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.
The only time minimum wage can help, is if it only affects workers that would employed anyway. Hence, many states could probably increase the minimum wage to $10, and get benefits from that.
But liberals got this debate wrong. They don't want to increase it to $10 in some states, they are trying to increase it to $15 nationwide and that will be devestating for the working poor. It is way too close to the median wage, hence it will lead to less unskilled jobs, and lower turnover in unskilled jobs, and the people who do get a job will be trapped and never get promoted.
Liberals are very stupid picking $15 as their target, because they will prove conservatives right. Had they targeted a lower amount, then they could get better results, and hence it would have benefited their agenda.
Camlon, it’s reasonable to assume that any sudden radical change of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate would upset USA’s labor markets and economy; modifications of the FMW rate has always been and should always be enacted gradually.
I would suppose if we should ever attempt to attain an EXCESSIVE minimum rate in gradual incremental stages, we’d after some incremental step encounter little or no economic benefit due to the last rate increase. This is a theoretical scenario; never has any nation’s economy suffered due to the nation’s excessive minimum or median wage rate.
When there’s no perceivable benefit due to the last increase of the FMW rate, we should logically cease increasing that rate beyond increases to retain its purchasing power. The simplest manner of retaining the rate’s purchasing power would be to adjust it annually to be kept abreast with a price-cost index number.
The question should not be an eventual finite FMW rate, but rather why are we not increasing the rate’s purchasing power until further increases would not be net beneficial to our economy?
Of course other things impact the price of goods but we are specifically talking about labor cost. Over the last 30 years I have built 3 businesses in different sectors. In one business, the primary content was, by and large, labor. It has a direct impact on prices. Obviously labor content varies by product as will its impact on prices. In some cases the impact will be minimal in others it can be severe. Now if you don't believe that is the case, I suggest you build a widget business and see for yourself!
I'm not gone to get into a posting links war that support my premise that increasing the minimum wage (or any wage for that matter) will increase prices. I assure you that I can post plenty to refute the left leaning links you have posted. In the end, you are going to believe what YOU want to believe.
There are only two statistics that matter - the historical increases in minimum wage and the historical annual inflation rates. All the rest is armchair logic. Using only the numbers below, can you point out the years the minimum wage was increased?
Date US Inflation Rate Oct 1, 2015 0.17% Jan 1, 2015 -0.09% Jan 1, 2014 1.58% Jan 1, 2013 1.59% Jan 1, 2012 2.93% Jan 1, 2011 1.63% Jan 1, 2010 2.63% Jan 1, 2009 0.03% Jan 1, 2008 4.28% Jan 1, 2007 2.08% Jan 1, 2006 3.99% Jan 1, 2005 2.97% Jan 1, 2004 1.93% Jan 1, 2003 2.60% Jan 1, 2002 1.14% Jan 1, 2001 3.73% Jan 1, 2000 2.74% Jan 1, 1999 1.67% Jan 1, 1998 1.57% Jan 1, 1997 3.04% Jan 1, 1996 2.73% Jan 1, 1995 2.80% Jan 1, 1994 2.52% Jan 1, 1993 3.26% Jan 1, 1992 2.60% Jan 1, 1991 5.65% Jan 1, 1990 5.20% Jan 1, 1989 4.67% Jan 1, 1988 4.05% Jan 1, 1987 1.46% Jan 1, 1986 3.89% Jan 1, 1985 3.53% Jan 1, 1984 4.19% Jan 1, 1983 3.71% Jan 1, 1982 8.39% Jan 1, 1981 11.83% Jan 1, 1980 13.91% Jan 1, 1979 9.28% Jan 1, 1978 6.84% Jan 1, 1977 5.22% Jan 1, 1976 6.72% Jan 1, 1975 11.80% Jan 1, 1974 9.39% Jan 1, 1973 3.65% Jan 1, 1972 3.27% Jan 1, 1971 5.29% Jan 1, 1970 6.18% Jan 1, 1969 4.40% Jan 1, 1968 3.65% Jan 1, 1967 3.46% Jan 1, 1966 1.92% Jan 1, 1965 0.97% Jan 1, 1964 1.64% Jan 1, 1963 1.33% Jan 1, 1962 0.67% Jan 1, 1961 1.71% Jan 1, 1960 1.03% Jan 1, 1959 1.40% Jan 1, 1958 3.62% Jan 1, 1957 2.99% Jan 1, 1956 0.37% Jan 1, 1955 -0.74% Jan 1, 1954 1.13% Jan 1, 1953 0.38% Jan 1, 1952 4.33% Jan 1, 1951 8.09% Jan 1, 1950 -2.08% Jan 1, 1949 1.27% Jan 1, 1948 10.23% Jan 1, 1947 18.13% Jan 1, 1946 2.25% Jan 1, 1945 2.30% Jan 1, 1944 2.96% Jan 1, 1943 7.64% Jan 1, 1942 11.35% Jan 1, 1941 1.44% Jan 1, 1940 -0.71% Jan 1, 1939 -1.41% Jan 1, 1938 0.71% Jan 1, 1937 2.17% Jan 1, 1936 1.47% Jan 1, 1935 3.03%
There are only two statistics that matter - the historical increases in minimum wage and the historical annual inflation rates.
Actually it can be proven easily with logic, so long as you have a rudimentary understanding of the factors involved. Unfortunately most people don't "believe" in logic or history. Besides that, a little consumption-driven inflation would be great for our economy at this time.
There's a point where employees become more expensive than technology.
Before long (give it a few decades) nearly all employees will be more expensive than technology. That includes you. So the solution to this problem is to make everyone so poor that they can compete?
Camlon, it’s reasonable to assume that any sudden radical change of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate would upset USA’s labor markets and economy; modifications of the FMW rate has always been and should always be enacted gradually.
There was actually a time when minimum wage didn't get increased gradually, and that was in the period 1973 to 1981. This a period many people have forgotten about. Here is what happened
Hence, there exist a too high minimum wage, and it does lead to unemployment. Right now liberals are doing it again, they are pushing for $15 minimum wage in their own liberal states. However, this time inflation will not help them, and will instead translate into unemployment. That will be devestating for the minimum wage agenda and the working poor. Liberals need to learn that everything should come in moderation.
In my opinion states should have minimum wage depending on their costs. What I suggest is that minimum wage is calculated to be the minimum required to support an individual living in shared housing. Then it may be $5 in Mississipi, but it can be $10 in New York City. If states want a higher minimum wage, then they need to increase the state minimum wage. Having one minimum wage for the whole US, makes no sense.
Before long (give it a few decades) nearly all employees will be more expensive than technology. That includes you. So the solution to this problem is to make everyone so poor that they can compete?
In a few decades (as you suggest), chances are good that I'll be more expensive than technology. Just as people who were at their prime several decades ago are more expensive than technology today. That's life. But younger people will not be as they will be well versed in adequate skills for longer than I am. That's perfectly fine.
Let's not forget that as time goes by, your earned income becomes less important. By the time I'm too expensive, I'll be living off of capital gains. At least that's my plan.
There was actually a time when minimum wage didn't get increased gradually, and that was in the period 1973 to 1981. This a period many people have forgotten about. Here is what happened...
Camlon, you provided a graph of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rates unadjusted for the U.S. dollar’s losses of purchasing power due to inflation.
Our current practice is (more often than not) periodically modifying the FMW’s rate to extents which do not fully reflect the U.S. dollar’s losses of purchasing power. That’s a reasonable expectation due to rate modifications’ extents and timing being primarily determined by partisan politicians rather than civil service statisticians.
The following are results of adjusting figures for the U.S. dollar’s losses of purchasing power.
You haven’t and will not find any significant correlations between USA’s unemployment rates and the increases of the FMW’s rate.
($100)(1.0000)(1.45) = $145.00 IN 1970, an increase of zero
($100)(0.9282)(1.60) = $148.512 IN 1972, an increase of (1.48512 - 1.45) /1.45 = 2.422%
($100)(0.4268)(3.35) = $134.77035 IN 1981, a loss of (145 – 134.77) /1.45 = 7.0549%
($100)(0.4021)(3.35) = $134.7073 IN 1982, a loss of (1.45 – 134.7073) /1.45 = 7.0984%
... In my opinion states should have minimum wage depending on their costs. What I suggest is that minimum wage is calculated to be the minimum required to support an individual living in shared housing. Then it may be $5 in Mississipi, but it can be $10 in New York City. If states want a higher minimum wage, then they need to increase the state minimum wage. Having one minimum wage for the whole US, makes no sense.
Camlon, the federal MINIMUM wage rate is a MINIMUM wage without regard for any factors that would justify a greater wage rate.
Its purpose is to prevent spoilers of our economy; it does not require that Mississippi or Alabama conform to Oregon or NY states wage schedules; but it does limit Mississippi or Alabama to undermine Oregon or NY states wage schedules and economies.
... Hence, there exist a too high minimum wage, and it does lead to unemployment. Right now liberals are doing it again, they are pushing for $15 minimum wage in their own liberal states. However, this time inflation will not help them, and will instead translate into unemployment. That will be devestating for the minimum wage agenda and the working poor. Liberals need to learn that everything should come in moderation. ...
Camlon, no increase of the Federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate has ever been detrimental to our economy. The post of 12:33 PM, November 23, 2015 discusses why it will not happen.
Respectfully, Supposn
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.
