Minimum Wage destroys jobs--again!

Random said:
Death by starvation may be rare,
Click to expand...

It's not just rare, it's nonexistent as far as I can tell.

but poor nutrition can lead to any number of medical conditions ranging from diabetes to immune deficiency to, ironically, obesity. These can lead to large medical costs, lost work time, etc.
Click to expand...

Sure. But even if income itself was the primary culprit in poor nutrition among the poor (there's reason to suspect that it's primarily about education, not income), the EIC would STILL be a better tool for combatting that poor nutrition than the minimum wage.
 
Beerina said:
I think someone paid a dollar a year would die of starvation rather quickly. Hence it would not be in their interest to work for such a wage (nor anybody's interest). Hence the job position would remain unfilled.

So A could either raise his wage offer, or do without. It isn't A's fault that B is poorly educated, not very smart at figuring things out, lazy, or some combo of the above. B, and everyone else, should be glad A even offers the job to begin with.

"Four dollars an hour? No? Five? No? Six? Ahh, three takers. I pick...you. Off you go!"
Click to expand...

Guess you have never heard of sweat shops. Do you believe that workers aren't exploited around the world? Do you believe that someone won't submit himself to an indecent wage because he knows that if he doesn't, someone else will take the job, and a few dollars is better than no dollars? Do you believe that employers are ignorant of this and don't take advantage of it?
 
Ziggurat said:
It's not just rare, it's nonexistent as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it is non-existent, but it may be hidden. A homeless man in Boston who doesn't get enough calories to maintain his body heat this time of year dies of "exposure", not starvation.

Sure. But even if income itself was the primary culprit in poor nutrition among the poor (there's reason to suspect that it's primarily about education, not income), the EIC would STILL be a better tool for combatting that poor nutrition than the minimum wage.
Click to expand...
Actually, a good chunk of it is availability and cost of food. Urban poor and middle-class people can find themselves actually paying more for lower quality food than other groups. Do a google search on “grocery gap” to see what I mean.
 
Random said:
I wouldn't say it is non-existent, but it may be hidden. A homeless man in Boston who doesn't get enough calories to maintain his body heat this time of year dies of "exposure", not starvation.
Click to expand...

A homeless man in Boston who isn't at a shelter on a cold night probably has mental problems, too. And increasing the minimum wage won't help him.
 
Skeptic said:
Let's take an extreme case: suppose there are no minimum wage laws. Suppsoe further A is B's slave but, to avoid charges of human slavery, B pays A a symbolic $1 a year for his 16 hours of work per day. Now, a minimum wage law is passed; B, cursing, instantly fires A, who--lacking the ability to find a job--is now unemployed.

On Shane's interpretation, the minimum wage law had horribly hurt A by causing his unemployment, thus "hurting the very people it proposes to help".

The problem with this claim, as the example illustrates, is that the minimum wage law is in there no to maximize employment per se, but to prevent exploitation of the poor. The idea is, it is sometimes better to be unemployed than to be exploited.
Click to expand...


No, minimum wage laws effectively make those with minimal to no job skills unemployable.

In you scenario, why does A work for B? Probably due to desperation, right? Clearly A has no job skills.
In a scenario where you have to pay A a minumum of let's say, $10,000 a year instead of $1, what you have done accept set the price of craptastic labor extremely high?
 
There are ALWAYS min wage jobs available. Fast food, wallymarts, they are always hiring.
 
Tmy said:
There are ALWAYS min wage jobs available. Fast food, wallymarts, they are always hiring.
Click to expand...

This can be an indicator of vacant positions, or it can merely indicate fast turnover. With high turnover, it is easy to get jobs where there are far more applicants than openings, and yet openings still get advertised on an almost continual basis.
 
I think it is intellectually dishonest to cite one particular study and declare your own preferred answer is the Truth, once again.

There are innumerable studies on this issue that reach opposite conclusions. Go to wiki for just a start.

To counter Shanek, I could cite this study:
In general, there is no valid, research-based rationale for believing that state minimum wages cause measurable job losses.
Click to expand...
and it would be just as wrong for me to conclude, "So, there. End of discussion."

I went to the Employment Policies Institute and learned two things:
1. It is not a unbiased organization.
2. They reveal NOTHING about their funding sources.

Regards the latter, I'm sure Shanek would agree with the political maxim to "follow the money" which is why point #2 is relevant.

Finally, note that I take no position on this matter because there are enough studies and experts on both sides that I don't think there is one simple answer. THAT is the crux of my objection to the OP.
 
Ziggurat said:
This can be an indicator of vacant positions, or it can merely indicate fast turnover. With high turnover, it is easy to get jobs where there are far more applicants than openings, and yet openings still get advertised on an almost continual basis.
Click to expand...


True.

But dont these places also work with a bare minimum # of workers to be as effiecent as possible?? They dont have extra workers lying around just for the heck of it.

So if Wallymart needs 10 guysto run a shift, THey have 10 guys. If the min wage goes up, theyre not going to just have 9 guys on shift. They NEED 10.
 
SezMe said:
I went to the Employment Policies Institute and learned two things:
1. It is not a unbiased organization.
2. They reveal NOTHING about their funding sources.
Click to expand...

I would like to point out two things:

1. In economics, there is no unbaised organization.
2. Bias, in itself, does not disprove their arguments.

Do you believe there is simply no evidence upon which one could judge whose economic theories make more sense?
 
burnvictim77 said:
Define exploit.
Click to expand...
108645d4e65d84eab.jpg
 
I don't know of anyone who makes minimum wage. Even the illegal immigrants get $120 per day plus lunch. Than again this is New York.
 
Tmy said:
True.

But dont these places also work with a bare minimum # of workers to be as effiecent as possible?? They dont have extra workers lying around just for the heck of it.

So if Wallymart needs 10 guysto run a shift, THey have 10 guys. If the min wage goes up, theyre not going to just have 9 guys on shift. They NEED 10.
Click to expand...

No, actually, it's not that simple. There are a whole lot of possibilities for how things could change if wages were more fluid, but the basic issue is that there is not, in fact, a lump sum of labor that needs to be accomplished. There is an essentially unlimited pool of labor that could be done, and it never all gets done. Walmart, along with every other employer, will keep hiring employees as long as the value of the marginal work (that is, the work each additional worker would contribute) exceeds the cost of hiring, and they will fire people (or refrain from hiring) when the marginal cost exceeds the marginal value. Now it's true that for many situations, the marginal value of labor decreases as the amount of labor increases (diminishing returns, which can lead to relative inelasticity in the demand for labor), but it's pretty much never the case that the demand for labor is completely inelastic.
 
Tmy said:
True.

But dont these places also work with a bare minimum # of workers to be as effiecent as possible?? They dont have extra workers lying around just for the heck of it.

So if Wallymart needs 10 guysto run a shift, THey have 10 guys. If the min wage goes up, theyre not going to just have 9 guys on shift. They NEED 10.
Click to expand...

No, they will quite likely only have 9 and attempt to get them to do the work of the former 10. Human 'labor units' are not so easy to calculate. And thus, socialist prices make very little sense to me and the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom