$15 dollars an hour for the minimum wage?

[Yekcidmij]

$10 is what it would be if inflation adjusted from the 60s.

CPI isn't calculated the same way it was in the 60's, so I'm not sure it's really a good comparison.

As far as the feasibility, that's a terrible argument with a terrible history.

I didn't make an argument. I was simply asking how you know what's best for all businesses.

If a business can't afford to pay a fair days wage for a fair day's work, there are more profound problems than payroll. If there is something that is legitimately underpriced to the point that it can't support the workers making it, then the market needs to be allowed to correct that and the price of that particular product needs to go up.

So you would decide prices too?

I also mentioned the historical aspect. A similar argument was made regarding slavery. The theory went that free labor was all that allowed the cotton industry to work. Now, the minimum wage issue is of course no where near that dramatic, but the root of the argument is the same. if it doesn't work in one, it must be dismissed in the other.

I don't know that the institution of slavery is really comparable to modern labor in America. I don't know that the arguments are really comparable either.

 

[keith99]

So you would decide prices too?

Just controlling the price won't be enough. They then need to force people to buy the product.

That is a huge problem for trying to artificially increase wages.

 

[[serious]]

CPI isn't calculated the same way it was in the 60's, so I'm not sure it's really a good comparison.

I'm using a modern day calculator. CPI Inflation Calculator

I didn't make an argument. I was simply asking how you know what's best for all businesses.

I don't recall saying I did. However, I think businesses should have to pay a fair wage.

So you would decide prices too?

Why would we need to? The market is perfectly capable of deciding that on it's own.

I don't know that the institution of slavery is really comparable to modern labor in America. I don't know that the arguments are really comparable either.

The argument that [given industry] can't survive with [wage policy] is equivalent I think. I'm, of course, not equating a $7.25 minimum wage with slavery, merely pointing out that the argument that industry needs labor cheaper than the cost of living to survive doesn't hold. There may be other arguments against returning the minimum wage to 1960s levels, but this isn't one of them.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

OK, what is the minimum wage increase that ensures unemployment does not increase by more than 0.1%?

 

[Yekcidmij]

I'm using a modern day calculator. CPI Inflation Calculator

Neither the basket nor weighting are the same as the 60's, not to mention the entire monetary system is different. Comparing the CPI in the 60's to that of today is going to take more than just assertion. It seems that before you would force businesses to take some action there would be some data supporting your reasons for making them do it.

However, I think businesses should have to pay a fair wage.

I just think it's interesting that you seem to think you know the wage policy each and every business should employ. It seems a little bit of a stretch to me.

The market is perfectly capable of deciding that on it's own.

But it's not capable of deciding the price of labor? Isn't this a blatant contradiction? If it's not capable of deciding all prices, why/how can the market decide some prices but not others?

 

[[serious]]

Neither the basket nor weighting are the same as the 60's, not to mention the entire monetary system is different. Comparing the CPI in the 60's to that of today is going to take more than just assertion. It seems that before you would force businesses to take some action there would be some data supporting your reasons for making them do it.

Surely you must think there is SOME way of adjusting for inflation. What would you propose as an alternate method?

I just think it's interesting that you seem to think you know the wage policy each and every business should employ. It seems a little bit of a stretch to me.

Not at all, I'm just talking about minimum standards.

But it's not capable of deciding the price of labor? Isn't this a blatant contradiction? If it's not capable of deciding all prices, why/how can the market decide some prices but not others?

Why can the market determine paperclip prices but not utility costs? economics are based on assumptions. Industries which deviate from the underlying assumptions of economics are not subject to market forces the same way most industries are.

Wages are one such different industry:
1. The service provider (employee) cannot effectively set the price of his or her service.
2. In many fields, there is a significant barrier to entry (retraining) that prevents them from entering a new field.
3. The purchasers (employers) are vastly more consolidated and organized than the service providers.

There is precedent for such regulation when the realities of an industry are that far removed from the assumptions of economics. Utility companies are a perfect example.

 

[[serious]]

OK, what is the minimum wage increase that ensures unemployment does not increase by more than 0.1%?

I haven't done any statistical analysis, but no relationship jumps out at me.

 

[Steve Petersen]

.

 

[coraline]

The "minimum wage" was never the "living wage"

It was for students to help them with $ to get them through school.
Now, it seems there are those who stay at "entry level" unskilled jobs & expect to get a wage to support their families.

Remember the adage, "to get a good job, get a good education?"

It's still a golden guideline for all.


But I do think McDonalds should pay those workers a little more, say even $10hr.

They can afford it. They certainly charge enough too for their product!

 

[Saleena]

That's just it, those jobs that are supposed to be for kids to get through school are being filled by people who are overqualified. That is the problem.

 

[stamperben]

That's just it, those jobs that are supposed to be for kids to get through school are being filled by people who are overqualified. That is the problem.

Ain't y'all heard? It's minimum wage jobs that's being created in this new economy. That's all there is!

 

[Saleena]

I'd hate to see the people who are harping against this ever lose their jobs and be forced to find some fast food funployee job. That would just be awful and in no way shape or form be karma.

 

[Saleena]

I forgot, that would be assuming they even got said job

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Ain't y'all heard? It's minimum wage jobs that's being created in this new economy. That's all there is!

What is your source that documents that all hiring has been minimum wage only?

 

[[serious]]

What is your source that documents that all hiring has been minimum wage only?

It was a pretty clear case of mild hyperbole to illustrate a point. New job growth is notably lower paying than the jobs lost during the recession though:

STUDY: Majority Of Jobs Added Since End Of Recession Pay Low Wages | ThinkProgress

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

It was a pretty clear case of mild hyperbole to illustrate a point. New job growth is notably lower paying than the jobs lost during the recession though:

STUDY: Majority Of Jobs Added Since End Of Recession Pay Low Wages | ThinkProgress

Looks like Obama hasn't been very successful in reviving the economy from this measure.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Surely you must think there is SOME way of adjusting for inflation. What would you propose as an alternate method?

Of course. I have no issues using the CPI or PCE as a good measure. Its just difficult to compare the CPI of the 60s to the CPI of today since the baskets use different compositions and weights.

economics are based on assumptions. Industries which deviate from the underlying assumptions of economics are not subject to market forces the same way most industries are.

What assumptions are we talking about?

Wages are one such different industry:
1. The service provider (employee) cannot effectively set the price of his or her service.
2. In many fields, there is a significant barrier to entry (retraining) that prevents them from entering a new field.
3. The purchasers (employers) are vastly more consolidated and organized than the service providers.

I wouldn't necessarily argue against you here. 1 employee is certainly no negotiating match for a billion dollar firm, unless he is in such high demand and limited supply. But we're not necessarily talking about an employee only competing against a firm for wages ( which is impossible anyway), but also employees competing against each other for wages. What about an employee who is willing to work for what some would consider sub par wages? Should he be legislated out of the labor market? And why?

All together, employees make up the supply of labor ( or the demand for wages....however you want to look at it). Employers make up the demand. A glut of people competing for work will bring down wages (all else being equal). Legislating price of labor will only price some employees out of the market.

Forgive any misspellings; I'm on my cell.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

The public health risk of underpaid food workers going to work sick is something I hadn't concidered, but it's worth concideration in this debate.

I remember working sick often when I was in fast food. Not the sniffles either. Nasty, should-be-in-bed, hacking up stuff sick. Oh, I could call in sick. But I lost a day's pay. It's hard to pay rent on a month when you've got the flu.

 

[katherine2001]

I'd hate to see the people who are harping against this ever lose their jobs and be forced to find some fast food funployee job. That would just be awful and in no way shape or form be karma.

Sometimes God has to show us the hard way how to have compassion for others if we won't learn the easy way. God could very easily work it so that they lose their jobs and end up on umemployment, EBT, etc. That is definitely one way to learn that all the stereotypes you had about the poor just might not be true. Also, lets not forget that many newer college graduates who get themselves into terrible debt getting their college degree are ending up in jobs like this when they get out of college, because minimum wage and retail jobs are all that's available. Those high paying jobs they went to college to get aren't there. Just remember that a lot of people that are on unemployment now once had those high paying jobs and never thought they'd be where they are now (they lost their jobs because of this recession). It can happen to any of us. Just remember that Christ was not doing carpentry work during His ministry to support Himself (and I never read in the Scriptures that He was being paid for the work He did during His ministry. The fact is that He was dependent on others. I wonder how many accused Him of being a lazy bum and asked Him why He didn't go out and get a job and quit depending on others?

 

[[serious]]

Of course. I have no issues using the CPI or PCE as a good measure. Its just difficult to compare the CPI of the 60s to the CPI of today since the baskets use different compositions and weights.

Ok, we must have been misunderstanding each other. I was using just one adjustment to bring 1960's dollars up to 2013 dollars. There wouldn't have been any CPI mismatch because there was just one single CPI adjustment.

What assumptions are we talking about?

Let me see if i can find you a list. I can recall several from a few econ classes I took, but there is a pretty standard set and i don't want to skip or misstate any.

Ok, here are the fundamental ones:
"people have rational preferences among outcomes that can be identified and associated with a value, individuals maximize utility and firms maximize profit, and people act independently on the basis of full and relevant information."https://www.boundless.com/economics/principles-of-economics/economic-models/assumptions/

economic theory predicts optimal efficiency can be reached by market forces if there is perfect competition which is defined as: "(1) a large number of small firms, (2) identical products sold by all firms, (3) perfect resource mobility or the freedom of entry into and exit out of the industry, and (4) perfect knowledge of prices and technology."
AmosWEB is Economics: Encyclonomic WEB*pedia An unstated one that applies to wages would be a corollary to #1 that there are also a large number of independant consumers.

I wouldn't necessarily argue against you here. 1 employee is certainly no negotiating match for a billion dollar firm, unless he is in such high demand and limited supply. But we're not necessarily talking about an employee only competing against a firm for wages ( which is impossible anyway), but also employees competing against each other for wages. What about an employee who is willing to work for what some would consider sub par wages? Should he be legislated out of the labor market? And why?

All together, employees make up the supply of labor ( or the demand for wages....however you want to look at it). Employers make up the demand. A glut of people competing for work will bring down wages (all else being equal). Legislating price of labor will only price some employees out of the market.

Forgive any misspellings; I'm on my cell.

Theoretically scarcity of labor would drive up wages, but in practice, that doesn't happen reliably. Unions, if they have strong legal protections, can bring labor close enough to parity to deal with it, but organized labor has been getting eroded for decades and is no longer capable of counterbalancing industry. This is a trend that started in the 20s, was stopped for several decades by strengthening of labor protections, and has now resumed. As far as the bit about pricing employees out of the market, I assume you are talking about the idea that increased minimum wage would increase unemployment. There are many studies regarding this and there is some disagreement, but the prevailing results seem to suggest that there is little to no effect on employment rates. This should make sense if you think about it. Companies don't go into payroll from a perspective of "what is our payroll budget" but from the perspective of "what employees are necessary" If I'm an owner of a factory and I need 10 machine operators, if i have to increase wages by 20%, that doesn't mean I'm going let 2 people go and leave 2 machines idle. Likewise, even if wages are decreasing, if i can fully automate 2 machines, I'm letting those 2 operators go.