Support NeoGAF

[Super_Cobra]

Where do you live?

Georgia. Non emergency ambulance services pay better though. It's a shame because we do a lot for the community.

 

[aeolist]

So, if we take the logical conclusion of your argument then, you don't think that states should be allowed -- today -- to have minimum wages above $7.25/hr? So, like the 40 or so states that have a higher minimum wage than $7.25 should be forced to drop those down do $7.25? And what about cities that have a higher minimum wage than the state wage, they should have to drop those down to $7.25 as well?

It has to be federal?

i am saying that near-term the best way to pass a meaningful increase from the current minimum wage is a federal law, how does it follow that i think no one should be allowed to have anything higher???

 

[kirblar]

Where does this belief that prices will rise proportionally with an increase in minimum wage come from?

People think that an increase in minimum wage of 50% would increase the price of oil by 50%? The tv you import from China by 50%?

Or to use a previous posters' example, the price of drugs, (after spending billions of dollars of research with the most technologically advanced med labs in the world using the most highly educated doctors, pharmacists and research scientists) is going to increase by 50% because the cleaner now earns 50% more than last year?

The market most likely to quickly raise prices in an attempt to absorb parts of rising incomes is housing.

 

[jimmypython]

yeah the gov should take actions to keep a viable purchase power of the population.

Increasing minimum wage is one way to do it.

 

[Iksenpets]

I think rather than seeing the minimum wage increased all the way to $15 I'd rather there was a large increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit. That will keep jobs in place and reduce the burden on small businesses while people still (eventually, at tax time) earn more.

Expanding the EITC and turning it into something that was calculated in advance and paid out monthly instead of an annual lump sum at tax time would help a lot of people (but you'd run into right wing complaints about welfare and left wing complaints about taxpayers picking up the tab for corporations paying low wages)

That's why you base it on revenue and not employee count.

Large in MN is more than $500,000 in revenue.

No sane company is going to halt their growth just to stay below a certain revenue threshold so they don't have to pay their employees more.

I guess theoretically a way to do it would be profits instead of revenue, but then I think you'd have private companies trying to hide profits so they can just pocket them quietly and not have to pay their employees more.

http://www.dli.mn.gov/LS/Pdf/minwage_er_size.pdf

The more a company has succcess the more it should pay its employees. Instead of just paying everyone shit and making the owners more and more wealthy and further increasing income inequality.

Ok, yeah, basing it on revenue seems much better.

 

[Deepwater]

You should read the OP that I spent some time to specifically get rid of these misconceptions about arguments against a minimum wage. You can disagree; but you should realize that there are good-intentioned people and arguments on both sides.

None of what I said was conclusively disproven by any of the things you posted in the OP.

In fact, you see some of the behaviors and arguments I listed in this very thread.

 

[kinggroin]

At the very least it needs to increase proportionally with inflation. Only assholes would argue that.

Past that. I dunno. We need an example.

I want poor people to be better off. It'll also mean less crime. And no one is satisfied with minimum anyway, so there will still be incentive to move past that.

But if it's a LIVING wage, and that's defined per state and not universally, then social services needs to be tightened up drastically.

Or middle class just sit out as fuckbois that make a liiittle more money, pay more taxes, and get no assistance.

 

[The Albatross]

i am saying that near-term the best way to pass a meaningful increase from the current minimum wage is a federal law, how does it follow that i think no one should be allowed to have anything higher???

You're just contradicting yourself.

In one post you're saying that our Republic is broken, so states can't implement their own minimum wage, then you're saying that Democrats have to take the white house and congress and pass minimum wage, and then that's "in the near term."

Sorry, but Democrats taking the White house and congress is not happening in "the near term," and beyond that, even if Democrats can take congress by 2020 (which seems unlikely even despite how unpopular Trump is), I doubt they'd have a fillibuster proof majority and they might not even have enough votes if they did take congress.

Conveniently, for real meaningful increases to minimum wage, those things don't need to happen. States have maintained minimum wage policy before the Federal government ever did. It's obviously the most affective way of implementing minimum wage. By your "near term" date of at the earliest 2020, some locales will already be close to implementing $15 minimum wage increases. California will have $15 by 2022 (some counties will have it by 2018), DC by 2020, Chicago will come close by 2019 ($13).

Other than non sequitur opinions about the "broken republic" and the pipe dream of Democrats taking the house, senate, and white house by 2020, do you have an economic argument for a $15 federal minimum wage? I'm for bumping the federal minimum wage up, but I'm more strongly in favor of states being able to continue to set their own minimum wage. It's just a faster and more effective way to bring up quality of life.

 

[Deepwater]

At the very least it needs to increase proportionally with inflation. Only assholes would argue that.

Past that. I dunno. We need an example.

I want poor people to be better off. It'll also mean less crime. And no one is satisfied with minimum anyway, so there will still be incentive to move past that.

But if it's a LIVING wage, and that's defined per state and not universally, then social services needs to be tightened up drastically.

Or middle class just sit out as fuckbois that make a liiittle more money, pay more taxes, and get no assistance.

Why would the middle class need assistance? You would think after the recession that the middle class would learn to punch up and not down.

 

[yanipheonu]

Basic income does seems to be an interesting way to offset this problem, though that remains theoretical.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

All for it. I believe if you are working a full time job you shouldn't need government handouts to get by - you should be earning enough money to take care of yourself and pay the tax man.

 

[Vanillalite]

Basic income does seems to be an interesting way to offset this problem, though that remains theoretical.

It has its own set of issues, but longer term I think it is a better solution.

 

[Zoe]

At the very least it needs to increase proportionally with inflation. Only assholes would argue that.

Past that. I dunno. We need an example.

I want poor people to be better off. It'll also mean less crime. And no one is satisfied with minimum anyway, so there will still be incentive to move past that.

But if it's a LIVING wage, and that's defined per state and not universally, then social services needs to be tightened up drastically.

Or middle class just sit out as fuckbois that make a liiittle more money, pay more taxes, and get no assistance.

The problem with "living wage" is actually defining what makes a wage livable.

Allow for luxuries or just the bare necessities? What are the bare necessities?
Allow for dependents or just a single adult?

 

[kirblar]

The problem with "living wage" is actually defining what makes a wage livable.

Allow for luxuries or just the bare necessities? What are the bare necessities?
Allow for dependents or just a single adult?

Once you include dependents the whole argument collapses - the idea that a company should be responsible for paying more money to someone simply because they have more kids is completely ridiculous.

 

[Gotchaye]

The reason I'm trying to argue using a story is that I can give first-hand opinion on it, rather than 100% speculation on what may happen at the top and bottom of the payscale (although we're all definitely offering some speculation). We agree that prices will, whatever the magnitude, rise across the board. I believe that rather than all acting as pseudo-monopolies, corporations are simply acting towards the best interest of their profit. If there is, in general, "more money" out there in the populace, why wouldn't a company raise prices? If their supply remains the same, and the ability for consumers to purchase that supply increases (due to more income), it would just make sense for them to raise prices, and people would be willing to pay it because "I'm making more now, so I can afford an extra $xx.xx for this."

Bringing this (which we agree on, just seemingly not to the same absolute amount of price inflation) back to apply it to my story, would hurt me financially. If my $24/hour right now is sufficient at the moment according to a market that sells a 2-L bottle of soda for $1, it would be less sufficient in a market that has adjusted to a higher minimum wage, selling a 2-L bottle of soda for $1.25.

I guess what I'm trying to argue is that raising minimum wage 100% positively for sure helps the workers earning minimum wage. It will make it much easier for them to live a less stressful life, with more breathing room in their finances. And I do think it will reduce inequality. However, it's going to harm the middle-class much more than the upper class. For instance, a change from $8 to $16 minimum wage (as an example), would be like going from 0.001% of the CEO's salary to 0.002% of it. For somebody making, say, $32/hour, it's like going from 25% to 50% of their wages. That is a huge relative hit to a mid-level employee's wages while not even draining a drop from the CEO's bucket.

Your example of higher taxations is exactly what I think needs to be implemented (along with whatever else actual economists think will help, I don't know crap about in depth economics). There's a big difference in the company itself losing money, and the consumer-base gaining money. A company can't just raise prices because it is making less money, because demand isn't going up. A company is totally capable of raising prices and succeeding with the new prices if demand does go up, which is exactly the case with a larger pool of expendable income.

I'm sure a lot of what I'm saying isn't being well-explained and I'm rambling. But I 100% stand by the fact that just raising minimum wage won't magically solve all of the country's current financial problems without creating others. And I know you specifically aren't advocating that, I just know that a very vocal group of people demand higher minimum wages and refuse to address the "but then what?" question that it requires.

And I'm probably sounding very selfish or close-minded with this, and I apologize for it! But it is a selfish issue. From my point of view I would say "yay I'm happy for those employees that are finally making a living wage, but now I'm living paycheck to paycheck rather than having some savings every month." Again, some hyperbole but the point still stands. In order to not harm the middle class while still helping the lower class, there would have to be wage bumps across the board (up to $100k/year, or $150k/year, or whatever people deem the "middle class"). And if that is the case, all we're doing is artificially inflating the dollar.

Edit: That was a really long reply, sorry

At the start here you're making a somewhat different argument than you've been making so far. You're now talking about how companies might raise prices when the minimum wage goes up because (some of) their customers will have more money because they're getting paid more. That's pretty different from raising prices because their costs are going up.

And I don't think this is likely to have a big effect either. First, obviously right after we increase the minimum wage it's only a subset of customers that have more money - it's only the ones who are paid minimum wage. Second, they're going to adjust their consumption if prices change. You're still assuming away competition. If Coke raises its prices because some of its customers have more money, those same customers, even though they do have more money, will be more likely to buy Pepsi instead. Or store-brand. So will all of the other people who have been buying Coke all along and who didn't just get a raise. This is again the sort of thing that just can't have a big effect or the economy would simply not work at all. Prices can't just rise according to people's ability to pay unless there's no competition.

I mean, ultimately what you want to do is identify where rich people are extracting surplus from the system and stop that. A pretty clear target is the exploitation of low-wage workers. They need jobs, and there aren't enough jobs for them all to do, so if you've got a job to offer you can get them to bid the wage down to the ground. A minimum wage prevents this (though of course a too-high minimum wage is a problem for other reasons). If it then turns out that a living wage is higher than the optimal minimum wage, you probably want to top up the optimal minimum wage with something like the EITC. But when we put this minimum wage in place, the main thing we've done is corrected an imbalance of bargaining power between low-wage workers and the owners of capital. Sure, capitalists could claw back what they've lost by exploiting someone else, but this begs the question: why aren't they already exploiting that someone else? If they could get away with paying you only enough to afford 19 bottles of soda per hour instead of 24, regardless of the arbitrary numbers we write on the price tags and paychecks, why aren't they doing that already?

I think it's possible that you'd be a little worse off with a higher minimum wage. I just think that a 25% increase in prices while your wage stays the same is insane. Unless the minimum wage is getting to the point where where it's creating large amounts of unemployment (which is going to hurt everybody), capitalists mostly have to eat the loss because they're already exploiting you and everyone else as ruthlessly as possible. There's nothing left to squeeze.

 

[Illucio]

Too much of this conversation puts the burden on employees instead of businesses.

Frankly, if your business simply cannot afford to survive without paying your employees poverty wages, then your business is not necessarily entitled to exist.


The current privilege for a business to pay employees poverty wages is basically a hand-out entitlement from the government, because who do you think pays for assistance to the poor?

Actually it's more smaller businesses won't be able to compete with larger stores in that scenario. (While at first.) Since they can't afford the immediate cost increase. And there needs to be a stimulate or something to help them during conversion.

Sure they can jack up prices, but if Wal-Mart for example is able to afford keeping their prices the same then those businesses will fail unless their willing to fire employees to keep costs low and then make the job harder to make up for the lack of employees. Granted they are getting paid more, so.. Depends on the person.

 

[UFO]

More money in people's pockets means more demand for goods and services, which means more jobs not fewer jobs.

This is flawed from the beginning IMO. The logic of this follows:

1: Increase minimum wage
2: ???
3: People have more money
4: Jobs are created to deliver more goods to more people

Where is the guarantee that employers are going to be willing to pay more for bottom-tier employees vs using automation or reducing employee numbers and putting the extra workload on the remaining employees?

I am ALL FOR paying lower and middle class people more money, and ALL FOR reeling back the rich owners. But a $15 MINIMUM wage does not address the vast majority of problems facing the working class. It's a lazy solution.

 

[ZOONAMI]

This is flawed from the beginning IMO. The logic of this follows:

1: Increase minimum wage
2: ???
3: People have more money
4: Jobs are created to deliver more goods to more people

Where is the guarantee that employers are going to be willing to pay more for bottom-tier employees vs using automation or reducing employee numbers and putting the extra workload on the remaining employees?

I am ALL FOR paying lower and middle class people more money, and ALL FOR reeling back the rich owners. But a $15 MINIMUM wage does not address the vast majority of problems facing the working class. It's a lazy solution.

How is it lazy? Do you have a less lazy alternative that's any more likely to have federal legislation passed on it?

If you just attack the most obvious and easily implemented solution to combat income inequality then you need to have a more viable alternative.

 

[kirblar]

How is it lazy? Do you have a less lazy alternative that's any more likely to have federal legislation passed on it?

If you just attack the most obvious and easily implemented solution to combat income inequality then you need to have a more viable alternative.

But it doesn't combat income inequality. Increasing the wage floor doesn't address the roots of the issue-Income inequality skyrocketed in the US after 1980 as a result of Reagan's tax code changes alongside a general shift towards capital becoming much more valuable relative to labor due to advances in automation.

If you can pass a minimum wage increase, that means you have the votes to pass comprehensive tax reform.

 

[ZOONAMI]

But it doesn't combat income inequality. Increasing the wage floor doesn't address the roots of the issue-Income inequality skyrocketed in the US after 1980 as a result of Reagan's tax code changes alongside a general shift towards capital becoming much more valuable relative to labor due to advances in automation.

If you can pass a minimum wage increase, that means you have the votes to pass comprehensive tax reform.

Ok, let's call it fighting poverty then.

And no, I think it's easier to get a minimum wage increase than it is comprehensive tax return.

Ideally, why not both?

 

[kirblar]

Ok, let's call it fighting poverty then.

And no, I think it's easier to get a minimum wage increase than it is comprehensive tax return.

Ideally, why not both?

In reality, the federal minimum wage is effectively only the minimum for two things: red states and rural areas. I don't have an issue w/ raising it, but it has to be raised to the level of where you want the lowest common denominator to be at.

I don't think it fights poverty- I think it acts as a check against wage exploitation. It's not the most effective thing in the world, but its better to have it there than not.

 

[Boney]

Milton Friedman?

Let's get Alan Greenspan while we're at it. Having a below poverty wage and losing benefits is good for the economy because the work force is on such brink of a economic despair that they won't risk rocking the boat.

It's sound economics mang

 

[ZOONAMI]

In reality, the federal minimum wage is effectively only the minimum for two things: red states and rural areas. I don't have an issue w/ raising it, but it has to be raised to the level of where you want the lowest common denominator to be at.

I don't think it fights poverty- I think it acts as a check against wage exploitation. It's not the most effective thing in the world, but its better to have it there than not.

That just isn't really true though as any state with single digit minimum wage is part of the discussion.

There actually are people in Minnesota (and elsewhere) working 80+ hour weeks multiple jobs at minimum wage to support themselves/families.

I think another huge problem is companies limiting employees to part time hours so they don't have to provide any benefits, if the threshold for at least some sort of 50% employee paid healthcare and 3% 401k match was lowered to 25 hours a week (for at least large companies based on revenue), it would do a lot of good.

 

[Aquavelvaman]

Even if a low minimum wage props up the overall number of jobs, it doesn't matter when people have to work 2 or 3 jobs just to get by. I can't comprehend anyone arguing that they should ever be allowed to pay their workers less than a livable wage.

Here's something to read for anyone thinking about 'supply and demand': The Curse of Econ 101

 

[kirblar]

That just isn't really true though as any state with single digit minimum wage is part of the discussion.

There actually are people in Minnesota (and elsewhere) working 80+ hour weeks multiple jobs at minimum wage to support themselves/families.

Yes, it is. Urban areas have been increasing their minimum wage on their own. So have blue states. They're doing it on their own. (I don't consider Minnesota a blue state, fwiw.)

There's the trick - "Families." An employer should not be responsible for your family. I know its set up that way now w/ insurance due to our stupid employment-based system, but it shouldn't be that way. They should be paying directly for you and you alone. Government should be covering for the kids.

If you're working 80 hours at a minimum wage job (and waiting tables doesn't count as one)- something is wrong. Most people do not stay in those jobs long-term, nor do they stay at minimum wage.

 

[Polioliolio]

The "businesses can't afford it and will have to let people go" is such a bullshit argument that only makes sense if the priority is the people on the top. Do you think mcdonalds or walmart isn't making enough money? Really? Yeah, they'd have to take a cut.. But there's no ethical reason the cut should take place on the bottom. Maybe these businesses should just have to deal with a lower end profit.. Or the guys on top might just have to be paid something reasonable instead of making more money than all of the people on the bottom combined. Pay should reflect the job you do. No one's arguing that the guy on top doesn't have a hard job, but even supposing it's harder, less meaningful than the bottom jobs... Is the pay gap seriously anywhere near appropriate? Guy on the top should maybe make several times the wage of the bottom guy, whatever... Not tens of thousands of times his wage or some outrageous bullshit like that.

 

[UFO]

How is it lazy? Do you have a less lazy alternative that's any more likely to have federal legislation passed on it?

If you just attack the most obvious and easily implemented solution to combat income inequality then you need to have a more viable alternative.

It's lazy because it's a quick fix bandaid that doesn't address the actual problems and may make things worse. It's like if your car was leaking gas and your solution was to just keep putting more gas in it.

A real solution would be to limit the amount of money owners and higher ups can make in relation to the lower and middle class works. Enormous tax penalties for mega-cooperations, job stability, more affordable college education and incentives for going.

And you're right, it's going to be incredible difficult for any of this to pass congress, not when the majority of them are paid shills.

The "businesses can't afford it and will have to let people go" is such a bullshit argument that only makes sense if the priority is the people on the top. Do you think mcdonalds or walmart isn't making enough money? Really? Yeah, they'd have to take a cut.. But there's no ethical reason the cut should take place on the bottom. Maybe these businesses should just have to deal with a lower end profit.. Or the guys on top might just have to be paid something reasonable instead of making more money than all of the people on the bottom combined. Pay should reflect the job you do. No one's arguing that the guy on top doesn't have a hard job, but even supposing it's harder, less meaningful than the bottom jobs... Is the pay gap seriously anywhere near appropriate? Guy on the top should maybe make several times the wage of the bottom guy, whatever... Not tens of thousands of times his wage or some outrageous bullshit like that.

Small businesses have very slim profit margins. Competing with Walmart will do that to you. And with businesses like Walmart, the question is not can they take the profit lose, but will they?

 

[ZOONAMI]

Yes, it is. Urban areas have been increasing their minimum wage on their own. So have blue states. They're doing it on their own. (I don't consider Minnesota a blue state, fwiw.)

There's the trick - "Families." An employer should not be responsible for your family. I know its set up that way now w/ insurance due to our stupid employment-based system, but it shouldn't be that way. They should be paying directly for you and you alone. Government should be covering for the kids.

If you're working 80 hours at a minimum wage job (and waiting tables doesn't count as one)- something is wrong. Most people do not stay in those jobs long-term, nor do they stay at minimum wage.

Well, government isn't going to cover for the kids as long as the GOP has any semblance of power in this country.

And yeah, a lot of people might not be at actual minimum wage in a given state but $9 an hour doesn't really cut it either.

And yes, something is wrong. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who work their asses off for shit pay, no benefits, very little in the way of promotions or raises, because they don't have any other options. Your logic sounds essentially like bootstrap mentality.

What people don't stay in those jobs long term? White teenagers?

I have worked in fast food and service industry and there are a ton of people making far less than $15 an hour, even if you factor in tips for some service jobs (cooks, catering) and they have been doing it for literally decades.

 

[ZOONAMI]

It's lazy because it's a quick fix bandaid that doesn't address the actual problems and may make things worse. It's like if your car was leaking gas and your solution was to just keep putting more gas in it.

A real solution would be to limit the amount of money owners and higher ups can make in relation to the lower and middle class works. Enormous tax penalties for mega-cooperations, job stability, more affordable college education and incentives for going.

And you're right, it's going to be incredible difficult for any of this to pass congress, not when the majority of them are paid shills.

Well right, this is essentially a baby step, but baby steps are better than no steps.

And I do think a $12-15 federal "livable" wage has somewhat of a shot at least, and an even better shot at the state and local levels.

 

[kirblar]

Well, government isn't going to cover for the kids as long as the GOP has any semblance of power in this country.

And yeah, a lot of people might not be at actual minimum wage in a given state but $9 an hour doesn't really cut it either.

And yes, something is wrong. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who work their asses off for shit pay, no benefits, very little in the way of promotions or raises, because they don't have any other options. Your logic sounds essentially like bootstrap mentality.

What people don't stay in those jobs long term? White teenagers?

People who get promoted, get raises, move on to new jobs, etc. - that is how things work for people. If you're continuously in a minimum wage job, for years on end, that is not normal.

If you're stuck in this type of job to the point where you have to rely on government intervention just to get a pay raise, I would question whether it wouldn't be more efficient and helpful to intervene in some other fashion that wasn't contingent on you maintaining employment.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Will reduce the amount of available jobs - employers can't afford to keep the same workforce

I just wanna do a hot take on this:

A family of two where one person makes 15/hr still beats a situation where both parties have to work 7.50/hr jobs.

 

[Kill3r7]

I just wanna do a hot take on this:

A family of two where one person makes 15/hr still beats a situation where both parties have to work 7.50/hr jobs.

Yep as it frees up one person to be at home to take care of the kids and do other worthwhile things.

 

[ant_]

I just wanna do a hot take on this:

A family of two where one person makes 15/hr still beats a situation where both parties have to work 7.50/hr jobs.

This is true, of course. But what happens when both family members are not qualified to work a $15/hr job? An employer will want to hire a worker that is able to justify his costs. Increasing the skill floor will remove the ability to even be employed. We're making the logical jump that it's just as easy to employ someone at 7.50/hr v. 15.00/hr.

 

[Boney]

People who get promoted, get raises, move on to new jobs, etc. - that is how things work for people. If you're continuously in a minimum wage job, for years on end, that is not normal.

If you're stuck in this type of job to the point where you have to rely on government intervention just to get a pay raise, I would question whether it wouldn't be more efficient and helpful to intervene in some other fashion that wasn't contingent on you maintaining employment.

Is this one of them bubbles people talk about?

More than 25% of Americans are on under $10 and more than 40% under $15. Your reality that most people go on and get promotions and raises is magical thinking.

 

[MTE]

No job should pay less than a livable wage. It's unethical. People will do the work if it's all they can get, but we shouldn't allow it to take place.
If you can't run your business without paying so little for workers, your business model is flawed.

Having said that, I'm in Australia, where we have, as far as I know, a reasonable minimum wage. As someone in the middle class, I'm also not concerned about my soda costing 20% more if it means bringing large parts of society out of poverty.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This is true, of course. But what happens when both family members are not qualified to work a $15/hr job? An employer will want to hire a worker that is able to justify his costs. Increasing the skill floor will remove the ability to even be employed. We're making the logical jump that it's just as easy to employ someone at 7.50/hr v. 15.00/hr.

A double quarter pounder with cheese has a profit margin excluding labour costs but including fixed costs such as premises of approximately $0.30. As long as you can prepare 50 in an hour, you can produce at least $15 worth of added value while still having at least a break-even profit margin. How many people do you think are genuinely incapable of doing this?

Almost any person without compromising disabilities can produce $15 of added-value in an hour. Even if they live in a red state. So the question is: why aren't they getting paid this?

 

[UFO]

I just wanna do a hot take on this:

A family of two where one person makes 15/hr still beats a situation where both parties have to work 7.50/hr jobs.

Except employment is zero-sum. Meaning that 1 person earning 15/hr is going to be expected to do all the work the 2 people earning 7.50/hr would do.

Well right, this is essentially a baby step, but baby steps are better than no steps.

And I do think a $12-15 federal "livable" wage has somewhat of a shot at least, and an even better shot at the state and local levels.

I have no problem with a $15 minimum wage at a state level. I do think it would need an exclusion for dependents though.

 

[Deepwater]

I just wanna do a hot take on this:

A family of two where one person makes 15/hr still beats a situation where both parties have to work 7.50/hr jobs.

I think you also have to consider that there are a lot of people who work 2+ low wage jobs, especially since the trend is that many retail companies intentionally cut hours so they don't have to pay benefits for full time hours.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Even if a low minimum wage props up the overall number of jobs, it doesn't matter when people have to work 2 or 3 jobs just to get by. I can't comprehend anyone arguing that they should ever be allowed to pay their workers less than a livable wage.

Here's something to read for anyone thinking about 'supply and demand': The Curse of Econ 101

The curse of Econ 101 is real, but the supply and demand stuff is still broadly true. There are better ways to achieve the goals people want to achieve with high minimum wages. People are repulsed by the idea of the government having to give people welfare because employers don't pay enough, but it is the fairest way to redistribute wealth.

 

[kirblar]

Is this one of them bubbles people talk about?

More than 25% of Americans are on under $10 and more than 40% under $15. Your reality that most people go on and get promotions and raises is magical thinking.

And many Americans can live on that sort of income because they're in low-cost-of-living areas.

Take a look at the Craigslist roommate listings- here's Akron OH https://akroncanton.craigslist.org/search/roo

And here's Northern VA https://washingtondc.craigslist.org/search/nva/roo

There is a gigantic difference in the amount of income required in order to achieve the same standard of living.

People do get promotions. People do get raises. People do job hop. People do advance their careers. This isn't magical thinking- it's how things work.

 

[ant_]

A double quarter pounder with cheese has a profit margin excluding labour costs but including fixed costs such as premises of approximately $0.30. As long as you can prepare 50 in an hour, you can produce at least $15 worth of added value while still having at least a break-even profit margin. How many people do you think are genuinely incapable of doing this?

Almost any person without compromising disabilities can produce $15 of added-value in an hour. Even if they live in a red state. So the question is: why aren't they getting paid this?

What about jobs in which the immediate product is not so easily quantifiable? A janitor? A cashier? A retail clerk? Equipment operator? Crossing guard? Waiter? Security guard? A Wal Mart greeter?

There a huge amount of jobs that don't have easily measurable profit margins but are important to our society. They may not necessarily be worth the labor cost of $15/hr.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Except employment is zero-sum. Meaning that 1 person earning 15/hr is going to be expected to do all the work the 2 people earning 7.50/hr would do.

What? No, it's really not. If companies could double productivity then they would already have 1 person working at $7.50/hr doing twice the amount of work. Or maybe they just end up producing more output overall for less input (this is where real economic growth comes from). Realistically right away a doubling of productivity would probably greatly decrease employment, but eventually as aggregate demand grows employment would rise back up as people seek to produce more stuff, especially because there are good investment opportunities given how cheap labour and the other factors of production are now.

 

[Foffy]

A $15 minimum wage is good...for those with jobs. And that point needs to be absorbed deeply.

We have other issues with it, however.

- The people out of the labor system, be it the homeless or withdrawn from the labor force.
- The issue of increasing costs making humans a bigger bleeding asset to a business, thus they either lose hours to avoid benefits.
- A similar issue to the previous point, but replacing people with automation, which is only expensive as a first-time upfront cost.

I think the only way a $15 minimum wage is a serviceable approach is if it comes with another condition, like a minimum economic floor for citizens. This way, people are paid humanely, and those displaced aren't fucked off. The seesaw of costs between humans and technology will only aim in the latter's favor, even if we believe the former should be humanely compensated, and the lack of a floor means people will be booted, which will produce precarity in their lives.

 

[UFO]

What? No, it's really not. If companies could double productivity then they would already have 1 person working at $7.50/hr doing twice the amount of work. Or maybe they just end up producing more output overall for less input (this is where real economic growth comes from). Realistically right away a doubling of productivity would probably greatly decrease employment, but eventually as aggregate demand grows employment would rise back up as people seek to produce more stuff, especially because there are good investment opportunities given how cheap labour and the other factors of production are now.

That article was not convincing at all.

 

[Deepwater]

What? No, it's really not. If companies could double productivity then they would already have 1 person working at $7.50/hr doing twice the amount of work. Or maybe they just end up producing more output overall for less input (this is where real economic growth comes from). Realistically right away a doubling of productivity would probably greatly decrease employment, but eventually as aggregate demand grows employment would rise back up as people seek to produce more stuff, especially because there are good investment opportunities given how cheap labour and the other factors of production are now.

Case in point, a McDonalds isn't going to fire half of their staff because the min wage is double what it used to be because McDonalds can't survive if only two people are behind the counter at peak operating times.

 

[Brinbe]

I have no idea how some people make it making fucking 7.25. That's insanity in 2017. I only make roughly double that and it's tough.

 

[kirblar]

Case in point, a McDonalds isn't going to fire half of their staff because the min wage is double what it used to be because McDonalds can't survive if only two people are behind the counter at peak operating times.

No, they're just doing it anyway because of technology improvements that allow them to service the same # of people w/ less actual service staff by implementing consumer order kiosks.

 

[Aquavelvaman]

The curse of Econ 101 is real, but the supply and demand stuff is still broadly true. There are better ways to achieve the goals people want to achieve with high minimum wages. People are repulsed by the idea of the government having to give people welfare because employers don't pay enough, but it is the fairest way to redistribute wealth.

I agree with you. Ultimately everyone needs access to food, housing, and healthcare whether they're working or not.

 

[Deepwater]

No, they're just doing it anyway because of technology improvements that allow them to service the same # of people w/ less actual service staff by implementing consumer order kiosks.

Who is going to make the food??? Who's going to bring it out?

By this logic, we would already see a mass proliferation of self order kiosks if they were cheaper and more productive than human labor.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Case in point, a McDonalds isn't going to fire half of their staff because the min wage is double what it used to be because McDonalds can't survive if only two people are behind the counter at peak operating times.

But it would affect their profitability. You'd expect that very profitable locations would keep on keeping on, but the ones that are more borderline in profitability would close down. How wide that borderline is depends on how much you increase the minimum wage and what proportion of their costs wages are. Of course a higher minimum wage might also increase demand for McDonalds burgers. The overall effects are very hard to calculate. But at the very least it is disingenuous to argue that it would be as simple as everyone making twice as much money.