Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

Of course... -to the employer. (We are, after all, discussing what he is worth to an employer.) The employer will pay as little as he can. That's why they hire illegals and why they move offshore to countries where they can pay 50¢/hour.

Be careful not to spin this.

 

How many of lost their jobs as the result of raising the minimum wage. The estimates of the CBO was that ~ 1 million would lose their jobs if the min wage were raised to ~ $15. That is not nice.

 

"How many of" what?

Truth is that nobody ever seriously suggested raising the MW to $15 in one leap. It has all been "over 5 year4s" or such. And studies show that raising the MW may cause short term upset but long term it is a greater benefit.

 

Studies show just the opposite.

 

Here's one I just got in email today:

"Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Patty Murray (D-WA) (and their colleagues in the House, Representatives Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Keith Ellison (D-MN)) are preparing to introduce the Raise the Wage Act of 2017, which raises the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 by 2024."

 

They apparently don't care if hundreds of thousands of low skilled people lose their jobs. But their heart is in the right place so it's alright.

 

Do you deny that inflation has gone ahead and the minimum wage has been left behind inflation?

 

There should be no minimum wage. A growing economy (at 3 - 4%) will maximize employment and increase competition for labor. The Obama economy grew at ~ 2%.

 

The capitalist will always try anything he can to reduce wages because it increases his profit, and capitalists are greedy. Why do you think so many businesses have moved offshore where they pay 50¢/hour? Got a clue?

 

If unskilled labor is available at $0.50 per hour and the other costs of production results in lower prices the law of comparative advantage indicates that net benefits accrue to the US consumers. Supply side economics reduces the gov imposed costs of production in the US reducing US prices resulting in the US being more competitive. Econ 101. Competition is what drives the economy and which results in lower prices. Price fixing does net economic harm. Any public policy will result in winners and losers. Raising the minimum wage will benefit those who retain their jobs. But harms both those who lose their jobs and US consumers who have to pay increased prices resulting in lower consumption and further loss of jobs in other economic sectors. The 2001 Bush 43 steel tariff is a good example - ~ 50K jobs were retained but ~ 150K jobs were lost. Net harm was done to the US economy. The same is true for price fixing the minimum wage. Econ 101.

 

Again, theory. Reality is that corporations have boosted profits and production in the last 40 years and just about all the gains went to the top. So the truth is that the capitalist will take all the profit he can wisely take.

As above, Econ 101 is theory. I'm talking reality.

Again, theory. (Is that all you have?) Competition like the Epi Pen? Like so many life-saving drugs? Corporations struggle to stop competition. Capitalism involves a host of internal conflicts and contradictions like this. Competition is BS as a benefit.

But Bush was stupid and did many stupid things. It wasn't necessary and the story is probably lots more involved than you have represented here.

 

What's there to spin? Businesses remain in business by operating within the means they produce. Many more manufacturing jobs will likely move offshore, and not just because they can pay lower wages, but to areas where the the resources needed for production exist, regulatory costs and taxes are less, benefits and pension costs are lower, and new consumer bases can be established.
With inflation having a global effect, a 2% average annual inflation rate would result in a $10/hr wage raising to $20/hr over 35 years, while a $0.50/hr would only double to $1.00/hr.
Note that as the cost of living for the employed increases in the U.S.A. so does the cost of providing aid to the unemployed. And a 3% average annual inflation rate would produce the same effect as above, except over only 24 years.
So the question remains, "What is a person worth?"
Should the answer be based simply upon existence, or should their productive contribution to society be taken into consideration?

 

I'm talking actual performance data. Gov stops competition by imposing regulations that only large companies can afford to comply with. That is why large corporations love big gov. Gov prevents creative destruction.

Econ 101 is not based on theory - it is based on observation.

 

Ok that borders on spin because the worth of the person according to this discussion is not the worth of the chemicals contained in the person's body, it's not the value the person's family would pay to save his life, and it is not the amount of his bank account. In this discussion his worth is the value he can produce doing a specific task for a specific employer. I thought I made that quite clear.

 

That would be an average increase of about 11% each year, and what would be the effect on those currently earning $10, $15, $20, or more an hour? Would their hourly pay change each year as well?
The minimum wage today, if it were adjusted equal to inflation each year since it first began would be $7.07/hour.

 

I might be supportive of replacing welfare programs with workfare programs for all those who are physically/mentally capable of performing some useful/needed function of value to societies.

 

I didn't disagree with you on the value of those who are employed.
But those who are/remain unemployed?

 

I agree. Welfare is the ultimate admission of a dysfunctional economic system. There is enough socially and economically useful work to employ all citizens (apart from perhaps 1% mental illness, etc.).

"Participation by all at above poverty level wages".

Re your previous comment concerning population pressure on vital resources: that's why the global economy needs supra-national oversight.
Rising living standards reduce population growth rates, but capitalism's blind allocation and consumption of resources, based on self interest, has the potential to lead to catastrophe.

"Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe".

 

That's what we get when the MW is not kept up with inflation all these years.

 

It is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

I'm not talking about 'Keynsianism'.

I'm talking about Keynes' Bretton Woods proposals for a supranational body that would manage free-trade processes in a manner that ensures positive outcomes for all nations.
White rejected this proposal, consistent with his desired US geo-political supremacy, since the US was now (immediately post war) the largest creditor nation in the world.
The Keynes proposal was never implemented.

Such a body is now needed more than ever - as the level of political instability around the globe demonstrates.
(We await the effects of Trump's proposed actions on other players in the global economy).
----------
Competition was a major factor behind the destruction of Detroit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Detroit

"The city's automobile industry has suffered from global competition and has moved much of the remaining production out of Detroit.
Local crime rates are among the highest in the United States, and vast areas of the city are in a state of severe urban decay".

Proving the inability of the current economic system, however you define it, to avoid such disasters.

Econ 101 might be an economics course, but supply side, like demand side, is a theory.

Time to front up to the real world, abandon ideology, and see if we can do better.

 

Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao all believed in a supranational body. It doesn't work. Keynes ideas (all of them) have been disproven.

The city of Detroit has been destroyed by the Blue Model. Democrats have been in charge for decades. The fact that the auto industry is globalized is irrelevant. Pittsburg lost all it's steel mills and is thriving today.

Supply side economics is proven. Reagan, 41, Clinton, 43. 4% growth in non recession years. That's fact.

 

But it has, based on the figures provided by the BLS, which show the minimum wage would be $7.0735/hr if increased relative to the inflation history.

 

That's a start.

 

Actually it's of primary importance to the discussion. Those who are unemployed, and/or receiving taxpayer funded assistance contribute greatly to the cost of living of ALL productive members of our societies.