Savington

iTrader: (31)

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.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

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.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

I've received bad service from people making far, far more than minimum wage. The bad service I received in one example from one person does not mean that I'm going to pull wildly inaccurate generalizations about everyone at that income level out of thin air. I won't even generalize about everyone in that industry based on my interactions with one person in it. Why are you telling us to generalize all minimum wage workers based on our interactions with the worst one?

18psi

iTrader: (76)

because 9 out of 10 of them are "worst"

Savington

iTrader: (31)

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

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

He's not generalizing all minimum wage workers. It only takes one worker who isn't worth $10 an hour to refute the claim that ALL workers are worth at least $10 an hour. He doesn't have to prove that all minimum wage workers are terrible and worth less than $10 an hour. He only has to prove that at least one person exists who is worth than less than $10 an hour.

Sure, makes sense.

Corollary to the corollary: Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment which increases taxpayer burden to cover welfare and unemployment benefits.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Does it, though? Forget your preconceived microeconomic notions and look at raw empirical data with me. There are a lot of economists out there who have done a lot of studies, and the idea that "raising the minimum wage increases unemployment" is not even close to a sure thing.

Economists disagree on whether the minimum wage kills jobs. Why?

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

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?

Savington

iTrader: (31)

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. In statistics, you can't do that even if the data DOES show a trend, and the data that we have obviously doesn't. I would never argue for a minimum wage of $25/hr, because there's absolutely no hard data to back up such an argument.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

So what? That's not an argument, that's just saying "Well it's always been this way."

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?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

There's also no hard data to back up an argument for $10 an hour, only theories and argument between economists.

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.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

As an aside:

People tend not to like it, as it is hard to do without resorting to trolling or strawmen, but a properly-constructed reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument.

DaveC

I understand and I don't disagree, but I do think your statistic doesn't count every one that it should. It's not just the people making the current minimum wage or below. All the workers currently earning less than the new minimum wage would be directly affected.

I'm sure it has significance in many contexts. In this context the importance is that those people are not included in the 4.7% but they should be. That's my entire point; nobody pays minimum wage. Instead they pay $0.50 or $1.00 more. All of those workers should be counted along with the minimum wage (or below*) earners.

*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?

Savington

iTrader: (31)

I'm not saying it's always been this way - I'm just saying that you cannot use a data set to predict the effect that a variable will have when that variable is pushed outside of the bounds of the data set. That's a statistical rule, not just some crap I made up, and it's why I can understand an argument for a small increase in the minimum wage, but not a large one - we know what happens with small increases, but we don't know what happens with large ones. It's a direct reply to your direct question - nothing more, nothing less. Don't read into it.

My fundamental argument is that an increase in the minimum wage within the scope of existing data will reduce poverty without having a definitively negative impact on unemployment or GDP growth (see below).

Savington

iTrader: (31)

No argument here, but that's a microeconomics argument that doesn't really alter the macroeconomic effects (or discussion thereof) of a minimum wage increase - basically, just because not every specific worker would benefit doesn't mean that the entire class of workers as a whole would not benefit.

I disagree with this being stated as fact, see post 127

We shouldn't try to lift working Americans out of poverty because non-working Americans won't like it? I'm struggling with this one...

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

To restate:

Is the marginal increase in income for minimum wage workers (those who don't lose their jobs) worth increasing the barrier to entry for unemployed workers?

Savington

iTrader: (31)

That's the first good argument against minimum wage increase I've seen in this thread.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I can probably quote 20 economics that would argue that the best way to reduce poverty is by having a job.

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.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

You're telling me this as if there's definitive evidence that altering the minimum wage has an effect on unemployment rates. There isn't. I'll accept the argument that a higher rate creates a barrier to employment (and will thus slow job growth in a small way), but there's no way you're categorically convincing me of a positive correlation between unemployment and minimum wage. The data isn't there.

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)

Possibly upsetting the economy in what way? No effect on GDP, no concrete effect on unemployment. So what, then? Trade deficits? Your lips are moving, but nothing of any substance coming out. Show me data, not just bullshit rhetoric.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

To be completely honest there is no difference between the two. Consumers (taxpayers) either pay slightly higher prices for their goods with no additional value added or pay taxes to fund the welfare benefits.

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.