$15 an hour? Too low! Make it $20 an hour (dollars, leader, economic)

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by WestCobb

I think people who are arguing that minimum wage should be $15 an hour are shooting too low. Who can live on that? I think it should be more like $20. What do you think?

That's great. I think we need to inspire kids to leave school to enter the workforce early. Can't make 20 an hour sittin' in a classroom.

[Old Gringo]

Ok

[SourD]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

Go raise a family on $7.25 an hour and come back in a year and we'll talk about stress and the toll it can take on your mental health

Don't have a family if you can only make $7.25 an hour. Pretty simple.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

Go raise a family on $7.25 an hour and come back in a year and we'll talk about stress and the toll it can take on your mental health

Don't go starting a family if you cannot afford to raise them on the salary you make.
Burger flipper is not a lifetime career. Only 4% make min wage and of that 4% more than half are younger than 25.

[Vejadu]

At $20/hr, even $15/hr, its going to encourage employers to find drastic cost-cutting measures that will end up squeezing out a large number of jobs. If anything, its going to encourage automation.

Its hard to compete for jobs against a larger pool of potential applicants at $20/hr. It's impossible to compete against a machine that doesn't take breaks, does't get sick and can work 24/7. We're already seeing more and more self-service kiosks at retail. This will only accelerate the rate at which these low-skill jobs are vanishing. In 2004, Blockbuster had 60,000 employees. Within ten years, streaming and Redbox rental kiosks eliminated all of those jobs. The same will happen to other low-skill jobs. Self-checkout kiosks are already replacing cashiers at retail. Automation can easily reduce a fast-food staff from 10 to 2-3.

While it might be good for the people who manage to find the remaining jobs, it's devastating for those who have no skills and find themselves perpetually unemployed because they're competing with much more educated and qualified applicants or they've been replaced by machines.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by WestCobb

$20 an hour is reasonable compensation. $1,000 an hour is loony.

So regardless of how trivial the work is - someone should be paid $20/hour? Same in NYC as in Omaha?

School teachers with a college degree are paid a bit more than that in much of the US. Shouldn't they earn a lot more than a french fry cook?

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Vejadu

At $20/hr, even $15/hr, its going to encourage employers to find drastic cost-cutting measures that will end up squeezing out a large number of jobs. If anything, its going to encourage automation.

Its hard to compete for jobs against a larger pool of potential applicants at $20/hr. It's impossible to compete against a machine that doesn't take breaks, does't get sick and can work 24/7. We're already seeing more and more self-service kiosks at retail. This will only accelerate the rate at which these low-skill jobs are vanishing. In 2004, Blockbuster had 60,000 employees. Within ten years, streaming and Redbox rental kiosks eliminated all of those jobs. The same will happen to other low-skill jobs. Self-checkout kiosks are already replacing cashiers at retail. Automation can easily reduce a fast-food staff from 10 to 2-3.

While it might be good for the people who manage to find the remaining jobs, it's devastating for those who have no skills and find themselves perpetually unemployed because they're competing with much more educated and qualified applicants or they've been replaced by machines.

Technology happens regardless of wages. Blockbuster would have gone under even if they only had to pay their employees $2/hr.

We will see some jobs replaced or streamlined as technology advances, even if we don't raise minimum wage a penny over the next 30 years.

[GregW]

I can see paying a box shuffler or a construction laborer $20 an hour because that is very hard work. I cannot see paying an executive vice president of planning the company picnic $1,000 an hour to keep a swivel chair warm.

[ContrarianEcon]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

The value of labor fluctuates, which is why I and millions of others get a COLA every year. Minimum wage should keep up with inflation.

Actually I think we would be better off if it lead inflation a bit.

"Fiscal stimulus can either be a boon for an economy or its bane. This column discusses new empirical research on how the effects of fiscal stimuli interact with public debt-to-GDP ratios. Using data on real GDP, private investment and the trade balance, evidence suggests that the cumulative effect on real GDP is positive at moderate debt-to-GDP ratios but turns negative as the ratio increases. The evidence also suggests that the cumulative trade-balance effect is negative at first but switches sign at higher degrees of indebtedness." Fiscal stimulus in times of high public debt: Reconsidering multipliers and twin deficits | VOX, CEPR

"For every dollar spent on that program (food stamps) $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said." Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008

Adding to the minimum wage wages should have approximately the same effect as food stamps.

Considering our results against
the background of the recent surge in public debt levels for nearly all industrialized countries,
this suggests that further fiscal stimuli programmes may not only be ineffective but even counterproductive.

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1513.pdf

If you want effective economic stimulus then upping bottom end wages is what you want.

Taking on more debt as % of GDP doesn't work when debt id high. Increasing wages does get economic growth when debt a % of GDP is high.

[ContrarianEcon]

Originally Posted by billydaman

A logical conclusion in regard to employment is it either has a neutral or negative effect.

Take a look at my above analysis.