Question for Minimum Wage supporters

Agreed, and honestly, I'd sacrifice my quality of life and live freely for my awful business that's making me net 22K a year, rather than be a slave for a massive company paying me a 'living wage'. The depravity of making demands to a larger entity should be embarrassing, it's clearly an entitlement driven ideology that is taking over; and it's that line of thinking that will inevitably lead to either the massive 'living wage' companies up and leaving (which they are) or everyone needing to work for them.

I fear that at some given point, there will be a sort of economic feudalism that sees everyone in the world working for a single entity.

 

That factor is of little relevance. Wage alone does not aptly describe "standard-of-living"

It simply indicates that wages in the US are higher than elsewhere. There is no comparative appreciation of wages vs standard-of-living.

Yes, Americans (despite the economic harm of the Great Recession) have fairly good wages. It also has an aggregated market-economy the closest comparative market-economy being the EU.

And in that regard, the US has a better standard-of-living - see here than most EU countries - though the difference is not substantial.

Then why and how, pray tell, does Uncle Sam accept one of the highest percentage of the population live below the Poverty Threshold? As seen here:


Since 1965, the Poverty Threshold has contained at or just below 15% of the American men, women and children. Today, the Census Bureau puts that number at 13.5% (see here.)

That percentage, in terms of numbers, means 43.6 million Americans - or the combined populations of, say, California and Kentucky- are permanently living their lives below the Poverty Threshold ...

 

First of all, a minimum wage was never even conceived by our Founding Fathers at the inception of the nation. They were landed-gentry mostly concerned for freedom from the hegemony of a British monarch.

Nex, the FRB and its governance has little real influence to a generalized standard-of-living. It's stated purpose is summarized here. Finance is only one element in deriving an acceptable standard-of-living for a maximum number of Americans, though an important one.

The lack of a minimum wage is what incarcerates 15% of Americans below the Poverty Threshold. Remember that Threshold is defined as the minimum income necessary to subsist. And yet, this year we have 43.6 million Americans living below the Threshold.

I presume you think that is just fine-'n-dandy?

Obviously because you are not one of them ... ?
_____________________

 

GOOD LUCK, AMERICA!

The mean wage in America for a week's work (in the private sector) in September was $887.18 (from here.) Which means the annual average wage is $46.1K.

The Poverty Threshold (for a family of four) is an annual income of about $24K, or about half that of the mean wage.

There's been a Great Recession in both America and Europe, and a lowering of economic activity even in China. We are coming out of it, but it will take a great long while to recover, because we did not start earlier. After the mid-terms of 2010, Obama (who had stopped dead an exploding unemployment rate with ARRA, the Replicants stymied in the HofR all further Stimulus Spending, giving us the excuse of Austerity Budgeting)

All employment creation stopped dead in 2010, with the advent of Replicant control in the HofR. See the history of the Employment-to-population Ratio here as of 2012 - the US did not create any new jobs for four long, long years because the Replicants refused all Stimulus Spending by the PotUS.

They willfully incarcerated American workers in unemployment for a voting advantage two years later (elections in 2012) that they hoped would oust Obama. Didn't work that way, did it?

And America wants to keep the Replicants in charge of the HofR, where they will continue to stymie the efforts of Hillary? You betcha, there is only a minimum chance of its reversal to the Dems - so no predicted change in the leadership of the HofR. Thus, they will continue to stymie the next Dem PotUS that direly needs to create New Jobs.

So, expect more of the same for the next two-years from the House Replicants. That is, a slow, slow grind back towards 63% (pre-200 in the Unemployment-to-population Ratio history.

Good luck with that one, Uncle Sam ... !
______________________

 

We have been raising the Minimum Wage since 1938. See here:


And its been like pulling teeth, because the fact of the matter is that it is necessary. But companies don't like to do it, because they have to price the increase in labor-costs into their products - and they think they lose competitiveness. But if the increase is universal, then the higher labor-cost washes right through to the Consumer who pays it. The very same phenomenon happens when anybody in a job gets a raise that is assimilated into overhead costs; and Consumers pay the cost in the products/services they purchase.

Whether it has an impact upon the numerous factors you raise is a question of how all those factors arise in terms of importance. But any one of them is not sufficient reason to not raise the minimum wage.

Why's that? Because at that level of compensation, the "knowledge/competence/skills" necessary to work at those jobs is rudimentary. Which means if you don't like rudimentary work at a minimum wage then you just don't work. That's a great incentive to accept what you can get (and shut-up), but also why we have so many people in the Poverty Threshold - about 40 million Americans. Many of whom are unemployed.

How is that any better if there is no-minimum-wage and a surfeit of unemployed workers at the bottom together? That typically happens in a recession. And it is precisely what has happened during the Great Recession of 2008/2010.

SO WHAT MUST BE DONE?

There are only two ways to make sure that people are not forced to take "low-skill jobs"*. First, they have a real education and therefore an incentive to find better remunerated work. Second, they have the determination to do so, which is a societal factor that children learn in the family. A family situation that is solid and together has a much better chance of bringing up children who are good learners and thus good workers. (But that outcome is not something a nation can legislate.)

Let's just raise the MW and see what happens. At the very worst, your BigMac will cost you 20 cents more.

No great loss, that ...

*But who will sweep our streets? Automatic devices. It is worthwhile that we automate rudimentary work, which incentivizes people to get (at the very least) a vocational diploma for postsecondary schooling.

 

Minimum wage more pure libsocialist ignorance:
1) makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches people that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers

One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of minimum wage laws seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor that will be hired.

Thomas Sowell, "Minimum Wage Madness," September 17, 2013

 

In response to your comments above by-the-number:
1) So what? That's its purpose - to free people from the unfair misery of a low wage.
2) True, but again, so what? They have a higher wage and can afford to buy more. Were a minimum wage passed tomorrow in your state, your BigMac would cost you 10 cents more.
3) The automation is going to happen anyway. Either that, or the jobs go Mexico or the Phillipines or Vietnam. These jobs are typically unskilled or lo-skilled work, and their flight abroad has been typical since the lowering of the Bamboo Curtain. Rather, let's educate our people out of poverty by giving them the credentials necessary for a good job at good pay.
4) Piffle, most of us are smart enough to avoid the violence.
5) Yes, raises prices but does not reduce Demand. On the contrary, with more income it increases Demand - which boosts employment.
6)In some sectors, yes. But with the proper education, people will have the skills/competencies to find better paying jobs. That should be a National Objective - one that Hillary has responded to by integrating within her platform an idea from Bernie. That is, education at state-run schools (vocational, college, university) will be subsidized by government subventions (to states) thus all those wanting a postsecondary degree will be able to attain one.

Yes, because we've been raising the minimum wage since 1938, and though the price of labor is raised, it is more than offset by enhanced Demand since wage-income is higher.

It really is a win-win situation for the poor, and particularly those below the Poverty Threshold ($24K for a family of 4) whose lives are highly precarious because of insufficient income. They are today 13.9% of the American population, which is 45 million men, women and children. The population of the states of California and Kentucky combined.

I suggest that is reason enough to adopt a Much Higher Minimum Wage ...

PS: I am not a LibSocialist. I am a Social Democrat. Learn the difference because it is important.
______________

 

Standard of Living, Life-Style or whatever you want to call it is inherently subjective, and "living wages" assume a certain minimum Standard of Living.

One's Standard of Living or Life-Style is earned, not meted out by biased agenda-driven educators living in Ivory Towers.

There are plenty of valid arguments.

If you trust the government to set minimum wages, then why not trust government to set prices and wages for everything as well?

Government meddling in wages leads to gross distortions in Labor Markets.

A living wage would create gross distortions in Housing Markets. The proper course of action for many workers is to relocate to low-cost areas; not enable them to remain in high-cost areas.

Consumers ultimately pay for all wages, so wage increases are eventually negated by higher prices.

Living and minimum wage laws are discriminatory against the least skilled workers, minorities in particular.

Living and minimum wage laws interfere with voluntary labor agreements between workers and employers.

Should the cost of a "living wage" decline, will government allow reduced the wages?

Nothing in your diatribes suggests dismantling the current Welfare System. What keeps the government from lowering the bar and perpetuating the current system? Why would the government even consider giving up that much power and control, even with a "living wage?"

It reduces the competitiveness of the US globally.

India and its population of 1 Billion have yet to enter their 2nd Level Economy, and it goes without saying that sub-Saharan Africa is still in its 1st Level Economy. Competing globally will be very difficult for America now and into the Future.

Unalienable Rights cost nothing. That is how you distinguish Unalienable Rights from bogus "rights" like you're pushing.

Locke defined the "Pursuit of Happiness" as the acquisition of property and other material things, not actual "happiness."

There is no "Natural Right of Property" except to the extent that if you purchase or acquire something, it's yours.

It is not the function of government to establish minimum Life-Styles or Standards of Living. Such actions by government are dangerous and inherently leads to wars and conflicts.

 

That is quite true, and if the minimum wage had kept pace with the CPI it would be about $4.25 today.

 

Onus is on the OP to provide credible substantiation that additional cash flowing into the economy would cause "huge inflation".

 

Economists have learned how to identify and define it. (Albeit somewhat arbitrarily but better than nothing.)

Anyway the good news is here: U.S. Standard of Living Index Climbs to Highest in 7 Years - excerpt:

This is "good news" for Americans, after touch-'n-go economics of the past six lonnnnnngggggggg years since the Great Recession hit Uncle Sam with a full blow, one of the worst since the 1930s.

My question is, "Have we learned anything?". The 1930s Great Depression was the result of the reduction in upper-income taxation and wild speculation on Wall Street. The 2010 Great Recession was the result of far too low upper-income taxation that induces Wall Street to mount a fraudulent scheme* that induced some people make a "quick megabuck"! (You can find them on the golf-course links in Florida.)

Really 'n truly, it is silly to be against anyone making a megabuck on Wall Street - for as long as they do it honestly and fairly. That has not been the case because our upper-income taxation is a money-processor shifting Net after-tax Income into Wealth. Both Net Income and Wealth are greatly unfair in the US. Income sharing seems unfair to a great many Americans. See here.

And what does the sharing of Wealth look like in America today? Like this (from here):
View attachment 46437

Need more be said ... ?
_____________________

*How did sub-prime mortgage packages sold-to-the-world get those Triple-A ratings from the Big Three Rating Agencies. Want to know? Start here ...
__________________________

 

So, thank God it doesn't.

In fact, it should be set in accordance with needs. Since the MW is obtained by most people who are at or just above or below the Poverty Threshold - it should be set in accordance with their needs. The Poverty Threshold for a family of four $24K per year, which works out to $11.53 an hour - if they can find a job at that rate. (Obviously, most cant or wont for as long as it is set at present levels.)

The average MW at present is $7.25 in the US approved by Congress way, way back in 2007 before the Great Recession; and therefore out of date as regards the Cost of Living.

So, we've got quite a long way to go, haven't we ... ?
_______________________

 

Only in some Hollywood screenwriter's pregnant mind ... ;^)

 

This opinion persists but it's based upon a lack of critical thinking skills because we can determine what typical and essential expenditures are and what the reasonable minimum-mandatory costs for each essential expenditure is as well as providing a reasonable amount for atypical expenditures.

For example in today's commerce driven society the ability to communicate virtually anytime, anywhere, is essential and a low cost prepaid cellphone provides for that communication. A typical low cost prepaid monthly cellphone plan costs about $55/mo per adult while the cellphone replacement, that might be $75 for a prepaid cellphone like a Tracfone replacement, is an atypical expenditure because the cellphone itself can last for years without replacement.

We know what a balanced diet is for an adult and child and that cost can be quantified.
We know that the household requires "energy" for heating/cooling, cooking and other typical energy uses and that cost can be quantified.
We know what the median medical expenditures are per person per household so that cost can be quantified.
We know that people require transportation to work, what the average local commute in mileage is, and that cost can be quantified.
We know that people require a place to live and the reasonable cost of lower priced apartment rentals in the area can be quantified.

We can identify the typical and necessary expenditures of the person/household are and all of them can be quantified and we can also quantify the atypical and necessary expenditures that can't be specifically identified as a percentage of the typical and necessary expenditures.

The problem is that apparently people with low analytical skills don't acknowledge that there are other people with very high analytical skills that can easily quantify the minimum-mandatory expenditures necessary to determine a reasonable "cost of living" for different households in different locations where prices can very slightly for each necessary expenditure.

Apparently for some of these low analytical skill individuals it's unimaginable that very intelligent people can literally quantify the costs so to them the numbers are "subjective" because they can't understand the analysis. The fact that they're incapable of understanding the quantification of the cost of living doesn't change the fact that the costs are objective based upon analysis as opposed to subjective based upon opinion.

But perhaps they can prove that the costs are objective for themselves. They can take their electric bills over the last 12 months and they can add the total together and then divide it by 12 and get their average monthly electrical costs for the year. Now they might live in a high energy use home or a low energy use home but if we take everyone's electrical bills in the area and then look at the costs where they will "bottom out" for a significant percentage, because there is a minimum-mandatory cost, then we can quantify the cost based upon the actual usage. Even the local electrical company can provide the typical minimum-mandatory cost of electrical service because they bill all of the households and they know what that cost is.

It's time for those that repeat the same mantra that the "cost of living" is subjective to realize the opinion lacks foundation because there are those with the analytical skills to quantify the actual costs. Simply denying the fact that quantitative analysis has already been done does not provide a logical foundation for the opinion.

The "support" that the person has a natural right of property to based upon their labor is easily quantified. Where we do have a slight problem is that the "comfort" that the person also has a natural right of property to based upon their labor actually is subjective because it's funded with discretionary spending and not mandatory spending. How much "comfort" is reasonable requires subjective reasoning.

In establishing a National Minimum Living Wage it must provide for both support (quantifiable) and comfort (subjective) but the "comfort" in only a minor percentage relative to the cost of "support" that is quantified. Reason, for example, could establish that the "comfort" is equal to 10% of the comfort but that's certainly open to debate by the politicians while the "support" is not open to debate because it's quantified.

 

actually if you raise the wage to $15 and thus unemploy say 5 million people those 5 million would then be free to starve. This is not a good thing. Do you understand?

 

right!!! so no net gain is possible since higher wages mean higher prices. Libs get the votes from those who get the minimum wage but those who pay the higher prices don't know the libs have screwed them. Now you understand why devious liberals support MW.

 

wrong of course. Almost anything can be automated now and it would be if MW were set at $100. There is no reason to speed up the process and unnecessarily unemploy people. The free market should set the wage and timetable for automation to maximize our standard of living. Econ 101

 

With the blatant lack of analytical skills ability by "Republicans" it's no wonder they're wrong on so many issues. Let's ask some simple questions that apparently Republicans are incapable of asking or answering when they make stupid statements.

Does a increase in the minimum wage result in a corresponding increase in consumer prices?

No and the reasons are obvious for anyone except a Republican.

1. Not all enterprises produce goods and services based upon minimum wage compensation and the vast majority of these enterprises are not impacted by an increase in the minimum wage. For example automobiles are not manufactured by minimum wage workers and the wages are currently higher than any proposed minimum wage increase. The cost of automobiles are not going to increase.

2. The wholesale costs of imported goods are not affected by an increase in the US minimum wage.

3. For most companies that do employ people at below the increased minimum wage only part of their labor force typically falls below the new minimum wage and will require a wage increase along with a few marginal workers so even within the enterprise the increased labor cost isn't even close to being proportionate to the percentage increase in the minimum wage.

4. Labor costs in a typical enterprise run between 20% and 30% of gross revenue and the increase in labor costs is proportionate when applied to the gross revenue. Using simple math a 10% increase in total labor compensation is only requires a 2% to 3% increase in gross revenue to offset the cost and a price increase that small isn't even noticeable to the buying public.

5. The least desirable means of off-setting any cost increase by any enterprise is to raise prices. The preferred solution for all enterprises is to increased gross revenue and often the best means of accomplishing that is by lowering prices. Prices can actually go down to increase gross revenue based upon a minimum wage increase.

6. There are numerous means by which an enterprise can increase the gross revenue to fund the increased cost of labor without raising prices and all well managed enterprises will exploit these other means to increase the gross revenue before they'll even consider raising prices.

In all of these situations those receiving the wage increase come out on top financially. Any overall percentage increase in consumer prices will only be a small fraction of the percentage increase in the workers wages.

Even if we use the hypothetical case where there would be a 10% increase in compensation nationally and applied the relative percentage increase in prices to offset the increase in cost it only increases the prices by 2% to 3% and the worker comes out three to five time better off financially because the price increase is only a fraction of the wage increase. In reality that won't happen and if there's a price increase a all it would probably be less than 1% when averaged across all consumer spending.

Does an increase in the minimum wage reduce employment.

No and the reason is obvious for anyone except a Republican.

Enterprises don't employ people for the sake of employing people. They employ people because there are tasks that must be performed to generate the gross revenue of the enterprise. If they cut employment then the tasks don't get done to generate the gross revenue and the gross revenue goes down. Because there is a relationship between the labor and the gross revenue where gross revenue is three to five times more than the labor compensation no competent manager is going to cut labor to reduce costs because it would cut gross revenue by three to five times the amount of cost saving gained by reducing the workforce.

It's somewhat amazing because Republicans pretend to know something about enterprise but when they express opinions that are completely illogical from a business management perspective it leave us deeply in doubt.

 

any cost is reflected in price. This is why the price of a jet plane is more than the cost of an apple. Do you understand?

- - - Updated - - -

this is called the law of supply and demand. As the price goes up( in this case for labor) the demand goes down.
Do you understand?

 

More rightwing ignorance masquerading as an opinion.

All employees are worth three to five times what it costs to employ them.

If the minimum wage is a "living wage" then there are no more working poor people in America,

Implementation of automation is based upon a cost/benefit analysis and it targets higher paying jobs because the reduction in costs is much greater.

No, it teaches employers that they can't steal the labor of the workers without providing adequate compensation for labor.

Price changes are insignificant from a percentage standpoint related to the increase compensation for labor. Increasing disposable income for lower income households that spend all disposable income on consumption increases demand generating more revenue for enterprise and also forces the enterprise to add workers to provide for the new demand.

Minimum wage jobs in the United States cannot be replaced by foreign labor so there's no competition at all.

People that don't have money to spend don't buy anything.

Labor requirements for enterprise are based upon the tasks required to generate gross revenue and the only "dollar" connection is that the labor costs are typically 1/3rd to 1/5th the amount of revenue each worker costs in providing labor to the enterprise. A business manager would have to be an idiot to not hire a person that will generate 3 to 5-times the amount of gross revenue relative to their costs to the company.

Thomas Sowell is a right-wing intellectual idiot that spews ignorant propaganda that is unsupported by logic and reason.

 

that would be like saying a car is worth 3-5 times more than it costs to buy it. If its worth more then of course people would be willing to pay more. 1+1=2

worth is determined in the market place not in the mind of a libcommie.

- - - Updated - - -

the law of supply and demand is ignorant propaganda to a libcommie?

 

In the United States, for example, although the unauthorized migrant workers represent 5 percent of the labor force, they are concentrated in a small number of occupations, notably farming, fishing and forestry (26 percent of the workforce), domestic workers (23 percent), clothing manufacture (20 percent), building and grounds (17 percent) and construction and mining (14 percent).

In addition, in the construction sector the unauthorized migrants hold about one-third of all jobs in drywall installation, and approximately one quarter of jobs in roofing and painting.

 

peaceful market place determines adequate, not lib Nazi guessing at gun point. If compensation is in adequate then someone pays more and gets all the best workers and inadequate businesses are driven into bankruptcy. This is the beauty of capitalism. Do you understand?

 

THe child has not seen picture of the McDonalds kiosks??????????????

 

Are you implying Government is God?

The problem is that many have become accustomed to acquiring their needs of what exists based on the means of others to provide it.
The minimum wage exceeds the poverty level for an individual by $3,231.75/yr, and a reasonable couple both working a MW job would earn $14,219.70/yr above the poverty level which a portion/all of could be invested or saved beginning their accumulation of wealth.
Most every, all?, jobs which are considered to be lifetime career jobs pay above, and often well above the minimum wage. And MW jobs, when the MW is not exorbitant provide school kids and persons looking to earn some extra income a means to acquire additional income.

What Congress approved in 2007 was a 3 increment increase of the minimum wage, the third increment to $7.25 taking place July 2009.

That might depend upon your destination. I don't see any proof that constant inflation has proven to be the means by which prosperity, and/or income equality is achievable. It has, on the other hand, created and continues to create even greater wealth disparity.