U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-24-2018, 10:06 PM
 
1,037 posts, read 562,608 times
Reputation: 300

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdm2008 View Post
This is what you have wrong, that statement is just not true as has been pointed out many times. Most labor in the USA is not covered by minimum wage laws. A very small portion is.
As noted taxes are shared by three groups, customers, employees and owners. The ability of the business owner to pass on his cost increase to his worker is determined on by the scarcity of the worker's skill, if the skill is scarce the cost the majority of the burden will not be borne by the worker, if it is then it will be. Because if the worker does not have a scarce skill and the employer decides to pass on the cost to the worker, his risk will not be large because if the worker leaves, he can hire someone else from a large pool of workers.
And of course in some times, all labor will be relatively scarce, and in that case the burden will not be borne by the worker at all.
JDM2008, the federal minimum wage laws legally cover almost all, and statistically, affect all USA employees' wages.
If as you state, that statement has been many times described as false, then those describers were incorrect each of those times.

(Taxes are levied; we can stretch the point if you wish to consider a joint tax return as “shared” taxes).

To any extent that you post is contrary to the stated facts within the first post of this discussion thread, the fact rather than your post is correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-24-2018, 11:21 PM
 
4,383 posts, read 8,689,802 times
Reputation: 2332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
JDM2008, the federal minimum wage laws legally cover almost all, and statistically, affect all USA employees' wages.
If as you state, that statement has been many times described as false, then those describers were incorrect each of those times.

(Taxes are levied; we can stretch the point if you wish to consider a joint tax return as “shared” taxes).

To any extent that you post is contrary to the stated facts within the first post of this discussion thread, the fact rather than your post is correct.
Sorry but this is completely wrong and it's rather simple. Not sure if your trying to misunderstand it or what, but the statistic quoted was 2.9% of people earn the federal minimum wage. To a person earning 59k a year(the median wage in the USA) the minimum wage will be irrelevant to them, and an employer could cut their pay from 59k to 57k and the minimum wage would have absolutely no effect on them(however the more likely event is the employer would decline to give them a wage increase, or increase their share of the health insurance premiums).

Last edited by jdm2008; 06-25-2018 at 12:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2018, 04:48 PM
 
1,037 posts, read 562,608 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdm2008 View Post
Sorry but this is completely wrong and it's rather simple. Not sure if your trying to misunderstand it or what, but the statistic quoted was 2.9% of people earn the federal minimum wage. To a person earning 59k a year(the median wage in the USA) the minimum wage will be irrelevant to them, and an employer could cut their pay from 59k to 57k and the minimum wage would have absolutely no effect on them(however the more likely event is the employer would decline to give them a wage increase, or increase their share of the health insurance premiums).
JDM20008, no, you misunderstand my posts. The federal minimum wage laws statistically affect all USA wages, but it doesn't affect them all equally. Its effect upon a job's rate is inverse to the proportional difference between the job's and the minimum rate. Lower wage rates are greater, and higher wage rates are lesser proportionally affected by the minimum rate.

To those earning $10/Hr or less, the minimum wage laws are more or less critical; it's critical for all of those lower rate jobs. As differences between the minimum and the jobs' rates increase, the minimum's effect upon the jobs' rates are reduced (proportional to those differences).

Due to the minimum wage and wage differentials, its extremely difficult to pass enterprise's expenses on to low paid employees and it becomes less difficult to do so as jobs' wage scales become proportionally greater than the minimum rate.

You're correct, the minimum rate's effect upon a job scales beyond the median rate become too tiny to be perceived, (but theoretically they do exist and they're there).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2018, 06:53 AM
 
4,355 posts, read 5,286,249 times
Reputation: 4288
I don't really understand the whole point of the thread, I guess. If you're trying to suggest that businesses can't increase their prices or decrease other costs because of a raise in minimum wage, obviously that's not true. If a business has 12 minimum wage employees and you raised the minimum wage to $15, as you see in Seattle, most of those businesses are faced with a number of choices: 1) Relocate or close the business (in Seattle), 2) Fire a number of workers to reduce labor costs, 3) Automate more of the jobs, or 4) Charge more for goods / services.

For anyone talking about minimum wages, the question I always have is if a $15 minimum wage would be fantastic, why not $25? I mean why not $50? Wouldn't more always be better? Like if $15 is better than $10, it seems clear to me $25 would be even better than that. Of course, even people who are economically clueless as some of these radical liberals still understand that you can't raise labor costs without causing inflation and a lot of other unintended consequences.

Labor is just another expense to a business and really bears no difference from any other expense. When I'm doing my business accounting at the end of the year, it's just another line item that I think about whether I can reduce or how it affects my overall bottom line. As my contractors raised their rates, I was faced with two options: 1) Hire lesser quality contractors and keep my rates the same for my clients, or 2) Pay my contractors their increased rates and pass along the cost to my clients. I have generally opted for Option 2 because we've wanted to maintain certain quality standards and been able to get away with it. If I got too much pushback, I'd have to go with Option 1, which I've sometimes done as well because we won't be held hostage by random contractors deciding they're worth 50% more year to year. That's good for them, they can charge whatever they want, but we don't have to pay it. Usually they come crawling back and take the jobs at the same rate they were getting anyway.

It is true that minimum wage starts to affect people who aren't making minimum wage, though, like if I'm paying someone $14.50 an hour and suddenly they raise the minimum wage to $15, it's fairly difficult for me to pay them $15/hour without it seemingly like their salary completely sucks now because they went from $4.50 or whatever above the minimum wage to at minimum wage. That being said, it's kind of a "who cares" situation for me, because I'm not paying a bunch more money to someone just because the government is trying to artificially inflate the value of their labor. As a business owner I already know the value of the labor everyone puts in and that's exactly what I can charge my clients and afford to pay these people to do their work while having something left over for myself.

The average person is so bombarded with the rare few exceptions like Mark Zuckerburg that I don't think they stop to consider how many of us business owners basically make a great life for a bunch of people while we actually end up suffering. The last few years, my company struggled, but my employees made the same amount of money, my contractors actually got paid a bit more than they had in the past because of regular inflation of their rates, and I made next to nothing. So a bunch of people could afford to feed their families and pay their bills because of my company, but I certainly didn't benefit from any of it. That's the reality of a lot of businesses. Now, the year before that, I made a good chunk of money and that's nice, but if you're risking a lot, you should gain a lot. Someone showing up to work doing a job they're paid to do is risking absolutely nothing. They're paid every hour they work. Zero risk. They don't deserve any more than the market will pay them for their labor. Any artificial inflation of their wages is in my opinion unnecessary interference in a well functioning capitalist system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2018, 07:20 PM
 
1,037 posts, read 562,608 times
Reputation: 300
JonathanLB, in response to your post #34 of 719 words, I refer you to this excerpt from the 1st post of this thread:
“The federal minimum wage rate is a legally mandated rate. Legally mandated rates and amounts are not subject to reduction.
Due to enterprises participating in competitive markets such as their sales markets, markets for labor and other goods and services they need, the expenses enterprises can pass on as increased prices, or reduced compensations to their employees or other providers of goods and services are limited to some extents”.

The tone of your post does not imply that your enterprise's purpose is altruistic, I assume your goal is to financially profit. I suppose your enterprise only hires persons or purchases services that you believe will contribute to your profits or to the reduction of your loses and your enterprise's other expenses are all similarly justified.

If you could do better for yourself by selling out or moving your enterprise from Seattle, I suppose you would and should do so. Maybe you'd be more comfortable as an employee rather than as an entrepreneur. It's conceivable that such a decision could be net detrimental to Seattle, and/or Washington, and/or the USA. It's also conceivable that decision could, (due to Darwin's concept), be net beneficial to Seattle, and/or Washington, and/or the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn

Last edited by Supposn; 07-02-2018 at 08:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2018, 07:52 PM
 
1,037 posts, read 562,608 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanLB View Post
I don't really understand the whole point of the thread, I guess. ...
JonathanLB, regarding the question can an employer pass their tax expenses onto their employees:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Taxes are not [i.e. generally] passed onto employees:

The federal minimum wage rate is a legally mandated rate. Legally mandated rates and amounts are not subject to reduction.
Due to enterprises participating in competitive markets such as their sales markets, markets for labor and other goods and services they need, the expenses enterprises can pass on as increased prices, or reduced compensations to their employees or other providers of goods and services are limited to some extents. … Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2018, 07:07 AM
 
1,760 posts, read 584,418 times
Reputation: 1786
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanLB View Post
I don't really understand the whole point of the thread, I guess. If you're trying to suggest that businesses can't increase their prices or decrease other costs because of a raise in minimum wage, obviously that's not true. If a business has 12 minimum wage employees and you raised the minimum wage to $15, as you see in Seattle, most of those businesses are faced with a number of choices: 1) Relocate or close the business (in Seattle), 2) Fire a number of workers to reduce labor costs, 3) Automate more of the jobs, or 4) Charge more for goods / services.

For anyone talking about minimum wages, the question I always have is if a $15 minimum wage would be fantastic, why not $25? I mean why not $50? Wouldn't more always be better? Like if $15 is better than $10, it seems clear to me $25 would be even better than that. Of course, even people who are economically clueless as some of these radical liberals still understand that you can't raise labor costs without causing inflation and a lot of other unintended consequences.

Labor is just another expense to a business and really bears no difference from any other expense. When I'm doing my business accounting at the end of the year, it's just another line item that I think about whether I can reduce or how it affects my overall bottom line. As my contractors raised their rates, I was faced with two options: 1) Hire lesser quality contractors and keep my rates the same for my clients, or 2) Pay my contractors their increased rates and pass along the cost to my clients. I have generally opted for Option 2 because we've wanted to maintain certain quality standards and been able to get away with it. If I got too much pushback, I'd have to go with Option 1, which I've sometimes done as well because we won't be held hostage by random contractors deciding they're worth 50% more year to year. That's good for them, they can charge whatever they want, but we don't have to pay it. Usually they come crawling back and take the jobs at the same rate they were getting anyway.

It is true that minimum wage starts to affect people who aren't making minimum wage, though, like if I'm paying someone $14.50 an hour and suddenly they raise the minimum wage to $15, it's fairly difficult for me to pay them $15/hour without it seemingly like their salary completely sucks now because they went from $4.50 or whatever above the minimum wage to at minimum wage. That being said, it's kind of a "who cares" situation for me, because I'm not paying a bunch more money to someone just because the government is trying to artificially inflate the value of their labor. As a business owner I already know the value of the labor everyone puts in and that's exactly what I can charge my clients and afford to pay these people to do their work while having something left over for myself.

The average person is so bombarded with the rare few exceptions like Mark Zuckerburg that I don't think they stop to consider how many of us business owners basically make a great life for a bunch of people while we actually end up suffering. The last few years, my company struggled, but my employees made the same amount of money, my contractors actually got paid a bit more than they had in the past because of regular inflation of their rates, and I made next to nothing. So a bunch of people could afford to feed their families and pay their bills because of my company, but I certainly didn't benefit from any of it. That's the reality of a lot of businesses. Now, the year before that, I made a good chunk of money and that's nice, but if you're risking a lot, you should gain a lot. Someone showing up to work doing a job they're paid to do is risking absolutely nothing. They're paid every hour they work. Zero risk. They don't deserve any more than the market will pay them for their labor. Any artificial inflation of their wages is in my opinion unnecessary interference in a well functioning capitalist system.
One of the worst negative effects of raising the minimum wage is that some people simply become unhireable because they can not produce a return on the wage therefore don't get on the job training for higher paying jobs in the future. Which is why nearly every country with a higher minimum wage has all sorts of loopholes for businesses to pay some workers less than minimum wage that get abused. There are fast food restaurants in Australia where no one outside of management makes the actual minimum wage. Everyone else is on youth pay or intern pay, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2018, 11:38 AM
 
1,037 posts, read 562,608 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cttransplant85 View Post
One of the worst negative effects of raising the minimum wage is that some people simply become unhireable because they can not produce a return on the wage therefore don't get on the job training for higher paying jobs in the future. Which is why nearly every country with a higher minimum wage has all sorts of loopholes for businesses to pay some workers less than minimum wage that get abused. There are fast food restaurants in Australia where no one outside of management makes the actual minimum wage. Everyone else is on youth pay or intern pay, etc.
CTTransplant85, yes, Australia does have legal “Junior” wage rates. But their regular minimum wage schedules are of significantly greater purchasing powers than the U.S. Federal minimum wage rate. Non-regular's on the payrolls are classified as “casual” employees and entitled to additionally higher than the ordinary minimum rate. If you're opposed to U.S. Federal minimum wage laws, you'll prefer Australian wage laws not be a matter of common knowledge in the USA.

U.S. Federal minimum wage laws provide for employees under 20 years of age being paid $4.25 per hour during their first consecutive 90 calendar days of employment with an employer. Employers each year have an opportunity to pay extremely sub-standard wages to a new crop of seasonal employees. It has yet to make any economic difference but I dread it may eventually evolve to undermine our federal minimum rate.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
https://www.google.com/search?q=aust...+rates&ie=&oe=

The Fair Work Commission has handed down it's annual ruling on Australia's minimum wage, raising it by 2.4 per cent to $672.70 a week. It means an extra $15.80 per week for the 1.8 million workers who are paid the minimum wage. It will apply from July 1 and equates to a minimum hourly rate of $17.70.May 30, 2016
Minimum wage: How does Australia compare to other countries? - ABC

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////https://www.google.com/search?q=australian+and+u.s.+dollar+excange+rate&i e=&oe=
1 Australian Dollar equals 0.74 United States Dollar
9.82 Australian = 7.25 USA dollars
17.70 Australian = 13.07 USA dollars

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
https://mywage.org/australia/salary/minimum-wage/
Item
Amount in Australian Dollars (A$) or in percentage (%)
Casual loading
25%
Special national minimum wage I:*applies to disabled*adults*where disability DOES NOT affect productivity
$694.90 per week (before tax), or $18.29 per hour.
Special national minimum wage II:*applies to disabled adults*where disability DOES affect productivity
Adults whose productivity is affected by their disability are paid a percentage of the national minimum wage, set in accordance with Schedule A to the National Minimum Wage Order.
Special national minimum wage III:applies to junior employees.* The minimum wage for junior employees is a % of the national minimum wage and it reflects age as follows:
Minimum hourly rate
(a) <16 years: 36.8% $ 6.97
(b) 16 years:** 47.3% $ 8.95
© 17 years:** 57.8% $10.94
(d) 18 years:** 68.3% $12.93
(e) 19 years:** 82.5% $15.61
(f) 20 years:** 97.7% $18.49
Special national minimum wage IV: applies to*apprentices. The minimum wage for apprentices is a % of the national minimum wage and it reflects their progression as follows:
The minimum wage for apprentices is a % of the national minimum wage and it reflects their progression as follows:
(a) 1st*year: 55% $10.41
(b) 2nd*year: 65% $12.30
© 3rd*year: 80% $15.14
(d) 4th*year: 95% $17.98
Special national minimum wage V:*applies to a*trainee*who is not an apprentice
Minimum wage varies with years of schooling. Currently, it varies from A$287.90 – A$585.80 per week. The minimum wage for a trainee is set in schedule E of the Miscellaneous Award 2010.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
https://www.google.com/search?q=aust...oading&ie=&oe=
Casual workers. More than two million Australians are employed casually. ... As a casual worker, you are entitled to a loading on your hourly rate of pay, which means that your hourly pay rate should be more than the permanent workers' doing the same work as you.
Casual workers - ACTU Australian Unions
https://www.australianunions.org.au/...kers_factsheet
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top