The Minimum Wage Lie

My Recent Posts

The (stated) argument for minimum wage is how unfair it was because you couldn’t live or feed your family off of it and it hasn’t increased over the years to match inflation.

 

Ok, both of those are true, but the premise of the argument is a lie.

 

If leads one to believe that many people are working minimum wage and trying to support families and this is causing extreme hardship.  This simply isn’t the case.

 

Less than 5% of the total work force works for minimum wage.  Of those less than 5% use it as a “living wage” to support themselves or families.

 

Typical minimum wage jobs are low skill entry level positions. They are frequently used by teenagers and are often the first taste of “responsibility” and “accountability”.  Extremely important concepts for life as well as future employment.

 

What happens when you raise the minimum wage?  There is always a net job loss.  Labor costs are one of the largest costs facing an employer.  When wages go up, employers have to make up the extra expense somewhere.  They either have to raise prices, or cut labor.  Innovate with automation.  Sometimes all of the above.

 

So minimum wage workers are squeezed out of the labor market and replaced with automation, or hours cut, all providing fewer job opportunities.

 

What happens next?  The rising prices mean everything costs more so someone who made $3/hr and is now making $5/hr may sound great, but everything they are buying costs more, so they make more money (and pay more taxes), yet have NO GREATER buying power.  Their standard of living does not improve at all, or very slightly at most.

 

This is why there are constant calls to increase the minimum wage.  Thinks keep costing more so employees need to make more.  A vicious cycle – or so it would seem.

 

So why is there this constant push for raising the minimum wage? 

 

Well, it is really quite simple once you know the facts.

 

Private sector unions negotiate with the companies they are employed in for contracts.  Public sector unions (government unions) negotiate with politicians for their contracts.  This difference is subtle, but significant.  Public sector unions aren’t negotiating with their employers.  Their employers are the taxpayer, not the politicians.  This is where the incestuous relationship comes in.  Unions donate to politicians to keep them in power, politicians negotiate better contracts for unions for those donations.   It is a never-ending cycle.  This is why public sector unions are most prevalent in democrat-controlled cities and states.  While there are many progressive republicans, by and large, Republicans aren’t trying to expand the public sector.  Even FDR, a huge unionist thought public sector unions were immoral and should be illegal.

 

Now here is the little-known catch.  Almost all public sector union contracts are tied to the minimum wage.  No matter what a member of that union makes, when the minimum wage goes up, they get a proportional raise!

 

So - the democrats push for minimum wage increases, when they happen the unions make more money and in return donate more to the democrats.  The cycle is never ending.  This is why unions like SEIU, NEA, AFT and so many others donate so much to democrat campaigns at all levels.  When you look at top campaign donators, it is always union donations dominating the top 20 list.  As much as you hear about those evil Koch Brothers, they typically aren't even in the top 25 in donations

 

This is why so many state pension funds have exploded and why so many states are on the verge of bankruptcy.  But the democrats keep demanding the wage goes higher.  If/When they get $15/hr, it won’t be long before they are demanding $20/hr – because of course inflation and cost of living with have been driven up, but of course they won’t point out it is because of the increased labor costs.  It never stops!

 

When you create an artificial wage, the free market must compensate for it.  The market should always determine the wage, not the other way around.  Government meddling in the free market is what causes most of the complaints about the failures of the free market, not the free market itself.

 

Comments

Ryan Messano Added Sep 6, 2018 - 11:24pm
Totally agree.
Bill H. Added Sep 6, 2018 - 11:30pm
You were probably not here, but back in the day we had what was called a "balanced economy". This was when most earned a "living wage", which allowed them to buy a house, several new  cars, and put their kids thru college. All of this not only benefited the population, but also the local employers and the community itself.
Now that corporations have taken control and now see fit to keep wages low thinking that it is going to benefit them, reality is setting in and they are seeing the results of their narrow-minded decisions.
Trying to drive profits up by keeping wages low is like trying to fish in a dry lake. No water - no fish.
What a bunch of dumb fucks!
 
Ken Added Sep 6, 2018 - 11:38pm
several misconceptions Bill.  Wages have stayed low because of quantitative easing, as well as illegal immigration causing excess supply, and government regulation shrinking margins.
 
When you say "most earned a living wage" those aren't minimum wage workers.  As I stated 5% of 5% of the work force use minimum wage as a "living wage"
 
Wages are now beginning to increase as taxes have been lowered, regulations are being pulled away and business can have larger margins.
 
Your entire premise is misinformed and completely ideological.  The facts show exactly the opposite
Ken Added Sep 6, 2018 - 11:40pm
Bill - It is also interesting how you do not debate at all the subject or facts I posted about the minimum wage, but simply put forth an ideological position with no facts whatsoever to prove your position.
 
To paraphrase "What a dump fuck"
Brabantio Added Sep 6, 2018 - 11:50pm
Raising wages don't mean that prices must go up proportionately.  Even if it costs corporations more, it would then cut into profits, which aren't sacred.
 
The most important point to make here is that it's obviously not impossible to raise wages to match inflation, since the nature of the market isn't changing.  And simply saying that people will respond by implementing automation or cutting staff, etc. doesn't justify anything.  That's simply extortion; accept this garbage pay, or else we'll fire you.
Bill H. Added Sep 6, 2018 - 11:50pm
Totally wrong!
If wages actually begin to rise, let's see what happens in 10 years, because that's at least how long it will take with rising wages to even get close to the balanced economy we had back in the '50s and early '60s.
As long as products and services remain out of reach for many, and what profits the corporations do make are directed towards their CEO salaries, rather than reinvesting in their infrastructure and employees, it will remain the same.
Corporations should look at the big picture as they did in the past, not the bottom line of a spreadsheet. We no long have people in charge that know how the machine works.
 
Ken Added Sep 6, 2018 - 11:57pm
Raising wages don't mean that prices must go up proportionately.  Even if it costs corporations more, it would then cut into profits, which aren't sacred.
 
There is a big difference between market raising wages and artificially inflated wages.  Profits aren't sacred?  If a company doesn't have profit, it doesn't stay in business. 
 
COMPANIES ARE NOT IN BUSINESS TO PROVIDE JOBS!  COMPANIES ARE IN BUSINESS TO MAKE A PROFIT AND IF THEY DO JOBS ARE CREATED!
 
Basic economic lesson - The more profitable a company is, the more jobs it is able to create.  The more jobs created in the economy, the lower the supply of workers is.  The lower the supply of workers, the higher the wages have to be to get them to work a particular job.
 
This should be common sense.
Ken Added Sep 7, 2018 - 12:06am
Bill - another ideological comment that has no substance.  "out of range CEO salaries" most jobs are created by small business, not large corporations.  On top of that, CEO salaries are hardly out of scope of the average employee.  People who love to use the "CEO salary" argument, NEVER bother to point out that the discrepancy in what a CEO makes vs the employee is only talking about the top 50 S&P companies or so.  Not about the vast majority of actual companies, but hey, let's be intellectually dishonest if it fits our ideology, right?
 
If products and services are "out of range" for many, then how is a company staying in business?
 
I am well involved with the balance sheet of a fortune 50 company, I guarantee you they are looking at the bottom line as well as the "big picture" long term.  I am very involved with long term forecasting actually as we speak for line 5 and 7 of the PL.
 
You simply are ideological and have no idea what you are talking about
Brabantio Added Sep 7, 2018 - 12:06am
I said cutting into profits, not eliminating them.  The margin should not be protected at the cost of society.
 
Companies create jobs based on need, not based on profit.  If they're getting everything done, they aren't going to hire people just because they have more cash laying around.
 
If the market established slave wages for 50% of jobs, would you feel that was fine because it boosted profits and it wasn't "artificial"?  At what point is it appropriate to moderate determinations which affect the quality of life?
Ken Added Sep 7, 2018 - 12:10am
Companies create jobs based on need, not based on profit.  If they're getting everything done, they aren't going to hire people just because they have more cash laying around.
 
entirely my point.why should they hire people they don't need?  The more profit the make, the more production/distribution/sales they are doing.  Companies aren't in the business of creating jobs just to create jobs if they aren't needed
 
If the market established slave wages for 50% of jobs, would you feel that was fine because it boosted profits and it wasn't "artificial"?
 
what about the law of supply and demand is too complicated for you to understand?
 
Ken Added Sep 7, 2018 - 12:15am
Singapore in the 1980s had one of the lowest standards of living in the world.  as early computers were being created as the computer became more and more important to life, south korea and Singapore became hubs of offshore electronics building (unlike china) they were free market systems.
 
Singapore is now in the top 3 of standard of living countries in the world.  While wages were very low in the 80s as labor supply diminished, wages rose.  today it is one of the nicest places to live and work in the world.  Not a single wage hike or labor hike was due to the singapore government.  It was all due to the free market.
Brabantio Added Sep 7, 2018 - 12:25am
"The more profitable a company is, the more jobs it is able to create."
 
"entirely my point.why should they hire people they don't need?"
 
Then why are we worshiping a profit margin?  Use that money to pay what's appropriate, since it's not going to hire more people anyway.
 
"what about the law of supply and demand is too complicated for you to understand?"
 
Nothing.  What was it about my question that made you dodge it?
Ken Added Sep 7, 2018 - 12:37am
brabantio, are you really that dense?  I have explained it multiple times now.
 
I haven't dodged a single question, and clearly you don't understand supply and demand.  I even explained it further in my comment about what happened in singapore.
 
Why are they worshiping a profit margin?   because that is what allows them to grow and expand and create more jobs.
 
This is absolutely basic economics.
Brabantio Added Sep 7, 2018 - 12:46am
Except that you already said that companies don't create jobs if they aren't needed.  So, why not cut into a profit margin if it allows for a better standard for living?
 
I'll ask again: "If the market established slave wages for 50% of jobs, would you feel that was fine because it boosted profits and it wasn't 'artificial'?  At what point is it appropriate to moderate determinations which affect the quality of life?"
 
If your answer is "yes, that would be fine" and "the market should never be moderated", then say so.  Don't tell me that you've answered those questions just by saying "supply and demand".
Ken Added Sep 7, 2018 - 1:28am
why is it a company's job to create a better standard of living?  I work for one of the biggest companies in the world and it has about a 3% profit margin, is it that company's responsibility to cut their profit to 2.9% or less to provide a "better standard of living"?  That is just flat out marxism.
 
People who work for the company I work for aren't required to work there, they can choose other jobs and employers.  If they aren't making enough at their current job to satisfy them, nothing requires them to stay there "slave labor" you mentioned is just irrelevant and stupid.
 
Apparently you have either no understanding of supply and demand or simply don't believe in it.I have answered that question several times.  There isn't a single company in the world or a single job.  No one is required to work at a given position.  They can transition to any position they want.  I spent the entire 90s working about 2 yrs working at a job and moving on to a new job that pretty much doubled my salary each time I moved, which is why I took the job.  Now I am working at a job that I can hang out with that is paying me well and money isn't my biggest concern and I can focus on other things.
 
That is called CAPITALISM and FREE MARKET.
 
If you are willing to be a slave to a company that you feel underpays you and doesn't respect your effort, what requires you to stay with that company?  NOTHING.
 
The free market will never put 50% of jobs as "slave labor" and even if it were able to do so, labor supply would dwindle and force wages to rise as I explained about Singapore.
 
You are just a complete ideologue who hates corporations and free market economics, from your posts, I hope you have been educated even a tiny bit to see how ridiculous your arguments are...
Brabantio Added Sep 7, 2018 - 1:44am
I'm asking you about a matter of principle, which you won't answer.  Do you have principles?
Matt Added Sep 7, 2018 - 1:48am
The money system we use inherently has inflation - dilution of the money supply and reduction in purchasing power. Most people have little to no ability to really understand exponential functions. As a result, a person accepting a certain wage, if there is 4 percent inflation, after 18 years will be making effectively half as much.

As long as we have an inflation based monetary system, we should have a minimum wage, and it should increase annually according to the rate of inflation - not suddenly by 50% once every 30 years.

"Less than 5% of the total work force works for minimum wage. "

Citation needed. Where? 2.3% of workers in America work at or below the federal minimum wage:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm

For some reason, it seems difficult to find how many make State minimum wage. About 30 million workers in America - about 30% of the hourly wage workforce - make under $10 USD / hour.

In Canada, close to 1 million out of 18 million workers make minimum wage.

Often, workers making minimum wage qualify for government subsidies, such as SNAP. As a result, corporations like Wal-Mart are essentially receiving government subsidies to operate. If they need those subsidies, it means their business is not viable in a free market.

Immigration certainly applies downward pressure on wages; America brings in 1 million people a year, and Canada 300,000. That's on the legal side of things. 
Cullen Kehoe Added Sep 7, 2018 - 3:33am
Ken, there are bigger problems on the horizon than minor minimum wage hikes. 
 
A so-called "Living Wage" is now being promoted as a minimum wage for all government employees in London, New Zealand, and other places. And they arbitrarily decide that's it's something like $35,000 / USD a year. That means the guy vacuuming carpets or parking checkers earns as much as a new teacher or cop. 
 
And the rumblings about a universal basic income you hear in concert with the so-called approaching "robot revolution". This topic I think is going to get very interesting. 
 
You're right about minimum wage triggering inflation.
 
Guys like Bernie Sanders are now saying if a company like Amazon or Walmart is really successful, the government should force them to pay their employees what the government thinks they should.
 
The problem with that is the checkout girl at Walmart is compensated in a range for what the market says a checkout girl is worth. And if the government arbitrarily forces Walmart to pay more for a checkout girl, what does that do the generic job of 'checkout girl' across the economy? At the very least, it screws it up.
 
My point is there are rumblings from many areas that the government needs to get involved in setting wages for not only minimum wages, but lots of jobs. 
Cullen Kehoe Added Sep 7, 2018 - 3:35am
Some say the reason for the great economy of the 50's and 60's was unionization of factory jobs. Maybe that's true. 
 
I have no problem with Walmart or Amazon employees unionizing to get higher wages. But I see it as far more concerning for the government to get involved in setting wages across the economy. 
Flying Junior Added Sep 7, 2018 - 3:50am
Most obvious thing about your article...
 
You are ignoring the direction which our economy has been taking for the last twenty years.  We have become a service economy.  Bright, intelligent young Americans are taking jobs in retail, maintenance, warehousing and food service.
 
These are not, "entry-level," jobs.  What a ridiculous right-wing canard.
 
Even thirty years ago, many people that took entry level jobs in promising fields never really advanced significantly in their chosen fields.
 
In the intervening twenty-five years, respectable and challenging positions have increasingly been downgraded into little more than electronic sweatshops.  What opportunity for advancement is there for someone at the lowest rung of the ladder?  The economy just keeps demanding more of these people without improving compensation.
 
Haven't you noticed that pay for almost every middle class job is stagnant or regressive for the last twenty-five years?  The salt in the wound is that education is no guarantee of success or prosperity.
 
The minimum wage has the same value that it had in the 1950s.  It is a threshhold.  No one should ever have to work for wages less than the federally mandated minimum wage.
 
Your ignorance reminds me of the San Diego regional manager for Burger King in 1979.  He was a little pisser name Mario.  He reminded me of Joe Pesci.  The minimum wage was raised from $2.65/hr. to $2.90/hr. January 1, 1979.
 
That little rat called a meeting and told us all that he expected a lot more work from us for that extre quarter an hour.
 
Unclear on the concept.
George N Romey Added Sep 7, 2018 - 7:02am
In the 60s we had a much higher minimum wage inflation adjusted and guess what Americans were snapping up consumer products like crazy. By the way with cash not credit cards or all the financing gimmicks (usually carrying a 20% plus interest rate.) As usual people do not know the history of the minimum wage. Some wages even for those working in the early 30s were so bad (less than $10 a week) there was pressure from churches, private charities and local government for something to be done.
 
With the job squeeze too many Americans are being shoved into permanent low wage jobs and they all can’t run out and get a STEM degree. Aside most STEM grads don’t have a STEM job. 
Gerrilea Added Sep 7, 2018 - 7:49am
Ken-- Where are you getting the 5% work for minimum wage?  No citation.
 
If minimum wage were raised to $15 as has been pushed, over 42% of Americans would actually get a raise.
 
The reason there is a minimum wage is because the Globalists feared the American people.  We were on the verge of throwing off "capitalism" and if I recall correctly, the Railroad workers got it first under Wilson.
 
I'll make a deal with you.  If your company pays people less than what is necessary to live and they have to apply for and get public assistance, then your company must reimburse the taxpayer for said "entitlements".
 
Simple, isn't it? Why should we pay subsidies for your yacht, your bathhouse or your cabana boys?
 
 
Matt Added Sep 7, 2018 - 10:47am
"You're right about minimum wage triggering inflation."

Define inflation.

"The problem with that is the checkout girl at Walmart is compensated in a range for what the market says a checkout girl is worth"

Wal-Mart has been pushing self-checkout for a while now. Not increasing wages does not guarantee automation stops.
Bill Kamps Added Sep 7, 2018 - 11:00am
Bill H. Now that corporations have taken control and now see fit to keep wages low thinking that it is going to benefit them, reality is setting in and they are seeing the results of their narrow-minded decisions.
 
What nonsense.  Corporations ALWAYS wanted wages as low as possible.  When was this time that they paid people higher than necessary?
 
In the 1960s, corporations HAD to pay people more, because there was a labor shortage relative to the work that needed doing in the USA.  Most manufacturing was very labor intensive.  Corporations set about to "fix" this.  They automated, and put labor off shore so that  the cost of labor in their products were reduced.  
 
 
This is simply supply and demand in the labor market.  With lower labor demand, salaries have fallen. 
 
There was never a time when corporations were benevolent, and paid people more than necessary, simply so their employees could live a better life.  Do you remember your history and the working conditions of the early 1900s?
 
Whether the minimum wage is a good idea is debatable.  Ken does a good job of saying why it is a poor idea.  The reason a minimum wage might be a good idea is because it injects more money into the economy, which  benefits everyone.  People at the low end of earnings, when given more money, spend it.   Of course this reaches a point of diminishing returns for the reasons Ken  states.   This is why it makes no sense to make the minimum wage $25/hour. 
 
Rather than have a minimum wage, and countless government programs to help the poor, it may be better to just have a guaranteed minimum income that people can spend how they wish. This would cut a lot of overhead from the many government programs all of which have staff to administer the program, and make sure people dont cheat the  system. 
George N Romey Added Sep 7, 2018 - 11:36am
At the end of the day technology is becoming cheaper.  Its far cheaper to install a kiosk than pay someone $2 an hour to take your burger order.  Its far cheaper to install software that saves on hiring $60K newly minted lawyers to do legal research.  The technology revolution is here and companies are going to take advantage of it.  There is no stopping technology.  McDonalds is going to install kiosks and if possible machines to actually make the food even if they had no minimum wage.
 
When people do not make enough for rent, food and the basics who pays?  The CEOs of Wal Mart and McDonalds that live in gated communities or an average American living on the outskirts of Chicago or Atlanta or Philadelphia?  
 
So the effort should be redesigning work and having avenues to bring the workforce up to standards.  If people want to languish in poverty they can.  Most want something better in life.
Bill Kamps Added Sep 7, 2018 - 11:57am
George: the effort should be redesigning work
 
Unfortunately no entity, "designs work".  Available jobs are not created by some government entity, they are the result of the desires of thousands of corporations many of which are trying to reduce labor as much as possible. 
 
Sure, we could say the work week is 30 hours instead of 40, but then people will just be paid less because they work fewer hours.  That wont really solve the problem.
 
What do you think about the guaranteed minimum income?  it is a compromise as everything is, but it does eliminate the patchwork of government programs intended to help the poor. 
Gerrilea Added Sep 7, 2018 - 1:17pm
Bill Camps--- I'd contest this:
 
"Available jobs are not created by some government entity"
 
In fact, those "free trade" agreements gave American Corporations the ability to move to slave-labored nations. All we export today is war and arms for said.
 
The Department of Defense is the largest employer/enterprise on the planet with over 3.2 million employees.
 
Yes, a government entity creates jobs.
 
Rusty Smith Added Sep 7, 2018 - 1:34pm
Every time min wage is raised we end up with fewer jobs.  
 
Many of the things we make and even services we offer can only endure price increases until those products and services become unreasonable or uncompetitive, and then customers stop purchasing them.
 
If your company makes widgets and you have to pay your workers more, you still can't charge more if your customers can get it less from China.  
 
If  you raise your produce prices to give your workers raises, and that drives you produce costs up past what the same produce costs from Mexico, you will go out of business.   If oranges get too expensive people will quit eating them.
 
If a restaurant's prices go up to high, they go out of business.
 
In all those cases, it's the worker who suffers.  Instead of having a low paying job they want, they are denied the right to work.
 
 
Ken Added Sep 7, 2018 - 1:54pm
A so-called "Living Wage" is now being promoted as a minimum wage for all government employees in London, New Zealand, and other places. And they arbitrarily decide that's it's something like $35,000 / USD a year. That means the guy vacuuming carpets or parking checkers earns as much as a new teacher or cop. 
 
Bill - it may be better to just have a guaranteed minimum income that people can spend how they wish.
 
If minimum wage is becomes a "living wage"  you cut all entry level workers out of the market.  It is unaffordable. Prices will skyrocket, unemployment will skyrocket.  Teenage unemployment would be close to 100%.  Most people making minimum wage aren't living off of it
 
A universal basic income experiment has been tried and everywhere it has been tried it has failed.  It failed in finland and a 3 year test in toronto just ended after 1 year a month or so ago because (shockingly) they realized they couldn't afford it
Ken Added Sep 7, 2018 - 1:57pm
Finding who makes minimum wage statistics isn't that complicated, I don't know why you couldn't locate it.  I was actually being generous when I said "less than 5%" since it is actually 4.3%
 
The vast majority of which are, unsurprisingly teenagers not using it as a living wage.
 
I don't know how many of you arguing for the need for minimum wage read my full post, but it states the fiction that is the minimum wage - it is a union/politician SCAM.
 
And I specifically defined it as being the public sector unions, NOT the private sector
John Minehan Added Sep 7, 2018 - 2:13pm
Raising the minimum wage has not always increased net unemployment.  State minimum wages have been raised in several states without increasing unemployment.
 
In such cases, the minimum wage was well below what the market would bear, which implies if there were no such thing as the minimum wage, wages would generally be higher.  
 
In other words, a minimum wage can, as often, be more of a floor than a ceiling and might preferably be abolished on that basis.  . 
Bill Kamps Added Sep 7, 2018 - 2:19pm
Ken, the article on the guaranteed min income does not say what social programs were ended in order to afford the min  income.  Of course, if no social welfare programs are stopped, then yes it is way too expensive.  Politically it probably cant work. 
 
Gerrilea Added Sep 7, 2018 - 3:08pm
Rusty S--- And now you point out why I support Trump's policies on tariffs. 
 
"...you still can't charge more if your customers can get it less from China."
 
Ken-- You've created a false narrative maybe that's why I was so confused. The benefits public sector employees get is one issue we should legitimately debate.  Many are, in my opinion, overpaid.
 
Then you say only 5% of the workforce get paid minimum wage and they are mostly teenagers whom aren't using it as a means of/for their livelihood.
 
This is where you miss the whole point.  The BLS only counts people making Federal Minimum wage, they exclude millions in States where the minimum wage is a tad higher.
 
When you include everyone (whether Fed or State), it's over 43% of the workforce working at minimum wage.  And had those "free trade agreements" not been ratified, we wouldn't be discussing "living wages" today, now would we?
 
When almost 100 million Americans live near or at poverty levels, your arguments against raising minimum wage become a sick joke for many of us.
 
Ken Added Sep 7, 2018 - 3:10pm
The article did say it cost 2x as much per person as they were previously spending, however.  I didn't dig that deeply into it.  The same t hing happened in Finland with an attempt that was severely underfunded.  Everything always costs much more than they predict.  They make it sound reasonable, implement it then realize they can't pay for it - just like ObamaCare.  Remember that promise of $2500/year LESS in per family?
 
And government inefficiency always expands costs as well
Ken Added Sep 7, 2018 - 4:20pm
Wages are always the lagging indicator in economic changes.  with quantitative easing ended and the tax cuts going into effect, wages are beginning to rise.  it was announced today that wages are up 2.9% year over year
 
There have been a lot of reasons for stagnant wages that some have noted, some are due to technology, many are due to government over regulation and the FED monetary policy of the past couple of decades.
Doug Plumb Added Sep 7, 2018 - 4:43pm
Ken, I have read your insults. They make you look ignorant and arrogant, the deadly combination that is killing debate today. So,
 
re " I work for one of the biggest companies in the world and it has about a 3% profit margin, is it that company's responsibility to cut their profit to 2.9% or less to provide a "better standard of living"?  That is just flat out marxism."
 
That is not "flat out Marxism". Marxism is an extention of the belief that the world is composed of atoms and that science will eventually have all the answers. This leads to Marxist ideologies. Words like fascism and Marxism get thrown about all the time, by people who watch TV and don't read. So, now you are the moron.
EXPAT Added Sep 7, 2018 - 5:09pm
Interesting thread. You covered all aspects of low wage employment.
But the one thing not discussed was the human condition. You all talk of wage workers, as if you were discussing the operating cost of a power drill.
 
I guess the days of company loyalty, and grooming employees for better positions are long gone.
 
I guess people are now tools to accomplish a task, to be replaced by a cheaper alternative whenever possible.
 
Thank God I am retired, and do not have to work in this profit machine. 
John Minehan Added Sep 7, 2018 - 5:35pm
"When you include everyone (whether Fed or State), it's over 43% of the workforce working at minimum wage.  And had those target="_blank">"free trade agreements" not been ratified, we wouldn't be discussing "living wages" today, now would we?"
 
That strikes me as being wildly off . . . .
  
Ken Added Sep 7, 2018 - 6:18pm
I guess the days of company loyalty, and grooming employees for better positions are long gone.
 
They are.  It is a different employment environment today.  Just as companies are constantly looking to trim costs, the 30 year "company man" is rarer and rarer.  The employees are empowered through technology as well.  Often people will work 2-3 years at a job, then move on to another one at much higher salary.  Before my current position which i have been at 13 yrs, I went through 4 jobs in an 8  year period doubling my salary each time.  At this point, I enjoy what I am doing and the money isn't as important, (and I am not as young or energetic as I used to be), so I am content to do what I do.
Dino Manalis Added Sep 7, 2018 - 7:21pm
 The minimum wage should only be earned by youngsters without work experience, while others ought to demand a raise.
Jeff Michka Added Sep 7, 2018 - 7:35pm
'rilla loves tariffs, but doesn't mention how they're driving up costs.  ll things being equal, there's not this huge rush to open manufacturing ops in the US to make tariff'd items in the good ol USA.  That "they'll open factories in America is just Trumptown elections are coming crazy talk.  Gee if enough tariffs are imposed, do you think it may impact businesses?  The idea money will be poured into new businesses here is the new image sold like the jutted-jaw, solitary worker, toolbox in hand, striding from business to business as the rugged individualist looking for the "best employment deal."  Yeah, we don't need unions! We're all little workplace John Waynes. despite holding wages artificially low while paying out big bucks in the boardroom that Kenny denies happens.  Yeah "we need to pay those Cs big bucks because the make such "wise decisions" we can't get if they aren't paid more.'  Yeah, decisions like "make sure wages are kept low."  Geo R and a few others talk about it, but there has been this persistent downward pressure on paying wages since unions began getting busted in the 70s and 80s.  Rusted claims raising the jobs dry up when minimum wages are raised,  but per usual offers no proof because there isn't any proof for that statement.  It's just a rightist talking point excusing impoverishing people.  More rightist cruelty.
Matt Added Sep 7, 2018 - 9:19pm
"Every time min wage is raised we end up with fewer jobs.  "

There were 60 million people employed in America when minimum wage was first created, and over 160 million people employed now, and minimum wage has been raised several times, so that is demonstrably false. 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employed-persons

It may be true that in the immediate aftermath of any change to laws, there are changes in human behaviors as people adapt, and a new equilibrium is reached. 

Gerrilea Added Sep 7, 2018 - 9:42pm
John M--- Here's a few links to help you understand.
 
The New Social Contract--- Salon, 2016:
 
"Median income adjusted for inflation is lower today than it was in 1974. A staggering 40 percent of all Americans now make less than the 1968 minimum wage, adjusted for inflation. Median middle-class wealth is plummeting. It is now 36 percent below what it was in 2000."
 
Welfare In America--- IBT, 2014:
 
"In a target="_blank" rel="nofollow">government data analysis released Tuesday by the liberal-leaning think tank, Cooper said there are 41.2 million working people, or nearly 30 percent of the workforce, receiving public assistance such as food stamps, housing subsidies and cash assistance to make ends meet. Nearly half of those workers, 19.3 million people, had full-time jobs and most were earning less than $12.16 per hour in wages, Cooper wrote in his analysis."
 
And as for the lie being presented in the article above:
 
The Average Age of Minimum Wage Worker in America is 36 yrs old--- Zero Hedge, 2015:
 
"-39 percent of American workers make less than $20,000 a year.
-52 percent of American workers make less than $30,000 a year.
-63 percent of American workers make less than $40,000 a year.
-72 percent of American workers make less than $50,000 a year."
 
While I do not agree with the opinion of the author at the above link, raising minimum wage will help millions of Americans, not hurt them.
 
What Are The Annual Earnings FT Minimum Wage Earners, UC Davis, 2015:
 
"Despite these recent increases in state minimum wages, minimum wages at the federal and most state levels are still below the peak of its real value in 1968. Adjusting the real value for inflation based on 2017 dollars, the 1968 minimum wage of $1.60 was worth $11.39 in 2017 dollars. Since then, the minimum wage’s real value has largely been in decline."
 
How Many Workers Earn Less Than $15, Slate 2016:
 
:According to the National Employment Law Project, 42.4 percent of American workers currently make less than $15 an hour. There are around 1.4 million janitors and cleaners who earn below that mark, 1.2 million drivers, 1 million secretaries and administrative assistants, and 699,000 child care workers."
 
 
Ken Added Sep 8, 2018 - 1:37am
sorry, I reject most of salon and slate says as it is they are noted far left websites, however you make some valid points.  Very little of what they put out is objective.
 
There are recent studies that temper the job losses due to minimum wage increases when including other factors.  It also depends a lot on how large the increase is. There are many factors to take into effect about minimum wage increases and as Matt noted, there can be very large short term disruption and large job increases later - that is a correlation however, not a causation.
 
Minimum wage increases clearly lead to a smaller entry level work force, and there is no argument that wage increases lead to higher labor costs which lead to higher prices.  Just like Tariffs, companies can't absorb all those costs.
 
A perfect example is the Subway "5 dollar foot long campaign" that they did a couple of years ago deal on their subs...It was available in every place EXCEPT San Francisco.  They couldn't make a profit in SF selling their subs for $5. 
 
That is a perfect empirical example of the effect of minimum wage on business.
 
Those who say "x amount of people work minimum wage or less" are being disingenuous.  Many of those are also in food service jobs and collecting tips, which allows for sub-minimum wage compensated by the tips.  That is nothing more than ideological banter not taking the public service and tips into consideration because it doesn't fit the argument.
 
Economic arguments clearly show that if you artificially raise wages past what the market will bear, you raise prices and are likely to lose employment.  The market can only take so much government interference without reacting.
 
It is really sad those that think government interaction in markets is good.  I will try and convince many of you otherwise over time.
 
There is ample evidence that markets work well with minimal interference, and it is important that people stop thinking about government involvement.
John Minehan Added Sep 8, 2018 - 6:51am
"Many of those are also in food service jobs and collecting tips, which allows for sub-minimum wage compensated by the tips."
 
At least in NYS, there is a separate (lower) minimum wage for tipped workers, but there is a minimum wage for that category of worker although it constitutes a different wage schedule.   
John Minehan Added Sep 8, 2018 - 7:00am
"There is ample evidence that markets work well with minimal interference, and it is important that people stop thinking about government involvement."
 
I agree.
 
The distinction I would make is that some business functions are NOT a function of market forces, but rather creatures of statute and contract.
 
Back in 1982, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act tried to save the S&Ls by "de-regulating" them.  However, S&Ls only existed because of a  Federal Statute that created them. 
 
How do you "de-regulate" a creature of statute?  About five years later, we discovered you can't . .  . to the economy's detriment.
 
It probably would have made sense, realizing S&Ls were not driven by market forces, to have "stress-tested" these institutions and allowed the viable ones to become savings banks and the weaker ones to be shuttered in an orderly way.  (The first part of that is what happened anyway, and the second was far from orderly.)  
John Minehan Added Sep 8, 2018 - 7:13am
"John M--- Here's a few links to help you understand."
 
OK, I do understand.  The figure you cited is a gross distortion. 
 
(I understand what you are trying to say, that the vast majority of the workforce is undercompensated, but that is not what you said and the things you cite here do not support the figures you cited, as opposed to the general proposition that a lot of the workforce may be undercompensated.)
Matt Added Sep 8, 2018 - 10:14am
"There are many factors to take into effect about minimum wage increases and as Matt noted, there can be very large short term disruption and large job increases later - that is a correlation however, not a causation."

What I meant is that I think 2 percent increases in minimum wage every year - or more when inflation is higher - would be far less disruptive than going from $7.25 or $10 to $15 all at once. 

"A perfect example is the Subway "5 dollar foot long campaign" that they did a couple of years ago deal on their subs...It was available in every place EXCEPT San Francisco.  They couldn't make a profit in SF selling their subs for $5. 
 
That is a perfect empirical example of the effect of minimum wage on business."

With people paying $2000 / month to rent a space under a staircase in San Francisco, I suspect wages must be higher or people just wouldn't be able to do those jobs. Subway probably has much higher rent or taxes than they would nearly anywhere else on earth - besides Hong Kong, perhaps. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 8, 2018 - 1:07pm
This wage essay hinges upon the neglected fact that wages have a market so raising prices forces shortages as in Seattle. 
 
The far left bungles another issue. 
Jeff Michka Added Sep 8, 2018 - 3:24pm
Syck Ryck talks crap about Seattle, but doesn't know anything about how the $15 per hour min wage has really worked out.  He claims nonsense about "shortages." Shortages of,  -o?  The rentier landlord community thinks everyone has got to be a Microsoft millionaire, so have raised rents like $2100 a month for a 1 sometimes a 2 bedroom apt., not because there's a $15 an hour min wage.  Do the math, mindless wonder, Syck.  Min wage workers still can't afford decent places to live, but not because of minimum wage.  WA state has been a leader for over 20 years trying to make wages a bit more livable.  Still a long way to go.  But don't dare ask the uber-wealthy to pay more, that would impoverish them, right, mindless rightist?  Learn something, then you can trivialize it accurately, Syck-o.  Rightist running dog lacky, syck ryck no relation to anything JFK.
Gerrilea Added Sep 8, 2018 - 3:48pm
Ken, John M & Ryck -- Gentlemen.  Your "economic models" are missing a huge piece of the puzzle.  History.
 
I understand the claims made that higher wages causes higher prices.
 
If that were actually true then CEO compensation would be at the levels of their average worker.  Clearly they are not.
 
From the Washington Post, 2014:
 
target="_blank">"A new study conducted at Harvard Business School found that CEOs make roughly 350 times what the average worker makes in the U.S..."

 
target="_blank">"An analysis from last year estimated that it takes the typical worker at both McDonald's and Starbucks more than six months to earn what each company's CEO makes in a single hour."
 
CNBC, 2018:
 
"Since 1978, and adjusted for inflation, American workers have seen an 11.2 percent increase in compensation. During that same period, CEO's have seen a 937 percent increase in earnings."
 
------
 
Digest the above figures and then understand this:
 
I my pay/compensation versus revenues generated is .68%.  MEANING the company I work for today keeps 99.32% of all that I make for them.
 
Can we say together, "Abject Slavery"? And after 8 yrs I still don't even make $14 an hour.  Our top 4 Corporate Officers make over $112 million a year, combined.  That works out to an average hourly pay of $13,461.00.
 
They can afford to pay the people that make the money for them a living wage, period.
 
Jeff Michka Added Sep 8, 2018 - 4:15pm
I'll agree with your last comment, 'rilla. "They can afford to pay the people that make the money for them a living wage.  But, I contend if you asked those 4 Cs, they'd tell you their wise decisions make the money,  workers being just a drag on profits and those stupid workers are the subject of regulations we need to follow, etc.  There was a time and place when you made money making stuff, not shuffling paper, C to low worker pay ratios were, worst case 250 to one.  Now, it's as you say and getting steeper.   Work has no value, the game of "whomever dies with the most money wins" is all that matters to most Cs.  It's a matter of a wealth pissing contest, nothing really more.  "Why aren't our workers not willing to work for us for FREE?"
Gerrilea Added Sep 8, 2018 - 4:19pm
Gentlemen, lets continue this.
 
How did we get to this moment? Surely it wasn't all those damn "regulations" or was it?
 
Regulations used to protect the consumer from fraud, danger. etc and to protect the national economy from a repeat of 1929. Today regulations are used to stop competition and to keep us all enslaved to our corporate overlords.  Both parties are guilty of this charade they keep calling "capitalism".
 
"Breaking the numbers down further, congressional Democrats had a median net worth of $1.04 million, while congressional Republicans had a median net worth of almost exactly $1 million. In both cases, the figures are up from last year, when the numbers were $990,000 and $907,000, respectively."
 
Can any of our elected officials ever know what the average American faces daily living paycheck to paycheck?
 
NOPE.
 
How about you guys take a couple weeks and read, "Capital In The 21st Century", by Thomas Picketty.  There are over 75 pages of citations.  He left nothing out.
 
We've been divided into false sides whilst they laugh all the way to their Swiss Bankers.
 
My suggested solutions for these problems are very simple:
-- tax corporations at 70% without any deductions.
--Term limits with the proviso you cannot lobby government for 5 yrs after your term ends.
 
Jeff Michka Added Sep 8, 2018 - 4:47pm
I'd agree with what you advocate with one exception, term limits.  I am in favor of preventing lobbying for 5 years, better if it's 8 or more.  I think returning people to office is conditional to what they do or don't do in office.  Creating artificial ends to terms doesn't mean much or would structurally change much.  Preventing government to lobbying would mean something and actually accomplish an end to some, if not most influence peddling.  Also need to reverse Citizens United.  Money, money, money...more money=more free speech?
Cullen Kehoe Added Sep 8, 2018 - 5:11pm
How does the author feel about private sector unions to assure more livable wage for employees?
 
An Amazon.com employee union or Walmart union?
Jeff Michka Added Sep 8, 2018 - 8:10pm
Gee, Cullen you must not have been in "rightist narrative" class to learn how unions are all communists, and collective barganing ruins the John Wayne image workers should have, looking out only for themselves and cutting their very own personal contracts with management.  Ronnie Raygun spent his two terms trying to kill unions, and with the help of good rightists, almost got completely rid of them, but they might still be back, there are stirrings, and Americans forget their weekends and 40 hour work week were because of unions, not some magical conservative solution and "kind" management.  Workers died for what is now "commonplace" ideas like lunches and breaks.  But unions are bad ideas for rightists, Hillary Clinton must have started unions in between cutting uranium deals.
Cullen Kehoe Added Sep 9, 2018 - 5:30am
Unionization is superior to having Bernie Sanders trying to set wages, surely. 
 
Everybody has heard a good union story though. (The trade show in Chicago, setting up your own booth, "Hey, you can't do that, you have to wait for a guy from the union to come along and do that for you.").
John Minehan Added Sep 9, 2018 - 6:48am
"How does the author feel about private sector unions to assure more livable wage for employees?"
 
Unions are dying because the days of set wages collectively bargained are gone.
 
We have the econometrics now to know what people add to the bottom line on an individual basis,
 
On the other hand, unions as a platform for collectively bargaining with outside vendors for health coverage, pension fund management, professional development training, etc. have not really been fully explored.
Ken Added Sep 9, 2018 - 8:22am
What I meant is that I think 2 percent increases in minimum wage every year - or more when inflation is higher - would be far less disruptive than going from $7.25 or $10 to $15 all at once. 
 
so it is ok to be small dirubtive artivically than large disruptive?  Lets get there artificially by gradual means than just doing it all at once?
 
Yea, ok...  Do you not see the hidden danger in your comment?  Hell lets make the minimum wage $100/hr, but as long as we do it gradually it is ok!
 
Ken Added Sep 9, 2018 - 8:25am

How does the author feel about private sector unions to assure more livable wage for employees?
 
I am not fond of private unions today either I believe they have served their purpose and now are all political.  What "livable wage for employees" is not available now that you refer to?
 
And I do continue to point out the evil of public sector unions, not the private sector, while I think they are unnecessary today, I will not complain about them as they are negotiating with their actual employers.
Ken Added Sep 9, 2018 - 8:29am
Gee, Cullen you must not have been in "rightist narrative" class to learn how unions are all communists
 
Gee Jeff, If you didn't want to keep making yourself look as stupid as you typically do, you might actually read the article.  Never said anything about how unions are communist, simply how public sector unions are not only dishonest, but raping the american people...
Matt Added Sep 9, 2018 - 11:44am
"so it is ok to be small dirubtive artivically than large disruptive?  Lets get there artificially by gradual means than just doing it all at once?
 
Yea, ok...  Do you not see the hidden danger in your comment?  Hell lets make the minimum wage $100/hr, but as long as we do it gradually it is ok!"

You are clearly in the camp of people who don't understand exponential growth over time. Due to inflation, eventually $100 USD will have the purchasing power of $1. Since 1913, the purchasing power of $1 has fallen to $0.04, according to official measurements, or $0.02 by outside analysts. Or the other way around, you need $25.46 to buy the same amount of stuff as $1 in 1913.

https://www.officialdata.org/1913-dollars-in-2018?amount=1
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 9, 2018 - 1:33pm
Gerrilea
 
"Ken, John M & Ryck -- Gentlemen.  Your "economic models" are missing a huge piece of the puzzle.  History.
 
I understand the claims made that higher wages causes higher prices.
 
If that were actually true then CEO compensation would be at the levels of their average worker.  Clearly they are not."
 
This is nonsense. Wage earners have their own markets and CEOs are also in a market but with different requirements. The two levels do not correlate. CEOs, like opera singers, are rare. 
 
I hope some of us understand that the recent setting of wages in Seattle above the market levels have cost jobs and will cost more jobs as they rise above the local market hourly wage for that job.
Gerrilea Added Sep 9, 2018 - 5:23pm
Ken---  I do understand compensation based on skill-sets, really.  An opera singer cannot perform without the orchestra, the conductor, wardrobe coordinator, writer, etc.
 
How many people would pay to listen to her if she was standing on a crate in a cement warehouse whilst wearing her pajamas?
 
You falsely divide us to rationalize the position you've taken. 
 
Let's put this another way, with some facts and figures.
 
Since 1950, American workers have increased productivity over 400%, yet their compensation has increased a paltry, 11%.
 
In 1960 only 20% of women worked, today it's 70%.  Why's that?
 
Where'd all the wealth (not income) we generated go???
 
The Three Richest Americans
 
"The three richest people in the US – Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett – own as much wealth as the bottom half of the US population, or 160 million people. Totaling $235 Billion."
 
And please note the figures for Gates, Bezos and Buffett was AS of 2017.  Bezos is worth $160 Billion at the last estimate.
 
Clearly they can afford to pay their workers more.
 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 10, 2018 - 1:39pm
Gerrilea
 
"Clearly they can afford to pay their workers more."
 
Consider the case where some business has various costs including taxes, wages and that include a %5 profit and add up to 100% of the operating budget. Given that employee costs are %30 of the total cost then doubling that will bring the total to %$130 all things being equal. What to do?? [1] Raise revenues by %30 to break even? [2] Cut costs? [3] Employ automation to eliminate most the of employee costs? [4] Quit the business.
 
To think that governments can set prices or volumes in markets and not experience shortages or surpluses is a joke, disproved centuries ago.
 
There is no concern for employee costs here. There is only the leftist politics here.
 
Consider the case where some business has various costs including taxes, wages and that include a %5 profit and add up to 100% of the operating budget. Given that employee costs are %30 of the total cost [as in MacDonald's franchises] then doubling that will bring the total to %$130 all things being equal.
 
What to do??
 
 
[1] Raise revenues by %30 to break even? That means raising prices.
[2] Cut costs? Where?
[3] Employ automation to eliminate most the of employee costs?
[4] Quit the business?
[5] Go bankrupt for equality and social justice reasons .
 
"Clearly they canNOT afford to pay their workers more."
 
Comparing employee costs to CEO remunerations is nonsense. But, we could ask, in parallel vein,  how a given peasant's living standard compared to those of Lenin, Stalin, Beria, Kim, Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega [who seized Somoza's mansion for himself]  or Hugo Chavez? Maduro of Venezula looks rich while a mere million of his citizens fled the country for lack of food. 
 
Liberals tend to refrain from making comments on far-leftist governments although their arguments about social justice, equality and all that are clearly not solved and are obvious in those cases. 
 
Shall we just double salaries and force businesses to close?
 
 
Gerrilea Added Sep 10, 2018 - 5:47pm
Ryck--  The failures of other nations??? How truly absurd.
 
Review the crimes of the CIA and then get back to me about your list.
 
Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, Honduras, the Soviet Union etc etc etc.  Review the Pineapple/Fruit wars and how we stole Hawaii. None of our economic "success" would have occurred without direct intervention by our military or CIA.
 
And that manipulation and intervention continues to this day.
 
As for your false accounting numbers.  Are  you including CEO pay in the costs of operations or employee expenses? If employees understood the scam, then we could have an honest debate.
 
The accounting tricks don't work with me. I know almost all of them.
 
The company I currently work for, I generate $458 per hour in revenue on average here in Buffalo NY. My compensation in reality represents .68% of the total revenues I generate each year.
 
Look, I do understand how it works within smaller Mom & Pop businesses.  I've owned my own company.  Regulations and the fear of more regulations destroyed it. NOT what I was paying myself or the handful of employees I had.
 
If you review how CEO pay and compensation is determined you'll understand better my position.  It's not based on supply and demand or real world performance.
 
How many times have we bailed out publicly traded companies that cheated, stole and cooked the books?  The "too big to fail OR jail" meme comes to mind.
 
And to answer your final question.  Raising employee wages will not close businesses unless you keep CEO's pay at 1000x of the average employee.
 
Therein lay the problem.
 
 
George N Romey Added Sep 10, 2018 - 8:09pm
Not to mention what has become a clubby world of C suites, Directors and the 1% that own 75% of public shares.  Do the Directors actually do a cost benefit analysis to determine id a CEO is worth 400x times than the average worker? I doubt it.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 10, 2018 - 8:26pm
Gerrilea
 
"As for your false accounting numbers.  Are  you including CEO pay in the costs of operations or employee expenses? If employees understood the scam, then we could have an honest debate."
 
"And to answer your final question.  Raising employee wages will not close businesses unless you keep CEO's pay at 1000x of the average employee.
 
Sure this is true??
 
 
Apparently you know nothing of business and this is proof. 
 
bye
Gerrilea Added Sep 10, 2018 - 11:22pm
Ryck -- How truly elitist authoritarian.  CEO and corporate officers pay is not a line item in yearly budgets.  Give me cash flow report with NOI (net operating income), then give me your claims for amortization, depreciation and expenses then we can talk about CEO & employee compensation rates within any company.
 
You see, if we are all on the same page, we can work as a team to build a successful company and business.
 
That's how American businesses became so successful in the 1950's and '60's.  There was a partnership with labor.
 
Not this garbage peddled by the elite.
 
Bain Capital, the epitome of the corruption that is falsely labeled as "capitalism".
 
Ken Added Sep 10, 2018 - 11:30pm
You are clearly in the camp of people who don't understand exponential growth over time.
 
I do understand.  Artificially inflating wage is not the answer however, especially when you understand the reasons why the democrats are pushing so hard for raising it.  This has nothing to do with helping the people, many of which will lose jobs (just look at the $15/hr in Seattle and SF and all the articles about the job losses that have occurred, business that have shut down because of it, very simple google without me linking tons).
 
It has everything to do with the incestuous alliance between public sector unions and the democrat party.  It has everything to do with the free market not being the deciding factor on a "fair wage".  It directly increases the impact that labor costs have on the rate of inflation and the amount of labor costs as a % of the corporate P/L making it more likely that the company will depress wages to keep the labor they need, automate more, or begin to let go employees to reduce labor cost pressure.
Matt Added Sep 11, 2018 - 2:13am
Short term pain for long term gain. As I mentioned, I think it would be better for minimum wage to increase by $0.10 or $0.20 per year, rather than going from $7.25 to $15 all at once. Eventually, things will stabilize and jobs that were lost will be replaced with new jobs.
Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 2:50am
the evidence for that is sketchy at best
Gerrilea Added Sep 11, 2018 - 8:54am
Ken--- Present evidence that when the minimum wage is increased jobs are lost.
 
In fact, I can present historical evidence that it has little or no effect on employment numbers.
 
"Economists have found that in many scenarios, raising the minimum wage has either no or marginal impact on employment. A 2009 meta-study of 64 minimum-wage studies ranging from the 1970s through the 2000s found little or no evidence that raising the minimum wage produces discernible increases in unemployment. In 2013, the Center for Economic Policy Research conducted a review of the most recent literature in the field and also found low-wage workers did not face dimmer employment prospects when the minimum wage rose modestly."
 
 
Matt Added Sep 11, 2018 - 10:18am
"low-wage workers did not face dimmer employment prospects when the minimum wage rose modestly."


Modestly. Suddenly doubling minimum wage is not modest. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 11, 2018 - 10:31am
The lefties here do not understand anything but gratuitous pay for workers and high taxes. 
Gerrilea Added Sep 11, 2018 - 11:10am
Matt-- "suddenly"...Pshaw!  Wages have been stagnant for 40 yrs unless you're a CEO that steals billions, destroys millions of lives and keeps the majority in perpetual poverty.
 
Ryck-- You really can't or won't discuss this honestly.  Your opinion, on this subject, is meaningless.
 
 
Jeff Michka Added Sep 12, 2018 - 9:32pm
syck ryck of course won't discuss wages honestly.  He started out talking about all the shortages in Seattle due to a $15 minimum wage, but never named one shortage.  Back in the 90s, I was a staff member for  I 688, a voter initiative that gave WA state the highest minimum wage in the US at the time.  Annually adjusted for inflation/COLA, saving millions in costs for elections every few years to raise min. wage.  The screaming came from restaurants and agricultural interests, since farmers had to pay their workers prevailing minimum wage, even if the workers were illegal.  There wasn't a mass closure of restaurants or farms disappearing after voters approved the initiative.  The way restaurants portrayed it, the waiters and little people, because of tips, would rake in huge salaries and would all become uber-wealthy, outclassing the people they worked for.  Riiight.
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 11:00pm
Matt Added Sep 13, 2018 - 12:57am
"The EPI argues that while it might be easy for corporations to adopt the $15 minimum wage, it's much more challenging for small businesses which form the backbone of the US economy."

I don't see how the legal structure of a business or its scale determines if it can adapt to a change in labour costs or not. It seems to me that it should matter more how tight their margins are, and how large a component labour is of their total costs. Also, how sensitive their customers are to price increases for the goods or services they provide.
Ken Added Sep 13, 2018 - 11:20am
It should be intuitive Matt.  A large corporation can absorb costs more easily than a small company. A company with 3 employees may have 2 of them on minimum wage and barely making a profit.  A company with 10,000 employees likely has < 1% of them on minimum wage and can more easily absorb the cost.  They can also distribute it into different areas or even take on debt more easily.
 
They have far more flexibility than a small company does.
Matt Added Sep 13, 2018 - 9:27pm
"A company with 3 employees may have 2 of them on minimum wage and barely making a profit.  A company with 10,000 employees likely has < 1% of them on minimum wage and can more easily absorb the cost. "

Why are you comparing an unprofitable small company to a large profitable one? Margins shouldn't be size related. If the company is that close to going under, it probably would eventually anyways.

Wal-Mart employs a lot of people at or near minimum wage. Lots of fast food chains are probably pretty close as well.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 14, 2018 - 11:19am
Matt
 
"Wal-Mart employs a lot of people at or near minimum wage. Lots of fast food chains are probably pretty close as well."
 
Wal-Mart pays much higher than minimum wage for full-time employee and less for part time and their managers, from entry employees, make $80, 000 or more by learning the trade OJT. 
 
The lefties cannot accept  that wages are controlled by markets.  They do not   understand supply and demand schedules. All they understand is Grunt and Grab. 
 
How much do drug dealers and smugglers pay  their mules?
Matt Added Sep 14, 2018 - 9:34pm
Street level drug dealers often make less than minimum wage; they just make it up by working lots of hours. Here's an interesting read:
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittVenkateshAnEconomicAnalysis2000.pdf
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 15, 2018 - 12:34pm
Matt
 
"Street level drug dealers often make less than minimum wage; they just make it up by working lots of hours."
 
Then where did the heavy gold chains and fancy cars come from??
 
"The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's WorldDrug Report 2005 estimates the size of the global illicit drug market at US$321.6 billion in 2003 alone. With a world GDP of US$36 trillion in the same year, the illegal drug trade may be estimated as nearly 1% of total global trade."-- wiki
 
That buys a lot of cheap hours!
 
 
 
Matt Added Sep 15, 2018 - 3:22pm
"Then where did the heavy gold chains and fancy cars come from??"

Gang leaders can make $100K+. They are the 1%.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 16, 2018 - 12:42pm
Matt
 
And, they have no problems with self-esteem. 

Recent Articles by Writers Ken follows.