Progressive Radio Rants -- Minimum Wage

[Dorian Gray]

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.

Could "it's time to get a second job" be another option?

 

[Dorian Gray]

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?

You and 'serious' should meet.

 

[leftysergeant]

Could "it's time to get a second job" be another option?

You know, there are limits to the energy that any human being can expend trying to obtain a minimal lifestyle.

Tell them cheetas to go catch more mice.

 

[Kid Eager]

Do you seriously think this is doing you any good?

I'm not sure how to interpret your question.

The differing cultural pespectives on what is or isn't shocking/surprising regarding wages and labour is well within the purview of this thread.

Do I have to be seriously thinking this for it to be good? What if I'm less serious? Can frivolous thinking have just as much merit? Perhaps I'm confusing which "this" you are referring to. Is the "you" meaning me personally, or the nation? If "doing you any good" includes "am I happy", then the answer is "yes".

 

[Grizzly Adams]

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?

So what? What if I already have a job that pays well and I can already secure my "day's provisions" from that but I really want to climb Annapurna (because I obviously have some sort of deathwish) so I take a second job to raise enough money for that? Why should an employer have to pay me enough to cover what I already have if I'm willing to work for less?

 

[Dorian Gray]

You know, there are limits to the energy that any human being can expend trying to obtain a minimal lifestyle.

Tell them cheetas to go catch more mice.

So if I was a landscaper, and prior to signing a new lease I discovered they were going to raise my rent, you would pay me more money to cut the same exact amount of grass for you? That's what you expect companies to do.

 

[Snide]

But if we accept that increases in minimum wage do not affect unemployment or inflation we could raise the minimum to $100/hr and everyone will be wealthy, correct?

Who accepts this at all levels of minimum wage increases?

So why not raise it to $100/hr?

Again, this is like asking a fan of the Laffer curve/trickle-down economics, sarcastically, "Gee, why not tax everyone zero? The government will be rolling in surplus then!"

 

[Snide]

It's the logical extension to the advocates of a "living wage". The point being to show if some is good, more must be better and where does that lead us to.

It's only a logical extension to people who aren't really strong with logic.

If a guy tells me I should use a lighter bat in softball to improve my bat speed, I'm not going to say, "Well get me a whiffle bat, 'cause that's SUPER light and must be best, eh?"

If a golf pro tells me to loosen my grip for a better swing, he doesn't necessarily have to believe the best grip is one that is so loose that the club flies out of my hands.

If a doctor tells me to take 2 aspirin, because one won't be enough, I'm not going to take the whole bottle.

If someone advocates lower taxes to actually increase government revenue, intelligent people who disagree still don't seriously think the "logical extension" is to go to a tax rate of zero.

Get it yet? Just because people think hiking the minimum wage to $10/hr. does not mean they should necessarily think it should be raised to $100 or higher.

 

[leftysergeant]

So if I was a landscaper, and prior to signing a new lease I discovered they were going to raise my rent, you would pay me more money to cut the same exact amount of grass for you? That's what you expect companies to do.

No. I can find somebody else who is not paying a higher rent or I can cut it myself.

The employer who does not want to pay a decent wage because "it is not worth paying a living wage for this job" can bloody well do it himself.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So if I was a landscaper, and prior to signing a new lease I discovered they were going to raise my rent, you would pay me more money to cut the same exact amount of grass for you? That's what you expect companies to do.

No. I can find somebody else who is not paying a higher rent or I can cut it myself.

The employer who does not want to pay a decent wage because "it is not worth paying a living wage for this job" can bloody well do it himself.

So, instead of helping make it possible for Landscaper Gray to make a “living wage”, you've put him out of work completely. Because he can no longer earn what you consider a “decent wage”, you've condemned him to earn no wage at all.

I think you've just proven the very point you've been trying to refute.

 

[thaiboxerken]

We don't need no stinking "minimum wage." We should let the free market dictate thte wages of people. It's a great system that's worked well throughout history....

 

[WildCat]

I'm not sure how to interpret your question.

The differing cultural pespectives on what is or isn't shocking/surprising regarding wages and labour is well within the purview of this thread.

Do I have to be seriously thinking this for it to be good? What if I'm less serious? Can frivolous thinking have just as much merit? Perhaps I'm confusing which "this" you are referring to. Is the "you" meaning me personally, or the nation? If "doing you any good" includes "am I happy", then the answer is "yes".

Do you think such bureaucratic micro-management is resulting in higher income for Australian workers?

 

[Neally]

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?

Why can't you see the silliness in the government dictating the price of labor and goods?

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?

You've said that basic daily expenses should dictate minimum wage, but you never explained why someone shouldn't have more than "a few little luxuries". A few little luxuries are not necessary either, yet you think people deserve them. Why not a lot of little luxuries, or a lot of big luxuries?

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?

Robert Whaples (2006) "Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!," The Economists' Voice: Vol. 3 : Iss. 9, Article 1.

37.7% of respondents supported an increase in the minimum wage, 14.3% wanted it kept at the current level, 1.3% wanted it decreased, and 46.8% wanted it completely eliminated.

It's only a logical extension to people who aren't really strong with logic.

Get it yet? Just because people think hiking the minimum wage to $10/hr. does not mean they should necessarily think it should be raised to $100 or higher.

Already explained it. Again not that it can, should or will go to $100/hr. But that the rational of any set minimum wage is absent of determing the right amount or if any amount is better than none. In prescribing medication, the doctor knows if some, none, or more should be used. Not so with minimum wage. Get it yet?

We don't need no stinking "minimum wage." We should let the free market dictate thte wages of people. It's a great system that's worked well throughout history....

Why leave it to chance! Let the all knowing government bureaucrats set all wages and all costs for that matter. It's worked out so good everywhere else!

 

[MG1962]

Do you think such bureaucratic micro-management is resulting in higher income for Australian workers?

Unless you are prepared to show some concrete evidence it is or has had a detrimental effect on the Australian economy how about you back on the hyperbol peddle

 

[Biscuit]

When the minimum wage is high, companies cannot afford to hire new employees. This is what I thought when I heard this being talked about on Progressive Radio. Now I have the statistics to back me up when I later heard that in states that have a high minimum wage also have high unemployment. It is logical to think that if the minimum wage is high, companies will not be able to afford to retain low income employees.

This is pure nonsense. You are clearly not a business owner. From first hand experience I can assure you none of this reflects the realities of paying wages. In order for this fantasy to come true the people running the business would have to be grossly incompetent/negligent. By your logic if companies could pay what ever they wanted then every person in america would be employed by someone. Companies do not hire based on wages - we hire based on demand for our product or services. I don't afford new employees if I can pay them less, I afford them if doing so will generate more revenue. Paying people well (I have always paid over MW) creates a better company, reduces accidents, increases productivity, ect

Can you show a direct correlation between rises in minimum wage and unemployment?

Some companies that depend on unskilled labor will have to fold and go out of business all together.

If that companies business model depends on labor theft than yes you are right.

Companies that depend on products from these closed companies will have to get their goods from overseas competitors.

This assumes so many things its ridiculous. Why do you think there would not be any U.S. based competition?

This is the harsh reality.

It is conceivable that a re session or even a depression could be the end result.

The harsh reality is that taking care of your employees is not only good for business it is the moral thing to do. The end result of paying good wages is usually success, thats been my experience.

 

[MG1962]

This assumes so many things its ridiculous. Why do you think there would not be any U.S. based competition?

Because otherwise the poster has no reason for outrage. Just because American buisness has competed hard against itself for the last few hundred years, it cant be assumed it will over this specific issue

 

[Tony]

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

You're being dogmatic Wildcat. It does happen, a few years ago in the Houston Printing industry, a new businessman came into town and started cutting wages and benefits to his workers so that he could lower his costs and out-price competitors. Within a few years, all wages and benefits for most of the workers in the industry had been cut. Incidentally, this demonstrates another reason we need unions.

 

[WildCat]

Unless you are prepared to show some concrete evidence it is or has had a detrimental effect on the Australian economy how about you back on the hyperbol peddle

I know that per capita GDP in Australia adjusted for purchasing power parity is over $7,500 less than in the US according to the IMF. And that the median US household income is over $5,600 higher than in Australia, also adjusted for PPP.

So if the goal is to increase household income, it's not apparent that it has worked.

 

[Snide]

Already explained it. Again not that it can, should or will go to $100/hr.

I know that. I wasn't the one who said "slippery slope."

But that the rational of any set minimum wage is absent of determing the right amount or if any amount is better than none.

Perhaps the crux of my ability to understand is in this sentence. What are you saying? I know you meant rationale...no biggie. But I'm going to have to guess as to what you mean with the whole fragment.

In prescribing medication, the doctor knows if some, none, or more should be used. Not so with minimum wage. Get it yet?

Nope. There is nothing wrong with people thinking that "minimum wage is too low, more would be better, but at some point it would be too high," even without the expertise of a doctor. You can ask them to prove it (which they won't be able to do, nor will you be able to prove it is not), but to insist that logically, to their thinking, $100/hr must be better just does not follow. It is perfectly reasonable that they might think there is a point where, as a matter of policy, the minimum wage is too high for the overall good of society (or whatever reason). In fact, it is perfectly reasonable that one who considers a $10 MW to be better than current MW, would prefer NO MW to one of $100. Similar to a fan of the Laffer curve, who might feel that even though we're taxed too highly, that an increase in tax rate would be a better policy than zero taxes.

BTW...the doctor actually doesn't necessarily know exactly how many aspirin to take (funny you choose that example...what about the others where the expertise levels are not the same as a doctor?). Is it 2.14? 1.87? Might 3 actually be better? The doctor doesn't necessarily know for sure. He only knows one didn't work, so possibly two will. The patient does not take the flawed leap in thinking perhaps 100 is better, even though he knows that someone as educated as a doctor wouldn't even know that exactly two is the right amount.

It bears repeating: Just because people don't know for certain what the "ideal" MW is, does not mean that it logically follows they should think $100/hr. is better if they think $10 is better. Quite simple, really.

 

[Neally]

It bears repeating: Just because people don't know for certain what the "ideal" MW is, does not mean that it logically follows they should think $100/hr. is better if they think $10 is better. Quite simple, really.

The whole point is to identify why one value is better than another. If $1 is too low and $100 is too high, why is $7.25 just right? Some groups say $17 is just right, or at least the lowest acceptable amount. Why isn't $20 better than $17, or $25? $100 is just a random number to illustrate the other end of the spectrum to get some sort of rationale out of the MW proponents as the justification of one value over another. Equally quite simple, really.