Alright so I'm curious about peoples feelings and, ideally, actual facts on the existance of minimum wages.

Common economic theory says there is a demand curve and a supply curve for labor. Add a minimum wage and you get unemployment and things are worse for everybody.

However minimum wage isn't just some theoretical construct. Apperantly it exists in over 90% of countries.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/pr...sheets/w-1.pdf

In my limited knowledge there hasn't been the predicted wave of unemployment as a result of this. I've heard the UK came out fine. And here in the US if I decided to say screw it to my career there are a handful of stores I could walk over to from where I live for a crap job.

So the question is what's going on?

One argument I know of is the effects of industries acting together to create monopsonies. Or similar effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony

Another is that since there are usually exceptions to minimum wages (waiters, some agracultural jobs) the result of a minimum wages is to raise wages for a wide range of workers but the exceptions provide jobs for full employment.

Finally I would imagine that in the no skill labor market lost jobs would be represented more in the form of hours availible to work. So maybe people are only working 30 hours for $6 an hour when they could be working for 60 hours at two separate jobs if they would take $4 an hour.

Its a way of pleasing dumb low level people. Even though most politicians and educated men realise minimum wage causes inflation, the voter grunts who this is pandering to only see increased salaries but dont understand that their expences will go up as well.

__________________
"True Freedom is the Freedom to oppress others"

Minimum wage hurts businesses, which inturns hurts workers.

When wages are artifically standarized, employees have to be laidoff.

It only makes sense to allow businesses to pay their employees whatever they like. Whether you like it or not, your employer is a worker too. He might make more money and have more control, but he's got a ton of stress to put up with. Dealing with all you dumbasses is no easy task.


And if one of you is always late for work or is a complete (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)... Then yeah, you deserve crappy pay.

I don't see any employer being stupid enough not to pay well those who work hard or show extreme talent. Those employees that are not appreciated don't work there for very long. Either studying to go into something else, quitting for a better job, not acting according to their maximum potential and screw the boss over, or flipout and shoot up the place.


I am not morally opposed to any of these scenarios.

See. The issues is that for some reason they don't. Remember minimum wage laws are extremely common in the world. And have been implemented/raised time and time again.

I just did a quick search for
"unemployment before and after minimum wage"

And it came up with the following

http://daily.sightline.org/daily_sco...n-unemployment
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp178

In short it seems intuitive that if you raise the wage you cut jobs. But that doesn't seem to be what actually happens (which is probably a big part of why minimum wages are so popular).

Oxymoron may have a point though. Still inflation often goes hand in hand with healthy economies. And there is a world of debate in regard to the causes, effects, and desireability of inflation.

Again any evidence on this from the hundreds of instances of implementation of a minimum wage? We'd be looking for a reasonably sharp incline in inflation after a minimum wage was added that doesn't match up with GDP growth or is otherwise atypical for the given economy.

The minimum wage rises in the UK had a very small impact on unemployment levels and predicted loss of businesses.

There was much talk of businesses suffering terribly and eventually going under, although a number of small businesses have suffered somewhat, the percentage is much, much less than predicted by organizations such as The British Retail Consortium and the British Chambers of Commerce, who were full of gloom and doom at the time.

The UK minimum wage scenario has worked rather well, partly because the rises were compartmentalized, were also small (only slightly above the rate of inflation and average earnings ) and staggered over a substantial period of time.

This allowed the job market time to adjust. To use an analogy, employers were not hit with one huge sledgehammer, rather tickled with a series of small feathers.

A lot of employers, small employers in particular, have found that they have absorbed the costs that worried them so badly, due to a higher rate of productivity.

Another positive aspect is, that when the ordinary working man has more disposable income, he spends it, thus contributing to overall economic growth.

It depends on the impact of the wage and the overall externalities. It would have to be in small steps, otherwise the shock may cause issues. If productivity goes up to match the wage, then that is fine, but you have to consider that if productivity rises to the point where an additional worker is now no longer needed, you could have unemployment rise from that as well.

If you want a bad example of price controls, then look at the price ceilings that were placed in New York apartments. It was a quick way to deteriorate the quality of a building while fostering overcrowding. Some things need to float appropriately.

Overall the minimum wage is tough because unskilled workers are a dime a dozen, and the incentive to pay them well just isn't there even if they might deserve a little more. I believe it is necessary, but adjustments need to be made carefully.

heres an idea.. if you want to get paid more either:

1. work harder
2. get a better education
c. get a better job

its not a hard concept.. that way i dont have to pay more at the store so the store can pay its employees more.. its not like the minimum wage jobs are very demanding. everybody knows that.

With respect, it is an overly simplistic and in many cases an unrealistic concept though.

The systems we have in place ensure that regardless of education, work ethic, or the state of the job market overall, to enable a proportion of society to become wealthy, there has to be a proportion of society that remain low paid.

If absolutely everyone did exactly as you suggest above, it would inevitably mean that we would just see more refuse collectors with a degree for example.

It is important to understand this, if absolutely everyone worked harder as you put it and if absolutely everyone got a better education, it would not change anything. There would still have to be a proportion of society in low paid jobs, regardless of effort.

One also has to think about the academic capabilities of some within society, not everyone is the same.

Some people are just not able to academically shine, this does not make them less of a person does it? Does this mean it is their own fault that they have to struggle to feed their families, to make ends meet. Does this mean they should have to work 2 or 3 jobs just to keep their heads above water?

What about the vulnerable in your society, those who for a myriad of reasons are not capable of bettering themselves, the situation is not black and white, this is the problem.

Some people can work extremely hard and still get absolutely nowhere, the economic systems in place, by their very nature will always ensure this is so, for a considerable percentage of society.

To try to make sure that those who fall into the very low paid category, are not left behind, I see no moral reason why they should not at least, be paid a livable wage. The UK model has shown that it does not have to be a bad move, far from it.

why does that matter when everyone has the same opportunity to get rich? am i supposed to feel bad for someone that doesnt try as hard as me? as far as im concerned, if someone accepts a job at minimum wage then they sould expect minimum wage. if they want to be paid more they should try harder.

actually, you would probably see automated cars picking up garbage because there would be more engineers to figure that kind of stuff.
yeah but that doesnt matter. everyone gets the same chance to get ahead. if youre not getting paid enough its your own fault. i shouldnt be paying you more just because you dont think its fair. that youre not as successful.
andwhat percentage of the population do you think that is? and again.. should they be paid more out of pitty? no.. you dont have to be smart to be successful.
it makes them less of an intelligent person. believe it or not, intelligence matters.
thats exactly what it means.

what about them? are you suggesting i should feel sorry for them? i dont think so. again, veryone gets the same opportunity. ust because they cant grab the opportunity doesnt mean that i should feel bad for them.
they can get other jobs. nobody is forcing them to work in the same (*)(*)(*)(*)ty place. thats why you have freedom of choice. if youre not getting paid enough go somewhere else. move if you have to.
why would you want to try to make sure? in other words it doesnt really matter if you work hard for a lot of money or if you work fairly easy for a decent ammount.. also, if they should be paid a viable wage, that should be at the discression of the employer. you shouldnt force someone to pay someone else more then the employer thinks its fair. like i said. if you dont like how much youre getting paid, get another job.
then let those that dont like it here move to the UK. nobodys stopping them.

Um there IS a minimum wage in the US you know. So I guess if you don't like it you could move to. Uh. Actually with over 90% of countries employing a minimum wage I'm not sure where you'd go. I guessed Botswana, but they've got one, Sudan too.

Ah, I guess Brunei is your utopia.

Does it matter to you if there are in fact monopsonic effects in play? If so a minimum wage actually increases GDP and reduced deadweight losses. I'm not asking if you think that is the case, I'm asking if you'd support a little less wealth for the employer if it meant the overall economy would be bigger and stronger and things would be better for the workers?