Momi - No, I follow your logic here. That's exactly why I asked about the price of goods decreasing if employee pay were to decrease. I get the undocumented workers/produce example, but where does this work for other places? Would it be like Wally World?
Not trying to ignore your question, Bridey, I just don't know where to start to find data to analyze it. I'm not aware of any studies that have looked at that.
That's what I figured. Those are the economic models I'd want to see.
Given that Old Navy paid more than minimum wage, I'm not that surprised that so few places pay the actual minimum wage. But - and I'm just guessing here - I bet that if you looked at jobs that paid up to $1/hour more than minimum wage, the field would expand greatly. Of the 2 dozen or so jobs that I've held, I think only 2 paid minimum wage, but another half-dozen or so paid less than $1/hour more.
ETA: Maybe more than half a dozen. It's really hard to keep track of all the jobs I've had and how much they've paid. But now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I've only had 6 jobs that paid $10/hour or more, present one included.
One more thing to point out about the minimum wage stats -- and probably why Old Navy paid more than minimum wage.
Many clothing retailers pay more than minimum wage, but require the sales clerks to purchase and wear clothes from the store. They are allowed to do this, so long as the employee, after buying the "uniform" of new clothing from the store, is still earning minimum wage.
So, if you work 20 hours a week, at dollar more than minimum wage, but the store requires you to maintain a wardrobe at a cost of $20 a week, then you are actually earning minimum wage, even if the data doesn't count you as a minimum wage earner.
Also to further Bridey's point -- when I worked at Kmart in high school, everyone started at minimum wage, but after 90 days, if they were satisfied with your work, you got a raise of 25 cents more an hour. So sure, most of Kmart's work force wasn't earning minimum wage and therefore not counted in the 3% of people earning minimum wage. But everything keyed off that floor. It wasn't as if people were walking through the door being paid an amount bearing no connection to minimum wage.
I understand that minimum wage is not intended to be a living wage, and i don't think we need to jack it up so everyone can afford one bedroom apartments in Manhattan on it. But I think some reasonable floor helps protect workers. Even if y4m's estimate of 1% of the workforce is correct -- a huge portion of that 1% is likely teenagers, disabled people, or the elderly -- people most likely to be taken advantage of. At least the minimum wage gives a very clear and bright line rule of what is and isn't permissible for people who need it most.
One of the arguments I've heard is that the minimum wage is partially responsible for the increase in COL. Raising the minimum wage just lifts the income floor, so everybody gets paid a tiny bit more and everything ends up costing a tiny bit more.
So...there's that. I'm not sure how that accounts for the people working PT or the unemployed.
I once heard someone compare it to what is happening in education (higher Ed). Government intervention causes price to go up.
I once heard someone compare it to what is happening in education (higher Ed). Government intervention causes price to go up.
This is what my co-worker says as well. He also feels that because higher education is readily available to many people is why employers require it, not the other way around.
I don't agree with the second. It is readily available because funds are there...who wouldn't want to tap into the feds if they can grow?
I'm not sure if this is helpful or useful to the conversation, but I find that jobs that only pay minimum wage are more likely to give you a full 40 hour work week while ones who pay you just over are more likely to expect you to be damned grateful for 32.
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?
The minimum wage isn't about stopping businesses from exploiting people. It's about unions stifling the competition in the labor force. It's a similar concept as a tariff.
The real minimum wage is always zero. Economics 101: If a price artificially goes up, that causes supply to go up and demand to go down. The result is a surplus, which in labor means unemployment. I wish the government could set a minimum wage for everyone and have no repercussions, but unfortunately labor is not exempt from basic economic principles. This is why unemployment is higher after minimum wage laws are enforced. I should say, unemployment for low-skilled, entry level, young/inexperienced workers -- the ones who are the most likely to be paid a low wage (minimum wage has a differential impact so the effects are fairly complex). We can see this demonstrated as clear as day in our own country and in the many other countries that either have no minimum wage or recently implemented it (providing a contrast). When the US first adopted a minimum wage the labor force participation rate among AAs was higher than whites, and their unemployment rate was lower (and that's saying something considering the pervasive institutional racism preventing them from gaining employment in many areas.) Post-war inflation basically nullified the effects of the minimum wage for a few years, but after the law was amended in the early 50s the unemployment rate of AAs became double that of whites and it's been the same ever since. Youth employment was also obviously negatively affected, which contributes to a life-long income reduction versus youth who are employed and continue to work as adults. For international examples of countries (mostly) w/o a minimum wage, or one recently implemented with negative effects on employment see Singapore, Switzerland, and Hong Kong. Not countries recently known for paying 4 cents an hour to its impoverished masses queuing up for government bread.
My source is the book Basic Economics, and if someone wants the footnotes I'll post them. otherwise, I recommend this to anyone interested in econ's basic principles. It's really easy to understand and has no graphs. Yay for that!
So... If we agree that, yes, costs for goods goes down, but wages also go down... And the downward-ness of wages is more profound the lower on the economic ladder you go...
How exactly is lowering the minimum wage a good thing? We reduce costs on people who can afford it, and reduce real wages of people who can't.
I call class warfare. This is yet another means of transferring wealth upwards.
Caden... do you think collective bargaining - where individuals use market principles to negotiate for the fair value of their wages - is worse than an arbitrary, government set minimum wage?
...because by starting out on collective bargaining, it sure sounds that way.
Caden... do you think collective bargaining - where individuals use market principles to negotiate for the fair value of their wages - is worse than an arbitrary, government set minimum wage?
...because by starting out on collective bargaining, it sure sounds that way.
...via mobile.
I'm sorry, did you just say union bargaining is where individuals use market principles?
ETA: To answer your question, no I don't think collective bargaining is worse than the minimum wage. The minimum wage has a much broader reach.
Caden... do you think collective bargaining - where individuals use market principles to negotiate for the fair value of their wages - is worse than an arbitrary, government set minimum wage?
...because by starting out on collective bargaining, it sure sounds that way.
...via mobile.
Individuals band together, negotiate collectively. Collective bargaining.
..an attempt to level the playing field. Instead of Jane trying to negotiate on her own, for a living wage and decent working conditions.. Negotiating with a company that could give a shit, because there are 20 other people who can do her job, so Jane pretty much had to take what they give, even if it's crappy and exploitive and dangerous.
Instead, Jane gets together with the other 20 who can do the job, and they all say, â€you know what? We aren't going to do it if it's crappy and dangerous and exploitive. †and they negotiate to make it not crappy, dangerous, and exploitive.
How is that less of a market based negotiation than a CEO who gets eleventy billion a year in salary and stock options because that's what the market will bear?
Individuals band together, negotiate collectively. Collective bargaining.
..an attempt to level the playing field. Instead of Jane trying to negotiate on her own, for a living wage and decent working conditions.. Negotiating with a company that could give a shit, because there are 20 other people who can do her job, so Jane pretty much had to take what they give, even if it's crappy and exploitive and dangerous.
Instead, Jane gets together with the other 20 who can do the job, and they all say, â€you know what? We aren't going to do it if it's crappy and dangerous and exploitive. †and they negotiate to make it not crappy, dangerous, and exploitive.
How is that less of a market based negotiation than a CEO who gets eleventy billion a year in salary and stock options because that's what the market will bear?
...via mobile.
By definition, unions exist to inflate the price of labor from where it would be in a market-based setting. Just as by definition those employer-based collective associations (like medieval guilds) that banded together to create a consistent labor policy deflated the price of labor. Both systems move the rate of pay away from the productivity of the worker and thereby make the business, industry, and economy less efficient. (This is because labor rates based on productivity send signals in a market economy and resources shift to where it is more productive.) I'm well aware of why and how unions began and it's straying from the point about the minimum wage to get into debates about whether or not they're currently necessary.
caden - In your opinion, what happens to the workers with reduced income that can no longer afford the basics? I know eventually costs for goods will go down, but not immediately. I just keep thinking this will lead to more people needing govt assistance.
Is your question referring to something previously posted here? I admit I skimmed the first few pages and I'm not following what you're asking here. What reduced income?
So, no, this is not a circle jerk. It is a real issue in America. Fuck anyone for denying its reality. It may not affect anyone you know, your gardeners or nannies, but it's real.
No one is denying the reality of anything. We're discussing the economics of this policy. Just b/c statistics seem dispassionate that doesn't mean we think real humans aren't affected in any way by it. Plenty of people, even large groups of people are directly affected in a negative way by this policy. That's the only reason I/we even care about minimum wage laws in the first place.
Individuals band together, negotiate collectively. Collective bargaining.
..an attempt to level the playing field. Instead of Jane trying to negotiate on her own, for a living wage and decent working conditions.. Negotiating with a company that could give a shit, because there are 20 other people who can do her job, so Jane pretty much had to take what they give, even if it's crappy and exploitive and dangerous.
Instead, Jane gets together with the other 20 who can do the job, and they all say, â€you know what? We aren't going to do it if it's crappy and dangerous and exploitive. †and they negotiate to make it not crappy, dangerous, and exploitive.
How is that less of a market based negotiation than a CEO who gets eleventy billion a year in salary and stock options because that's what the market will bear?
...via mobile.
By definition, unions exist to inflate the price of labor from where it would be in a market-based setting. Just as by definition those employer-based collective associations (like medieval guilds) that banded together to create a consistent labor policy deflated the price of labor. Both systems move the rate of pay away from the productivity of the worker and thereby make the business, industry, and economy less efficient. (This is because labor rates based on productivity send signals in a market economy and resources shift to where it is more productive.) I'm well aware of why and how unions began and it's straying from the point about the minimum wage to get into debates about whether or not they're currently necessary.
You didn't answer my question.
Why its one CEO negotiating a shining example of the market, but 20 janes negotiations are not?
So, no, this is not a circle jerk. It is a real issue in America. Fuck anyone for denying its reality. It may not affect anyone you know, your gardeners or nannies, but it's real.
No one is denying the reality of anything. We're discussing the economics of this policy. Just b/c statistics seem dispassionate that doesn't mean we think real humans aren't affected in any way by it. Plenty of people, even large groups of people are directly affected in a negative way by this policy. That's the only reason I/we even care about minimum wage laws in the first place.
Are you taking about the poor people making minimum wage who are negatively impacted - people who simply can't afford to lose any more ground...
Or are you saying that those who are negatively impacted are Papa John, because he can't pay people less than $5/hr to make pizzas, so he's less profitable, and the shareholders take a hit.
Why its one CEO negotiating a shining example of the market, but 20 janes negotiations are not?
Comparing one to 20 doesn't make sense. What is an apt comparison to workers who do the same thing banding together to increase their negotiating power is companies that make the same product banding together to fix prices. Only we call those Trusts and they are illegal, because they stop the market from functioning freely.
By definition, unions exist to inflate the price of labor from where it would be in a market-based setting.
I disagree with your definition. The purpose of a union is to not to inflate labor costs, although that may be one of the effects. The purpose is to use collective bargaining power to prevent employers from exploiting workers - whether that's low pay or unreasonably long hours or dangerous working conditions.
signed - the girl checking GBCN during a break from collective bargaining negotiations.
So, no, this is not a circle jerk. It is a real issue in America. Fuck anyone for denying its reality. It may not affect anyone you know, your gardeners or nannies, but it's real.
No one is denying the reality of anything. We're discussing the economics of this policy. Just b/c statistics seem dispassionate that doesn't mean we think real humans aren't affected in any way by it. Plenty of people, even large groups of people are directly affected in a negative way by this policy. That's the only reason I/we even care about minimum wage laws in the first place.
Yeah, laws really need to be made with reason free from emotion? No?
No one is denying the reality of anything. We're discussing the economics of this policy. Just b/c statistics seem dispassionate that doesn't mean we think real humans aren't affected in any way by it. Plenty of people, even large groups of people are directly affected in a negative way by this policy. That's the only reason I/we even care about minimum wage laws in the first place.
Yeah, laws really need to be made with reason free from emotion? No?
Yeah, laws really need to be made with reason free from emotion? No?
No.
...via mobile.
And even if the answer were yes, how is instituting a policy that makes goods cheaper for the middle and upper classes, and increases share values all on the shoulders of the poor, somehow an intellectually brilliant move?
Do we want more poor people? Is it a good idea to make more poor people, and make their lives harder?
It's not emotion... You have more poor people, and poorer poor, you have more crime, more social unrest, etc etc etc.
We all pay a tiny bit more so that our lives are a lot safer, happier and healthier.
By definition, unions exist to inflate the price of labor from where it would be in a market-based setting.
I disagree with your definition. The purpose of a union is to not to inflate labor costs, although that may be one of the effects. The purpose is to use collective bargaining power to prevent employers from exploiting workers - whether that's low pay or unreasonably long hours or dangerous working conditions.
If a union could not give workers more than what they could otherwise get under market conditions, there would be no purpose to joining the union. That's why I say "by definition". Even if unions didn't negotiate pay rates, reduced work hours/days and increased safety still add to the cost of labor.
And even if the answer were yes, how is instituting a policy that makes goods cheaper for the middle and upper classes, and increases share values all on the shoulders of the poor, somehow an intellectually brilliant move?
Do we want more poor people? Is it a good idea to make more poor people, and make their lives harder?
It's not emotion... You have more poor people, and poorer poor, you have more crime, more social unrest, etc etc etc.
We all pay a tiny bit more so that our lives are a lot safer, happier and healthier.
And even if the answer were yes, how is instituting a policy that makes goods cheaper for the middle and upper classes, and increases share values all on the shoulders of the poor, somehow an intellectually brilliant move?
Do we want more poor people? Is it a good idea to make more poor people, and make their lives harder?
It's not emotion... You have more poor people, and poorer poor, you have more crime, more social unrest, etc etc etc.
We all pay a tiny bit more so that our lives are a lot safer, happier and healthier.
But, no, it's just on emotion.
...via mobile.
What?
This is in response to tef saying laws should be based on reason, not emotion.
I think having fewer poor poeple is good from an intellectual vantage point. It's not (entirely) emotional.
This is in response to tef saying laws should be based on reason, not emotion.
I think having fewer poor poeple is good from an intellectual vantage point. It's not (entirely) emotional.
...via mobile.
I don't think that people who are opposed to the minimum wage are pro-more-poor people though. In fact just saying it sounds ridiculous. yes, Caden is opposed to the minimum wage because she thinks that what we need is more poor people.
In her first post she outlined that the economic theory behind her stance is that a minimum wage leads to more unemployement. Therefore...more poor people. If you disagree with that, then fine, but painting it as if she (and everybody else on her side) are just dandy with people starving in the gutter is a little over the top.
I think having fewer poor poeple is good from an intellectual vantage point. It's not (entirely) emotional.
...via mobile.
Ok. Everyone wants fewer poor people. In response to your earlier question, those who are negatively impacted are the people who are unemployed because of this policy. you know, the many who make 0, in order to appease the few who make above market wages. Not to mention the less obvious costs of those forced to work lower paying jobs than they otherwise would b/c of businesses hiring fewer people in order to pay their workers more. Those industries and consumers who suffer from paying higher prices for goods in order to support above-market labor costs. The deterioration of those businesses and industries over time, since they will not be sustainable in the long-run to competition, also negatively impacts jobs and people. the economy is not so simple that one can say, "pay A more and everyone benefits because A is now better off." There are repercussions to every policy. We have to look at the entire picture for a true analysis of how the minimum wage really affects people.
I don't think that people who are opposed to the minimum wage are pro-more-poor people though. In fact just saying it sounds ridiculous. yes, Caden is opposed to the minimum wage because she thinks that what we need is more poor people.
In her first post she outlined that the economic theory behind her stance is that a minimum wage leads to more unemployement. Therefore...more poor people. If you disagree with that, then fine, but painting it as if she (and everybody else on her side) are just dandy with people starving in the gutter is a little over the top.
Thank you! I'm tempted to accuse the other side of being pro-superficial analyses if they seriously think the minimum wage is what results in fewer poor people.