It's all well and good to discuss economic models and theories.
It's another to look at a world where there are, what? Dozens? Hundreds? Of applicants for every flipping-burger job... Why should any of them pay $7, or $4, or even $2? Especially if we completely decimate the governmental safety net, so it becomes the only way people won't starve. Literally starve.
oh, and while you're at it, remove collective bargaining rights, workplace safety regulations, and wage and hour laws. Because they just stand in the way of a negotiation between a multi-billion dollar a year corporation and a single mom looking to support her kids.
We have minimum wage laws (and things like laws that require time and a half, etc) because we, as a society, have decided that people's work, their time, is worth SOME bare minimum. It's a floor we won't let people sink beneath.
...being written from the state with the highest minimum wage in the country. Why? Because it's (by statute) tied to cost of living. It started at or near the federal. THAT'S where the federal minimum wage would be if it went up with COLA.
AND, the cost of living in Washington state isn't crazy high. I live in a city the size of Boston, and knowing boston like I do, I'm pretty sure it's hella cheaper here than there. Yakima, Spokane, Olympia, Bellingham.. They're all comparable to comparably sized cities in other states.
But don't people who want to get rid of minimum wage usually want to cut assistance available to people? What if getting rid of minimum wage requires more people to need assistance, even if it is until market prices shift on other goods and services?
Well again, I don't see any evidence that minimum wage actually sets wages, except for a very small group of people. But I am ok with giving people assistance as long as it's targeted and aimed at getting them more education, etc. But targeted generally has to mean administered at the state or local level, because you can't do "targeted" from 3000 miles away.
So y4m, you're ok with doing what? Providing for college loans, scholarships, vocational training? What would this targeted assistance for education look like?
So y4m, you're ok with doing what? Providing for college loans, scholarships, vocational training? What would this targeted assistance for education look like?
All of the above ideally, but again, at the state/local level--and it would have to be for things that could realistically end in improved employment opportunities for that particular individual--learning trades, bachelors degrees, but probably not PhDs in philosophy. Got to also help with daycare, etc. to make it feasible, and you have to have standards to make sure people don't take advantage--but again, that's much easier at a personal/local level.
Look, the OP asked for explanation of a viewpoint, and was met with 40+ posts of people who hold the opposite viewpoint. Its not the libs fault that no cons responded, but let's not pretend the question was being answered honestly.
So y4m, you're ok with doing what? Providing for college loans, scholarships, vocational training? What would this targeted assistance for education look like?
All of the above ideally, but again, at the state/local level--and it would have to be for things that could realistically end in improved employment opportunities for that particular individual--learning trades, bachelors degrees, but probably not PhDs in philosophy. Got to also help with daycare, etc. to make it feasible, and you have to have standards to make sure people don't take advantage--but again, that's much easier at a personal/local level.
I could get this because it's slightly similar to what's already in place. The sad reality is though that universities, community colleges, etc. have all seen their budgets slashed and so the money for these programs just aren't there.
For daycare - like I mentioned in another thread, TN does offer some sort of assistance for daycare costs. They even have a co-pay system. So, if you make over the amount for full assistance, you can still get discounted daycare, you just have to pay a portion of the cost.
Next question - do we have any instances where (not using obvious sweatshop labor) that if the cost for hiring employees goes down, then the cost of the good/service/product goes down? Because if the argument is that high wages increases inflation, blah, blah, the counter argument should be that there must be cases where the cost savings is passed on to the consumer with a price reduction in the goods. You know, excess profit isn't just hanging out in the back pockets of the business owner.
y4m - Are you ok with states setting their own minimum wage if the federal govt got rid of it? Or do you think it would cause the same issues you see now?
States should do whatever they want, but any minimum wage has these issues. I'd oppose it in my state, but if some other state wants to do that with their economy, it's their business.
It's all well and good to discuss economic models and theories.
It's another to look at a world where there are, what? Dozens? Hundreds? Of applicants for every flipping-burger job... Why should any of them pay $7, or $4, or even $2? Especially if we completely decimate the governmental safety net, so it becomes the only way people won't starve. Literally starve.
Doesn't this contradict the more liberal arguement that illegal immigrants working "the fields" do not take away American jobs because Americans simply won't work for low wages - like $2 an hour? I'm not being snarky here, but this is the first thing I hear when somebody mentions that Illegal immigrations "takes away" jobs Americans could have. The arguement is that Americans won't take those jobs because of the low pay. Why is it different here?
I am just popping in here to say I really appreciate and am gaining a lot from this dialogue. All your questions and responses are very insightful.
Well, now you know some folks just don't want to actually hear the views of others. *shrugs* It's some die hard pinko commie liberals in this here thread. But you know, when folks are genuinely open to discussing issues these rare moments of honest dialogue seem to happen.
Next question - do we have any instances where (not using obvious sweatshop labor) that if the cost for hiring employees goes down, then the cost of the good/service/product goes down? Because if the argument is that high wages increases inflation, blah, blah, the counter argument should be that there must be cases where the cost savings is passed on to the consumer with a price reduction in the goods. You know, excess profit isn't just hanging out in the back pockets of the business owner.
I think produce would be a good example of this. Paying low wages (and in many cases taking advantage of undocumented workers - which is a separate issue) leads to low produce prices for American consumers. I don't generally think of farmers, even large corporate ones, as rolling around in money Donald Duck style.
And, I call bullshit on any economic model that doesn't see an upward spiral created by a minimum wage.
option a: $8 minimum wage Burger flippers make $8-9 /hr Managers make $10 /hr, because it's a step up, right? District managers make, say, $15 /hr Non-burger company wants to hire them away, they have to pay $17 ...and on and on.
option b: no minimum wage Burger flippers make $3-4 an hour, because that's what the market will bear. Managers, $4-5 District managers $7 you don't think that impacts wages of everybody, rippling outward?
...and don't give me some line about this.driving prices down, because everybody's wages will go down. No. because people with specialized skills, people whose parents are wealthy enough to educate them, will make more.
I think produce would be a good example of this. Paying low wages (and in many cases taking advantage of undocumented workers - which is a separate issue) leads to low produce prices for American consumers. I don't generally think of farmers, even large corporate ones, as rolling around in money Donald Duck style.
Do you mean Scrooge McDuck style?
Or do you mean rolling around in a giant pool of money whilst pantsless?
I think produce would be a good example of this. Paying low wages (and in many cases taking advantage of undocumented workers - which is a separate issue) leads to low produce prices for American consumers. I don't generally think of farmers, even large corporate ones, as rolling around in money Donald Duck style.
Do you mean Scrooge McDuck style?
Or do you mean rolling around in a giant pool of money whilst pantsless?
LMAO. I kind of felt like I had that wrong when I wrote it too.
It's all well and good to discuss economic models and theories.
It's another to look at a world where there are, what? Dozens? Hundreds? Of applicants for every flipping-burger job... Why should any of them pay $7, or $4, or even $2? Especially if we completely decimate the governmental safety net, so it becomes the only way people won't starve. Literally starve.
Doesn't this contradict the more liberal arguement that illegal immigrants working "the fields" do not take away American jobs because Americans simply won't work for low wages - like $2 an hour? I'm not being snarky here, but this is the first thing I hear when somebody mentions that Illegal immigrations "takes away" jobs Americans could have. The arguement is that Americans won't take those jobs because of the low pay. Why is it different here?
MrsDL, not speaking for Momi, but I'd say because the $7.25 is mandated by govt. I personally think it's still too low, but one could reasonably survive if you throw in the govt safety net programs (TANF, Housing Assistance), etc.
And, I call bullshit on any economic model that doesn't see an upward spiral created by a minimum wage.
option a: $8 minimum wage Burger flippers make $8-9 /hr Managers make $10 /hr, because it's a step up, right? District managers make, say, $15 /hr Non-burger company wants to hire them away, they have to pay $17 ...and on and on.
option b: no minimum wage Burger flippers make $3-4 an hour, because that's what the market will bear. Managers, $4-5 District managers $7 you don't think that impacts wages of everybody, rippling outward?
...and don't give me some line about this.driving prices down, because everybody's wages will go down. No. because people with specialized skills, people whose parents are wealthy enough to educate them, will make more.
...via mobile.
so you're saying that wages will go up or down, rippling outward from the minimum wage floor - until it hits some sort of magical land where engineers and lawyers get paid on a totally different scale that has nothing to do with the market?
Sorry kids...got a few hours of conference calls coming up shortly. Hopefully one of the other cons will tap in and play to keep the respectful and interesting parts of the conversation going.
And, I call bullshit on any economic model that doesn't see an upward spiral created by a minimum wage.
option a: $8 minimum wage Burger flippers make $8-9 /hr Managers make $10 /hr, because it's a step up, right? District managers make, say, $15 /hr Non-burger company wants to hire them away, they have to pay $17 ...and on and on.
option b: no minimum wage Burger flippers make $3-4 an hour, because that's what the market will bear. Managers, $4-5 District managers $7 you don't think that impacts wages of everybody, rippling outward?
...and don't give me some line about this.driving prices down, because everybody's wages will go down. No. because people with specialized skills, people whose parents are wealthy enough to educate them, will make more.
...via mobile.
so you're saying that wages will go up or down, rippling outward from the minimum wage floor - until it hits some sort of magical land where engineers and lawyers get paid on a totally different scale that has nothing to do with the market?
How the hell does that make any sense?
No, I'm saying there are completely different factors at play in different sectors of the job market.
Minimum wage jobs are being filled by companies that literally just want a warm body in them. If they can get away with paying them less, they absolutely will.
...lawyers, engineers, hell, machinists... They're hired because they possess a particular skill set that they bring to the job. Jane brings different skills than Bob, so she is in a place to (to some point) actually negotiate her wages. The higher up the food chain you go, the more you're hiring the person and not just a space filler, and the more negotiating power the individual has.
Wawa - I think what Momi is saying could make sense. If we're going strictly by a free market model and use the theory that product prices would go down. So, if devalue the job everyone does monetarily, then what should happen is that employers would say, well the market rate is X, I'll pay you X and over time the pay would decrease.
No. because people with specialized skills, people whose parents are wealthy enough to educate them, will make more.
...via mobile.
This is bullshit. I suspect more than half the people on this board paid for all, or part, of their own education. What most, and not all, had was somebody in their lives to encourage them to do well enough in school to get into college or get a skill. That is not something a government regulation can create. Says the former micky-d's "burger flipper" who did work for $4.25 an hour and did not have parents who could pay for college, although they encouraged the hell out of me.
Voodoo - is you buying fancy food Boo? You can't bring Whole Paycheck prices up in here! LOL
And on the food - broccoli is currently out of season, so you would pay more for it. Mango is hella cheap in my grocery stores right now. I can get a mango for a $1 right now.
Voodoo - is you buying fancy food Boo? You can't bring Whole Paycheck prices up in here! LOL
And on the food - broccoli is currently out of season, so you would pay more for it. Mango is hella cheap in my grocery stores right now. I can get a mango for a $1 right now.
nope! Swearsies! I have never even been to a Whole because it's not close at all. Those are local Target and Meijer prices.
Our produce is artificially cheap because undocumented workers are often used for picking, and you can pay them less, or even under minimum wage. If you paid them real wages, our produce prices would skyrocket. There are lots of googleable studies.
so you're saying that wages will go up or down, rippling outward from the minimum wage floor - until it hits some sort of magical land where engineers and lawyers get paid on a totally different scale that has nothing to do with the market?
How the hell does that make any sense?
No, I'm saying there are completely different factors at play in different sectors of the job market.
Minimum wage jobs are being filled by companies that literally just want a warm body in them. If they can get away with paying them less, they absolutely will.
...lawyers, engineers, hell, machinists... They're hired because they possess a particular skill set that they bring to the job. Jane brings different skills than Bob, so she is in a place to (to some point) actually negotiate her wages. The higher up the food chain you go, the more you're hiring the person and not just a space filler, and the more negotiating power the individual has.
...via mobile.
that is true, skilled labor can negotiate more. They get paid more. But when the entire market contracts they DO get paid less. Every civil engineer I know took a paycut when the housing market went to hell because suddenly we were not as much in demand and our previous pay couldn't be supported by the market. Even now that things are looking better and everybody is hiring again - the kids fresh out of college are still getting offered less than what i was hired at 6 years ago.
so if the entire labor market - and i do mean the ENTIRE market - took a step down because the minimum wage floor was taken away, we'd also get paid less. Still more than a unskilled worker obviously, but there is no reason the ripple effect wouldn't go up into the skilled labor and white collar pool.
I'm not sure this is a reason to get rid of minimum wage, but it's just not logical to say that minimum wage creates a ripple effect on overall wages but that it won't effect the upper ranks.
so you're saying that wages will go up or down, rippling outward from the minimum wage floor - until it hits some sort of magical land where engineers and lawyers get paid on a totally different scale that has nothing to do with the market?
How the hell does that make any sense?
Lawyers are paid (in big law) according to costs of law school and what other big law firms are doing. From when I started law school to 1.5 years later starting salaries went from 125 to 145 to 160k/year. Pretty sure prices did not change that much from Sept2005 to May 2007.
Good point. Ok, conceeded - biglaw firms really are in a totally magical market that has very little to do with the real world. But I think my point still holds for pretty much every other skilled labor or white collar job. (maybe not medicine? since the insurance market controls so much of the pricing there and the insurance market is fucking weird)
I just want to know why people think the exploitative nature of businesses are different now than they were a hundres years ago when there were no worker protections and jobs were shitty?
Because we've evolved in the last hundred years. It's a kinder, gentler market that will keep us safe and keep poor kids out of sweatshops.
Wawa - I think what Momi is saying could make sense. If we're going strictly by a free market model and use the theory that product prices would go down. So, if devalue the job everyone does monetarily, then what should happen is that employers would say, well the market rate is X, I'll pay you X and over time the pay would decrease.
right, I think that's true. I thought what she was saying was that the corresponding reduction in prices would never happen because the skilled and white collar workers wouldn't see the same reduction.
I really don't know though. I should have taken more econ classes in college. I know just enough to kinda feel like I'm playing along but still feel totally lost.
Wawa - I think what Momi is saying could make sense. If we're going strictly by a free market model and use the theory that product prices would go down. So, if devalue the job everyone does monetarily, then what should happen is that employers would say, well the market rate is X, I'll pay you X and over time the pay would decrease.
right, I think that's true. I thought what she was saying was that the corresponding reduction in prices would never happen because the skilled and white collar workers wouldn't see the same reduction.
I really don't know though. I should have taken more econ classes in college. I know just enough to kinda feel like I'm playing along but still feel totally lost.
Aaargh. I'm having a hard time articulating today. Got bad news and I'm trying to distract myself with this, and mucking it up horribly.
Here we go... There would be a reduction in white collar wages, but it wouldn't be as much - the ripple would dissipate as you move up.
So, current minimum wage workers pay, reduce by half.
jobs managing minimum wage workers, reduce by a quarter
Jobs managing them, reduce by an eighth
And so on.
My theory is that while there might be a slight price reduction for goods, and maybe even enough of a price reduction that would benefit SOME people, the reduction would never be sufficient to make up for the hit people at the bottom would inevitably take.
nope! Swearsies! I have never even been to a Whole because it's not close at all. Those are local Target and Meijer prices.
Our produce is artificially cheap because undocumented workers are often used for picking, and you can pay them less, or even under minimum wage. If you paid them real wages, our produce prices would skyrocket. There are lots of googleable studies.
True that.
Also MsDL isn’t not only the low wages because I believe undocumented workers are paid by the amount they pick it’s the work period. In GA with high unemployment and farmers offering 7-8 bucks an hour in places with VERY LCOL their fields are still rotting as a result of the AZ like immigration law we have here.
Just another down turn on the roller coaster of school choice lotteries. Our neighborhood school sucks, trying to get her into something great, or good, and failing miserably.
Say what now? Produce is extremely expensive here. 2 bucks per avocado, 2 bucks for a head of broccoli, 3.50 a pound of asparagus. The 2 local farm co-ops are >120 a month. Am I being anecdotal? I never heard anyone argue produce is cheap before.
I think compared to the rest of the world, what we pay for produce and food is general is really cheap. Corn subsidies yo.
I am dying, dying I say at the idea that a local farm co-op is somehow a good measure of how much produce costs as a whole.
I don't buy fresh broccoli so I can't help you out there. But avocados have been ten for ten for a straight month. Zucchini and Squash are 10lbs for $10, bags of lettuce have been running between $2 and $3 all summer, mushrooms are $2, strawberries, blueberries, and blackberries have all been $1.99-4 a pint. I haven't bought any in a while but last I looked, asparagus was under $3.