Minimum Wage destroys jobs--again!

[shanek]

Well, yes, but that happens irrespective of minimum wage hikes.

Well, no. The technological solution might cost $7/hour to operate. If MW goes up from $6.50 to $7.50, all of a sudden that technological solution is the cheaper option.

 

[Luke T.]

How many people on MW in toto who allegedly end up unemployed due to a minimum wage increase are dependent on their job to survive and not for the spending money?

Answer my question, and yours is answered.

 

[Tmy]

Well, no. The technological solution might cost $7/hour to operate. If MW goes up from $6.50 to $7.50, all of a sudden that technological solution is the cheaper option.

Ok lets say that happens. Joe is laid off cause the widget factory now buys a machine to replace him. He can just go down the street and find another min wage job at McDs. the result is that Joe hsi making another buck an hour.

 

[Luke T.]

That's it, folks. No need to read further.

I'd like for you to go to those poor who just lost their jobs and tell them how wonderful it is for them that they're not "exploited" anymore. See how many punch you in the face...

I'd like for you to go those poor who are trying to survive on minimum wage and tell them they don't need a raise in the MW and discuss the so-nineteenth-century concept of "liberty of contract". See how many punch you in the face.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Even assuming this crackpot study has it's facts right, the only comment I have to the results is: so what?

How are they in any way relevant to anything at all?

Please answer the simple question, shanek. Thanks.

 

[Tmy]

I get the MW economic theory. But in theory communism works.

Lets look at reality. Weve had min wage laws in place for some time, yet our economy thrives. The "poor" in the US live like kings compared to some other freewheelin non-mw countries.

In the US we have a fed min wage, but many states have higher min wage laws. You would think all the jobs would flee those states for the cheaper states, but many of them do quite well within the country.

there are just so many factors that go into local empoyee/er dance.

 

[Snide]

For that 40 it is. Why do you feel you get to harm that 40 to benefit the others?

Where do you get the idea I feel that way?

I mean, it's kind of like the whole, "here's a healthy guy in the waiting room let's kill him and take his organs so that 10 other people here can live" kind of thing.

Well, since you choose to compare initiating a process that will lead to layoffs to killing someone to help others, I submit that it is more kind of like a bunch of colonists saying they're sick of Mother England and how she's treating us. We need a revolution...some of us will die (and a LOT more than 40 per 50,000+) for the benefit of others, but the end result is better.

 

[Snide]

Really? Last MW thread was about two dozen pages of almost nothing but.

I will check it out when I get time and see how close it was to 24 pages of almost nothing but "minimum wage laws have no effect on unemployment" arguments.

If your claim holds up, I will admit it here.

 

[Snide]

Well, no. The technological solution might cost $7/hour to operate. If MW goes up from $6.50 to $7.50, all of a sudden that technological solution is the cheaper option.

You are correcting me on this exchange?:

Tmy: 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.

Wildcat: Not if there is a technological solution that is cheaper than hiring a 10th worker.

Snide: Well, yes, but that happens irrespective of minimum wage hikes. (Simple translation: Walmart will employ 9 instead of 10 if technology can replace the 10th worker, regardless of whether there ever was a minimum wage hike.)

shanek: Well, no.

So you are telling me I am wrong that regardless of whether there was a minimum wage hike, the practice of more efficient technology replacing human labor does occur. Nice.

Because I am in 100% agreement with the rest of your response (as would be anyone who has made it through 9th grade), I will take the high road and presume you mis-read the exchange, or misunderstood my response.

 

[Solitaire]

I am curious to know for how long the employment level is depressed after a mininum wage hike.

If we assume a ten percent hike in the minimum wage and an annual inflation rate of three point two percent then it will take approximately three years to return to normal.

Often reporters will note that the the minimum wage rises in states with fast growing economies and the minimum wage doesn't rise in states with slow growing economies. This creates a false impression that raising the minimum wage causes a growing economy. In fact, politicians, who raise the minimum wage, understand the effects of a minimum wage, and have good access to the economic data. They know that practically no one in their state works for minimum wages, thus if they raise the minimum wage then they will pay no political costs and get the benefits of appearing to help the working poor. It's a simple game.


Here's the most recent NewsHour reports on the matter:

Business Divided Over Impact Of Higher Minimum Wage

Grassley And Rangel Debate Competing Minimum Wage Bills

 

[SezMe]

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.

There may well be no unbiased organizations, period. And while your second point is theoretically true, practically, bias can play a huge role in the effectiveness and validity of a study done by an organization that has, itself, a stake in the outcome.

Take, as the quintessential example, all the smoking/cancer studies done 50 years ago by groups funded by the tobacco industry.

Do you believe there is simply no evidence upon which one could judge whose economic theories make more sense?

Much too broad a question. I imagine PhD theses have been written on a more narrowly drawn question.

 

[SezMe]

This is just the latest in a long line of study after study after study showing the same thing.

Geeez, Shane, you didn't even look at that wiki page, did you? The EXACT same statement can be made by those who disagree with you. While you may not like that fact, there it is. Again, it is intellectually dishonest to ignore those studies, trumpet those that support you and make the claim in the title of this thread.

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I notice those drops aren't huge. Surely the 10% increase would mean an overall increase in the total pay of low-end jobs. I'd gladly take a situation where I was paid 10% more and spent 4% more time between jobs. It's more pay and less work.

 

[burnvictim77]

Why wouldnt they just get the 9 to do the work of 10 even without the hike in wages?

Saves the hassel. If they are making a comfortable profit, they may not feel the need to cut staff. Now, if you pass a law which raises their costs, what do you think they are going to do? Simply accept lower returns on their investments?

 

[burnvictim77]

I get the MW economic theory. But in theory communism works.

Lets look at reality. Weve had min wage laws in place for some time, yet our economy thrives. The "poor" in the US live like kings compared to some other freewheelin non-mw countries.

In the US we have a fed min wage, but many states have higher min wage laws. You would think all the jobs would flee those states for the cheaper states, but many of them do quite well within the country.

there are just so many factors that go into local empoyee/er dance.

And in areas where you raise the minimum wage, you also have higher costs of living. Do you see a possible connection there? We are in one of the most expensive nations to live in. And every time we raise the minimum wage, we see more people working below it. There are studies to support this, even those by our own benevolent Gov't.

 

[burnvictim77]

There may well be no unbiased organizations, period. And while your second point is theoretically true, practically, bias can play a huge role in the effectiveness and validity of a study done by an organization that has, itself, a stake in the outcome.

Take, as the quintessential example, all the smoking/cancer studies done 50 years ago by groups funded by the tobacco industry.


Much too broad a question. I imagine PhD theses have been written on a more narrowly drawn question.

Are the studies wrong because there were funded by the tobacco industry? Or are they wrong because their science is flawed?

And the broad question can be rephrased as this: What evidence would convince you that MW is good, or, conversly, bad?

 

[shanek]

Answer my question, and yours is answered.

My answer is, probably very few. Yours?

 

[shanek]

I get the MW economic theory. But in theory communism works.

Lets look at reality. Weve had min wage laws in place for some time, yet our economy thrives.

Fallacious reasoning. There's a reason for the concept of ceteris paribus.

I will fully recover from my injuries; a year from now I'll be just as I was before (or near enough). So, it must be a good thing to be hit by a drunk driver, right?

Just because people, or the economy, can recover from something, and even thrive in spite of it, doesn't mean that that something isn't a bad thing.

The "poor" in the US live like kings compared to some other freewheelin non-mw countries.

Or even many Socialist MW countries. The poor, as I established in another thread, are so much better off because we've had much more of a free market than just about anywhere else.

In the US we have a fed min wage, but many states have higher min wage laws. You would think all the jobs would flee those states for the cheaper states,

And many do, as the old MW thread shows.

Your arguments would only make sense if MW were the only factor in unemployment. Clearly, it isn't. So everything you have said is specious.

 

[shanek]

Well, since you choose to compare initiating a process that will lead to layoffs to killing someone to help others, I submit that it is more kind of like a bunch of colonists saying they're sick of Mother England and how she's treating us. We need a revolution...some of us will die (and a LOT more than 40 per 50,000+) for the benefit of others, but the end result is better.

The difference is, those people chose that path, after a very long and tumultuous debate. And besides, the alternative was to do nothing and let the crown continue to oppress and kill people. They were fighting an active foe. There is no such foe here.

 

[shanek]

So you are telling me I am wrong that regardless of whether there was a minimum wage hike, the practice of more efficient technology replacing human labor does occur.

I am saying that MW hikes make the technology more cost-effective. You said it happens irrespective of MW; that's the part I was disagreeing with.