$15/hour min. wage?

[SparklyUnicorn]

I get frustrated by the conservative/liberal discussion.

 

I'm fed up with it being made about conservative vs liberal.

 

People need fed. There's nothing conservative or liberal about that.

 

I don't even know what it really means anymore (conservative/liberal).  I mean when someone says one or the other a few things get conjured up in my mind, but ask me to nail that down exactly or sort of...and nope...

[Ausmumof3]

You are correct, which is what I was saying. Neither of my links advocates for the minimum wage.

 

I think the minimum wage is not as beneficial as some liberals claim and not as harmful as some conservatives claim. In short, a complex problem is getting boiled down to a simplistic debate over a concept that doesn't really move the needle all that much.

This is quite true. Is minimum wage similar to the universal basic income type movement?

[Bootsie]

This is quite true. Is minimum wage similar to the universal basic income type movement?

A universal basic income would be a government guarantee of a basic income level for every citizen.  This could take the form of a direct payment by the government to individuals or a negative income tax.  Philosophically, it would be a statement that society wants all people to have at least X amount and that society as a whole has a responsibility to provide that for all citizens.  

 

It is different than a minimum wage because it does not mandate that an employer pay a certain amount.  Also it does not preclude an individual from selling labor services at a rate which is acceptable to the worker.  

[Bluegoat]

No, I do not think that all death was connected to the lack of corporate structures.  I  was responding to this statement:

 

You do know that there were businesses in the world before there was such a thing as a shareholder, and people were employed.  People still needed things, and to make a living.  I don't see any reason that suddenly they would disappear

 

Yes, some people were employed before there was a legal corporate structure, but many people were not.  There are a lot of benefits that a corporate legal structure brings.  One of those is that in countries and societies with a corporate legal structure more people are employed.  My point is that it is not a situation in which everyone who wanted a job had a job, was paid fairly, was able to retire, had enough to meet basic necessities, etc. before the corporate legal structure and after the corporate legal structure that has changed.  There are many instances in which a corporate legal structure has allowed more people to do those things.

 

Yes, a corporate structure limits personal liability.  If I invest $100,000 in my personal business and incorporate the business, I can loose my $100,000.  If the corporation borrow $50,000 from the bank, the corporation owes the bank, and not me personally.  So, I am not personally liable for the debt of the business.  However, the bank knows this and adjusts its interest rate to compensate for that risk (which can be a disadvantage of incorporation).  The risk of business failure is still there; it is just a question of who is taking that risk (and how they will be rewarded for taking that risk.)

 

Why would a corporate structure make someone be willing to be reckless with their money? 

 

Why do you think less people were employed??

 

If you are putting your money into a business where you, personally, stand to lose something if you go into debt, you will be careful with your money.  You will be careful about how the business is managed. You will be very interested in the long term prospects.  How many shareholders typically attend shareholder meetings, or look to hold the management accountable?  Not many.

 

The earliest corporate structures were specifically designed to make it worthwhile for people to invest in risky propositions that were seen as beneficial to the state.  These were projects that would require a very large amount of money, with a high risk of losing it - no one would take it on if they were likely to lose their home and end up in bankruptcy.  The state allowed special conditions for these projects they deemed important. 

[Ausmumof3]

A universal basic income would be a government guarantee of a basic income level for every citizen. This could take the form of a direct payment by the government to individuals or a negative income tax. Philosophically, it would be a statement that society wants all people to have at least X amount and that society as a whole has a responsibility to provide that for all citizens.

 

It is different than a minimum wage because it does not mandate that an employer pay a certain amount. Also it does not preclude an individual from selling labor services at a rate which is acceptable to the worker.

Sorry I actually didn't mean to say minimum wage I meant to say minimum income in ref to the other post..

[Bootsie]

Why do you think less people were employed??

 

If you are putting your money into a business where you, personally, stand to lose something if you go into debt, you will be careful with your money.  You will be careful about how the business is managed. You will be very interested in the long term prospects.  How many shareholders typically attend shareholder meetings, or look to hold the management accountable?  Not many.

 

The earliest corporate structures were specifically designed to make it worthwhile for people to invest in risky propositions that were seen as beneficial to the state.  These were projects that would require a very large amount of money, with a high risk of losing it - no one would take it on if they were likely to lose their home and end up in bankruptcy.  The state allowed special conditions for these projects they deemed important. 

Historically, more people supported themselves through subsistence farming.  Worldwide, the more advance the financial markets (including the transfer of capital) the more advanced the economy, the higher the standard of living, the lower the unemployment rate.

 

Someone who is a stockholder IS putting their own money in the business.  A non-corporation business structure does not necessarily result in less borrowed money.  In fact, the US has some of the highest amount of owner (shareholder) financing of business in the industrial world.  Most other countries depend much more heavily on borrowed money rather than stockholder money to finance the business.

 

The number of shareholders attending the annual meeting is not a good measure of holding the management accountable.  If shareholders do not think management is doing a good job, they sell their stock.  If shareholders think management is doing a good job, they buy the stock.    

[Bootsie]

Sorry I actually didn't mean to say minimum wage I meant to say minimum income in ref to the other post..

A "guaranteed minimum income" usually refers to a system in which the government makes a payment to an individual to bring the individual's income up to X amount.  A basic or universal income is often used to refer to an unconditional payment to every citizen (so every citizen receives the payment regardless of the citizen's personal income). 

[FaithManor]

I have a lot of thoughts on the subject, no grand solutions to present. In my area though, employers quite simply abuse the ever lovin' life right out of their employees and believe their serfs should be thankful for the abuse and beg for more. This is what happens in a state that had a true depression, not just a recession, and experienced unemployment rates of 20-24% at one point in recent past.

 

So this is what it is like in minimum wage jobs: 20 hours per week and must sign a non compete clause. Thr non compete clauses are quite detailed. So if your 20 hours per week is at Taco Bell, you cannot work another 20 at the gas station because it sells food. Can't work at Wal-Mart because it sells food. Can't work at Mufflerman because the muffler shop has a vending machine which the non compete clause says is "selling food". It makes it nearly impossible to find another part time job. Additionally, work schedules for the week are posted with less than 24 hrs. to prevent employees from finding other work so they can be kept artificially available to fill in last minute and desperate for the additional hours as well. Shift managers only get 30 hrs a week so the owner/corporation does not have to pay benefits. Meanwhile corporate/owner is pocketing ungodly salaries and profits, enjoying ridiculous tax loopholes.

 

Trickle down is one big, fat myth!!

 

We no longer have a republic or democracy. We have an oligarchy, and that oligarchy as lobbyists run the government, write the legislation. The United Corporations of America - Give us your tired, your poor; we will make them serfs for the aristocracy to exploit.

 

Sigh...just watching some very hardworking families locally struggle to get enough food for their children.

[Ausmumof3]

A "guaranteed minimum income" usually refers to a system in which the government makes a payment to an individual to bring the individual's income up to X amount. A basic or universal income is often used to refer to an unconditional payment to every citizen (so every citizen receives the payment regardless of the citizen's personal income).

Ok that makes sense.

[LucyStoner]

This is quite true. Is minimum wage similar to the universal basic income type movement?

Minimum wage is the lowest amount an employer (with some exceptions) can pay.

 

Guaranteed minimum income can be structured a variety of ways but a common way to structure it is as a negative income tax that pays each eligible worker the difference between what they earn and what the minimum income level is.

 

Basic income can be structured a number of ways but I think guaranteed minimum income is more palatable.

[LucyStoner]

I have a lot of thoughts on the subject, no grand solutions to present. In my area though, employers quite simply abuse the ever lovin' life right out of their employees and believe their serfs should be thankful for the abuse and beg for more. This is what happens in a state that had a true depression, not just a recession, and experienced unemployment rates of 20-24% at one point in recent past.

 

So this is what it is like in minimum wage jobs: 20 hours per week and must sign a non compete clause. Thr non compete clauses are quite detailed. So if your 20 hours per week is at Taco Bell, you cannot work another 20 at the gas station because it sells food. Can't work at Wal-Mart because it sells food. Can't work at Mufflerman because the muffler shop has a vending machine which the non compete clause says is "selling food". It makes it nearly impossible to find another part time job. Additionally, work schedules for the week are posted with less than 24 hrs. to prevent employees from finding other work so they can be kept artificially available to fill in last minute and desperate for the additional hours as well. Shift managers only get 30 hrs a week so the owner/corporation does not have to pay benefits. Meanwhile corporate/owner is pocketing ungodly salaries and profits, enjoying ridiculous tax loopholes.

 

Trickle down is one big, fat myth!!

 

We no longer have a republic or democracy. We have an oligarchy, and that oligarchy as lobbyists run the government, write the legislation. The United Corporations of America - Give us your tired, your poor; we will make them serfs for the aristocracy to exploit.

 

Sigh...just watching some very hardworking families locally struggle to get enough food for their children.

These non-competes are bull, generally not enforceable in court and should be completely and totally illegal.

[Ausmumof3]

Minimum wage is the lowest amount an employer (with some exceptions) can pay.

 

Guaranteed minimum income can be structured a variety of ways but a common way to structure it is as a negative income tax that pays each eligible worker the difference between what they earn and what the minimum income level is.

 

Basic income can be structured a number of ways but I think guaranteed minimum income is more palatable.

Cool thanks. I meant to type basic minimum income not minimum wage sorry. Guaranteed minimum income makes a lot of sense to me.

[Ausmumof3]

These non-competes are bull, generally not enforceable in court and should be completely and totally illegal.

Dh's industry standard they have to sign a contract saying they won't work in the industry for two years if they leave the country which is ridiculous and impossible. It is totally illegal and unenforceable though. But I guess for some who don't know that it could be a real deterrent.

[FaithManor]

These non-competes are bull, generally not enforceable in court and should be completely and totally illegal.

Should be. But employees don't complain for fear of retribution, and if fired for it, it takes money to get the lawyer to sue. In an at will firing state, you have to prove that is why you were fired. Since this is the sticks, far from Lansing, far from having any political influence, the state government looks the other way since poor part time employees have as a collective group no money with which to lobby for their interests.

[LucyStoner]

Should be. But employees don't complain for fear of retribution, and if fired for it, it takes money to get the lawyer to sue. In an at will firing state, you have to prove that is why you were fired. Since this is the sticks, far from Lansing, far from having any political influence, the state government looks the other way since poor part time employees have as a collective group no money with which to lobby for their interests.

Exactly. The only reason these companies get away with it is because people working at Subway part time can't afford to fight it or to quit their job. That's why there needs be an explicit law barring it, especially for retail and low wage jobs!

[HSmomof2]

So I guess my question becomes, "But does increasing the minimum wage make things better?" Because I think the answer is no.

 

Let's say we up the minimum wage to $15 tomorrow. Grocery stores will then pay their clerks more... And pass that cost on. Then what? The poor no longer qualify for food stamps because the government will take 3-5 years to catch up to the new poverty levels. I do not see the poor benefitting.

 

 

A full time worker bee works 2,080 hours. At $8/hour that's $16,600 give or take. That then qualifies them for food stamps, housing assistance, utilities assistance, daycare assistance, Pell grants, and Medicaid. Those are the basics of living totally covered.

 

In what country can you do the minimum and still have everything paid for? I'm not being snarky, really I'm not, I'm just wondering where, if anywhere has figured out a better system. Because, with the above? A person who is able and willing, CAN go to school and at least get the first two years paid for (community college would essentially be covered by the Pell) and then, yes, get loans for a public state school for two years. But there is the ABILITY for someone to graduate from college with a bachelor's. All the while, drawing the necessities from the government and qualifying while working in order to cover things not covered like soap.

 

Maybe there is some piece to this I don't comprehend?

 

 

If Billy is working 8 hours a day and would rather be paid for his eight hours, then Billy is going to need to put 2 hours a night into studying. And Billy, knowing he'd like to bank some money, best not choose Art History as his degree. (No offense to Art History majors.) Gone are the days when we can indulge ourselves in $100k of student loans and not get a job that pays decently. So sayeth the family that had to join the Army to drop $68k in student loans AND her husband got his Masters WHILE in the Army. It was freaking hard. I'm not even going to candy coat it. It was hard him getting his Masters while spending an awful lot of time in the field. He didn't deploy but we were at Irwin, the NTC, during and immediately after 9/11 so they were spending a lot of time training deploying units. I didn't love the time he spent away from our family to take classes and do schoolwork. But it was a short period of putting in a huge effort for a bigger payoff. I have no idea who Jenna is or what her Masters is in so I really can't comment. And maybe my deal is regional here... But around here, you are employable, highly employable, with a strong work ethic and a bachelors, and for a heckuva lot more than minimum wage.

 

 

 

 

So the training I'm thinking of is specifically guilds and maybe the issue is a lack of knowledge. But there is an extreme NEED for repairmen and for certified and/or tech degrees. For example: A/C repairmen, HVAC, pipe fitters unions, welders, skilled techs, electricians, and other skilled trades. DS took an Intro to Engineering class last semester and people from the pipe fitters came and spoke to these kids about the level of need that exists. Apprenticeships are available while going to school AND the starting wage after certification was around $20/hour. We live in a fairly low to moderate COL area.

 

You are right in that they would need to prioritize school and work hours around them, but that is often why we see adults working fast food, working stocking, etc. Wal-Mart third shift stockers here get paid $11.00/hour. There is also work study for those that qualify. Goodness, I just quit a job cleaning offices at night that was $11.50/hour.

 

So what I'm wondering is do I live in some kind of oasis of employment, education, and with a desperate NEED for CAPABLE employees? Because, thus far, between my dd, ds, and future dsil, they have had no issues at all finding employment above the minimum and working around their schooling. And, I'll add, DD and DSIL will be on their own shortly with a little one on the way. He's going to be working, juggling school, taking on some loans, and DD will be doing in home daycare in order that she can stay home with the little one. It isn't ideal. It's going to be hard but a couple years of super hard, no time, pour it all into school/work will make it so that hard isn't a lifestyle. And thank God we live in a country where that's actually possible.

Yes, I think you may be in an oasis area. 🙂In my area, there is an overabundance of college educated people severely underemployed in a very high COL area. Unless you're in a trade/certified field, having a bachelor's degree is the norm. We have a lot of service/retail employees with college degrees, and not many job opportunities for teens. I work in a library, and we have quite a few people educated as librarians with master's degrees working doing check-in/shelving for $11/hr---and they've been doing this for years hoping a librarian position will open. When it does, there are over 100 applications for one job.

 

I agree that raising the min wage to $15 is not the solution to the problems in this country and will likely end up hurting the people it's supposed to help. A person living here couldn't live on $15/hr on their own. A very modest apartment in a not-so-great area is easily $2000+/month.

[Ausmumof3]

Library is another area where things are being automated, regardless of labour costs. Everything is self check here and you can pay the fees online.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Ausmumof3

[nobeatenpath]

I have nothing really intelligent to add other than having lived and/or worked in Australia, the UK and Germany I find the whole 'but minimum wage will kill business/is totally unworkable' kind of laughable when you have seen it as the norm in other countries (admittedly other countries that also have sensible health systems). Just like the people who argue a universal health care system is just not possible or workable, I think some people should look outside the US or their particular bubble and realise how bizarre the US is in the laws and system for money, society and support is to many people.

[katilac]

Everything is self check here and you can pay the fees online.

 

I wish I could pay my fees online! I'd probably pay a surcharge to avoid the walk of shame in person . . . 

[gardenmom5]

Library is another area where things are being automated, regardless of labour costs. Everything is self check here and you can pay the fees online.

 

we have multiple self-checkout stations  (for dvds/cds, you have to go to the desk to get the disk), but there are still a few librarians working, and always one at the desk.  

  (one of the biggest library systems in the US.) I love being able to order what I want, and pick it up at my local branch.

 

eta: yes, we can also pay fees online.  it starts blocking you when you reach $10 in unpaid fees.

Edited December 4, 2016 by gardenmom5

[Guest]

Exactly. The only reason these companies get away with it is because people working at Subway part time can't afford to fight it or to quit their job. That's why there needs be an explicit law barring it, especially for retail and low wage jobs!

Agreed. It's absolutely horrible and preys on those least able to fight it. With something like a defense contract or an r&d job I can understand non-compete clauses quite a bit more, because of intellectual property and competitive edge. In the service industry it's complete bull.

[Ausmumof3]

I wish I could pay my fees online! I'd probably pay a surcharge to avoid the walk of shame in person . . .

We can and I love it. We can also check due dates and renew online which means I end up with far less fees. So convenient. Plus you can search online through the whole library network and place stuff on hold. So now when I have a spur of the moment urge to purchase a book for school I search the library first.

[Ausmumof3]

Also we still seem to have the same library staff. They run book programs for kids and do other cool stuff. Ideally that's how automation should work. Take away the drudgery and make room for more interesting and engaging work that also provides a better service level to the customer.

[Laura Corin]

I haven't read the whole thread.  When the minimum wage was increased recently in the UK, one of the issues was in caring professions: childcare and nursing homes for old people.  In both cases, the government funds some places/hours and the rest are paid for privately.  The wages of the workers were increased, but the government funding for places was not increased at the same time.  That meant that those who were paying privately had to pay more.  

 

In the case of old people that means that savings are used up faster, so the government has to step in with public money sooner.  For childcare, some of the people who are paying for private hours will be on the minimum wage themselves, so the entire increase (and perhaps more) will be swallowed up in childcare.  

 

These things are not simple.

[FaithManor]

Exactly. The only reason these companies get away with it is because people working at Subway part time can't afford to fight it or to quit their job. That's why there needs be an explicit law barring it, especially for retail and low wage jobs!

But there will likely never be a law because laws are not dreamed up by legislators who consider the needs of their constituents, but by lobbyists /corporations who have purchased votes via campaign contributions. It isn't "we the people" anymore but "we the company". Those persons without the money to buy influence are not considered.

[LucyStoner]

But there will likely never be a law because laws are not dreamed up by legislators who consider the needs of their constituents, but by lobbyists /corporations who have purchased votes via campaign contributions. It isn't "we the people" anymore but "we the company". Those persons without the money to buy influence are not considered.

Actually in my state a bill is expected to pass in 2017 and there are laws on the books in some other states.

 

It's taken too much time but it will happen here. We have also passed bills and ordinances on wage theft and other things that apply mostly to low wage workers. Besides union lobbyists (who sometimes weigh in on labor fairness laws even if union members are not affected), there are several non-profit groups which lobby hard on employment related matters and employment matters frequently end up on the agenda of municipal lobbyists. I've worked with one group and have testified in the past.

 

I'm not really a sunny optimist but these types of abusive employment practices can be fought against.

Edited December 4, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Bootsie]

I have nothing really intelligent to add other than having lived and/or worked in Australia, the UK and Germany I find the whole 'but minimum wage will kill business/is totally unworkable' kind of laughable when you have seen it as the norm in other countries (admittedly other countries that also have sensible health systems). Just like the people who argue a universal health care system is just not possible or workable, I think some people should look outside the US or their particular bubble and realise how bizarre the US is in the laws and system for money, society and support is to many people.

A minimum wage is the norm in the US.  Interestingly, it is not in Switzerland.  Germany's minimum wage came into force in 2015; it is 8.50 euros (far below the suggested $15)  and does not apply to minors, some apprenticeships, etc. (So it does not appear that a federally legislated minimum wage has been the norm in Germany.)

   

Economic theory and evidence from a substantial number of academic studies indicate that increasing the minimum wage decreases employment; studies vary with regard to how large the impact is. It is also possible to say, "Increasing the minimum wage will increase unemployment; I support an increase because I think the benefits of doing so will outweigh the costs of increased unemployment."  In other words, acknowledging a consequence of increasing the minimum wage is not the same as being against an increase.  

[Pam in CT]

re non-compete clauses

 

Agreed. It's absolutely horrible and preys on those least able to fight it. With something like a defense contract or an r&d job I can understand non-compete clauses quite a bit more, because of intellectual property and competitive edge. In the service industry it's complete bull.

 

Exactly.  The legitimate idea behind non-compete clauses is that (a handful of) employees have detailed technical or strategic information that is material to the company's competitiveness, that were the employee to jump ship and join a competitor would enable the new employer to redirect their product/service/business strategy so as to disadvantage the old  employer.

 

 

To apply this to part time employees trying to stitch together two service jobs in Taco Bell v Walmart is not absurd, it's abusive.

[FaithManor]

re non-compete clauses

 

 

Exactly.  The legitimate idea behind non-compete clauses is that (a handful of) employees have detailed technical or strategic information that is material to the company's competitiveness, that were the employee to jump ship and join a competitor would enable the new employer to redirect their product/service/business strategy so as to disadvantage the old  employer.

 

 

To apply this to part time employees trying to stitch together two service jobs in Taco Bell v Walmart is not absurd, it's abusive.

Absolutely agreed!

[Murphy101]

But there will likely never be a law because laws are not dreamed up by legislators who consider the needs of their constituents, but by lobbyists /corporations who have purchased votes via campaign contributions. It isn't "we the people" anymore but "we the company". Those persons without the money to buy influence are not considered.

I wouldn't say never. I'd say it's hard fought for by third parties who think it's wrong. I know the RCC lobbies for better wages and working conditions and other social services with their influence.

[Murphy101]

re non-compete clauses

 

 

Exactly. The legitimate idea behind non-compete clauses is that (a handful of) employees have detailed technical or strategic information that is material to the company's competitiveness, that were the employee to jump ship and join a competitor would enable the new employer to redirect their product/service/business strategy so as to disadvantage the old employer.

 

 

To apply this to part time employees trying to stitch together two service jobs in Taco Bell v Walmart is not absurd, it's abusive.

Right. It's trying to legitimize blackballing people for just trying to change jobs by calling it a non compete clause.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

A minimum wage is the norm in the US.  Interestingly, it is not in Switzerland.  Germany's minimum wage came into force in 2015; it is 8.50 euros (far below the suggested $15)  and does not apply to minors, some apprenticeships, etc. (So it does not appear that a federally legislated minimum wage has been the norm in Germany.)

   

Economic theory and evidence from a substantial number of academic studies indicate that increasing the minimum wage decreases employment; studies vary with regard to how large the impact is. It is also possible to say, "Increasing the minimum wage will increase unemployment; I support an increase because I think the benefits of doing so will outweigh the costs of increased unemployment."  In other words, acknowledging a consequence of increasing the minimum wage is not the same as being against an increase. 

 

 

That isn't nearly as settled in economic research as you state. I know since the 90s (when I was doing research on the impact on minimum wage increases replicating some of the work of Card and Kreuger) that there have also been numerous studies showing that increasing the minimum wage has either no or a net positive impact on employment.

 

With that said, we have found that increasing the EITC more clearly has a positive impact on employment, so I could be convinced that raising the EITC, and paying for the increase via higher corporate taxes, is a viable alternative to raising the minimum wage.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Paige]

A minimum wage is the norm in the US.  Interestingly, it is not in Switzerland.  Germany's minimum wage came into force in 2015; it is 8.50 euros (far below the suggested $15)  and does not apply to minors, some apprenticeships, etc. (So it does not appear that a federally legislated minimum wage has been the norm in Germany.)

 

But don't Switzerland and Germany have more generous and easily accessible social benefits? In the USA, people making minimum wage need their money to buy food, pay their rents, and see doctors. 

[Bootsie]

That isn't nearly as settled in economic research as you state. I know since the 90s (when I was doing research on the impact on minimum wage increases replicating some of the work of Card and Kreuger) that there have also been numerous studies showing that increasing the minimum wage has either no or a net positive impact on employment.

 

With that said, we have found that increasing the EITC more clearly has a positive impact on employment, so I could be convinced that raising the EITC, and paying for the increase via higher corporate taxes, is a viable alternative to raising the minimum wage.

I must admit that it has been a while since I have analyzed the Card and Kreuger work, but from what I remember, the study focused on the fast food industry in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, was initially based on survey data rather than payroll data, and looked at number employed rather than hours employed.  All economic studies have limitations because economists do not have the luxury of doing repeated, controlled experiments in a laboratory for most research questions.  

 

My point is that people who say that minimum wage will increase unemployment are not necessarily saying that willy-nilly, because they have not considered things outside their bubble, or because they do not care about those who are struggling financially.  It is not an unreasonable claim because a large number of studies, conducted over different time periods, covering various populations have drawn the conclusion that increases in minimum wage increase unemployment.  

[Bootsie]

But don't Switzerland and Germany have more generous and easily accessible social benefits? In the USA, people making minimum wage need their money to buy food, pay their rents, and see doctors. 

Yes, but pointing to countries that have more easily accessible social benefits does not then imply that the US should increase the minimum wage.  Providing greater social benefits and increasing the minimum wage can have very different economic impacts and different ethical implication.  Perhaps the US should increase social benefits rather than increasing the minimum wage.

 

A federal minimum wage has been in place in the U.S. much longer than in UK, Germany, or Australia; so it seems odd to me to point to the minimum wages in those countries as the norm.  Someone in the US who opposes an increase in the minimum wage is not necessarily failing to look outside their bubble--they can be looking at why the Swiss have opposed a minimum wage or why Puerto Rico, even though it is a US territory, has a lower minimum wage than the states. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I must admit that it has been a while since I have analyzed the Card and Kreuger work, but from what I remember, the study focused on the fast food industry in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, was initially based on survey data rather than payroll data, and looked at number employed rather than hours employed.  All economic studies have limitations because economists do not have the luxury of doing repeated, controlled experiments in a laboratory for most research questions.  

 

My point is that people who say that minimum wage will increase unemployment are not necessarily saying that willy-nilly, because they have not considered things outside their bubble, or because they do not care about those who are struggling financially.  It is not an unreasonable claim because a large number of studies, conducted over different time periods, covering various populations have drawn the conclusion that increases in minimum wage increase unemployment.  

 

Card and Kreuger updated that study in 2000 and addressed the criticisms of their work.

 

I take the bolded more seriously when the opponents of minimum wage support social programs that bridge the gap for low wage workers.  My experience has been that more often than not, that is not the case.

Edited December 4, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Bootsie]

Card and Kreuger updated that study in 2000 and addressed the criticisms of their work.

 

I take the bolded more seriously when the opponents of minimum wage support social programs that bridge the gap for low wage workers.  My experience has been that more often than not, that is not the cas

Although Card and Kreuger's 2000 paper uses BLS data rather than survey data, it still has a narrow focus on the fast food market in two states.  Even more recent studies, such as Meer and West (2013), suggest that even if Card and Kreuger are correct that increases in the minimum wage do not cause an immediate negative impact on employment, the impact is seen in a slower-long run growth rate in employment.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Although Card and Kreuger's 2000 paper uses BLS data rather than survey data, it still has a narrow focus on the fast food market in two states.  Even more recent studies, such as Meer and West (2013), suggest that even if Card and Kreuger are correct that increases in the minimum wage do not cause an immediate negative impact on employment, the impact is seen in a slower-long run growth rate in employment.  

 

The reasons for comparing two states were well documented in the original work.

 

Slower employment growth is significantly different the usual claims of creating unemployment. In addition others have built upon the work of Card and Kreuger (Duber, Lester, and Reich 2010 and 2011) to reach similar conclusions.

[Bluegoat]

Historically, more people supported themselves through subsistence farming.  Worldwide, the more advance the financial markets (including the transfer of capital) the more advanced the economy, the higher the standard of living, the lower the unemployment rate.

 

Someone who is a stockholder IS putting their own money in the business.  A non-corporation business structure does not necessarily result in less borrowed money.  In fact, the US has some of the highest amount of owner (shareholder) financing of business in the industrial world.  Most other countries depend much more heavily on borrowed money rather than stockholder money to finance the business.

 

The number of shareholders attending the annual meeting is not a good measure of holding the management accountable.  If shareholders do not think management is doing a good job, they sell their stock.  If shareholders think management is doing a good job, they buy the stock.    

 

More people farmed because farming was labour intensive, not because they couldn't find jobs.  I think we are likely to have to go back to more labour based farming, because machine based farming can't seem to make itself sustainable.  Probably an eyes per acre issue, in the end, and there is no way to automate that. 

 

I'm fairly skeptical of some of the assumptions about what makes a higher standard of living.  Our production of good at the moment is similarly unsustainable, so perhaps there will be people available to go back into agriculture.

 

I don't think I said anything particularly about borrowing money.  And I'm not actually sure what your point is with all this as it seems to have strayed significantly from what I said in the first place. 

 

Shareholders selling stocks they think will not perform doesn't really do much to create a sense of real investment in the actions of the companies they are involved with. 

[Bootsie]

The reasons for comparing two states were well documented in the original work.

 

Slower employment growth is significantly different the usual claims of creating unemployment. In addition others have built upon the work of Card and Kreuger (Duber, Lester, and Reich 2010 and 2011) to reach similar conclusions.

Yes, the documented reasons for comparing the two states in their original work, but methodological issues remain.  Methodological issues are associated with all of the studies.  Neumark, Salas, and Wascher (2013) address some of the issues with the Dube, Lester, and Reich work.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, the documented reasons for comparing the two states in their original work, but methodological issues remain.  Methodological issues are associated with all of the studies.  Neumark, Salas, and Wascher (2013) address some of the issues with the Dube, Lester, and Reich work.  

 

I personally found those claims of methodological issues to be picking at nits.

 

But going back to one of your original claims, if those that were against increasing the minimum wage were more consistently in favor of providing income support for low age workers via other means, then we could still find a common ground.  By and large I have not found that to be the case.

[Bluegoat]

Switzerland is a little different than the US - not only do they have better social programs, most people are part of collective bargaining units of some kind.  Somehow I don't see many people pointing to Switzerland's lack of minimum wage crying out for stronger unions or public health care.

[swellmomma]

I have nothing really intelligent to add other than having lived and/or worked in Australia, the UK and Germany I find the whole 'but minimum wage will kill business/is totally unworkable' kind of laughable when you have seen it as the norm in other countries (admittedly other countries that also have sensible health systems). Just like the people who argue a universal health care system is just not possible or workable, I think some people should look outside the US or their particular bubble and realise how bizarre the US is in the laws and system for money, society and support is to many people.

 

Hmm I wrote a reply to this last night but it seems to have been eaten in cyber space.  Anyway, I am a Canadian who has replied in this thread about the gov't pushing for $15/hr minimum wage in my province.  At this time we are in a recession, people are being laid off and have been out of work for a long time, families are hurting.  Businesses are not hiring and are reducing hours.  Which means all those fast food places are still mostly operating with teens and uneducated people working them.  I run a before and afterschool care, our numbers are drastically down due to this because parents either are no longer working or the mother decided to quit working or cut back hours to save the family money on childcare costs.  As a result there isn't enough income coming in, so all of us staff have had to cut back our hours. I have been applying other places, in the past I have always worked 1-3 jobs at a time, never had a problem getting one.  These days, no such luck.  Now what does all that mean as far as $15/hr.  It is no longer a matter of If but when since the gov't is pushing it forward despite the fact they are killing our economy. The increase in minimum wage means any employee we hire with no experience and no training will get the $15 (currently me as the director with 2 year college diploma in this field and 28 yrs in the field gets $15.50/hr).  So all the other wages would also go up to remain commiserate.  We already don't have enough income coming in to cover all that we need to since the wage went up to $12.20/hr in October, which is why we all took that cut in hours.  So when the minimum raise goes up so will the fees we charge parents.  You can guarantee the gov't will not raise the subsidies amounts, after all they just increased minimum wage so people should be able to afford the cost of living now.  If we do not raise fees we close down.

 

Now what does that mean for our community? We are the only afterschool care in this town.  We are part of a bigger umbrella of sorts, that umbrella runs the only daycare in town and the only preschool licensed as daycare as well.  Which means parents have no options, either pay the higher fees and so their new found wages do little to actually help them, or quit working because they can't afford it or because we have shut down.  The same is true for many other businesses in town.  An increase in wages won't make it possible to sell our homes and move to larger cities, because we are still in a recession with few jobs available.  It is just a mess.

 

So this is not just an issue in the USA or them being resistant to change, there is reason to be concerned.  Raising the minimum wage does not suddenly make life all rainbows and butterflies.  It will not be a living wage when the costs of everything around them are going up.  I don't mean necessarily the big box stores.  But smaller local businesses will increase their prices.  Daycare fees will go up.

 

On top of all of that the gov't is pushing through a carbon tax so we will pay taxes on our taxes at the pump etc.  But that is a discussion for another time.

[Bootsie]

But going back to one of your original claims, if those that were against increasing the minimum wage were more consistently in favor of providing income support for low age workers via other means, then we could still find a common ground.  By and large I have not found that to be the case.

Perhaps we know very different people, but I know many who are against an increase in the minimum wage who are very much in favor of support for those who are in poverty.  There are economic arguments (causes unemployment, deadweight loss, etc.) and moral arguments (why should the government tell me that I can NOT sell MY labor services at a wage I am willing to do so) in addition to some practical arguments--an increase in the minimum wage does nothing to help those who are not working (either because the cannot find a job or can not work due to age, health, or other reasons) and many low wage workers do not live in low-income households (the link between wages and standard of living, at least in the short-run, is not as strong as one might think).  These people believe that an increase in minimum wage does little to nothing (maybe even hurting) those who it is most intended to help and that other policies would be much better at helping.  My experience is that often these people are quickly characterized as uncaring or immoral because of their stance on minimum wage rather than having their concerns about it heard.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Perhaps we know very different people, but I know many who are against an increase in the minimum wage who are very much in favor of support for those who are in poverty.  There are economic arguments (causes unemployment, deadweight loss, etc.) and moral arguments (why should the government tell me that I can NOT sell MY labor services at a wage I am willing to do so) in addition to some practical arguments--an increase in the minimum wage does nothing to help those who are not working (either because the cannot find a job or can not work due to age, health, or other reasons) and many low wage workers do not live in low-income households (the link between wages and standard of living, at least in the short-run, is not as strong as one might think).  These people believe that an increase in minimum wage does little to nothing (maybe even hurting) those who it is most intended to help and that other policies would be much better at helping.  My experience is that often these people are quickly characterized as uncaring or immoral because of their stance on minimum wage rather than having their concerns about it heard.

 

I guess we do. 

[Arcadia]

So when the minimum raise goes up so will the fees we charge parents. You can guarantee the gov't will not raise the subsidies amounts, after all they just increased minimum wage so people should be able to afford the cost of living now. If we do not raise fees we close down.

:grouphug: I know many dual income families paying under the table for nannies because childcare cost more. For example a nanny gets $1500 for taking care of a toddler and she helps cook dinner when the toddler naps. Childcare center was charging $1900 or more at that time for the under 3s with a ratio of 1 to 2,3 or 4.

 

Canada's petrol price per litre was so high when we pumped gas in October in Ontario. Your sales tax is high too. It made us thankful for the relatively low gasoline price per gallon and also the lower sales tax. I'm sorry your pump price would cost more. Once outside downtown Toronto, we had to drive long distance to Waterloo and Niagara Falls as public transport wasn't easy. :grouphug:

[creekland]

I'm thinking we're going to have to come up with a different way of supporting everyone, though I'm not sure exactly what that is given our human nature.

 

Many manufacturing jobs are being replaced by robots (or overseas, but if they have to pay a bit more, I suspect robots will become more prevalent).

 

Many retail jobs are disappearing in favor of online shopping.

 

Many farming jobs have been lost to more efficient farming methods and machines.

 

There are more examples, of course (even college courses going online, or ordering kiosks at fast food/self checkout at stores), but one should get the picture.

 

We've added some jobs making and caring for technology/machines/websites, but not nearly as many as we've lost I suspect.  

 

As a planet/society, what, exactly, do we expect the average person to do to "earn" a living as all these jobs disappear?  Sure, some can be health related or military/police folks, but there's a limited number needed there.  There will always be a few needed in the above "disappearing" jobs, but as there are more applicants, wages go down (supply and demand).  Computer jobs increased, but not everyone can do those, and again, there isn't an endless supply.

 

As fewer people have (decent paying) jobs, less can be consumed/bought.  The wealthy have their multiple houses/vehicles/accessories - how many more do they need to buy?  They amass $$ in investments rather than tons of spending (except in a limited area).  Trickle down only goes so far.  To keep their minimum income needs (is there such a thing when one is wealthy?) they lower wages (or benefits) at companies they own - because they can.

 

As the middle class disappears... what happens?

 

If we want to continue as a society, we need to keep total wealth more widely distributed IMO.  That can happen through higher taxes on the wealthy (when one is making millions - how much do they need to "live on?" - in the past higher taxes on the wealthy certainly didn't hurt them from living lavish lifestyles nor stop investments) or it could happen by the wealthy redistributing it themselves via various charities or programs.  A precious few do the latter, but most do very little preferring to keep banking their $$ to move up on the "most wealthy" lists or to keep up with that level of Jones.

 

Increasing the minimum wage is one way some have proposed to help redistribute.  If prices also increase, it won't work.

[Paige]

I'm thinking we're going to have to come up with a different way of supporting everyone, though I'm not sure exactly what that is given our human nature.

 

 

 

I think automation will pretty soon take up most jobs everywhere- we need to plan for a post-employment model society/economy. 

[SKL]

The other day, I noticed that McDonald's had an automatic coffee filler.  You enter what the person wants, the machine selects a cup, puts it under the correct nozzle, fills it, and sends it down the line.  (I don't recall if the machine put the lid on or not.)

 

The are automating more and more.  I also don't see morale improving; if anything people are more crabby than ever behind the counter.

 

I don't think there is a simple formula for what people should earn.  It is going to be a case-by-case thing.  On one hand, I think people should be rewarded for extra years of school (which is costly for many of us).  On the other hand, I also think people should be paid well for heavy physical work.  And also for work that involves a lot of face time with the public.  People who leave customers happy to come back are worth more than sourpusses who scare people away.  People who are accurate are worth more than people who make a lot of mistakes.  Flexible people are worth more than those who can't cheerfully adjust to changes.

 

Personally I err on the side of paying more than the average market rate, but then, I don't have a large workforce making demands on a tight budget.  I don't think companies should have to shut down because some external force is determining their payroll.  More money is not the only way to reward employees.

[Julie Smith]

I think automation will pretty soon take up most jobs everywhere- we need to plan for a post-employment model society/economy. 

 

Isn't one possibility for that the, "Basic Income"?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income