gov spending.... end welfare and the economy crashes republicans want the gov to put less money into the economy, thus destroying jobs..... unless the rich start putting money into the economy, the gov has to do so, that is reality how about any corp that the ceo makes over 1 million a year in wages, benefits and bonuses has to pay a living wage, everyone else can pay a min wage . .
LOL! Govt spending got them jobs?? Who said end it? Welfare to work. Look it up. Clinton did it. Leftards want to dole out welfare to buy votes.
republicans are not that stupid are they, you think if you take all that money out of the economy it wont hurt the economy there we go with the "*******s" name calling again, grow up .
living wages for different parts of the country are different and should be adjusted by the states when needed
From the BLS http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf Only 2.6% of all workers get minimum wage or below. Over half of those are below age 24 64% of all making minimum wage or below are part time workers. 47% of all min wage earners work in the food industry, so many of those people get tips. The numbers show that the min wage is definitely about young people who are first entering the workforce, and young people in school (high school or college) earning money part time. It is not about the "working mother re-entering the workforce".
The breakdown is ~ 50 : 50. But notice that the study is cleverly worded. There are only ~ 3 million workers who make minimum wage (or below). The real question should be asked of employers whose employees predominately make the minimum wage. The survey results would be much different. Business owners whose employees make more than the minimum wage would quite rationally agree with forcing their competition who were paying less to increase their production costs.
In fact it's 4.3 percent if you include people who are exempt under certain bylaws About 53 percent of all minimum wage earners are full-time workers, and minimum wage workers contributed almost half (46 percent) of their household's wage and salary income in 2011. Moreover, more than 88 percent of those who would benefit from raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 are working adults, and 55 percent are working women. in the third link to the bureau of labor statistics it points out that of over 75,948 hours 30,852 were logged by women aged 25 and above so yes teenagers make up a large portion but so do women http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/ http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf
You misread the data. There were a total of 75,948,000 hourly workers (not hours, but workers who are paid by the hour), not just minimum wage workers. Of all those workers, 1,051,000 (1.38% of the total workforce, 31.8% of all people making min wage or below) were women 25 years old and older who were paid min wage or below. To your larger point, since women make up half the population, and since many women enter the workforce later in life, it makes sense that those statistics are skewed to a higher age range. But that does not change the claim that the minimum wage is paid to few workers who are largely entry level workers, work in the food industry (many of those get tips which greatly increases their income), or are students working part time, and those people do not stay on min wage very long. The bottom line is that the minimum wage issue is a fig leaf used by "progressives" to increase their power.
That argument is based on the existence of perfect competition, requiring the ludicrous assumptions of perfect knowledge, many buyers and homogeneous economic agents. Fancy defending that? If you can't then you have to accept that monopsony power is the norm (as dropping any of those spectacularly stupid assumptions will derive an upward sloping labour supply schedule for the firm) and that the minimum wage is needed to ensure the exhaustion of mutually beneficial exchange.
No it's not - why would that be the case ?? There never is perfect knowledge because as societies/economies develop there is more and more specialization. Some are experts in designing bridges, repairing HVAC control systems, gormet cooking, massage therapy, ... but as this specialization of knowledge grows so do economies. Very few people understand how to compare suspension systems of the various automobiles but nevertheless people buy cars that they are happy with everyday. I have no idea what point you are trying to make in the last paragraph. It sounds like a sentence that would be found in the profoundly unreadable "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" by John Maynard Keynes who continually proposed macroeconomic formulas without checking their application to real life.
Basic economics! Your position is reliant on the firm having no market power, with the wage set at market level (such that the law of demand holds). As soon as you have any monopsony power, the minimum wage can increase both wages and employment (essentially restricting coercion in the labour contract) Once we have imperfect knowledge we have job search modelling. Its been known since the 80s (via the modelling by Burdett and Mortsensen) that 'supply & demand' then predicts a positive employment effect from the minimum wage. It would seem that you don't know any economics! First, Keynes essentially was the first to apply economic psychology to come out with a coherent macroeconomic school of thought (and you're probably just sneering at IS/LM which had nothing to do with him). Second, I've only referred to microeconomics. Why did you say "it makes no economic sense" when you have no means to defend your argument?
Firms pay employees based on productivity. It has nothing to do with markets unless there is a shortage of labor. If the cost of production is increased less product and employment will result. That's basic stuff. The modeling does not reflect the real world. Increasing the minimum wage results in reduced employment. There are winners and losers but the losers are the least productive who need the jobs the most. Progressive love Keynes because he proposed that gov spending is essential to the growth and stability of an economy. The macro models that ensued were never checked against the real world - two examples - the Phillips Curve and the Obama stimulus (designed by Christine Romer based on Keynesian multipliers - 19 IIRC).
You're repeating your error. That evaluation is based on firms being wage takers and therefore its reliant on firms having no market power. If they face an upward sloping labour supply (and they do!) then there is a wedge between productivity and wages. Indeed, its very easy to measure the underpayment caused by problems such as job search frictions. See the stochastic frontier analysis which is able to model the reservation wage concept (where workers are forced to accept wages below their worth) You're just telling me that you don't understand supply & demand. The wage has to be set at the market level (i.e. the law of one wage has to hold) for your argument to hold. In reality, you made a claim that you simply cannot support. Its a severe knowledge hiccup too as its supply & demand Wrong again! If there is an upward sloping labour supply schedule then wages and employment increases. Basic supply & demand! The empirical evidence confirms that disemployment effects do not occur. The results typically range from elasticities that are insignificant or positive (which we'd expect given the various sources of monopsony power) No, economists love Keynes. Ironically your attack was based on not understanding Keynes. Neo-Keynesianism, which gave us the formulae that you've huffed and puffed about, was about ensuring consistency with orthodox microeconomics. You do give easy ammo! The Phillips Curve was generated through empirical analysis. Its application to post-war policy making had nothing to do with Keynes. It did spark off a fake debate with the ludicrous monetarists. Arguably that led to the application of rational expectations to macroeconomics and the ludicrous notions associated with neo-liberalism. And neo-liberalism also leads to economic crisis...
I am not interested in having my tax dollars used to support people in full time employment. I am disgusted with companies like Walmart and McDonalds whose profits are entirely dependent on the welfare that the government gives to their grossly underpaid employees. According to one study the average employee welfare subsidy that the government gives to each Walmart store through its employees is over $1million a year. I would gladly pay another $1 for a happy meal if it meant that the person handing it to me had no need for my tax dollars. If a company cannot compete with a higher wage that all their competitors also must pay then they are badly mismanaged and should go out of business anyway. The minimum wage should be set at a rate that someone working full time can meet their basic needs without government assistance because I want my tax dollars used for welfare to go to the truly needy, not to predatory companies with a business model designed to profit from government welfare benefits to low income earners. The government should bill companies whose employees require welfare assistance for the cost of that assistance plus an administrative fee and a 50% penalty. To preclude the growing part time syndrome, where full time employees are replaced with part timers, the whole billing scheme would work from a full time equivalent model. In other words, if three part time employees who work forty hours between them apply for government assistance the company will be billed for all of their assistance the same as if it was just one full time employee. The employers could pay their employees as they please and there would still be plenty of part time job seekers like students and other people who do not use welfare. That is how the minimum wage could be eliminated, wages increased to living levels, taxes reduced and the government welfare scheme possibly paying its own way through the unmitigated greed of unscrupulous business operators.
Corporations often pay above market levels to hold productive employees. Corporations also pay employees based on their goals for profitability. If they cannot find employees who will work for those wages they offshore or close the doors. That's the reality. Wages are both controlled by the business model and competition between employers. Highly profitable employers have the option of paying above market prices to retain their employees. You don't need models or productivity wedges to understand that. Not all economists love Keynes. The Phillips Curve was developed by Bill Phillips in 1958 but Samuelson and Solow (Samuelson was responsible for making Keynesian economics understandable and spent his life writing and amending his Economics text book to keep up with the real world failures) wrote a paper in 1960 legitimizing the concept that inflation could be manipulated to increase employment. This provided a ready made justification for government manipulation which made the Curve very popular among Keynesian economic policy advisors.
You've put your foot in it again! The job search model predicts the positive relationship between wages and firm size. We get the 'supply & demand' result that you won't like: monopsony power is effectively more damaging in apparently competitive industries. Even those that pretend to hate him are reliant on him or the misdirection provided by those that misread him. Crikey, do you think Friedman would have managed the vertical phillips curve without him? You checked on wikipedia have you? Chortle, chortle! Try actually responding to my comment: The Phillips Curve was generated through empirical analysis. Its application to post-war policy making had nothing to do with Keynes. It did spark off a fake debate with the ludicrous monetarists. Arguably that led to the application of rational expectations to macroeconomics and the ludicrous notions associated with neo-liberalism. And neo-liberalism also leads to economic crisis...
Who cares about some silly job search model. I've worked in the US business world my entire life. People are paid based on productivity. People are fired for lack of productivity or business conditions. Businesses are competive because of operations, technology, and innovation. And it helps to have products that people will pay prices in excess of production costs and profits. Friedman destroyed the Phillips curve and the Samuelson-Solow paper. No, I went back and read my sources - "The New American Economy" by Bruce Bartlett and "The Underground Economist" by Tim Harford. The original Phillips Curve was developed from data but Samuelson-Solow developed a formulation based on Phillips' results. It had everything to do with Samuelson who was responsible for Keynesian economics similar to Lenin's work with Marxism. Samuelson had become Keynes and thus the Phillips curve had become Keynesian.
You think 'supply & demand' is silly? When confronted with the reality (that the minimum wage is a vital support for exchange) you have a tantrum and throw out economic reality Congrats! The empirical evidence shows otherwise. By admitting that larger firms pay higher wages (a well known empirical result mind you), you directly supported the minimum wage. They're typically fired because of managerial incompetence. I know that as I'm a consultant fighting against managerial incompetence. Lots of work! Don't be silly! The Phillips Curve is just an empirical relationship based on economic history. He took that naivety and constructed a ludicrous monetarist argument. His vertical Phillips Curve garbage was a crucial piece in the delivery of the stupidity of Thatcherism (which also got rid of minimum wage protection and replaced it with corporate welfare!) You can't kid me kid! Standard attempt to look intelligent when in reality you were just hiding. The Phillips Curve, like IS/LM, had nothing to do with Keynes. Neo-Keynesianism, which spawned Friedman's nonsense, is quite distinct from the post-Keynesian analysis (which continued the real world analysis provided by Keynes' economic psychology)
Funny stuff - somehow I've proven support for the minimum wage ?? How does that work ?? So what's the take away from all this - that labor is chronically underpaid by greedy capitalists ?? How do these models and this discussion help improve the eoncomies of world nations ??
Already told you. As you don't understand supply & demand, you didn't realise that your reference to higher wages in corporations is just support for monopsony power through job search frictions. This is the sad truth: you don't understand economics. I don't think that is necessarily a problem. Indeed, it can be a god send when referring to superior analysis from the social sciences! However, you implied otherwise and you gave misinformation over the economic impact of the minimum wage. Supply & demand predicts economic gain after all! I've referred to the obvious: supply & demand tells us that underpayment is the norm. The minimum wage cannot eliminate that underpayment. However, those arguing against it are assuredly demanding that the economy is harmed. What you should do is obvious: apologise for the ludicrous comment that you made.
