Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, and what are you using to determine the concept of "high unemployment"? It's truly difficult to estimate how many people are affected by the minimum wage in terms of unemployment when the "Unemployment Rate" and the "Official Unemployment Rate" are vastly different. Plus the way that the BLS even calculates unemployment has always been a little weird to me.
How about this? Can we agree that the minimum wage was DESIGNED as a bottom floor pay scale for individuals with little to no skills? You agree, correct?
Wouldn't you also agree that these individuals are in three main groups:
- Teenagers just starting out in the work force
- Newly minted US citizens who just came to this country and are starting out in the workface
- "Losers" who have made bad decisions in life and are stuck in a minimum wage position due to refusing to acquire additional skills
If you increase the amount an Employer has to pay these three groups, without increasing their level of productivity, wouldn't common sense say that you are hurting the business of that Employer IF you do not have a copy of their financials on the side showing this enormous pool of "profits" that the business has that it could pass down and "share" with the employees?
You are under the assumption that these businesses are booming in profits, some might be, some might NOT be. Instead of implementing a broad increase across the board, why not AT LEAST cherry pick those businesses based on the financials you are reviewing in terms of who "could" share more and who "couldn't"? Of course, doing this would violate privacy laws and also would be a form of Government Communism.....which in my opinion is exactly what the minimum wage increases are. It's Government Communism by having the Government come in and TAKE profit pools away and distribute them out to other groups (the workers). The issue with this is that as I pointed out, you could be depleting the resources of the business by doing this and prices would need to be raised or employees CUT to accommodate.
The minimum wage, as I stated, should not be tied to inflation and it shouldn't be tied to a "living wage". It should be a bottom floor pay scale for those with NO skills. It should only be a starting point and once you have...hell.....6 months on the job you should be able to demand higher than minimum wage. Also, as I stated prior, what about commission sales people? What about interns? What about volunteer workers? All of these individuals WORK a full work week but there's no MINIMUM payscale to their positions.
I believe all this minimum wage debate is, is for Democrats to round up their "voting base" of single mothers, ex-convicts, and losers in life who all vote Democrat because they believe "THE MAN" has caused their "lot" in life rather than the screwed up choices they have made.
I would say that those making min wage could also fall into these groups
Those who are not smart enough to do more
Those who went to college who can not find a job in their field.
Sure you can demand a higher way but you are assuming that business owners are all going give you a raise if you think this I have to question if you have worked at one of these jobs. Just because you work hard and do a good job does not guarantee anything.
I've been in Commercial Finance since 2007, but prior to that I have worked at minimum wage jobs. My first job at 16 was with Meijer at minimum wage, then I earned just above minimum wage. I moved to McDonalds at just about minimum wage, then Taco Bell, and then Subway, all in my late teens/early 20's at just above minimum wage.
I know first hand what it is to be dirt POOR with bad credit and no credit lines, and solid middle class with excellent credit and a high line of credit availability which is where I'm at now.
Okay, and what are you using to determine the concept of "high unemployment"? It's truly difficult to estimate how many people are affected by the minimum wage in terms of unemployment when the "Unemployment Rate" and the "Official Unemployment Rate" are vastly different. Plus the way that the BLS even calculates unemployment has always been a little weird to me.
Are you discussing the distinction between U-3 and U-6? They're highly correlated, so I don't think that it's worth splitting hairs over this distinction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jotucker99
How about this? Can we agree that the minimum wage was DESIGNED as a bottom floor pay scale for individuals with little to no skills? You agree, correct?
Strictly speaking, it wasn't "designed" as anything but a legal protection mechanism of workers. It is certainly true that minimum wage and near-minimum wage jobs are in the vast majority of cases those requiring little to no skill, but that is due to market factors and not the law itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jotucker99
Wouldn't you also agree that these individuals are in three main groups:
- Teenagers just starting out in the work force
- Newly minted US citizens who just came to this country and are starting out in the workface
- "Losers" who have made bad decisions in life and are stuck in a minimum wage position due to refusing to acquire additional skills
During prosperous phases of the economic cycles, this is generally true. During recessions it is a different story, particularly during severe recessions. There is also an issue of geographical distribution. For instance, right now people in North Dakota are making good money as oil workers. When those oil wells dry up, they will lose their jobs. Some of them will find other jobs that pay much higher than minimum wage, while others will not, or will take a longer time to do so. We saw a similar thing with the auto workers in Detroit when the big bust hit.
Even higher-skilled workers often have short periods without a good job, but generally these are limited and they will indeed find a better opportunity given the time. Lower-skilled workers have lower skills for a multitude of reasons. Some of them simply lack the desire or ambition to move up; others are lazy and not willing to put in the effort; others lack the people skills; there are some individuals that are stuck in situations that make it difficult to acquire skills, for instance, because they had to take a lot of time away to care for a sick or elderly family member. Finally, there are people with past or current medical issues of their own that either create employment-limiting gaps on their resume or make some job options unavailable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jotucker99
If you increase the amount an Employer has to pay these three groups, without increasing their level of productivity, wouldn't common sense say that you are hurting the business of that Employer IF you do not have a copy of their financials on the side showing this enormous pool of "profits" that the business has that it could pass down and "share" with the employees?
You are under the assumption that these businesses are booming in profits, some might be, some might NOT be. Instead of implementing a broad increase across the board, why not AT LEAST cherry pick those businesses based on the financials you are reviewing in terms of who "could" share more and who "couldn't"? Of course, doing this would violate privacy laws and also would be a form of Government Communism.....which in my opinion is exactly what the minimum wage increases are. It's Government Communism by having the Government come in and TAKE profit pools away and distribute them out to other groups (the workers). The issue with this is that as I pointed out, you could be depleting the resources of the business by doing this and prices would need to be raised or employees CUT to
accommodate.
Well, I was simply arguing on the basis that unemployment was not significantly higher during the times with a minimum wage over $9.00 per hour in 2014 dollars than it was at other times. The details explaining that fact are not obvious to be sure, but also not needed to make the point I was making.
As to the question of how companies with small profit margins can afford to pay higher wages without going bust, I would suspect in large part this has to do with the fact that the labor cost of low-wage workers makes up a very small portion of their budget to begin with, but this isn't true in industries such as the fast food sector. In that case I would assume they either had a better profit margin and could afford a small hit, or that they raise their prices by enough to cover the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jotucker99
The minimum wage, as I stated, should not be tied to inflation and it shouldn't be tied to a "living wage". It should be a bottom floor pay scale for those with NO skills. It should only be a starting point and once you have...hell.....6 months on the job you should be able to demand higher than minimum wage. Also, as I stated prior, what about commission sales people? What about interns? What about volunteer workers? All of these individuals WORK a full work week but there's no MINIMUM payscale to their positions.
I believe all this minimum wage debate is, is for Democrats to round up their "voting base" of single mothers, ex-convicts, and losers in life who all vote Democrat because they believe "THE MAN" has caused their "lot" in life rather than the screwed up choices they have made.
You're now bringing in at least 4 or 5 separate side issues that confound this discussion. As I often like to tell my undergrad physics lab students, "one thing at a time!"
From my understanding, the BLS does an Employment Survey of about 200k businesses and government entities and then about 60k - 75k individual households. They use that to measure the numbers.
Then those in the Labor Force are those 16 plus who are looking for work, and the official unemployment rate is the percentage of these individuals are that are unemployed. You have frictional unemployment (those looking for a better job), structural unemployment (job replaced by automation), seasonal unemployment (their jobs are seasonal) and then cyclical unemployment (unemployed due to downturns).
I just don't think this is a REAL measure of employment, it's the system they use and it can easily be manipulated for the advantage or disadvantage of those in power. It's why you have the Unemployment Rate and the Actual Rate. If you have two rates, that would tell me that the system is inefficient for calculation.
Quote:
ncole1
Strictly speaking, it wasn't "designed" as anything but a legal protection mechanism of workers. It is certainly true that minimum wage and near-minimum wage jobs are in the vast majority of cases those requiring little to no skill, but that is due to market factors and not the law itself.
I agree, it's just something in the law so that employers don't pay folks $1.00 an hour who bring very little skills (even though as I mentioned, commissioned sales people have no bottom floor). So the question is, why the push to increase this or link it to a living wage? If it's just a law to set a bottom MINIMUM....why is it discussed so much in terms of changing it to a living wage?
Quote:
ncole1
As to the question of how companies with small profit margins can afford to pay higher wages without going bust, I would suspect in large part this has to do with the fact that the labor cost of low-wage workers makes up a very small portion of their budget to begin with, but this isn't true in industries such as the fast food sector. In that case I would assume they either had a better profit margin and could afford a small hit, or that they raise their prices by enough to cover the difference.
Well, how many industries in the US even START at minimum wage? Most of these industries are fast food. While we can talk about the fast food sector being "profitable" it depends on the individual business. What I'm confused on is why do leftists focus so hard on raising the minimum wage instead of finding ways to:
- Raise the worker's skills and productivity
- Raise the value of the economy as a whole, which helps the businesses that employ these workers so work is available
Our economy is shifting to a Specialized Skill economy where the people who make the money will be at the TOP of the ladder, either you train the people for this NEW REALITY or you are just going to have to continue trying to raise the minimum wage, or give free education, or free healthcare, or free CABLE TV....anything to try and make it seem like "the government" is trying to help when the only true way to help is to train people for the new economy we sit in. Also college has to innovate with mostly internet usage to bring the costs down.
From my understanding, the BLS does an Employment Survey of about 200k businesses and government entities and then about 60k - 75k individual households. They use that to measure the numbers.
Then those in the Labor Force are those 16 plus who are looking for work, and the official unemployment rate is the percentage of these individuals are that are unemployed. You have frictional unemployment (those looking for a better job), structural unemployment (job replaced by automation), seasonal unemployment (their jobs are seasonal) and then cyclical unemployment (unemployed due to downturns).
I just don't think this is a REAL measure of employment, it's the system they use and it can easily be manipulated for the advantage or disadvantage of those in power. It's why you have the Unemployment Rate and the Actual Rate. If you have two rates, that would tell me that the system is inefficient for calculation.
Instead of just saying that you think all the unemployment measures are flawed, why don't you propose a new definition and say how you'd measure it?
You'd need to address a few key points. In particular, at what age do you "expect" someone to start working? 16? 18? 21? Do you include people that are disabled and have never been able to work? What about people who retire early? Do you count someone who just sold a few things at a profit on Craigslist last week but otherwise has had no job for the last 3 months as unemployed? What about stay at home parents?
Also, you complain that the measures currently used are subject to corruption but don't explain what distortions of the official numbers you believe are caused by corruption nor do you propose a solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jotucker99
I agree, it's just something in the law so that employers don't pay folks $1.00 an hour who bring very little skills (even though as I mentioned, commissioned sales people have no bottom floor). So the question is, why the push to increase this or link it to a living wage? If it's just a law to set a bottom MINIMUM....why is it discussed so much in terms of changing it to a living wage?
Nothing really all that strange, just a variation of people's ideals on what they think minimum wage is supposed to mean and represent.
Personally, I think that it should be adjusted at least for the CPI because fiat currency has no value apart from its ability to purchase goods and services. As far as the issue of a living wage, I actually disagree with that to a large degree as I think people shouldn't have kids they can't afford but this is a tangent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jotucker99
Well, how many industries in the US even START at minimum wage? Most of these industries are fast food. While we can talk about the fast food sector being "profitable" it depends on the individual business. What I'm confused on is why do leftists focus so hard on raising the minimum wage instead of finding ways to:
- Raise the worker's skills and productivity
Well, "leftists" do indeed push for these, in the form of increased funding for education and training programs, but Republicans often deny it because they are adamently opposed to any increase in government spending. Even when it has a long-term effect of reducing spending by getting people on their feet and off public assistance, they don't care. Politicians don't care about the long-term, as they won't be in office (and this is an issue for both the left and the right!). The public is also very-short-sighted and this doesn't help either. People blaming politicians for not improving the economy are pre-supposing that the effects of their policy decisions are supposed to take effect in the short-term. This insistence on instant gratification is the problem, and it applies to voters both on the left and on the right. Voters on the left often support education as though it were an entitlement, which is supporting the right thing for the wrong reason. The right reason to support education and training from a public policy perspective is precisely that it helps people find gainful employment that enables them to not need public assistance.
Believe me, I have a lot of issues with both parties right now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jotucker99
- Raise the value of the economy as a whole, which helps the businesses that employ these workers so work is available
Not sure what you mean here - how do you propose they "raise the value" of the economy without creating a market bubble that will later pop and create a much worse situation than the current one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jotucker99
Our economy is shifting to a Specialized Skill economy where the people who make the money will be at the TOP of the ladder, either you train the people for this NEW REALITY or you are just going to have to continue trying to raise the minimum wage, or give free education, or free healthcare, or free CABLE TV....anything to try and make it seem like "the government" is trying to help when the only true way to help is to train people for the new economy we sit in. Also college has to innovate with mostly internet usage to bring the costs down.
Pro:It might make the difference between a family having a roof over their head with food on their table, than being homeless and hungry.
Con: because of greedy corporations or businesses that are barely surviving, it will cause cut-backs of jobs that have already been cut back. This will spread the work force even thinner, meaning less people will be overworke even more, and more people will be layed off and have to go on unemployment and welfare.
It's a catch-22. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Okay, and what are you using to determine the concept of "high unemployment"? It's truly difficult to estimate how many people are affected by the minimum wage in terms of unemployment when the "Unemployment Rate" and the "Official Unemployment Rate" are vastly different. Plus the way that the BLS even calculates unemployment has always been a little weird to me.
How about this? Can we agree that the minimum wage was DESIGNED as a bottom floor pay scale for individuals with little to no skills? You agree, correct?
Wouldn't you also agree that these individuals are in three main groups:
- Teenagers just starting out in the work force
- Newly minted US citizens who just came to this country and are starting out in the workface
- "Losers" who have made bad decisions in life and are stuck in a minimum wage position due to refusing to acquire additional skills
If you increase the amount an Employer has to pay these three groups, without increasing their level of productivity, wouldn't common sense say that you are hurting the business of that Employer IF you do not have a copy of their financials on the side showing this enormous pool of "profits" that the business has that it could pass down and "share" with the employees?
You are under the assumption that these businesses are booming in profits, some might be, some might NOT be. Instead of implementing a broad increase across the board, why not AT LEAST cherry pick those businesses based on the financials you are reviewing in terms of who "could" share more and who "couldn't"? Of course, doing this would violate privacy laws and also would be a form of Government Communism.....which in my opinion is exactly what the minimum wage increases are. It's Government Communism by having the Government come in and TAKE profit pools away and distribute them out to other groups (the workers). The issue with this is that as I pointed out, you could be depleting the resources of the business by doing this and prices would need to be raised or employees CUT to accommodate.
The minimum wage, as I stated, should not be tied to inflation and it shouldn't be tied to a "living wage". It should be a bottom floor pay scale for those with NO skills. It should only be a starting point and once you have...hell.....6 months on the job you should be able to demand higher than minimum wage. Also, as I stated prior, what about commission sales people? What about interns? What about volunteer workers? All of these individuals WORK a full work week but there's no MINIMUM payscale to their positions.
I believe all this minimum wage debate is, is for Democrats to round up their "voting base" of single mothers, ex-convicts, and losers in life who all vote Democrat because they believe "THE MAN" has caused their "lot" in life rather than the screwed up choices they have made.
The minimum wage is a form of (1) worker protection; and (2) a statement by society that we don't want people working at certain wages under certain conditions.
The minimum wage is only part of a comprehensive package that defines the conditions under which employment can occur. For example, other laws regulate maximum hours, break times for employees, and workplace safety.
In order to legally employ an individual in most occupations all these criteria must be satisfied. Actually, though there is more involved than simply protecting the least skilled workers. By placing a floor under wages, we, in effect, also protect higher wage workers from being exploited too. If the wages for employees in the bottom of the workforce can be pushed down than wages for most other employees would also drop. In this fashion, the minimum wage protects many workers.
Ultimately, of course, no one is immune from market forces. If there are too many workers, than there will pressure on wages to fall. If there are too any unskilled workers than wages for unskilled workers will remain low. My contention though is that society has a right to say: "Unless you meet these minimum conditions, you may not employ another person."
If workers exist who truly are not worth minimum wage than those people should be out learning some basic job skills. In a few instances, it may not be appropriate for them to work at all and they should be receiving some form of public assistance instead.
Its about preventing unfair exploitation. It has nothing to do with keeping a political party in office.
Then why stop at a 10% increase, why not take minimum wage to $25 an hour? Screw it....$50 an hour!! You know the higher minimum wage leads to higher economic benefits according to you leftists so why are you stopping at $10.10? Put that sucker at $50!
Let's just end poverty by giving everyone 10 million in cash.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
