad for the state of this country, paralyzed by literal fucking idiots.

One man's paralysis is another man's capatilist utopia.

 

[slit]

At this point I'm just sad for the state of this country, paralyzed by literal fucking idiots.

They're not idiots.....well some aren't.

They know exactly what they're doing.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

Work harder. This is America, and everyone in America who works hard can make a decent living, so if you aren't making a decent living its because you're not working hard enough.

Easy

Everyone can be a millionaire, it's easy. Just remember that, it was you and you alone that got you there. Individualism is the only cause worth supporting, even if it means shitting on the man next to you. Don't forget to love the fetus, then say fuck you to the toddler.

 

[Black Mamba]

There is about 21 million people between the ages of 15-23 in the workforce so that graph does not surprise me. Also, affected=/=actual results. I said that minimum wage increases do not affect the poverty line much, which is true. This article makes a pretty good debate about it:
http://www.thebigquestions.com/2013/02/18/thoughts-on-the-minimum-wage/

First, 15-20 is a small number.

This notion that minimum wage workers are strictly teens (80% according to you) is wrong.

In fact, according to Pew, it's roughly 50% between 16-24. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/19/who-makes-minimum-wage/ This is in line with BLS numbers, too.

Furthermore, a huge chunk of workers would benefit from a raise that are over the age of 40.

http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/


Now on to your article. For one, it would affect poverty:

1. He cites often discredited work of Neumark and Neumark himself has admitted things contrary to his assertions in his papers. In fact, other economists have attempted to fix the inherit bias in their published work and found the conclusions of the same data to be the opposite! He's a hack economist.

2. His comparison of states is ridiculous and not even scientific in any way; it's a joke.

3. He whines about how it is unfair to make owners pay. Boo fucking hoo.

Your article is corportatist drivel not grounded on empirical facts.

Hristos Doucouliagos and T. D. Stanley (2009) conducted a meta-study of 64 minimum-wage studies published between 1972 and 2007 measuring the impact of minimum wages on teenage employment in the United States. When they graphed every employment estimate contained in these studies (over 1,000 in total), weighting each estimate by its statistical precision, they found that the most precise estimates were heavily clustered at or near zero employment effects (see Figure 1). (mamba note: includes Neumark data too!)

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

I am unsurprised that a hardcore libertarian economist did not ground his article/blog post in actual empirical data, though. They generally avoid it since it never confirms their views.

There is no empirical evidence to indicate that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will have any significant effect on jobs nor will it hurt the poor by rising prices or any of the other discredited arguments.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

Ya, ya, republicans are evil and hate poor people! Insert other childish knee-jerk reactions here...

It's just my opinion, but government should have no-say in how much business pay their employees for many reasons. Minimum wage laws are used by cynical politicians to essentially buy votes, and higher wages will just be offset by higher prices - which will affect the poor disproportionately.

And remember, the higher the minimum wage, the sooner the robots will take over.

Robot Serves Up 360 Hamburgers Per Hour
http://singularityhub.com/2013/01/22/robot-serves-up-340-hamburgers-per-hour/

Yeah, because CEO, COO, CFO and board members should never have to take home a million less than what they already take.

 

[Bodacious]

Citation needed. The current federal minimum wage was instituted in 2009. During the Great Recession and the fallout years, the US economy actually experienced brief periods of measured deflation.

And even if you were correct, you've controlled for exactly zero variables making this one of those Not Experiments.

First, I didn't claim causation. Git your britches out of a bunch.
Second, you're using the short-term deflation during the "Great Recession" as an example of how raising the minimum wage caused a lowering of prices? Talk about a 'not experiment.'

You need a citation to show that shit's more expensive now than at the end of 2008?

Here you go...

Ground beef Dec 2008 $2.40/lb Now $3.70/lb
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/APU0000703112

Practically every food/commodity you look at will be the same. Was it caused by the last increase in the minimum wage? Partially perhaps, I don't know. I call bullshit on anyone who says they do know. But most everything non-durable costs considerably more now than 5 years ago. You don't need citations to know that.

.

 

[Pyrokai]

I wish I could say I'm surprised but I'm not.

It's amazing how the US keeps shooting itself in the foot. I seriously can't take it anymore. I need to lighten up and not care or....something.

Will things ever get better?

At this point I'm just sad for the state of this country, paralyzed by literal fucking idiots.

Oh, and they'll blame it on the people that are trying to make a change.

 

[Pyrokai]

Beyond that, there's the general cost of doing business. Including taxes, regulations, and everything else. It all plays a factor, and it all negatively affects employment.

Heck, this just happened down the street from me. Within walking distance.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/toyota-611584-torrance-texas.html

2000 California jobs gone. Boom. Thanks Davis. There's a reason Texas is stealing jobs from California (and many other places).

What can be done here? And will the employees of the Texas firm have it as well as the California firm?

This is the only thing that stops me from fully understanding what's going on here. I see the side of the picture where it lifts so many people out of poverty, helps all working Americans, etc....but then stuff like THIS enters the picture and I can't help but wonder.....is it truly the right thing? I want to think it is, but what happens if ALL of America becomes a California and prices itself out of jobs that are then sent overseas rather than a different state in the US?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Minimum wage laws are used by cynical politicians to essentially buy votes, and higher wages will just be offset by higher prices - which will affect the poor disproportionately.

What does it matter if minimum wage earners already can't afford to be alive?

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Snip

1. I'll admit, 80% was an exaggerated number but it still stands that teenagers are the biggest demographic of minimum wage workers. That first graph just seems odd to me.

2. I posted his article because some of his arguments were on point. He is also far from libertarian if you actually read his blogs and simply dismissing and insulting him because you don't agree with him only makes you look bad.

3. I never said it will hurt the poor or affect unemployment. I said that raising the minimum wage doesn't do much for the poor beside helping maybe the few. Your graphs are right that a lot of people will be affected by it but that does mean it will affect the poverty line. There are so many other factors involved with increasing wages that it will overall have a net affect on poverty.

Raising minimum wage is not the supposed "fix-all" that you think it is.

 

[Dryk]

I find it disgusting how big business and Republicans are against the minimum wage increase and for gutting welfare and foodstamps. How the fuck are low-income families supposed to make due then?

They'll probably eventually try to bring back workhouses.

because job creators!

I wonder if eventually it'll get to the point where unemployment is just rising regardless because the extra "employees" being created by people having to take multiple jobs to survive is outpacing job creation.

I wish I could say I'm surprised but I'm not.

It's amazing how the US keeps shooting itself in the foot. I seriously can't take it anymore. I need to lighten up and not care or....something.

Will things ever get better?

Oh, and they'll blame it on the people that are trying to make a change.

Eventually they'll slip up and squeeze harder and faster than their propaganda can compensate for and people will hit their limit. Then everyone will break out the guillotines and everything will go back to normal for another few hundred years.

 

[AniHawk]

It would be close to the highest minimum wage has ever been, historically speaking. Here's a quick chart I put together:

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that, though.

i wonder what the two decade-long gaps between raises in the minimum wages have to do with each other.

 

[BumbleB]

..

 

[Link]

I love how the sentiment is that businesses should take care of the poor. It's not the businesses responsibility. It's the government's job. Slash the defense budget and funnel money into helping the poor.

Republicans have no interest in doing that either.

 

[Bolivar]

Minimum wage economically is inefficient. If you want to improve someone's welfare give them money with welfare supplements.

 

[Black Mamba]

1. I'll admit, 80% was an exaggerated number but it still stands that teenagers are the biggest demographic of minimum wage workers. That first graph just seems odd to me.

Less than 50% are teenagers. And this ignores all the people making a bit above minimum wage who will see a wage hike if the minimum wage is raised.

2. I posted his article because some of his arguments were on point. He is also far from libertarian if you actually read his blogs and simply dismissing and insulting him because you don't agree with him only makes you look bad.

He calls himself a libertarian. And I said that as a libertarian, I wasn't surprised he ignored empiricism since that's their thing. Being one in an of itself is not what I attacked him for, I attacked him for ignoring data and only picking out 1 single (and mostly discredited) data point to back up his argument.

3. I never said it will hurt the poor or affect unemployment. I said that raising the minimum wage doesn't do much for the poor beside helping maybe the few. Your graphs are right that a lot of people will be affected by it but that does mean it will affect the poverty line. There are so many other factors involved with increasing wages that it will overall have a net affect on poverty.

Arguing that is won't have much of an effect on poverty has been completely unsubstantiated and really seems odd given what the empirical data says. Since it doesn't touch employment or affect prices much, what can it do besides help?

Furthermore, most recent research, when analyzed properly, comes to this conclusion. In fact, Neumark's own recent research came to such conclusion (only, he never published it in his paper but the data showed it).

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15038936/Dube_MinimumWagesFamilyIncomes.pdf

According to Dube's analysis of studies and his own, a 10% increase in the minimum wage reduces poverty by around 2.4% (Neumark's work showed it at a higher rate of 2.9%!). I don't think that's insignificant and it matters.

In fact, many economists are pretty sure the 70s poverty was kept from being higher because of the minimum wage: http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/FEDS/2010/201060/201060pap.pdf

This of course still helps people not in poverty but below the median income, as welll.

Raising minimum wage is not the supposed "fix-all" that you think it is.

Now this is a straw man if I ever saw one. At no point did I indicate the minimum wage was a "fix-all," I merely countered your assertions (and linked article). There are numerous approaches we must take besides the minimum wage (such as increasing the EITC, increasing the social safety nets, increasing taxes at the top, etc) to go hand in hand with the minimum wage. It is but one tool but a tool that does work to some extent.

 

[davepoobond]

Minimum wage economically is inefficient. If you want to improve someone's welfare give them money with welfare supplements.

you realize the same people are cutting welfare supplements left and right

 

[Foffy]

Minimum wage economically is inefficient. If you want to improve someone's welfare give them money with welfare supplements.

Minimum wage is our best ticket until we realize a universal baseline income is the way to go. A baseline income will only be an option with the next generation, considering this one has obliterated the playing field.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

It would be close to the highest minimum wage has ever been, historically speaking. Here's a quick chart I put together:

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that, though.

It went down 2 dollars in 1981? Hmm I wonder who would do such a thing. /sarcasm

 

[IISANDERII]

Sen Elizabeth Warren's speech on the matter. Nothing Earth shattering but refreshing to hear, good to know there are people like her in politics. She'd be a brilliant president.

 

[Lowmelody]

Minimum wage economically is inefficient. If you want to improve someone's welfare give them money with welfare supplements.

This is preposterous. Giving cash money, is the most efficient way to improve someone's life. Not to mention the most efficient way to stimulate a capitalist (Read: Consumer) economy.

This is really about control and making sure people stay desperate enough to take the least beneficial option every time and say please and thanks whilst doing so.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Minimum wage economically is inefficient. If you want to improve someone's welfare give them money with welfare supplements.

I understand your thought process, but it's blind to our current political divide. This solution will never happen with the current people in charge. So then we go back to asking what's an actual solution.

 

[onadesertedisland]

Looks like a little bit of Friedman slipped in... I know those college business classes and economics courses spew that shit, but really those neoliberal policies are exactly why the economy took a big, long, dirty shit.

 

[Zaphod]

Ground beef Dec 2008 $2.40/lb Now $3.70/lb
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/APU0000703112

So minimum wage workers caused a massive drought?

 

[ink4n3]

So minimum wage workers caused a massive drought?

Yes, because something something Jesus.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Some of the most effective messaging in politics is convincing people to not support support raising the minimum wage, considering the wealth gap problem.

 

[Manarola]

Some of the most effective messaging in politics is convincing people to not support support raising the minimum wage, considering the wealth gap problem.

Very few people are affected by the minimum wage, so it's not hard to see why a lot of people aren't instantly supportive.

This is preposterous. Giving cash money, is the most efficient way to improve someone's life. Not to mention the most efficient way to stimulate a capitalist (Read: Consumer) economy.

This is really about control and making sure people stay desperate enough to take the least beneficial option every time and say please and thanks whilst doing so.

I think his point is that giving cash directly to the poor is more efficient, since welfare payments are means-tested. The minimum wage is not. But I agree that the political realities make the minimum wage a much easier sell.

 

[empty vessel]

Very few people are affected by the minimum wage, so it's not hard to see why a lot of people aren't instantly supportive.

Few are directly affected, but most workers are in fact affected. Increasing the minimum wage should put upward pressure on most other wages.