View Poll Results: Should the Federal Minimum Wage be Raised?
No, those jobs are for teenagers and 2nd incomes.
64
62.75%
Yes, to about $10/Hr.
18
17.65%
Yes, to about $15/Hr.
16
15.69%
Yes, to $_____/Hr.
4
3.92%
Voters: 102. You may not vote on this poll
Minimum Wage - Should It Be Raised? How Far?
#121
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
how many times do we have to raise it for it to work like you want? and how many countless years of the poor staying poor and people still living in poverty that you'll decide that continuing to do the same thing over and over again and getting no results may not be the best solution?
e: Also, you're just flat wrong. Even the economists that don't support raising the minimum wage agree that it reduces poverty rates. You can argue that the costs outweigh these benefits, but ignoring the benefits is naive.
Last edited by Savington; 05-22-2014 at 06:07 PM.
#122
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,675
Total Cats: 3,017
Exactly.
But that's the problem. Now they go on public assistance because they aren't worth $10+ an hour. So unemployment goes up and so does poverty and public assistance. You proved our point.
To minimum wage hike proponents:
Being altruistic to someone who is struggling by giving away someone else's money is not you being a "giving person". It is an act of cowardice. Do not get nostalgic because you once flipped burgers and you believe in your heart your contributions were worth more than your compensation. Get over yourself. The occupation dictates the wage. The world's best Burger King drive-thru cashier will never be as well compensated as the world's worst nuclear physicist. It's not about your value as a person, your heart and dedication, how badly you need the money, or how noble your personal struggle. You are employed specifically because of your financial value to the company.
Now try to recall the worst service you ever received in a fast food establishment. Picture the most slovenly, disheveled, poorly groomed employee. Imagine the one who drags their feet when they walk, mumbles when they talk, ignores the customer, argues with the other employees about who has to do the work, rolls their eyes at everything said to them, has to be constantly told to get to work but never really does anything, what the do is always half-assed and wrong, and tells customers they hate working there. If you say the minimum wage should be $10+, you are saying that that person and the other million just like them are always worth $10 an hour. Always. Every hour of every day they are at work. And that you would hire all of them personally at that rate to work for you.
Can you? I can't. Their actual productivity is probably in negative numbers since the payroll taxes, worker's comp, and benefits are so expensive. Even at $2.56 an hour, some of them would be a liability. But you say give them $10 per hour?
You first.
But that's the problem. Now they go on public assistance because they aren't worth $10+ an hour. So unemployment goes up and so does poverty and public assistance. You proved our point.
To minimum wage hike proponents:
Being altruistic to someone who is struggling by giving away someone else's money is not you being a "giving person". It is an act of cowardice. Do not get nostalgic because you once flipped burgers and you believe in your heart your contributions were worth more than your compensation. Get over yourself. The occupation dictates the wage. The world's best Burger King drive-thru cashier will never be as well compensated as the world's worst nuclear physicist. It's not about your value as a person, your heart and dedication, how badly you need the money, or how noble your personal struggle. You are employed specifically because of your financial value to the company.
Now try to recall the worst service you ever received in a fast food establishment. Picture the most slovenly, disheveled, poorly groomed employee. Imagine the one who drags their feet when they walk, mumbles when they talk, ignores the customer, argues with the other employees about who has to do the work, rolls their eyes at everything said to them, has to be constantly told to get to work but never really does anything, what the do is always half-assed and wrong, and tells customers they hate working there. If you say the minimum wage should be $10+, you are saying that that person and the other million just like them are always worth $10 an hour. Always. Every hour of every day they are at work. And that you would hire all of them personally at that rate to work for you.
Can you? I can't. Their actual productivity is probably in negative numbers since the payroll taxes, worker's comp, and benefits are so expensive. Even at $2.56 an hour, some of them would be a liability. But you say give them $10 per hour?
You first.
#123
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
Now try to recall the worst service you ever received in a fast food establishment. Picture the most slovenly, disheveled, poorly groomed employee. Imagine the one who drags their feet when they walk, mumbles when they talk, ignores the customer, argues with the other employees about who has to do the work, rolls their eyes at everything said to them, has to be constantly told to get to work but never really does anything, what the do is always half-assed and wrong, and tells customers they hate working there. If you say the minimum wage should be $10+, you are saying that that person and the other million just like them are always worth $10 an hour. Always. Every hour of every day they are at work. And that you would hire all of them personally at that rate to work for you.
Can you? I can't. Their actual productivity is probably in negative numbers since the payroll taxes, worker's comp, and benefits are so expensive. Even at $2.56 an hour, some of them would be a liability. But you say give them $10 per hour?
You first.
Can you? I can't. Their actual productivity is probably in negative numbers since the payroll taxes, worker's comp, and benefits are so expensive. Even at $2.56 an hour, some of them would be a liability. But you say give them $10 per hour?
You first.
#125
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
Here's a statement I'd like to make: Companies that pay low wages to workers are effectively subsidizing their revenue on the backs of the American tax-payer.
Corollary to that statement: Raising the minimum wage reduces taxpayer subsidies to companies that employ low-cost labor.
How taxpayers subsidize low-wage workers | MinnPost
Corollary to that statement: Raising the minimum wage reduces taxpayer subsidies to companies that employ low-cost labor.
How taxpayers subsidize low-wage workers | MinnPost
#126
Here's a statement I'd like to make: Companies that pay low wages to workers are effectively subsidizing their revenue on the backs of the American tax-payer.
Corollary to that statement: Raising the minimum wage reduces taxpayer subsidies to companies that employ low-cost labor.
How taxpayers subsidize low-wage workers | MinnPost
Corollary to that statement: Raising the minimum wage reduces taxpayer subsidies to companies that employ low-cost labor.
How taxpayers subsidize low-wage workers | MinnPost
Corollary to the corollary: Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment which increases taxpayer burden to cover welfare and unemployment benefits.
#127
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
Economists disagree on whether the minimum wage kills jobs. Why?
#128
Let me answer your question with a question:
If raising the minimum wage to $10 is a good thing, why isn't raising minimum wage to $50 a better thing? If we can increase wealth and reduce poverty via price controls, with no negative effect on employment, why wouldn't a bigger increase have an even better outcome?
If raising the minimum wage to $10 is a good thing, why isn't raising minimum wage to $50 a better thing? If we can increase wealth and reduce poverty via price controls, with no negative effect on employment, why wouldn't a bigger increase have an even better outcome?
#129
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
Let me answer your question with a question:
If raising the minimum wage to $10 is a good thing, why isn't raising minimum wage to $50 a better thing? If we can increase wealth and reduce poverty via price controls, with no negative effect on employment, why wouldn't a bigger increase have an even better outcome?
If raising the minimum wage to $10 is a good thing, why isn't raising minimum wage to $50 a better thing? If we can increase wealth and reduce poverty via price controls, with no negative effect on employment, why wouldn't a bigger increase have an even better outcome?
#130
Simple: that's not how statistics work. You can't take data from a real minimum wage that's varied between $6 and $11/hr over the last 65 years and use it to form opinions on how it would work if you raised wages to $25 or $50 an hr. I would never argue for a minimum wage of $25/hr, because there's absolutely no hard data to back up such an argument.
If there's a reason for the minimum wage, it can't simply that we've always had a minimum wage, because we haven't. And as such, there must be an argument that rests on fundamental economic principles, not on "statistics." (And it should be noted that those statistics are always interpreted according to one's presuppositions; thus the disagreement among economists despite the common data set.)
I want to hear the fundamental argument. That's what I'm challenging with the hypothetical $50/hour minimum wage. Why is $10 an appropriate number but $50 isn't?
#131
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,072
Total Cats: 6,625
Granted, arguing for a $50/hr minimum wage is reductio ad absurdum, however it's not unfair to ask the question of how any one arbitrary value is deemed more appropriate than another. I've yet to see any argument which describes how $10 is an economic sweet-spot, and not merely a conveniently round number.
I also don't recall that I've seen anyone directly respond to the criticisms that:
1: Many people who are working for minimum wage don't NEED to support a family and aren't providing a service which merits a 30% pay increase (eg: high-schooler flipping burgers part time in the summer, retired widower working as a WalMart greeter, etc), and will be ejected from the workforce if this minimum wage increase comes to pass, and
2: How the resultant increase in inequality between those who are able to find work and those who are not is a good thing.
#133
that 4.7% number accounts for all worker making min. wage OR below... It's not a big group of workers at all--It represents a few high school drop outs. There are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many other things to worry about before worrying about 3.6 million workers that work at shitty jobs.
defacto min wage is called market value.
*How do you accurately count the people making less than minimum wage? And if they're under the tables, how will they be affected by a change in minimum wage anyway? Why are we counting them?
#134
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
If there's a reason for the minimum wage, it can't simply that we've always had a minimum wage, because we haven't. And as such, there must be an argument that rests on fundamental economic principles, not on "statistics." (And it should be noted that those statistics are always interpreted according to one's presuppositions; thus the disagreement among economists despite the common data set.)
I want to hear the fundamental argument. That's what I'm challenging with the hypothetical $50/hour minimum wage. Why is $10 an appropriate number but $50 isn't?
I want to hear the fundamental argument. That's what I'm challenging with the hypothetical $50/hour minimum wage. Why is $10 an appropriate number but $50 isn't?
#135
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
I also don't recall that I've seen anyone directly respond to the criticisms that:
1: Many people who are working for minimum wage don't NEED to support a family and aren't providing a service which merits a 30% pay increase (eg: high-schooler flipping burgers part time in the summer, retired widower working as a WalMart greeter, etc)
1: Many people who are working for minimum wage don't NEED to support a family and aren't providing a service which merits a 30% pay increase (eg: high-schooler flipping burgers part time in the summer, retired widower working as a WalMart greeter, etc)
and will be ejected from the workforce if this minimum wage increase comes to pass
2: How the resultant increase in inequality between those who are able to find work and those who are not is a good thing.
#138
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,080
I don't think you understand how macroeconomics work.
e: Also, you're just flat wrong. Even the economists that don't support raising the minimum wage agree that it reduces poverty rates. You can argue that the costs outweigh these benefits, but ignoring the benefits is naive.
e: Also, you're just flat wrong. Even the economists that don't support raising the minimum wage agree that it reduces poverty rates. You can argue that the costs outweigh these benefits, but ignoring the benefits is naive.
I would argue that if someone was actually serious about lowering unemployment, they also cant be a supporter of unemployment rewards.
what wont help: possibly upsetting the economy to possibly help a handful of workers that already have the shittiest of jobs.
and you should listen to me, i was an art student with a liberal arts degree.
#139
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
If you don't like welfare, you should love a minimum wage increase. It takes the burden of supporting the lowest tier of society off of the taxpayers and puts it directly onto the companies that use low labor costs to make profits.
Oregon Minimum Wage Increases Boost Welfare-to-Work Efforts - Report -5/29/98
(anecdotal, I know. Someone go find a chart for welfare rates vs. minimum wage)
what wont help: possibly upsetting the economy to possibly help a handful of workers that already have the shittiest of jobs.
#140
There is a video I need to find that is suppose to show how easy it would be for Walmart to pay their employees a wage that would get the off welfare. By its own math it states that prices would merely rise 1.3% (or something close). Sounds good right? Except nominally it works out that consumers (read: taxpayers) are going to pay $4.5 billion more for goods to reduce their welfare tax burden by $300 million.
My friend linked it on Facebook with liberal pride. I watched it and pointed this out. Crickets....
The main point here is that the pay increase results in no additional added value to the service I pay for so it is essentially a tax. You're just disguising it on the front end.