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.
Roughly 1% of Americans (and that's being generous) actually earn the minimum wage. Bumping up their income by a few bucks will have almost zero effect on a multi-trillion-dollar economy, while it will have a massive, negative effect on the specific businesses and sectors where minimum wage is commonly paid to non-skilled workers. Whether or not a hike eliminates 1M jobs or 1k jobs is irrelevant, because the U.S. currently supports well over ONE HUNDRED MILLION people on various forms of "means-tested" welfare.
The reason it's irrelevant is that the economy - not the minimum wage - is driving people out of the workforce at an unprecedented rate. The labor force participation rate has never declined so severely, for so many years, in all the time it's been measured. Some people try to blame this decline on "Baby Boomer" retirement. That might be reasonable if the 65+ LFPR demographic were not the ONLY demographic that is growing. The obvious cause, in fact, is that our working-age population is growing much, much faster than the dismal economic conditions can support. As a result, total unemployment in the U.S. right now is equal to what was seen during the Depression of 1920-21, and much higher if one takes into account the millions of illegal aliens who aren't typically included in these calculations (even though they're displacing citizens in the workplace, because they CAN work for less than the minimum wage, AND they're also imposing a drain on tax revenue because they're consuming services, generally).
The reason the CBO was asked to do this calculation was to create another sideshow to draw attention from the real motivation for the min. wage hike.
Many union workers' wages are contractually pegged to the minimum wage. In those cases, when the min. goes up, so does their pay scale. That makes more money available for the political campaigns union workers typically contribute to (in many cases, whether they want to or not).
There are big political battles coming up in 2014 and 2016. The powers-that-be need all the financial help they can get to stay in control. One front on that battle is to use min. wage legislation to jack up union wages, to funnel more money into political campaign funds. That's the only motivation for this hike at the federal level.
Roughly 1% of Americans (and that's being generous) actually earn the minimum wage. Bumping up their income by a few bucks will have almost zero effect on a multi-trillion-dollar economy, while it will have a massive, negative effect on the specific businesses and sectors where minimum wage is commonly paid to non-skilled workers. Whether or not a hike eliminates 1M jobs or 1k jobs is irrelevant, because the U.S. currently supports well over ONE HUNDRED MILLION people on various forms of "means-tested" welfare.
The reason it's irrelevant is that the economy - not the minimum wage - is driving people out of the workforce at an unprecedented rate. The labor force participation rate has never declined so severely, for so many years, in all the time it's been measured. Some people try to blame this decline on "Baby Boomer" retirement. That might be reasonable if the 65+ LFPR demographic were not the ONLY demographic that is growing. The obvious cause, in fact, is that our working-age population is growing much, much faster than the dismal economic conditions can support. As a result, total unemployment in the U.S. right now is equal to what was seen during the Depression of 1920-21, and much higher if one takes into account the millions of illegal aliens who aren't typically included in these calculations (even though they're displacing citizens in the workplace, because they CAN work for less than the minimum wage, AND they're also imposing a drain on tax revenue because they're consuming services, generally).
The reason the CBO was asked to do this calculation was to create another sideshow to draw attention from the real motivation for the min. wage hike.
Many union workers' wages are contractually pegged to the minimum wage. In those cases, when the min. goes up, so does their pay scale. That makes more money available for the political campaigns union workers typically contribute to (in many cases, whether they want to or not).
There are big political battles coming up in 2014 and 2016. The powers-that-be need all the financial help they can get to stay in control. One front on that battle is to use min. wage legislation to jack up union wages, to funnel more money into political campaign funds. That's the only motivation for this hike at the federal level.
As always: Follow The Money.
So your point is that the minimum wage hike is a political issue for 2014 and it doesn't address the root issue. What is the root issue?
But seriously, are we going to hold minimum wage hostage with the threat of job destruction? People are going to continue eating disgusting yet convenient food. As long as that remains consistent, companies will hire the cheapest labor available to provide it. McDonalds already runs a pretty thin skeleton crew of part time workers. People like to talk about the automation boogeyman, yet the expense of automating every McDonalds franchise would be astronomical. It would require massive debt obligations that even they would have a difficult time securing.
What people don't seem to notice is, when minimum wage declines, the wages across the board decline, except for managerial staff or high level positions. There is a correlation. Has anyone not noticed that stagnant wages seen in many occupations?
Everybody whines that if a McDonalds worker gets XX.XX dollars an hour, than I should get YY.YY. Well, when minimum wage declined adjusted for inflation, how did that work out for ya? Yup, the talking heads have you well in your place. Resume kissing boots.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,243,006 times
Reputation: 57825
The cost of automation becomes much less when you take into account not only the cost of labor in wages, but the additional costs such as any benefits, payroll taxes, uniforms, interviewing, performance reviews, training, insurance, break room/restroom supplies, lost time due to absence, and probably more I am missing.
So your point is that the minimum wage hike is a political issue for 2014 and it doesn't address the root issue. What is the root issue?
If my point wasn't clear, please elaborate. What do you mean by "root issue"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire
What people don't seem to notice is, when minimum wage declines, the wages across the board decline, except for managerial staff or high level positions. There is a correlation.
When has the minimum wage ever "declined". The "debate" is always whether or not to raise it (i.e., to provide another gift to the unions), never whether to lower it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140
The cost of automation becomes much less when you take into account not only the cost of labor in wages, but the additional costs such as any benefits, payroll taxes, uniforms, interviewing, performance reviews, training, insurance, break room/restroom supplies, lost time due to absence, and probably more I am missing.
Also, don't forget, because the federal government has so totally de-stabilized the economy, many companies are sitting on huge piles of liquid assets that they'd otherwise be investing in new hires, expansion, etc. That money is certainly available to implement automation where it's warranted, i.e., wherever it will isolate the company from the de-stabilizing efforts of the government's manipulation of minimum wage and statutory mandates for health "benefits".
When has the minimum wage ever "declined". The "debate" is always whether or not to raise it (i.e., to provide another gift to the unions), never whether to lower it.
It has declined adjusted for inflation. Who is talking about a gift to unions? There hardly exist any longer in the private sector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140
The cost of automation becomes much less when you take into account not only the cost of labor in wages, but the additional costs such as any benefits, payroll taxes, uniforms, interviewing, performance reviews, training, insurance, break room/restroom supplies, lost time due to absence, and probably more I am missing.
It sure has. But folks are talking about companies like McDonalds automating, and they don't seem to realize, they already are heavily automated. Workers aren't making patties, flipping burgers, pouring drinks, or doing anything you would really expect to find in a restaurant. It's their key to success and profitability, and it's a model that has worked very well for them. The cheap labor is just an added benefit in this country. There are plenty of McDonalds in more expensive countries, and they do just fine. Isn't minimum wage something like $10/hr in Canada? It's around $16/hr in Australia. Hasn't slowed any of these fast food giants down.
And when you are talking about further automating McDonalds, you're talking about automating hundreds of thousands of franchises. I don't care how cheap automation is today, that's going to be a tough sell for shareholders.
I always love people who bring up unions. Union membership is at lowest levels in US history and worker benefits are also there lowest levels. Worker happennes is also it it's lowest. Meanwhile CEOs give themselves 10 million pay raises and decide to cut benefits, when the company makes a 40 million dollar profit.
The number of Americans who are working yet have to receive welfare has drastically increased yet corps oppose increasing the minimum wage so more Americans will have to go to the gov't to get welfare in order to avoid being homeless. Meanwhile these CEOs lobby to get their taxes cut hording the wealth so the minimum wage Americans will pay more taxes who cannot to pay these taxes.
As Warren Buffet said when your secretary pays more of a percentage of taxes then you the billionaire do then something is wrong.
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.
