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.
Originally Posted by MikMal
Nobody is forcing anyone to take a low paying job. If everyone were to refuse to work for company XX due to their low wages, said company will have no option other than to offer wages at a rate acceptable to workers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
This.
Everyone has to negotiate for their wages.
All minimum wage hikes do is screw everyone who makes more than minimum wage and provide government with more taxes.
MikMal & FatBob96, the minimum wage rate is applied to the least desirable employee or applicant for the least challenging job. Those people are in the poorest of wage negotiating positions.
The federal fair labor standards act, (i.e. minimum wage rate) indirectly affects all USA's wages.
If you're an employee, that federal rate directly or indirectly affected your pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
The Federal Minimum Wage Rate.
… Delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention determined a federal law was necessary for reducing the economic harm that a U.S. State may deliberately or inadvertently inflict upon any other State, particularly an adjoining state.
… If there's no definite legally enforced minimum wage rate, the effective minimum rate's an indefinite theoretical market-determined rate that may and likely will, (in the absence of labor shortages), too often race down to an “extremely poor bottom”.
Maybe they would know how if we actually taught it in schools instead of crap like gender studies etc.
Make then negotiate for their first job right off the bat instead of expecting a guaranteed minimum just for showing up and clocking in.
If we instilled in people from a young age that how much money they make is entirely up to them......
We wouldn't need minimum wage.
Agreed, 100%. Most Americans just either take or decline what is offered. You wouldn't buy a house or car that way, but that's how most handle their biggest investment--their livelihood. Maybe it goes back to the old protestant work ethic of work hard, do as told, and keep your head down.
I have seen what difference a team of professional negotiators, including lawyers and labor experts, can do for employees. That's why I support reforms to increase private sector unionization. Sweden has NO minimum wage, but a heavily unionized private sector.
The textbook economics books on how the minimum wage works is good in theory. But, in reality, there is so much more to things than supply demand graph. Indeed, how you treat people plays a big role in how people feel and how long they will want to remain with your company, which means that you're spending less money advertising for new jobs and less money training the non-stop rotating door of employees. And money goes a long way to how people feel. This is what I learned in my organizational behavior, human resources, and labor economics studies.
Moreover, the minimum wage in this country has rarely ever been a true fair market wage (due to the power imbalance between workers and management, though, workers have rarely been able to exert their position for increased wages without the threat of being fired unless they had legal protections to include the protection of a union), so there's been room for companies to pay more without the economy being devastated. Instead of doomsday predictions by economists on the bad effects of raising the minimum wage, I care more about results, and these doomsday scenarios have rarely come to pass (in fact, I can't think of anytime where they have come to pass in this country).
Now, I'm not saying that there is not a point where too high of a minimum wage would not hurt things. And, in NYC, we see some harm for the new $15 minimum wage in terms of hours being cut and the average worker earning something like $100 less per pay period; note, restaurant workers in NYC seem to be thriving, however, under the new wage. But even here I caution people about jumping to conclusions as things may still work out better for all if these workers stay on the job longer and management doesn't have to deal with the costs associated with high turnover. Then, of course, there's the point where people may feel better off for being able to work fewer hours while essentially earning the same pay
This is a good reply, but let me try an analogy. If you drop a feather from one hand, and a ball bearing from the other, the ball bearing will hit the ground first. This does not disprove the law of gravity.
Sure there are always extraneous and complicating factors at play, but supply and demand does in fact still operate in labor markets. And if that is true, the point by economist Samuelson that the minimum wage harms those it is supposed to help, is also true.
We already have a universal basic income; why do we need another? That UBI is "0.00 USD". If we raised that to 2,000 dollars per month wouldn't 2k per month become the new "broke"?
This is a good reply, but let me try an analogy. If you drop a feather from one hand, and a ball bearing from the other, the ball bearing will hit the ground first. This does not disprove the law of gravity.
Sure there are always extraneous and complicating factors at play, but supply and demand does in fact still operate in labor markets. And if that is true, the point by economist Samuelson that the minimum wage harms those it is supposed to help, is also true.
Totally agree with you on the fundamentals. I just wish that people considered the other relevant factors on the impact of minimum wage increases, which are far too often ignored as people are generally treated in economic theory as being consistent, robot-like creatures.
The minimum wage as currently constituted is a economic charade that hurts those it purports to help. When I took econ 101, our textbook, written by the liberal economist Paul Samuelson, had a supply demand graph and a few lines of algebra showing how this was so.
Suppose you're a 10-yr-old with an apple tree in your yard. In season, you can pick 10 apples per day and sell them for $1, giving you a nice bit of spending money. But you can't afford your dream bicycle on that (fancy bikes can now go for 5 figures).
Along comes Mayor Pete and says, "tell you what I'm gonna do for you, kid. I'm gonna institute a $5 minimum apple price. We're gonna get you that dream bike."
But at $5 dollars, nobody wants to buy an apple except maybe the rich widow down the street who feels sorry for him once per week and buys. So his income goes from $10 day to $5/wk. thanks to Mayor Pete's "help."
The minimum wage is good for getting votes for guys like Mayor Pete, but it doesn't on balance help low-wage workers. It on balance hurts them.
Now there is the idea of the universal basic income from Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Just for drawing breath, you are entitled to a certain minimum level of income every month. This indeed would help the low-skill, low-wage worker, but would be very expensive for the taxpayer.
What if we combined the two ideas? Let the wage rates float up and down according to the market, but if the wage goes below a certain level (say $15/hr), the government makes up the difference with a subsidy. This is essentially how US agriculture price supports work. If the price of corn goes below a certain threshold, the corn farmer gets a check from Uncle Sam to make up the difference.
The minimum wage as currently constituted is a economic charade that hurts those it purports to help. When I took econ 101, our textbook, written by the liberal economist Paul Samuelson, had a supply demand graph and a few lines of algebra showing how this was so.
Suppose you're a 10-yr-old with an apple tree in your yard. In season, you can pick 10 apples per day and sell them for $1, giving you a nice bit of spending money. But you can't afford your dream bicycle on that (fancy bikes can now go for 5 figures).
Along comes Mayor Pete and says, "tell you what I'm gonna do for you, kid. I'm gonna institute a $5 minimum apple price. We're gonna get you that dream bike."
But at $5 dollars, nobody wants to buy an apple except maybe the rich widow down the street who feels sorry for him once per week and buys. So his income goes from $10 day to $5/wk. thanks to Mayor Pete's "help."
The minimum wage is good for getting votes for guys like Mayor Pete, but it doesn't on balance help low-wage workers. It on balance hurts them.
Now there is the idea of the universal basic income from Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Just for drawing breath, you are entitled to a certain minimum level of income every month. This indeed would help the low-skill, low-wage worker, but would be very expensive for the taxpayer.
What if we combined the two ideas? Let the wage rates float up and down according to the market, but if the wage goes below a certain level (say $15/hr), the government makes up the difference with a subsidy. This is essentially how US agriculture price supports work. If the price of corn goes below a certain threshold, the corn farmer gets a check from Uncle Sam to make up the difference.
What do you think?
Combing two forms of slavery is always good for those receiving the benefits.
Please explain to me the morality why other people must be forced at gunpoint to pay you?
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.
