Progressive Radio Rants -- Minimum Wage

[MaverickPLM]

No one has suggested it, but there have been groups calling for at least a $17/hr. minimum wage and the point of the exercise is to point out the flawed logic and natural extension of a government dictated wage.

The flawed logic here is your use of the slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Kid Eager]

No one has suggested it, but there have been groups calling for at least a $17/hr. minimum wage and the point of the exercise is to point out the flawed logic and natural extension of a government dictated wage.

And the government hasn't collapsed in the US with $8+ rates in parts of the US, that doesn't mean a government mandated minimum wage is the best fiscal policy. 48% of the PhD economists surveyed in my previous post thought the minimum wage should be decreased or eliminated. Only 38% thought it should be increased.

...which only seems to confirm the old joke about economists and opinions... (disclosure: I've done post-grad microeconomics and thought it was mostly bollocks - most of my MBA colleagues agreed).

Here's an extract from a paper reflecting those same conflicting views - quite good reading - one of the key concerns being that youth wages being too high prices unqualified people out of the market because even though they're cheaper than qualifed adults, they're also useless (or less useful, if I'm going to be accurate...):

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/edt/youthrep/report/CHAPTER5.PDF

 

[Stout]

one of the key concerns being that youth wages being too high prices unqualified people out of the market because even though they're cheaper than qualifed adults, they're also useless (or less useful, if I'm going to be accurate...):

One thing we tried locally was instituting a training wage where a person is paid below minimum wage for the first 500 hours of their working life. The idea was that someone new to the workforce would have an advantage over an experienced person when it came to competing for jobs.

I don't know how well it worked out but it's slated to be scrapped at the end of the month, at the same time minimum wage bumps up from $8/hr to $8.75/hr eventually hitting $10.25 a year from now.

So what's going to happen to all those unskilled, inexperienced teenagers looking for their first jobs ? I guess we'll see.

Speaking of useless teenagers, my buddy's 18 year old daughter, the high school dropout, just quit her second job because, as she puts it, she wanted Saturday off. So that's two jobs that can't appear on her resume as she only lasted a couple of weeks in each.

 

[Neally]

The flawed logic here is your use of the slippery slope fallacy.

I'm not saying that we should or could end up with a minimum wage of $100 so the slippery slope fallacy does not apply. The minimum wage has been around in the states for nearly 100 years, so again it's obvious that we are not on a non-stop course to hit $100. The point again is whether it's the best fiscal policy.

If $8.67 is good as the state of WA thinks, and some say $17 is better, why isn't $25 even better, or $50 or $100? What number is the best? How do we determine it? Most of the PhDs think the best number is less or even no minimum wage.

 

[leftysergeant]

I also enjoy all of the name calling. What are you people? 5 years old? Can you even have a rational discussion?

You're the one that just came in here whining about liberals wanting to "spend other people's money." Can anyone take you seriously after that? I can't.

A man's labor is what he has to offer the market. There is no less reason to pay him enough so that he is not in debt after neccessities are paid for than there is for McD's to sell their greasy slop at a loss.

 

[leftysergeant]

If $8.67 is good as the state of WA thinks, and some say $17 is better, why isn't $25 even better, or $50 or $100? What number is the best? How do we determine it? Most of the PhDs think the best number is less or even no minimum wage.

If $8.67 becomes less than it takes to pay for a sanitary place to flop and to cook, and to pay for food, transportation and a few little luxuries, then it is time to go to $10.

A PhD in ecconomics doesn't mean that the holder is rational. There are people with PhDs who still think Reagan and the Shrub were good presidents.

 

[WildCat]

In the current ecconomy, it doesn't take $100 an hour to afford a grungey little apartment, adequate food four one or two people, the electric bill and the month's car payments. Making the minimumwage much higher than that would cause inflation so that the unemployed would starve to death.

Does a "grungy apartment" cost the same in NYC as it does in Peoria?

Actually, i would like there to be a maximum wage. $2 million tops, unless some of it is put into government securities that can only be drawn down to cover retirement or medical needs.

That would stimulate the ecconomy. Re-invest it or lose it, Mr Moneybags.

What do you think Mr. Moneybags does with it now? Stash it under his mattress?

 

[WildCat]

If $8.67 becomes less than it takes to pay for a sanitary place to flop and to cook, and to pay for food, transportation and a few little luxuries, then it is time to go to $10.

A PhD in ecconomics doesn't mean that the holder is rational. There are people with PhDs who still think Reagan and the Shrub were good presidents.

What % of jobs do you think pay minimum wage? Why aren't all jobs minimum wage, since you seem to think corporations pay only the government-mandated minimum?

 

[leftysergeant]

One thing we tried locally was instituting a training wage where a person is paid below minimum wage for the first 500 hours of their working life. The idea was that someone new to the workforce would have an advantage over an experienced person when it came to competing for jobs.

I don't know how well it worked out but it's slated to be scrapped at the end of the month, at the same time minimum wage bumps up from $8/hr to $8.75/hr eventually hitting $10.25 a year from now.

So what's going to happen to all those unskilled, inexperienced teenagers looking for their first jobs ? I guess we'll see.

Silly argument. I think the proponents are counting on a high turnover rate so they can pay even less for the same margin of profit. There are enough skilled workers out there who need work. The newcomers who are worth minimum wage will still have jobs if there are jobs to be had and the drongos with no useful work habits will be left out in the cold until they figure out what they were doing wrong.

Everybody but the useless wins.

 

[WildCat]

The flawed logic here is your use of the slippery slope fallacy.

Except it's not a slippery slope fallacy. It's a demonstration of the flaw in the argument. Even lefty admits higher minimum wages are inflationary.

 

[WildCat]

Okay, back again.

Enough with the $100 per hour strawmen. Nobody has suggested that.

It's not USA, but here's a link where you can find the minimum legislated wage for your role. It's been in operation for years and world hasn't ended. Note that the junior wages aren't $100 per hour - somehow the government avoided falling into that seemingly attractive and inevitable trap:

http://paycheck.fwo.gov.au/PRCForm.aspx

Are you serious? Every job in Australia has a mandatory minimum wage unique to that job?

I guess bureaucrats need something to do.

 

[Neally]

If $8.67 becomes less than it takes to pay for a sanitary place to flop and to cook, and to pay for food, transportation and a few little luxuries, then it is time to go to $10.

And you still haven't explained why it shouldn't be at $100/hr. so that everyone can enjoy a luxurious place to flop, gourmet dining, limo service, and a lot of big luxuries. Why do you hate people enjoying life?

 

[Kid Eager]

Are you serious? Every job in Australia has a mandatory minimum wage unique to that job?

I guess bureaucrats need something to do.

Are you serious? You don't have this in the USA?

 

[WildCat]

Are you serious? You don't have this in the USA?

Do you seriously think this is doing you any good?

 

[leftysergeant]

Except it's not a slippery slope fallacy. It's a demonstration of the flaw in the argument. Even lefty admits higher minimum wages are inflationary.

Only if they are set higher than the original cost of the goods or services provided by the business paying that wage. If it is unreasonable to produce the product or service at a reasonable price without stealing labor to do it, somebody's business model totally sucks. It may even be that the product is not worth making, or was under-priced to begin with. Why would a rational society allow one man to undercut his rivals at the expense of his own workers? This sort of thing leads to monopolies, eventuially, and then to cutthroat pricing once the door has been slammed in the faces of new entrepreneurs.

 

[bikerdruid]

And you still haven't explained why it shouldn't be at $100/hr. so that everyone can enjoy a luxurious place to flop, gourmet dining, limo service, and a lot of big luxuries. Why do you hate people enjoying life?

he has explained it
...........really, what a stupid argument.
why is it that you can not see the sense in paying a fair price for labour?

 

[leftysergeant]

And you still haven't explained why it shouldn't be at $100/hr. so that everyone can enjoy a luxurious place to flop, gourmet dining, limo service, and a lot of big luxuries. Why do you hate people enjoying life?

Because it is not neccessary to have a limo and a big screen TV. It is neccessary to have a decent residence and food and transport. How many times must I say it?

 

[WildCat]

Only if they are set higher than the original cost of the goods or services provided by the business paying that wage. If it is unreasonable to produce the product or service at a reasonable price without stealing labor to do it, somebody's business model totally sucks. It may even be that the product is not worth making, or was under-priced to begin with.

Or it may be that no one is willing to pay that amount for that product. At the end of the day, you can't force people to buy it.

Why would a rational society allow one man to undercut his rivals at the expense of his own workers? This sort of thing leads to monopolies, eventuially, and then to cutthroat pricing once the door has been slammed in the faces of new entrepreneurs.

Except that doesn't happen, because a business that tries that will find they can't find any workers.

Which leads us to "jobs Americans won't do" that illegal immigration activists keep talking about... maybe Americans would do those jobs if businesses faced higher risks for hiring illegal workers? You want to bump the wages of unskilled workers? Crack down on illegal immigration and the companies that hire them. That meat packing factory in Iowa everyone criticizes ICE for had to bump wages 30% and up once they were forced to hire legal workers.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I find it funny how Liberals always want to spend everyone else's money. What is a "Day's decent wages" amount to? $46/day? $78.41/day? $120.18?

Not just liberals. Oil and farm subsidies ring a bell? Obvious binarian is obvious.

 

[Dorian Gray]

No one has suggested it, but there have been groups calling for at least a $17/hr. minimum wage and the point of the exercise is to point out the flawed logic and natural extension of a government dictated wage.

And the government hasn't collapsed in the US with $8+ rates in parts of the US, that doesn't mean a government mandated minimum wage is the best fiscal policy. 48% of the PhD economists surveyed in my previous post thought the minimum wage should be decreased or eliminated. Only 38% thought it should be increased.

Citation needed.

Also, you combine 'decreased' and 'eliminated' - I suspect that along with 'increased' there's a 'kept the same'. What happens when you combine those two categories into one stat? What happens when you leave all the categories separate?