Slashdot Mirror


States That Raised Minimum Wage See No Slow-Down In Job Growth

An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. Department of Labor has released data that some proponents of raising minimum wage are touting as evidence that higher minimum wage promotes job growth. While the data doesn't actually establish cause and effect, it does "run counter to a Congressional Budget Office report in February that said raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, as the White House supports, would cost 500,000 jobs." The data shows that the 13 states that raised their minimum wages in January added jobs at a faster rate than those that didn't. Other factors likely contributed to this outcome, but some economists are simply relieved that the higher wage factor didn't have a dramatically negative effect in general.

9 of 778 comments (clear)

  1. Short-Lived? by craigminah · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I bet jobs growth has increased because the delta between minimum wage in those regions and unemployment is great enough to motivate folks to get jobs. This will stabilize in a short time and I think jobs growth will stall and stagnate.

  2. This will only buy a little time by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Automation and/or skyrocketing inequality will soon bring capitalism as we know it today crashing down. This is just sticking your finger in the dam.

    The only way forward that doesn't involve revolution and bloodshed starts with mincome.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  3. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In Germany the unemployment rate used to be higher 20 years ago, with industry-wide minimum wages, several protections against unfair dismissals and no short-term contracts. Unemployed people had generous allowances, that's also why companies had to offer decent wages for them to accept to work.

    Now, after the neoliberal Hartz "reforms", the unemployment rate has decreased, but also the average real salaries for the newly employed, factory workers and employees. And workers' rights have dramatically decreased too. In general, the lower/middle classes' life quality has dramatically worsened.

    People and the media must stop watching metrics like GDP, you need to look at its distribution instead, with the Gini Coefficient for example. I prefer a country with a GDP increase of 1% a year evenly distributed than one with a 3% GDP increase with the first tenth of the population having a 30% income increase and zero for the remaining 90%.

    Give us back protectionism, big state-owned companies, the welfare state and "socialism", please. We don't like this alleged new "freedom" (of the rich from the poor).

  4. Re:Local testing works? by BlueMonk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I also wonder if some of our illegal labor problems could be solved if there were a law making an exception for illegal immigrant workers that required any employer caught hiring illegally to pay minimum wage to all such workers (with no option to lay them off or withhold payments until they found other work, returned home voluntarily, or the employer legitimately declared bankruptcy), and made those workers legal citizens to the extent that they would not fear reporting any employer paying them less than minimum wage. The goal would be not so much to improve or increase immigration (illegal or otherwise), but to deter illegal hiring by holding the employers participating in such practices responsible for the people they hire that way, if they haven't treated their employees fairly from the beginning (can't produce records of paying minimum wage for as long as evidence for employment exists).

  5. Re:Local testing works? by Stormthirst · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why not got one step further - the fines imposed on the employer could be set at the difference between the actual wage earned and the (minimum wage + $1/hour). The $1/hour/employee goes to the state bringing the prosecution to pay for the prosecution, the rest going to the employee. Punishment to fit the crime and it doesn't cost the tax payers to bring the prosecution.

    Don't like it? Don't employee illegal immigrants, and pay your employees at least the minimum wage.

  6. Re:Local testing works? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How large is large?

    I know places like NYC have lots of under-the-table employees, but almost none of them make less then the $8 an hour minimum wage because if you only make $5 an hour in Manhattan you starve to death. They're under-the-table because the employer does not want to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, or do the paperwork required to issue a 1099. Most of the employers are actually upper-middle-class to rich employers who could easily do the paperwork, they simply don't bother because none of their friends bother.

    I actually work at a Home Depot, which the anti-immigration activists are convinced means I know hundreds of Salvadoreans working for below the minimum wage. It just doesn't happen. It probably happened back in 2008, before the economy went to hell, but since then nope. It's probably much more common in areas with low (or no) minimum wages simply because the cost of living is low enough that somebody who is used to a lower-class standard of living in Mexico or Central America could get by on $6 an hour and still have enough left over to send a couple hundred a month home.

  7. Re:Local testing works? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why not got one step further - the fines imposed on the employer could be set at the difference between the actual wage earned and the (minimum wage + $1/hour).

    Let's also set a higher than normal minimum wage for illegal/undocumented workers, a so called "employer penalty minimum wage" of 25% higher.

    Also.... for each illegal: if the farm employer paid them in cash or cannot otherwise prove beyond a shadow of doubt any particular payment, then it shall be assumed the employer made every effort to defraud the employee of wages and hours worked and that the payment was actually $0, so the entire minimum wage is due fir the maximum conceivable number of hours the employee might have worked.

    Similarly... if they cannot show affirmative documentation of the hours worked: then it will be assumed an illegally numerous 16 hours a day for every day since hiring. Burden of proof on the employer to show what was paid and how many hours or days the employee worked.

  8. Re:Local testing works? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I generally agree, there's little a financial fine would do to a business. If it's low, it's not a matter for legal but one for cost accounting and risk management. If it's high, the company is sent into bankruptcy and the assholes running it simply continue.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re:Local testing works? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The outlook that states the pie is only so large - if I get rich someone else has to get poorer - is a fallacy perpetuated by progressives to justify redistribution. It's simply not how our economy works. But it is an economic reality that increasing the minimum wage decreases profits which increases costs to the consumer. That being said, if we are going to have a minimum wage at all, it should be reasonable with adjustments for inflation

    Henry Ford thaought that the employees should be able to but th product.

    Today, that is apprantly no longer true. The employee must be paid as absolutely little as possible, so that the sharholders are served.

    But what happens when no one buys the product any more?

    Here is the http://www.forbes.com/sites/cl...

    Although WalMart points to a 2005 report to invalidate those socialists at Forbes. I know WalMart employees who haven't had a raise since then.

    McDonald's cost's us 1.2 billion dollars in Government support.

    THere is even more data, but I figured you would just say that Huffpost and Daily Kos were tools of the liberal elite. You can Google it if you like

    Now that we are here, I would like to talk about how my Tax dollars and yours are going to support the low wages that these companies say they have to pay their workers?

    I thought that Government was inefficient, and spends the money poorly. So why should we subsidize McDonalds and WalMart so that they can pay their employees less? Would it not make sense to pay the employees directly? 6.2 Billion dollars is one fucking gobsmack of a tax break for WalMart. And it's semi hidden, allowing them to act like the free market superstars while they are secretly socialist redistribution of your money and mine to thos epoor people w e've been trained to know are the source of all their problems.

    As an aside, there's plenty of above-minimum-wage jobs out there if you know where to look. The mikeroweWORKS foundation is a wonderful organization that promotes scholarships and training for those willing to work in skilled trades that are hurting for people.

    Those fucking lazy poor people really frost my cupcakes too. Skiiled trades. Let us talk about them.

    Because the person who is laid off at say 50, is going to spend 4 years leaning a new trade, to apply for a job they won't get hired for because they are "too old"? Because the person laid off from their factory job will just become an investment broker or open a machine shop?

    I like Mike Rowe a lot, and agree with his idea that the blue collar workers don't get the respect they deserve.

    But there is an elephant in this room.

    You are not going to just plug in anyone anywhere. Isn't going to happen. Some people can make fundamental shifts in what they do, others cannot. I can and have. I've been a lifeguard, a cable TV technician, a linesman, a printed circuit manufacturer, a Digital programmer, a photographer, a videographer, and computer support to Suits. I'm the person who shifts careers as need be.

    My better half, who is every bit as smart as I am, doesn't adapt as well - she's pretty much been stable in her work life.

    I'd say 80 percent of people retrain only under great duress, and with very mixed success.

    Thern there are the other people. Whether we want to admit it or not, a whole lot of people are just not cut out to do much that is complicated. They just aren't. But they need to support themselves.

    Unless you want to support them through socialist programs, or remove them from the food chain, that is.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.