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.
There I disagree. History has shown us that inflation is almost exclusively a monetary phenomenon and is not affected by a change in minimum wage legislation.
This is an interesting topic.
Background: There's a little technique in economics, something of an on the fly proofing device, to help identify the direction of small changes in something. I like the term, "exaggeration". It works as follows in this context.
Question: Does an increase in minimum wage cause inflation? (let's ignore the lost jobs angle for a bit)-
Answer: Well, it's hard to know. Not that many people earn the minimum wage. Any increase in the minimum wage is trivial compared to aggregate income etc. So I don't know.
Exaggeration: Would a new minimum of $60,000 cause inflation? (let's again ignore the lost jobs angle)
Answer: Of course.
__________________________________
So my argument would be that an increase in the minimum wage, spillover benefits and negatives ignored, is inflationary.
The rub is the number of people earning the minimum wage, plus others who might see wage increases times the delta in minimum wage + other wage increases is such a trivial amount that it has an imperceptible nationwide impact on inflation.
What will really happen is this. Democrats will get their minimum wage increases and they will declare victory. A tiny handful of people will see the increase push their family income a few dollars above the federal poverty line and again the democrats will declare victory. Let's add in one of the negatives now -a couple million people will lose their jobs with most moving onto more or net new public assistance of various types...........and here the democrats will actually win because voters eating from the public trough are 85-15 or better democratic voters.
No, you're ignoring the very recent history I posted above in Post No. 3.
I'll say it again: California raised its min wage from $8 in 2013 annually in $1 steps to $13 on Jan. 1, unemployment fell from 8.4% to 3.9% and inflation is moderate.
The California experience proves that minimum wage hikes don't automatically cause job losses nor do they trigger outsized inflation.
So why don't we just raise the minimum wage to $50/hour for the entire country? If it doesn't cause any job losses or contribute to inflation, then what's the problem?
No, you're ignoring the very recent history I posted above in Post No. 3.
I'll say it again: California raised its min wage from $8 in 2013 annually in $1 steps to $13 on Jan. 1, unemployment fell from 8.4% to 3.9% and inflation is moderate.
The California experience proves that minimum wage hikes don't automatically cause job losses nor do they trigger outsized inflation.
Elliot you are a good guy and a smart guy................the argument above is really terrible.
I could say look at Texas. We haven't adjusted the minimum wage and U3 here 3.5% and inflation is moderate.
So why don't we just raise the minimum wage to $50/hour for the entire country? If it doesn't cause any job losses or contribute to inflation, then what's the problem?
So why don't we just raise the minimum wage to $50/hour for the entire country? If it doesn't cause any job losses or contribute to inflation, then what's the problem?
You would fit right in over at the Political Forum. Maybe give it a go over there with that logic.
There is a huge difference in catching up wages for the poor for 40 years or so of purchasing power loss and throwing out a retarded number with no basis in reality because you have nothing else of value to say.
While we have had some gains on the bottom end recently due to a tight labor market there is still a long way to go in simply catching these people up to where they were in the 70's much less seeing any gains. Let us not forget that the inflation measures we use don't accurately even come close to reflecting reality.
Here is another question for a few of you guys/(girls?) since my last question stumped you.
As I understand it, California currently has a minimum wage of $12/hour which is soon to go to $13/hour... right? OK, so a hamburger flipper (fast food worker) is likely at the bottom of the totem pole and would likely get only minimum wage when they begin work, right?
So then, why is it that the average pay for a fast food worker in San Francisco is currently almost $25/hour? Horrors! Shriek! You don't mean to tell me that the law of Supply and Demand is actually alive and well do you? If not, then what other explanation could you offer that would explain why fast food workers in San Francisco are making double what the minimum wage is for the state? Maybe they just have generous restaurant owners in San Francisco who just want to pay double what they have to out of the goodness of their heart. LOL. Yeah, sure.
Here is another question for a few of you guys/(girls?) since my last question stumped you.
As I understand it, California currently has a minimum wage of $12/hour which is soon to go to $13/hour... right? OK, so a hamburger flipper (fast food worker) is likely at the bottom of the totem pole and would likely get only minimum wage when they begin work, right?
So then, why is it that the average pay for a fast food worker in San Francisco is currently almost $25/hour? Horrors! Shriek! You don't mean to tell me that the law of Supply and Demand is actually alive and well do you? If not, then what other explanation could you offer that would explain why fast food workers in San Francisco are making double what the minimum wage is for the state? Maybe they just have generous restaurant owners in San Francisco who just want to pay double what they have to out of the goodness of their heart. LOL. Yeah, sure.
Says comparison is for a burger flipper, then provides link to data for:
A food service worker may work as a waiter, waitress or bartender at a restaurant; they may or may not need a certificate or license
Pretty big range of folks, waiters work really hard but can make ok change given the skills same for the bartender. Throwing them into the mix really skews averages so it is difficult to compare. These are not bottom barrel money jobs as in your comparison.
When comparing large groups with high deviation in pay you can't really look at averages for much of anything.
Also your argument is something called a straw-man. No one is saying the market doesn't work, people are simply pointing out that when the market fails to adjust for some things, say wages, child labor, OT hours etc it is ok for the government to step in.
There is a long history of corporations and people taking advantage of the poor. You can look not that far back in our history to find children in coal mines, working for nothing. Free market baby! No one sane would argue going back to that and no one sane should be aruging against groups of people failing to see any real wage gains over 40 years. When disparity like that shows up it is the job of the government to step in and fix it. Otherwise you end up with *gasp* dependence on social programs, higher crime and these people fall further and further behind.
Says comparison is for a burger flipper, then provides link to data for:
A food service worker may work as a waiter, waitress or bartender at a restaurant; they may or may not need a certificate or license
Why don't you try reading your own source before making yourself look even more like an ass.
After writing "burger flipper", I clearly wrote "fast food worker" so that slow learners like you would understand. Now, would you like to try to answer the question why fast food workers are being paid an average of $25/hr in San Fran when the minimum wage is only about half that... or are you stumped again?
Let me help you out. From the link:
Food Service Worker Tasks
Prepares food orders.
Works as short order cook.
Complete multiple cash and charge transactions.
Serves retail food items.
After writing "burger flipper", I clearly wrote "fast food worker" so that slow learners like you would understand. Now, would you like to try to answer the question why fast food workers are being paid an average of $25/hr in San Fran when the minimum wage is only about half that... or are you stumped again?
Your source is not for "fast food workers" and the average of $25/hr does not mean everyone makes that <sigh>. Not only are you dishonest, you are ignorant.
Feel free for the last word, I won't engage you further.
You would fit right in over at the Political Forum. Maybe give it a go over there with that logic.
There is a huge difference in catching up wages for the poor for 40 years or so of purchasing power loss and throwing out a retarded number with no basis in reality because you have nothing else of value to say.
While we have had some gains on the bottom end recently due to a tight labor market there is still a long way to go in simply catching these people up to where they were in the 70's much less seeing any gains. Let us not forget that the inflation measures we use don't accurately even come close to reflecting reality.
Negative. The other guy made a solid point. You simply don't like it.
How do you know inflation measures don't reflect reality?
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.
