Raising the minimum wage

Might be overstating the case a little. The CBO report that came out awhile back said that 500,000 people could lose their jobs if the president got his increase in the minimum wage to $10.10. Could be fewer, could also be as many as a million more unemployed. They also said that once you add up all the pluses and minuses that you end up with a net increase of about $2 billion dollars. In a $16 trillion dollar economy that ain't much.

 

The congressional research service said that many other numbers are inflated. Any job loss would be quickly offset by more jobs. California has about 16,000 predicted with the new 15$ wage.

 

Interesting how some people on both sides love the CBO numbers when it supports their view but not when it doesn't. I don't know if California is going to see a 16,000 growth in jobs this year, but if they do it sure as hell won't be cuz they raised the minimum wage to $15. Seriously, how can anyone possibly believe that when you increase the cost of labor that much that there won't be consequences. Not just in existing businesses but also in new startups that won't happen cuz the profit margin (reward) isn't good enough to offset the risks.

 

I think the numbers are indeed inflated by extreme amounts. Job growth as a direct result seems more likely in the 1000-3000 area.

 

I guess we'll never know, cuz there are many factors involved with economic growth and job creation than the minimum wage. I hope you can see that raising the m-wage that much has to be an incentive to automate whatever and wherever possible. I hope you can see that when the costs of labor go up that much that employers are faced with several unappealing choices:

1. cut costs somehow - fewer hours worked, fewer employees, automate, etc

2. raise prices if the market will bear it

3. eat the cost in lower profits

4. go out of business if it ain't worth it any more.

 

You sound economically illiterate. Please do some research before calling out ideas you know nothing about.

 

Pretending? Bias has no place in coherent arguments

- - - Updated - - -

Also, are you denying that an increase in wage, in certain supply and demand trends, will increase aggregate demand?[/QUOTE]


Minimum wage, again, is simply a price control on the labor market. Increasing it won't necessarily raise prices, as employers can counteract added costs by also raising expectations on workers or trying to get more labor out of them. On the surface, this may seem more "efficient", but it's really not. All it does is force current workers to work harder and limit the future number of workers that a business can take in. Remember that this is not just McDonalds and Wal-mart we're talking about here. We are affecting every single small business out there that is barely making it when we raise minimum wage. We punish the little guys because feel-good idealogues like you can only see one part of the bigger picture. Economics is a study of not what happens in the present, but what goes on in the future as well.

 

http://www.inquisitr.com/554263/family-of-four-lives-on-14000-a-year-and-loves-it/

 

I see where the Swiss rejected an ultra-high minimum wage.

 

Raising minimum wage only temporarily raises the income of minimum wage workers. There's a reason that say, engineers on average make X amount of times the amount of money that minimum wage workers make. It's because that's what the market has determined their labor is worth relative to each other, using our pricing structure to describe the labor values in absolute terms. The same goes for any job relative to another.

No amount of raising the minimum wage is EVER going to change those real relative labor values. What it does do, however, is distort the pricing structure until it (somewhat) recovers from government abuse. Eventually the wages of higher earners will go up and minimum wage earners will be making the same amount of money compared to the higher income groups as they were before.

Not only that, but the Congressional Budget Office projected that even raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would have the absolutely devastating consequences of putting about half a million people out of work. This directly contradicts left-wing statist propaganda that we see parroted over and over again by people like Paul Krugman and his worshipers that say raising minimum wage doesn't cause jobs to be lost.

Raising minimum wage doesn't address the real problem, which is inflation. Since the last federal minimum wage increase in 2009, prices have gone up 11%, which means that the poor have seen a decrease in their income of 11%. For people who can barely feed themselves, that is SIGNIFICANT.

The typical solution presented is to lock minimum wage to inflation. That is a non-solution, because it will not change the fact that inflation will devalue the poor's wages until minimum wage goes up again. Any amount of devaluing the poor's income is unacceptable. If one really cares about the poor, they would at the very least demand that the Federal Reserve be required to target 0% inflation. Then we won't have to worry about rising prices harming the poor.

Minimum wage is not only harmful to the economy, but it should be outright abolished. Neither you nor anybody else has the moral authority to step in between two people voluntarily entering into a contract on a pay rate than they agree just because you arbitrarily and randomly decided that you think it's too low of a rate, and you think that a bunch of thugs with guns should initiate state violence against anybody who disobeys.

 

Taxcutter says:
Predicted by who?

Just another scam to stick it to the consumer.

 

Raising minimum wage only temporarily raises the income of minimum wage workers. There's a reason that say, engineers on average make X amount of times the amount of money that minimum wage workers make. It's because that's what the market has determined their labor is worth relative to each other, using our pricing structure to describe the labor values in absolute terms. The same goes for any job relative to another.

No amount of raising the minimum wage is EVER going to change those real relative labor values. What it does do, however, is distort the pricing structure until it (somewhat) recovers from government abuse. Eventually the wages of higher earners will go up and minimum wage earners will be making the same amount of money compared to the higher income groups as they were before.

Not only that, but the Congressional Budget Office projected that even raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would have the absolutely devastating consequences of putting about half a million people out of work. This directly contradicts left-wing statist propaganda that we see parroted over and over again by people like Paul Krugman and his worshipers that say raising minimum wage doesn't cause jobs to be lost.

Raising minimum wage doesn't address the real problem, which is inflation. Since the last federal minimum wage increase in 2009, prices have gone up 11%, which means that the poor have seen a decrease in their income of 11%. For people who can barely feed themselves, that is SIGNIFICANT.

The typical solution presented is to lock minimum wage to inflation. That is a non-solution, because it will not change the fact that inflation will devalue the poor's wages until minimum wage goes up again. Any amount of devaluing the poor's income is unacceptable. If one really cares about the poor, they would at the very least demand that the Federal Reserve be required to target 0% inflation. Then we won't have to worry about rising prices harming the poor.

Minimum wage is not only harmful to the economy, but it should be outright abolished. Neither you nor anybody else has the moral authority to step in between two people voluntarily entering into a contract on a pay rate than they agree just because you arbitrarily and randomly decided that you think it's too low of a rate, and you think that a bunch of thugs with guns should initiate state violence against anybody who disobeys.

 

Numbers are deflated. Would you like to deflate? I'll start us off. The minimum wage is 3.50 behind current inflation rates. Did you vote for Romney? He's its strongest advocate right now.

 

Minimum wage, again, is simply a price control on the labor market. Increasing it won't necessarily raise prices, as employers can counteract added costs by also raising expectations on workers or trying to get more labor out of them. On the surface, this may seem more "efficient", but it's really not. All it does is force current workers to work harder and limit the future number of workers that a business can take in. Remember that this is not just McDonalds and Wal-mart we're talking about here. We are affecting every single small business out there that is barely making it when we raise minimum wage. We punish the little guys because feel-good idealogues like you can only see one part of the bigger picture. Economics is a study of not what happens in the present, but what goes on in the future as well.[/QUOTE]

I would refute you, but your entire premise is wrong. The whole point is that we don't want USD inflation, so you practically conceded that. Oh, and guttermouth was talking about Costco. I failed to quote it correctly.

 

Minimum wage, pfft!

They should make teenagers work for free at fastfood restaurants as a community service.

 

No one said we didn't want USD inflation - and I certainly didn't say anything about inflation in my post, but because you brought it up, inflation can be good, but we just don't want UNNECESSARY inflation. If you'd care to refute supply and demand, please be my guest and go get your Nobel prize in economics.

Also, your earlier argument implying that businesses win out in the long run because they pay out deflated currency to get paid in inflated currency is incredibly moronic- for a couple of reasons. It assumes that the economy is stagnant and that the flow of money is consistent and continuous- that somehow a business pays out 100% of what it will receive in the future. Even if this were a valid assumption, it could just as easily be framed as consumers paying into businesses what they will receive in the future, making consumers win out- a chicken and egg type deal.

 

That's the point though. Your argument relies on the faux that the US does not want inflation, but in honesty, deflation hurts the economy if implementation is not taken to reinflate it. The minimum wage is 3.50 below inflation, which means prices are incredibly low, but so are wallets. The economy needs to re stimulated through consumption, which is only possible if we start using the USD loss to our advantage. Over time, the dollar will inflate, and will go back into the economy in the form of inflated dollars. Your ad-hominen does not change this. That is what happens, and if you want to insult me, insult the billions of liberals living around the world.

Do you think I invented that argument? It is entirely grounded in reality, and if possible, I would appreciate a brief response on the topic. If dollars are go to the poor while they are deflated, the lower bracket consumes, sits as liquid capital, will that money not circulate in the form of inflated USD once the dollar value raises? I will repeat, will deflated dollars spent, not circulate as inflated dollars over time? I see kind of the point your making, but the rich move money around less than the middle and lower brackets, so they are almost always retaining the crux of dollar value at the start of the inflation cycle. Not to mention that deflation booms last a year on maximum.

None of your arguments are left standing. The resolution has been negated.

 

This is why I advocate for a basic income- where everyone, unconditionally, gets a set amount of money every month (We can afford paying everyone $20,000 a year) so that there is continuous consumption. I'm not against the logic behind increasing the minimum wage, but minimum wage itself is not the only answer, and it's certainly not the best.

 

Lump sums? There are three huge problems with that. First of all, people need constant money to spend. This increases growth on a bi-weekly basis rather than a monthly one. Second, this hurts market stimulation, as the market is constantly changing. We can't take advantage of this if pay checks are coming in on a monthly basis. Third, lump sum wages are very hard to live on. You need to budget your money very wisely per month, and people can't always predict sudden changes that affect their wallets.

There is not one advantage of having a monthly lump sum rather than a hourly wage. Except consumption spending decreases and so does corporate growth. No points are left standing. The resolution has been negated.

 

If a monthly wage bothers you, pay half of the monthly wage bi-weekly- It's not that hard.

I'm surprised that you're arguing against a basic income where it actually helps the poor more than a minimum wage increase to 10.10

Person on 7.25/hr + 20k basic income -> (7.25)(40)(52) + 20000 = $35080
Person on 10.10/hr -> (10.10)(40)(52) = $21008

Looks like I'm farther left than you are

Edit: Oh and another thing- budgeting your money is no concern of the government or any business. Budgeting is one's own responsibility.

 

As an added bennefit, when I am loathe to shop at anywhere other then cosco's and the like because I know that my purchase are actually helping the nice and knowlegable staff through living wages.

 

Personally, I am loathe to shop and buy anywhere that doesn't give me the best price for what I want. I don't give a rip about whether the company pays their employees a living wage.

 

Thats the beauty for bulk fresh produce, and discounted gasoline, there is no one in Cosco's league. It's literally the best of both worlds.

 

Taxcutter asks:
How is Romney germane to this discussion?

 

Because you conservatives believe whatevers in your pamphlet. I'm simply taking a brief second to put it out in the open, that not raising wages are not supported by the whole GOP. You can begin your arguments whenever best suits you.