Minimum Wage destroys jobs--again!

[shanek]

Wait, are you telling us the minimum wage creates jobs?

That's not what's happening. What's happening is that demand for the higher-wage jobs has increased--exactly as economics predicts.

 

[shanek]

Companies should be mandated to permit breaks and should be aggressively prosecuted for coercing, or encouraging employees to forego their breaks. However, the individual should remain free to work during the break should he/she want.

But that's completely contradictory! It's like you're saying that the employee gets to break the law and the employer doesn't!

And in any sense, it doesn't work that way. The law does not recognize that employees can give up their break times. There have been quite a number of cases on that basis. Either they both get to do it, or neither does.

The same goes for gay porn, if someone is willing to do it, they should have that right. But, outside of working in the gay porn industry of course, an individual shouldn't be coerced into being in a gay porn simply because their boss might decide one day to make that a condition of employment. So far, I have seen no protection in the "free market" that would prevent such a situation.

Again, quitting? Just refusing to do it?

 

[shanek]

If we all had magic wands we could wave, which could give us whatever we wanted, would you not agree that we'd all be very wealthy, even though no one would be paying anyone any money for anything?

I think there are several works of literature which show that this would not be the case. Also, an old Chinese curse goes, "May your every wish be instantly fulfilled." There's something to be said for working for and earning things. You value those more than things which are just given to you.

I once heard a story (I don't know if it's actually, true, but it easily could be) about a guy who bought a new fridge and just wanted to get rid of the old one. There was nothing wrong with it, he just wanted a new and better fridge and wasn't interested in getting anything for the old one; just to be rid of it. So he put it out in his yard with a sign that says, "Free refrigerator--just come and haul it away."

Weeks went by; no takers. So then he removed the sign and replaced it with one that said, "Refrigerator: $50."

The next day someone stole it.

 

[Merko]

Yes, because it frees up both capital and labor that can now be used on other things and generate even more wealth in the economy. Redundant busywork doesn't contribute anything.

I agree with Shane here.

So do I, and this is one of the reasons why increased minimum wages can be beneficial to the overall economy. If low wage jobs are replaced by machinery (because that gets relatively cheaper when the wage rises) then that can be a good thing. Of course, that presupposes that these workers can find something else to do which is more productive. Assuming that social and political forces will act in order to make use of the freed productive potential, this will happen.

 

[Merko]

And it seems that millions of Americans would rather do a job as a manager than gay porn.

Who says you've got to choose?

 

[Tony]

But that's completely contradictory! It's like you're saying that the employee gets to break the law and the employer doesn't!

No it isn't. This is a strawman.

Again, quitting? Just refusing to do it?

So the "freemarket" offers no protection. Thanks for proving my point. This is what I'm talking about, you don't have a solution, you have dogma. I'd like to add that it's pretty sick that you think an employer should be entitled to violate the human and individual rights of his employees by making gay sex a condition of employment.

 

[69dodge]

I think you are trying to pick a fight here that I won't give you. Money is not the most important thing in my life, nor do I recommend people stop pursuing their art or entertainment.

No. Sorry if it sounded that way. I don't know you personally, of course. I was just speaking generally.

It's just that we are talking about an economy, and my personal pursuits don't contribute as much to that economy as do things like my labor that I see to a business to produce goods and services people pay for.

Claus was talking about stuff that he writes. Not just for himself, but for other people to read. If they want to read it, and they get to read it, then that's good. If he doesn't charge money to read it, that's even better, because then some people will get to read it who couldn't otherwise afford to.

 

[Tony]

That's not what's happening.

It's not? Job aren't being created in Washington because Idaho can't compete? I guess all those people jumping the border into Washington are working for imaginary companies.

 

[Tony]

Okay, then: why do you think a free market cannot exist?

Because control will always fall to those with the greatest power.

They aren't.

Yes, they are. If they quit, what are their options? Go work somewhere else that denies them the same rights because said rights aren't protected by the government? Because, historically, that's pretty much been their only option.

They can demand shorter hours.

Of course you're assuming they have that right.

I think it's an insult to the millions of people who really were enslaved when someone equates a Wal-Mart employee with slavery.

I don't know who you're reading, but I never brought up wall mart.

 

[Tony]

How does one become subjugated to the economy?

Laws, and the way the system is allowed to operate. In short, the exact same way anyone becomes subjugated to anything.

That's not an answer.

Yes it is, you just don't like it. Furthermore, I think the onus is on you to justify how you can equate the economy and the individual.

It directly relates to the point at hand.

No it doesn't. I have said nothing about "someone can be encouraged to do something to help out a company, the people they employ, the investors, and the economy as a whole, just by charging some extra money for it, what's the problem?"

 

[Foolmewunz]

The problem with the study is that it ignores nearly 50% of the MW earning population. There should be emphasis that this study is 16 to 24 year olds. After reading the entire report, I'm not sure why they left off the million persons who don't fit into that category. That's a huge number.

Now, it's possible that the study was written or commissioned to specifically address the claims by people who insist that it is precisely this group who are helped by increases in the MW, but it's equally possible that the older workers are more skilled/educated (this is implied in the study but not documented) and thus not effected.


Bolding/emphasis added.....

Quote:
A study released today by the Employment Policies Institute (EPI) reveals the increasing job losses that plague minorities and high school drop-outs following minimum wage hikes.

The research, conducted by Dr. David Neumark, economist at the University of California, Irvine, looks at the effects minimum wage hikes have had since the welfare reforms of the 1990s. The author focused specifically on the impact of minimum wage hikes on employment levels, wages, and income for teens and young adults.

The author found that for every 10% increase in the minimum wage:
Minority unemployment increased by 3.9% for workers between 16-24 y.o.
Hispanic unemployment increased by 4.9% ditto
Minority teen unemployment increased 6.6% ditto
African American teen unemployment increased by 8.4% ditto
Low-skilled unemployment (i.e., those lacking a high school diploma) increased by 8% ditto

I'd also like to see some of the famed trickle-down economy folks comment on the trickle up effect. Does anyone presume that MW earners are not going to be spending their increased salaries in the community on goods and services? Even allowing for an average (temporary, as in one year) DECREASE in the number of MW earners at an astronomical 4%* (averaging the impact on minorities as mentioned in the study), the net effect of the proposed increase is an injection of roughly 2.0 billion USD into the economy.

Further, examination of MW earners in the last quarter century shows that the overall number of MW earners did not consistently decrease in the year of or year after an increase. This would seem to negate the contention in the OP.

The tendency seems to be more related to the economy as a whole, not to the marginal hourly increase of the lowest tier of the economy. Ergo the asterisked comment above that I was allowing for an "astronomical 4%" in the mentioned added cash to the service economy. The actual figure for the overall decrease in the few years that it has occurred is actually less than 1%.

Ergo, what is the purpose of the study, and its purpose in singling out the statistically significant sampling only?

Addendum: As to the cost of the technological solution versus the cost of labor, this theory shows little understanding of business practices. Any solution that can be introduced that will reduce the workforce at a cost even roughly close to (even marginally higher than) the cost of labor, WILL BE INTRODUCED. The initial investment can be written off, the announcement of labor reductions to come increases the share prices, and the main attraction is the relative certainty of relying on a single technician or service rep rather than being buffeted by larger labor pools. If McDonald's could replace little Johnny with an automatic burger flipper, it would.

 

[pipelineaudio]

want to help minimum wage earners?

STOP speculating on real estate pigs

get rid of homeowners associations which are made to solely increase real estate value

STOP thinking of homes as investments and start realizing that people need somewhere to LIVE!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice that you can afford 4 houses, but MUST you???

My city is becoming a ghost town, the poor and middle class are all moving into overpriced apartments because their homes are WAY out of their league pricewise now

greedy pigs abound, Im sure Ill be told off, but whatever

 

[Darth Rotor]

want to help minimum wage earners?

STOP speculating on real estate pigs

get rid of homeowners associations which are made to solely increase real estate value

STOP thinking of homes as investments and start realizing that people need somewhere to LIVE!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice that you can afford 4 houses, but MUST you???

My city is becoming a ghost town, the poor and middle class are all moving into overpriced apartments because their homes are WAY out of their league pricewise now

greedy pigs abound, Im sure Ill be told off, but whatever

Try coherence, it is a virtue.

DR

 

[Tony]

want to help minimum wage earners?

STOP speculating on real estate pigs

get rid of homeowners associations which are made to solely increase real estate value

STOP thinking of homes as investments and start realizing that people need somewhere to LIVE!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice that you can afford 4 houses, but MUST you???

My city is becoming a ghost town, the poor and middle class are all moving into overpriced apartments because their homes are WAY out of their league pricewise now

greedy pigs abound, Im sure Ill be told off, but whatever

I got a feeling you're talking about something important here. Can you elaborate or post a story about the phenomenon you're describing?

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus was talking about stuff that he writes. Not just for himself, but for other people to read. If they want to read it, and they get to read it, then that's good. If he doesn't charge money to read it, that's even better, because then some people will get to read it who couldn't otherwise afford to.

And if I come up with an idea, or somebody else comes up with an idea based on what I write, that creates wealth, then my unpaid interest in improving myself has created wealth.

Shanek believes all human beings are nothing but selfish greed-heads. Everything is done for money.

Fortunately, he is wrong.

 

[Totovader]

The problem with the study is that it ignores nearly 50% of the MW earning population. There should be emphasis that this study is 16 to 24 year olds. After reading the entire report, I'm not sure why they left off the million persons who don't fit into that category. That's a huge number.

Seems to me, that's what the study was about- and that was quite clear.

Now, it's possible that the study was written or commissioned to specifically address the claims by people who insist that it is precisely this group who are helped by increases in the MW, but it's equally possible that the older workers are more skilled/educated (this is implied in the study but not documented) and thus not effected.

I'm not sure you're reading it right- these jobs do not simply get reassigned to older or more skilled people: they get abandoned, or merged with the already higher paid jobs. One person starts doing 2 jobs.

I'd also like to see some of the famed trickle-down economy folks comment on the trickle up effect. Does anyone presume that MW earners are not going to be spending their increased salaries in the community on goods and services?

Goods and services that are now more expensive? How does that trickle up?

Even allowing for an average (temporary, as in one year) DECREASE in the number of MW earners at an astronomical 4%* (averaging the impact on minorities as mentioned in the study), the net effect of the proposed increase is an injection of roughly 2.0 billion USD into the economy.

Money just gets invented? From what?

Further, examination of MW earners in the last quarter century shows that the overall number of MW earners did not consistently decrease in the year of or year after an increase. This would seem to negate the contention in the OP.

No, I don't think it does- but I'd like to see your analysis on this.

The tendency seems to be more related to the economy as a whole, not to the marginal hourly increase of the lowest tier of the economy. Ergo the asterisked comment above that I was allowing for an "astronomical 4%" in the mentioned added cash to the service economy. The actual figure for the overall decrease in the few years that it has occurred is actually less than 1%.

I'm not quite sure I follow- but it's a decrease, right? If the claim of proponents of MW is that it creates wealth, creates jobs, etc- a decrease is a decrease.

Ergo, what is the purpose of the study, and its purpose in singling out the statistically significant sampling only?

I'm not quite sure why you're confused?

 

[Schneibster]

you don't have a solution, you have dogma

This is why I don't talk to it. Anything that accuses someone of lying about whether a browser works because they's a librul and must be lying about everything isn't worth the time to talk to.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I got a feeling you're talking about something important here. Can you elaborate or post a story about the phenomenon you're describing?

How much simpler does it need to be?

Investors (who already have a home to live in) are driving house (as in a place to live) prices to insane dimensions, by buying (paying money to purchase something), more, sometimes many more houses than they plan on living in.

Regular people, as in not rich, are not able to afford housing. Even apartments have gone insane

Belive it or not, this hurts people

 

[pipelineaudio]

Try coherence, it is a virtue.

DR

reading comprehension problems? Maybe the dumbed down version for Tony will help

 

[Foolmewunz]

Seems to me, that's what the study was about- and that was quite clear.

To some, perhaps. But from the posts in this thread, apparently not to all. I wanted to re-emphasize that it's talking about 16-24 year olds, and while the survey/report covers all sub-groups within that age range, the article at EPI doesn't mention them at all.

I'm not sure you're reading it right- these jobs do not simply get reassigned to older or more skilled people: they get abandoned, or merged with the already higher paid jobs. One person starts doing 2 jobs.

Did you read the study cited in the OP? It does not say that. Several posters in this thread assume that, but the study merely covers statistics in the groups cited. The full study also indicates that there are other key minority segments that actually benefit from MW increases.

Goods and services that are now more expensive? How does that trickle up?

Where do you get the assumption that the costs for goods and services will go up by 2.0 billion dollars in the first year of an increase in the MW. That's a very lowball under-estimation of the amount of additional earnings those 2.1 million people working at or below MW would get under the proposed increases. And the lowest end wage-earners aren't going to be investing in stock portfolios. They're going to be buying better food, furniture, etc.... In short, pumping money back into the economy.

Money just gets invented? From what?

It's not invented, it's paid out in wages. Multiply 2.1 million workers times the amount of the increase, which is rather large this go-round, and deduct a suitable number (allowing for the survey cited in the OP) who will lose their jobs, and you still get a net increase in the billions. (Yes, billions.)

No, I don't think it does- but I'd like to see your analysis on this.

As you wish. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2003tbls.htm

I'm not quite sure I follow- but it's a decrease, right? If the claim of proponents of MW is that it creates wealth, creates jobs, etc- a decrease is a decrease.

It's a decrease in only the highlighted minority categories mentioned in the OP. As mentioned, the full study actually mentions differing effects in certain sub-sets of that same 16-24 y.o. group.

To be more specific, the research cited in the OP states that this segment of the population suffers, i.e. loses those MW jobs. But the overall MW population does not suffer, it actually increases in the year of an increase in the MW. Check the tables in the above link.
Obviously, what happens is that in the year of an increase the number of workers and percentage of workers are now statistically larger because workers earning slightly over the MW (old) are now in that statistical pool. Notwithstanding that factor, it's not until one and two years after a MW increase that the numbers in those categories go down. And there is NOTHING in the report cited that indicates that they can say whether that is because of a good economy, persons working their way up from the lowest paying jobs, or other causes. All that the studies show are statistics.

I'm not quite sure why you're confused?

I wasn't, actually. I'm questioning the article cited for cherry-picking the portions of the study that assisted its agenda, ignoring the portions that detracted from its view (young women 16-24, for instance), and not including a million people who evidently were of no use to them statistically. Maybe one ought to find out who EPI are.