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.

Comments

Local testing works?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the federal government staying out of the way lets local laws be different and we can see if the changes are good or not? Then people can go to where the laws are how they like them instead of having bad ones forced on them at a federal level.

Its almost as if the whole system was set up like this so only the obvious non-controversial laws should be at the federal level and everything else should be local.
Screw that, its too hard to force your views on others in every location, they should just force eveything on a federal level without Congress so those people who don't agree with me don't get a say.

Re:Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

Moving to the state whose laws work best for you may work for people who can move, but I expect the people affected by these laws are pretty closely representative of the set of people who can't move.

Re:Local testing works?

[CRCulver]

Then people can go to where the laws are how they like them instead of having bad ones forced on them at a federal level.

For one, not everyone wants to move. Many of the people who call for a hands-off federal government would be quick to emphasize the value of family and stable local communities. Conservatives everywhere deplore the brain-drain and family disruption that comes with people migrating away from an area for better work elsewhere.

But even when people want to move, there's a general expectation that things work more or less the same everywhere. Sure, there are still some cultural differences between large regions, but the US isn't 13 distinct colonies any more. If the American Revolution happened today in our hyper-connected world, there definitely wouldn't be the same call for devolution and autonomy as in the days of the Founding Fathers.

Re:Local testing works?

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Damn right. People can either choose to be poor and work at Wal-Mart and mooch food stamps from the rest of us, or they can simply decide to move to New York and become hedge fund managers.

Libertardian: n. 1. An anarchist who wants to do away with government, but expects police protection from his slaves, judicial enforcement of contract law, and the free and unfettered use of a modern and magically maintained infrastructure. 2. Someone blithely unaware of the consequences and logical inconsistencies of the nonsense they're babbling.

Re:Local testing works?

[Ol Olsoc]

Show me an area with a high minimum wage and I'll show you an area with a large illegal labor force making less.

I travel all around the country and that's a very constant result. If you want to increase wages then 1) invest in education, and 2) change Free Trade to Fair Trade.

Actually, why don't you show us? Give us the stats, man, or you're just one more trickle downer refusing to accept the idea that people who make some money, spend some money.

Re:Local testing works?

[rmdingler]

Not just for fun... cash for pelts augments my minimum wage income.

Re:Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

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).

Re:Local testing works?

[Ol Olsoc]

Then people can go to where the laws are how they like them instead of having bad ones forced on them at a federal level.

For one, not everyone wants to move. Many of the people who call for a hands-off federal government would be quick to emphasize the value of family and stable local communities. Conservatives everywhere deplore the brain-drain and family disruption that comes with people migrating away from an area for better work elsewhere

Why one could just believe that they are selfish pricks, who just find everything in life as an example of something that affirms their beliefs.

It's usually hypocritical though, and seen through the eye of a pig.

First off, in their "we will only be wealthy when you are as poor as possible" outlook, where a minimum wage doesn't exist, giving any employee any raise immediately causes the economy to fail, and causes employers to throuw up their hands in defeat, and close their food stand, and we all starve to death.

But then there's that little thing of places like McDonald's giving employees directions on how to apply for food stamps and other Government assistance. Or WalMart employees - 80 percent of them are on Government assistance to the tune of 2.66 billion dollars per year.

So right off the bat, insistence on the type of minimum wage we have now automatically means approval of massive Government handouts. Sounds kind of like business based socialism to me.

But now back to the thread. So this slackard, drain on the economy worker, after being laid off at the local WalMart, is going to pack up their family, and strike out for the other side of the country....... for what? Another minimum wage job at another WalMart? If they are hiring, maybe. If not, well, that will help curb the excess population.

Re:Local testing works?

[Stormthirst]

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.

Re:Local testing works?

[fche]

Bravo, ad hominem and straw man mixed together in one stinky mess of an argument.

Congratulations (?).

Re:Local testing works?

[NicBenjamin]

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.

Re:Local testing works?

[readin]

Damn right. People can either choose to be poor and work at Wal-Mart and mooch food stamps from the rest of us, or they can simply decide to move to New York and become hedge fund managers. Libertardian: n. 1. An anarchist who wants to do away with government, but expects police protection from his slaves, judicial enforcement of contract law, and the free and unfettered use of a modern and magically maintained infrastructure. 2. Someone blithely unaware of the consequences and logical inconsistencies of the nonsense they're babbling.

Assuming you misspelled "Libertarian", a libertarian would be extremely opposed to slavery. A strict libertarian would expect infrastructure to be paid for by user fees. You're right though that police protection from slavers and other criminals, enforcement of contract law, and free and unfettered access to modern technologcy would be something a libertarian would expect.

Disclaimer: I used to be very libertarian. I'm not anymore because a healthy libertarian society requires people to be intelligent and rational, and long experience has taught me that in general we are neither.

Re:Local testing works?

[captbob2002]

screw fines - passed along to consumer. JAIL TIME for those that hire the undocumented.

Re:Local testing works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives everywhere deplore the brain-drain and family disruption that comes with people migrating away from an area for better work elsewhere.

Conservatives certainly emphasize the importance of a stable family and decry the attempt to replace parents with govt programs, but I've never heard any conservative object ideologically about moving one's family to take a better job. Dislocations are part of economic freedom.

there's a general expectation that things work more or less the same everywhere.

No, there isn't. One of the first questions a person asks when considering a move to a different state is whether or not the state has an income tax.

Sure, there are still some cultural differences between large regions, but the US isn't 13 distinct colonies any more.

I guess you're not a Texan who has tried to buy a handgun after moving to New York or a San Franciscoan who has tried to buy a gimp suit locally after moving to Alabama are you?

If the American Revolution happened today in our hyper-connected world, there definitely wouldn't be the same call for devolution and autonomy as in the days of the Founding Fathers.

The FFs designed our system to allow state and local govt to handle most matters because they recognized that local govt was move responsive and accountable and, thus, more likely to govern more justly than a distant and alien central govt. The federal govt was entrusted to handle only those small number of duties for which a central govt is best suited such as maintaining a common currency and national defense. The logic of this has not changed since the country's founding and so your statement is false. The wisdom of the FFs can be seen today in the way that the fed govt ignores the will of the American People while imposing itself ever more deeply into people's lives.

Re:Local testing works?

[CRCulver]

Conservatives certainly emphasize the importance of a stable family and decry the attempt to replace parents with govt programs, but I've never heard any conservative object ideologically about moving one's family to take a better job.

Come to Eastern Europe where movement of people away to Western Europe for better jobs is often decried by the right.

Re:Local testing works?

[PopeRatzo]

Stop bellyaching. When your reply contains a list of fallacies, you've already lost. This is give and take, not a debating society.

If the shoe fits, wear it. Why are libertarians so famously thin-skinned? I get the impression that if they ever found themselves in the kind of society they promote, they would have one very bad, very short day.

Re:Local testing works?

[Ash Vince]

Moving to the state whose laws work best for you may work for people who can move, but I expect the people affected by these laws are pretty closely representative of the set of people who can't move.

Even when people are supposedly more mobile, moving is a big thing for most people so they do not do it.

Here in the UK we had a 50% tax rate imposed on the very richest a few years ago. There were lots of stories about how this was going to drive away people who were successful abroad but in the end it made very little difference because while these sort of exceeding rich people might threaten to take their family somewhere else, but then when they talk to their wife and she refuses to move more than a 20 minute drive from her family and refuses to move the kids out of school and away from their friends.

A few years ago I wanted to move to the states as there were few companies that I could have worked for that might have appreciated a few niche skills I had picked up in their field. Although I would have been a ton financially better off in the states and we could have bought a much bigger house to start a family in than the 3 bedroom London house we have now, my wife would not have moved that far away from the family support. I could have explained how the US tax code would have benefited us until I was blue in the face but she simple wouldn't have cared enough to pay attention.

The idea that people will move is just a scare story that the rich use to try and maintain the ability to pay less in taxes or employers use to justify being able to pay as little in wages as possible.

Re:Local testing works?

[volmtech]

I grew up in a farming area in the 1950's. Before welfare blacks and poor whites picked the produce. They were the migrants, working South to North. After harvesting apples and potatoes in Maine and Vermont they went back to south Florida for the winter. After welfare they didn't need to do that so the growers who had depended on them made agreements with work crew leaders to bring in illegals.

Re:Local testing works?

[The Evil Atheist]

A strict libertarian would expect infrastructure to be paid for by user fees.

Which is what we call TAXES. That's why the GP is right to call it a fantasy. It is a fantasy to think individual user fees would be an efficient way of paying for widely used necessities.

a libertarian would be extremely opposed to slavery.

Libertarians that oppose the notion of a fair minimum wage is using slavery.

I used to be very libertarian. I'm not anymore because a healthy libertarian society requires people to be intelligent and rational,

And intelligent and rationality requires education on mass, which libertarians also don't want to pay for, making libertarianism a self-defeating system.

Re:Local testing works?

[Albanach]

Allow me to take these blinders off of you and show you the entire industry that is hiring illegals to pick your produce. In fact, do a search for "H2 workers" and be amazed by the wonders of our legal system.

You seem thoroughly confused. You talk about an industry of illegals and then suggest we look at those legally here on H2B visas as an example.

Are you suggesting that there's a huge amount of US workers just waiting to pick fruit and plant pine trees? And the only thing holding them back is that the minimum wage is too high?

Re:Local testing works?

[BarC0d3z]

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.

I have no idea how you came up with the number 80% of Wal-Mart employees are on government assistance, but a report Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story, by Jason Furman - Obama's own advisor, states that the number of employees on public assistance is "in line" with other companies of its size.

During the depression there was a continual migration of low-income workers as they looked for work. My grandfather in any given week was a hard-laborer, shoe repairman, piano tuner, and musician at night traveling around the Midwest, gone for weeks at a time. He'd go where he could find work. Choosing to live in places with insane home prices or property / sales taxes when you're out of work should be motivation to relocate to a place that can support you and work is plentiful.

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.

Re:Local testing works?

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Local testing works?

[Anonymous Coward]

in their [conservative] "we will only be wealthy when you are as poor as possible" outlook,

The idea that economics is a zero sum game where one person can only get rich if they make others poor is a Marxist viewpoint, not a conservative viewpoint. Economic conservatives recognize that the surest way to increase the wealth of as many individuals as possible is to promote wealth creation by maximizing economic freedom through low taxes, low regulation and strong protection of private property rights.

Why would you accuse conservatives of having Marxist economic views?

giving any employee any raise immediately causes the economy to fail,

Conservatives don't oppose giving employees raises. They oppose govt mandates that force businesses to pay employees above labor market rates.

and causes employers to throuw up their hands in defeat, and close their food stand, and we all starve to death.

Spare us your histrionics. Forcing businesses to pay employees a wage determined by politics will either 1) be irrelevant because the the minimum wage is set below labor market rates or 2) cost jobs and, if the minimum wage is set very high, cause businesses to close.

If you don't believe 2), then consider what would happen if the govt required all McDonald's employees to be paid at least $300/hr. How much would fries and a burger cost at McD's if every one of their employees were paid that much? Would you buy a McD's burger if it cost > $15? Of course, you wouldn't and no one else would either and so a $300/hr. minimum wage would kill businesses and jobs. A less extreme minimum wage would have the same effect although the magnitude would be smaller.

But then there's that little thing of places like McDonald's giving employees directions on how to apply for food stamps and other Government assistance. ... Sounds kind of like business based socialism to me.

The usual terms for this are "corporatism" and "crony capitalism", but, yes, you seem to have recognized a problem, although you have drawn the wrong conclusions. Govt creates the problem by setting up all kinds of handout programs and then taxes the snot out of companies in order to pay for the programs. Then you come along and complain that the same companies that are getting shafted with taxes and burdensome regulations shift some of their labor costs by paying their workers less and telling them to sign up for govt handouts. (Obamacare is by far the worst example of this, by the way, as everyone will see once it is fully in place and every company has dumped its employee health insurance plans.)

In a world of greater economic freedom, the govt would dramatically decrease regulations and taxes and roll back handout programs, the economy would thrive, more companies would be created, jobs would be plentiful and wages would be bid upward as companies competed for workers by offering higher pay. Sadly, the statists have control of the political system and the country is getting f***ed up because of it.

... WalMart, ... WalMart ...

WalMart is a great company and its employees are generally satisfied working there. Why the hate?

Re:Local testing works?

[wealthychef]

NO, I say before you pay the lawyers you give the people back what they are owed. So the fines should be difference you state PLUS lawyers fees. Ånd the lawyer fees should not be exorbitant.

Re:Local testing works?

[sudon't]

I wonder what would happen if we opened the border in both directions? Let their workers come up, let our investors go down, (I'm not talking about maquiladoras, I'm talking about changing Mexican law). It might even out after a while.

Re:Local testing works?

[Anonymous Coward]

You always know you've found a tolerant, caring liberal online by how much name-calling and slandering he does at anyone who doesn't share his opinion.

Re:Local testing works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or did you just want to put the vineyards and janitorial service owners in jail?

But eliminating the demand worked so well when the Republicans did it for the war on drugs! Why not use it for the war on illegals?

Re:Local testing works?

[ganjadude]

finally someone understands the reason we are in this mess

Re:Local testing works?

[fche]

"This is give and take, not a debating society."

If all you have available to "give" are poor imitations of intelligent debate, frankly it's not worth "taking" any of it.

Re:Local testing works?

[Sarius64]

We don't enforce employer penalties now. What makes you think that any new rules/penalties would change the system now? It's almost like saying that new guns laws will change the hearts and minds of criminals.

Re:Local testing works?

[ganjadude]

For one, not everyone wants to move. Many of the people who call for a hands-off federal government would be quick to emphasize the value of family and stable local communities.

which is EXACTLY why I feel you living where you do, with your peers should have more say in your own life than a couple of rich people in washington who are out of touch with the realities of where you live.

Re:Local testing works?

[ShanghaiBill]

JAIL TIME for those that hire the undocumented.

Jailing non-violent people is idiotic. America already imprisons more people than any other country. The solution to illegal immigration is to deal with the fundamental causes. Mexico is no longer a net source of immigration (as many Mexicans return home as arrive). The biggest net sources are Central American countries experiencing extreme drug gang violence, such as Honduras and El Salvador. Ending the drug violence will allow these countries to stabilize and create local jobs for their people. And the best way to do that is broad legalization, which is already successfully happening in Colorado and Washington. Other states will hold referendums on legalization this November. We should be jailing a lot less people, not more.

Re:Local testing works?

[Crashmarik]

Libertarians notoriously thin skinned ?

Compared to what ?

They tend to be incredibly reasonable when you contrast them to the, He's got stuff and I don't, or the I stole it fair and square people.

Re:Local testing works?

[pnutjam]

Those guys aren't making less then minimum wage. The hard part is finding workers for one day projects for low pay.
Having worked at a work today, paid today temp place, I can attest to this. There are afew people who are legitimately in a tight spot. Most of the other workers are either ex-cons who can't get hired, people who can't pass a drug test, or hard core functional alcoholics who go on three day benders every time they get some cash.

Once again for the slow people, these are social issues, not legal issues. I do think pursuing the people hiring is a better answer. Maybe the should have to pay a fair day's wage in addition to whatever they already paid (undocumented).

Re:Local testing works?

[The Evil Atheist]

typical socialist mind-rot.

Gotta love libertarian logically fallacious reasoning. Calling something a name constitutes an argument, apparently.

Here's the test - can you decline to pay the fee, and therefore to use the service? No? It's a tax.

Can you decline to use the service? Can you decline to use the economic benefits from having interstate highways? Can you decline to benefit from having clean water and safe food? Can you decline to benefit economically from a nationally enforced currency and social stability from a commonly applied law?

Actually, yes you can. You decline to use the service by leaving society. Don't like it? Tough. You can actually leave, and you won't pay taxes. So by your very own definition, they are just as much fees as any other fee.

Quality of life is not an entitlement and is only possible through joint investment from every member of society.

What is fair can only be determined by consensual transactions arrived at in a competitive environment.

Circular reasoning. By whose rules do you say that is the only possible definition of fair? Only if you buy into libertarianism do I accept those rules. I don't, so I don't.

Furthermore, what constitutes a "consensual transaction"? Under contract law, consent does not exist if made under duress. Someone who accepts a job way below minimum living standards because they are pressed to do so is under duress, yet that is what libertarians like you like to take advantage of. Or do you mean to restrict consent to the consent of the employer, and not the employee? Only consent matters for the poor put-upon employer?

Education is critically important, yes, which is exactly why we need a competitive market for it

A non-sequitur if there ever was one, and also a tautology because, again, you'd need to assume libertarianism to accept your conclusion. Why do Americans continually ignore the examples of Scandinavian and German public education, as though other people have not already figured out how to make schools valuable without introducing social darwinist forces into education?

You know the models of other countries are ALSO competition in principle, and your ilk's ideological and puritanical approach has failed compared to the competition. Like I said, your ilk's systems are self-defeating.

Re:Local testing works?

[Captain Segfault]

There's a large gap between the economy not being zero sum and an infinite pie.

Re:Local testing works?

[ganjadude]

no, what you describe is your fearful thoughts of what libertarianism actually is. Do yourself a favor and actually read their platform instead of insulting people you dont understand. www.lp.org. Educate yourself, you might stop sounding like a smug jackass

Re:Local testing works?

[kosh271]

Are you suggesting that there's a huge amount of US workers just waiting to pick fruit and plant pine trees?

I would say for for a thousand bucks an hour, you'd have people lined up around the bloc to pick fruit and plant pine trees. (1000$/hr is a silly high wage, but it makes a point that higher wages will drive workers to a job)

The problem is that with the glut of ultra-cheap labor, the wages for picking fruit and planting pine trees has not increased enough to drive workers to these jobs. When a business utilizes the ultra-cheap labor, the only way for other businesses to match their competitor's prices is to also utilize the ultra-cheap labor. Businesses following the rules will struggle to get by and possibly close down - being unable to cut costs as much as the businesses that aren't playing by the rules.

Unless the government steps in and severely punishes the use of illegal immigrant labor, the problem will persist.

Re: Local testing works?

[cyber-vandal]

It's OK when rich people move to Turkey and buy up all the property. It's not okay when ordinary Turks want to come here to earn the extra money they need to afford to house their families after the property boom sent housing costs soaring.

Re: Local testing works?

[CRCulver]

Read my post again. I am talking about local conservatives decrying the emigration of their compatriots with all of the brain drain and absentee parents that entails. I am not talking about other conservatives decrying the immigration of foreign workers.

Re:Local testing works?

[sumdumass]

Thats utterly rediculous. If the illegals weren't flooding the market with cheap labor, the cost of those jobs would be significantly higher. Charging the difference of minimum wage is still cheaper than being completely legal.

Illegal labor drive the pay for everyone in that line of work down.

Re:Local testing works?

[tomhath]

You can't put the blame on Republicans for US drug policy. Both parties have been pushing it hard since the 1930's under Roosevelt.

Re:Local testing works?

[colin_faber]

He's no blaming poor people. It's clear that he's blaming failure of government policy.

Re:Local testing works?

[Ol Olsoc]

Allow me to take these blinders off of you and show you the entire industry that is hiring illegals to pick your produce. In fact, do a search for "H2 workers" and be amazed by the wonders of our legal system.

Oh - You really showed me - Fail.

Re:Local testing works?

[r1348]

So basically, the wealthy will exploit the poor if not forced otherwise? If anything, that seems more like a law enforcement issue to me.

Re:Local testing works?

[mattwarden]

How much does an unemployed person make?

Re:Local testing works?

[mattwarden]

How does an illegal immigrant prove they are being paid below minimum wage, and how do you propose protecting employers from illegals fraudulently claiming they are being paid below minimum wage (which they absolutely will given the massive carrot you are waving in front of them)?

Re:Local testing works?

[guises]

Namely, our native poor aren't as desperate as they used to be.

Re:Local testing works?

[PopeRatzo]

They tend to be incredibly reasonable

Citation?

Re:Local testing works?

[The Evil Atheist]

Projection. Unlike you, I made an argument. Which you carefully inch around without facing.

Ironic that is the very thing you do in this sentence.

I actually lived in Scandinavia and noted with approval that the school system in the country where I was at is nearly exactly what Libertarians have been proposing in this country for many decades.

You mean libertarians have been asking for a socialist education system? Libertarians have been asking for improved government funding for universities?

As to Germany? The Prussian model is where US schools started. Even the Germans have moved on and improved, while the US sticks doggedly to Fichtes baby.

You haven't even figured out what you're opposed to - the economic model or the education model. The Germans may have moved on from the Prussian education model, but the economic model for providing education is still pretty much state funding for the majority.

Really, you should educate yourself before you spout off.

I for one will make sure never to call the Scandinavian and German countries' public funded institutions "libertarian", for one. Now THAT is embarassing.

Re:Local testing works?

[sjames]

Once you have established that something works well on multiple test systems, shouldn't it then be deployed to the production system? Now that the test states have proven the effectiveness of the measure, any remaining 'controversy' is political in nature and likely driven by a metric that would end a political career if voiced honestly.

Many people have no desire to live like gypsies and move constantly.

Re: Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

It's just an idea I thought up on the spot, so was wondering about. I welcome any ideas for improvement. But if authorities are tipped off to a bunch of immigrant labor somewhere, how hard would it be to prove that they are there at versus against the employer's request when they come for a surprise inspection? If the employer can't produce records of paying at least minimum wage, they're in trouble. The only thing left to prove is that the workers were there at the request of the employer. I think harder things have been proven.

Re:Local testing works?

[sjames]

Actually no. Progressives generally believe that if we raise wages for the poor, the stimulus to the economy will make everyone richer. It is the GOP that believes that moving money from employer to employee will bring the world to a screeching halt and make everyone poor.

Note that the Dems are coming to closely resemble the GOP. Few seem to be actually progressive these days.

Re: Local testing works?

[mattwarden]

Employers do not need to prove they are paying minimum wage with illegals. You cannot force an employer to produce documents that would incriminate themselves by saying they employed illegal workers and avoided payroll taxes. 5th Amendment protections. Furthermore, there would be no documents; they're illegally working! They are being paid under the table. If you insist on surprise inspections, all that will happen is construction companies, etc. will constantly rotate day laborers vs. having someone there for any length of time. That would limit their exposure to a single day, and perhaps eliminate it altogether if they are paying at the end of the day (thus after the inspection opportunity has passed).

The only way this would work is literally planting an investigator to pose as an illegal and observe the transaction. It's just not a big problem relative to hiring illegals in the first place.

Re:Local testing works?

[Arker]

Sweden has school choice. Fact.

You do not have a clue what you are talking about. Fact.

Re:Local testing works?

[Rob Y.]

This whole attempt to steer the discussion to one of illegal immigration is a cute trick, but it skirts the real issue. The minimum wage (which hasn't been adjusted for inflation in decades) isn't enough for someone working 40 hours a week (whether picking fruit or stocking aisles at WalMart, etc) to live on without some form of public assistance. So either:

1) Accept this - and lobby for public assistance to make up the difference instead of against it.
or
2) Accept that the wage needs to be raised, because it's more important to the American ideal for a full time worker to be able to support themselves - if not themselves plus their children, than it is for employers to be able to squeeze every last bit of profit from their labor.
or
3) Admit that you're okay with America not being a place where all people who work can afford food, shelter and health care (i.e., perhaps not The Greatest Country On Earth (tm)).

But the point of the article is that the argument that 'raising the minimum wage will kill jobs' has been disproved. To continue to scream it is to lie. But many of those are the same ones still touting that 'lower tax rates raise revenue' - despite the fact that that's not really what the Laffer curve says - and experience shows that we're on the part of the curve where that's not true anyway. In other words, it's a lie, based on a fantasy and/or propaganda - in the face of actual experience that demonstrates the opposite. That letting gays marry will destroy marriage and hurt children. I could go on...

Re:Local testing works?

[sjames]

Why would you accuse conservatives of having Marxist economic views?

If the shoe fits...

Spare us your histrionics. Forcing businesses to pay employees a wage determined by politics will either 1) be irrelevant because the the minimum wage is set below labor market rates or 2) cost jobs and, if the minimum wage is set very high, cause businesses to close.

So why didn't it cost jobs in the 13 states that tried it? Did you RTFA? Your theory is shot to hell.

As for the rest, nobody has contemplated a law forcing one particular employer to pay higher wages. Your imagined outcome doesn't happen when everyone is equally required to pay a fair wage. You're also breaking the argument by analogy by insisting on an unrealistic starting condition. Nobody has suggested $300/hr or anything close to it. The effect of $15/hr would increase the cost of a Big Mac by $0.20. Meanwhile, a bunch of people could actually afford things, which means sales and hiring staff to serve them.

Re:Local testing works?

[NoOneInParticular]

Why do you think the sign of a dying society is a decreasing population? What is your long term outlook? Are we to support 10 billion people, then 100 billion, then a trillion? How do you think this would work out?

I think a population, decreasing or increasing toward stability, is a sign of civilization. Resources are being maxed out, people are no longer starving, and you do not need children to take care of you in your old age. I'm sure that in the US this doesn't hold, as you'll have infinite resources and infinite growth potential, though in the rest of the world, people beg to differ.

Re:Local testing works?

[Opportunist]

Umm... then I guess it's those illegal workers that create jobs like crazy?

Re:Local testing works?

[Opportunist]

1000 bucks silly high? Ask the average CEO and he'll wholeheartedly disagree.

And he doesn't even pick anything!

Re: Local testing works?

[NoOneInParticular]

America is special. Because at foundation time had a war with a dictatorship, they started anew, with a fresh constitution. Luckily, the forces that be found a workaround. Now they have a two party dictatorship. God bless you all.

Re:Local testing works?

[sjames]

Many libertarians re-define slavery to mean paying taxes or putting people in chains and literally whipping them until they work. They ignore the constructive slavery of being forced to work for next to nothing because that's what the offered wages are in the vain hope of not starving long enough for a miracle to happen.

In some ways, the modern minimum wage slaver is worse than the literal slave owners of old. The slave owners of yesterday HAD to provide food, clothing, shelter, and health care to avoid losing their investment. The modern ones palm that responsibility off on society.

Re:Local testing works?

[Opportunist]

Because two wrongs don't make a right.

Sorry, but the day I copy the harebrained crap a Rep dreamed up, I hand in my socialist card.

Re:Local testing works?

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Local testing works?

[bigpat]

And intelligent and rationality requires education on mass, which libertarians also don't want to pay for, making libertarianism a self-defeating system.

And Democracy will always fail when people vote themselves largess from the Treasury. And Monarchies will always fail when the king inevitably decides to have sex with whomever he chooses or gets drunk and decides to invade France... blah blah blah. You can attack any ideals with extreme examples.

Liberty is a good ideal to strive for and that just means seeking a system of government which supports as much freedom as possible. But all sorts of practical things get in the way like taxes and wars and natural disasters and things where it may be easier and more practical to pay for with common taxation. Libertarianism just means that people recognize that it would be better if we could just have a more free and prosperous society which paid for things based on individual free will instead of forced taxation and dictatorship. There is nothing impractical about an ideal... Like basing society on mutual respect and treating others like you would like to be treated... it is an ideal which we are bound to fall short, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good which is worth trying to perfect to the extent that it is practical.

Re:Local testing works?

[aaarrrgggh]

There are plenty of citizens who are afraid of reporting abuses. There are no simple solutions; the reality is that employers need to act ethically and morally in their treatment of employees. (Good luck with that.) Reality is that people take the easy way out and make decisions on short term outcomes only.

Raising the minimum wage hurts me as an employer, despite the fact that we don't pay anyone less than twice (California) minimum wage. The issue for us in making sure we can classify engineers as exempt (salaried) employees. Only employees at over twice the minimum wage are eligible to be exempt status, and it would mean that some entry-level engineers would need to be classified as non-exempt. This brings in the mandatory breaks, lunches, and workplace rules that are inappropriate for a professional environment.

Sure, you can say pay them more, but that really doesn't solve the problem; it just makes it unattractive to hire people that aren't stars. We can have some engineers that are mediocre; not all tasks need stars. Hopefully we can turn them into stars in time, but that requires some discount in pay to be attractive.

Re:Local testing works?

[aaarrrgggh]

That actually isn't true. Bringing action against an employer is easy and free for the employee, and the penalties are severe. What the current system does is encourage employers to make their employees live in fear so they will be too intimidated to file an action-- battered wife syndrome essentially.

No clue how to improve it, but right now an honest, good faith mistake could bankrupt a company.

Re: Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

The employer wouldn't be prosecuted based on their evidence so there would be no 5th amendment issues. They would be prosecuted based on their inability to provide evidence of legal employment. Isn't this already codified? It's like being audited by the IRS. If I can't produce evidence of the claims I made on my tax return then I'm in trouble. It wouldn't just be just about minimum wage but about legal employment and minimum wage. In other words the only requirement to be legally employed is that you be paid minimum wage. And heaven forbid you employ someone under the legal working age, you'll be on the hook to pay them minimum wage until they are of legal age whether they work or not. As for the comment, "Furthermore, there would be no documents; they're illegally working! They are being paid under the table." That's exactly my point. If you can't provide evidence of legal employment, then you suffer the consequences of illegal employment. And on the topic of surprise inspections, I admit there would be some challenges, but I don't think they're all new challenges or can't be worked out somehow. Unfortunately I don't have all the answers, just a thought. Surprise inspections may not be the only way or best way to prove that employees are there at the behest of the employer. But I think that's *all* that needs to be proven once the employer fails to provide evidence of legal employment. At least in my fantasy land :).

Re: Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

Exactly, there are no simple solutions, but I suspect they're are *better* solutions than what we have, and those better solutions might start out with simple ideas that need some development.

Re:Local testing works?

[aaarrrgggh]

Some people are bad with money and make stupid life decisions. No wage or training will fix it.

My office manager makes almost $75k, and financed a used car at 19% interest, even after I explained how to calculate the interest to her. She is 40 and a grandma. She gets a bonus and uses it to buy seasons pass at a theme park. I think a few country songs were written about her....

Re: Local testing works?

[mattwarden]

> The employer wouldn't be prosecuted based on their evidence so there would be no 5th amendment issues.

You are clearly talking out of your ass, so I'm not going to waste too much time here. Outside of explicit immunity for employing an illegal immigrant and defaulting on payroll taxes and other various responsibilities, it absolutely would be protected by the 5th amendment.

> If you can't provide evidence of legal employment, then you suffer the consequences of illegal employment.

Are you a complete moron? If I go to the Feds and tell them I worked for you and you paid me less than min wage, can you prove I didn't? Is your failure to produce documentation proof that you paid me less than min wage? I never worked for you, so obviously you can't produce documents showing that you paid me more than min wage.

> At least in my fantasy land :).

At least one part of your comment was correct and logical.

Re:Local testing works?

[Anonymous Coward]

screw fines - passed along to consumer. JAIL TIME for those that hire the undocumented.

Screw jail time - summary execution works better!

Re:Local testing works?

[ganjadude]

thats really what you gathered from that post???

Prior to government handouts, people with no skills, worked no skill jobs. it was a net win for the country as people who were unemployable had jobs. with government handouts, at the bottom of the scale it is easier for people with no skills to collect a check from the government (OUR pockets) while at the same time forcing employees to hire illegals to do the job "americans dont want", this has the double negative of burdening our system even further and taking money out of our economy as a large number of migrant workers send their money back home, taking it out of the american economy.

why cant these people on welfare be given jobs "americans wont do" and start contributing "their fair share"???

Re:Local testing works?

[ArmoredDragon]

Not that I'm on his side, but what you're asking for is an inherently difficult thing to do. Nobody exactly keeps open books on how precisely they are breaking the law.

Also if he were to name names, you'll cost those people their jobs (legitimate or illegitimate they may be) and/or he ends up on the wrong end of a lawsuit when the illegitimate employer is made aware, covertly lets go of those illegal workers, and then claims defamation when nothing is found to be wrong.

Re:Local testing works?

[msauve]

" there's a general expectation that things work more or less the same everywhere. Sure, there are still some cultural differences between large regions, but the US isn't 13 distinct colonies any more."

Then why stop at the national level? Why not create a global government. We could call it the New World Order.

Re:Local testing works?

[Sarius64]

I invite you to come to San Diego any day of the week and test your theory. Good luck.

Re:Local testing works?

[__aaclcg7560]

How much does an unemployed person make?

My unemployment benefits was one-third of my previous income. Eight months and 60+ interviews later, I got a new job two months after exhausting my unemployment benefits. Fortunately, my credit was still good enough that I got a personal loan from my credit union to cover my rent and expenses until my first full paycheck kicks in.

Re: Local testing works?

[ganjadude]

care to elaborate?

Re:Local testing works?

[Dutchmaan]

Just curious as to why you used "welfare" for blacks, but "poor" for whites... Seems they'd be in the same boat, so why did you differentiate?

Re:Local testing works?

[PopeRatzo]

If all you have available to "give" are poor imitations of intelligent debate,

For a group of people who love throwing around words like, "Marxist" and "Tyranny" and "Collectivist" and "Fascist" and "Moochers" and "Leeches" and "Parasites", I'm not sure you're in a position to judge what is and what is not intelligent debate.

Yes, what passes for a libertarian in 2014 is a thin-skinned mental undergrad with a grudge. A Republican who read once read a book. Any push back at all and they holler, "Mom, he's hitting me back!" Bitter and brittle, they march around just knowing that society could be so wonderful and free...if only. Protected by the notion that they'll never have to actually perform. And whenever libertarian policies are put in place, the resultant failure is always blamed on not having gone far enough. So, if only they had really gone a few steps further, it totally would have worked. In that way, they are just like the handful of hard core communists left. "If only they had really gone all the way with libertarianism/communism, it would totes have worked". It's actually a lot like your basic extremist follower of any other New Age belief. "The coffee enemas would have cured their cancer, but they just didn't stick closely enough to the regimen." Or, "The faith healing would have totally worked, but the patient didn't have enough faith." It's an argument that can never be won, which is why most people have given up and have just taken to ignoring them.

There is a reason no society in the world, in history, has ever tried to fully implement a fully libertarian system. Because even those most desperate for liberty - especially those most desperate for liberty - can recognize full-blown crazy when they see it. But I have to say, it would be a great treat to see a libertarian live for one day in such a society.

There's also a reason that of all the times the John Galts of the world have decided that they're going to create some floating libertarian utopia somewhere beyond the evil grip of the choking fist of government around their skinny necks, it's never ever happened. Because in the marketplace of ideas it loses every single time. Even libertarians know the idea is crazy, but they've become in love with the vast amount of self-regard that such a philosophy affords them, safe in the knowledge that they'll never be called upon to actually, you know, live like that.

Re: Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

It's clear from your resorting to personal attacks that you no longer wish to participate in civil discourse on the topic, and that you didn't fully read and understand what I said. If anyone wishing to continue the discussion in a civil manner would like me to clarify the confusion (if it's not obvious) I will respond to more articulate disagreements.

Re:Local testing works?

[ray-auch]

Even when people are supposedly more mobile, moving is a big thing for most people so they do not do it.

Here in the UK we had a 50% tax rate imposed on the very richest a few years ago. There were lots of stories about how this was going to drive away people who were successful abroad but in the end it made very little difference because while these sort of exceeding rich people might threaten to take their family somewhere else, but then when they talk to their wife and she refuses to move more than a 20 minute drive from her family and refuses to move the kids out of school and away from their friends.

as well as moving, people at that level can move their income elsewhere, pension it, or defer it to avoid the tax. Avoidance is not illegal (evasion is).

Key issue with the 50% rate is - did it raise 20% more money than the 40%, for incomes over 100k ? If not, then people _did_ move either themselves or their income, and the country's finances got less benefit.

HMRC reckons the income moved - http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2... - chart on P28 is very interesting, 25% fall in total declared income over 150k, on the introduction of the tax. Other stats: before 50% tax rate 16,000 people with income over £1M, after - 6000. Gradually increased to 10,000 in following years, but that is still 6k people with 1M+ income who went somewhere else (at least 2Bn in tax they would have paid at 40% rate, gone).

Re:Local testing works?

[EvilJoker]

An interesting idea, but you have to remember that Hollywood Accounting is already in place.
Example: Walmart (etc) is under too much scrutiny, so they can't hire any illegals directly. However, they contract janitorial duties to some small, local firm, with minimal oversight. This firm then hires all of the illegals, and takes the fall when the time comes. They quickly declare bankruptcy, and get away with it. Meanwhile, Walmart has already reaped the benefit.

This doesn't even account for shell corporations and the like.

Re:Local testing works?

[gnasher719]

A tiny step further: If the employer has no money, make their customers pay the fine. Suddenly the customer has much less reason to buy from someone who is cheap because they employ cheap labour.

Re:Local testing works?

[bondsbw]

Punishing industries built on unskilled labor is my problem. It makes more sense to place the burden of welfare on the whole economy, via taxes, since the government is the only entity in the position to redistribute wealth.

In my vision, the government would supply the first $X of everyone's wage, and pays for it by increases in income tax. This gives a huge stimulus to unskilled industries founded on a large number of laborers. Now instead of having to pay everyone a minimum of $7.25/hour, they pay $7.25 - X.

I don't think we have to set X at $7.25. That would be no good as many industries would get free labor, and people would be hired on the government dime to just sit around and do nothing for 40 hours a week. Someone smarter in economics than myself would figure out X, but perhaps it would be something like $5/hour.

"Wouldn't Walmart and McDonald's just set their wage to $0 anyway, and make workers suffer with $5/hour? Isn't that going backwards?"

No, they would soon find themselves in a position of needing to compete for unskilled labor. (Whoa, the thought!) So they would add some wage on top of the government subsidy, and that would settle at a natural competitive level. That might be $4/hour or whatever as it fits their business model.

And X would adjust as needed over time to balance the economy.

Re:Local testing works?

[bondsbw]

Additionally, I think X should be supplied on a card showing the person's ID. It could be used only for specific basic needs goods and services, such as food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, child care, transportation, sanitation, education, and so on.

The government should never have the role of supplying anyone with luxuries, entertainment, and illicit activity. Those would still be bought using the employer-provided wage (so it's not like minimum-wage workers would never get to go to see a movie).

Re:Local testing works?

[LordLucless]

Oh, those poor desperate people who had to work. I'm so glad to see they can now sit and accomplish nothing under a welfare system that pacifies them by providing their basic needs and no more, while providing a disincentive to actually bettering themselves.

Re:Local testing works?

[LordLucless]

Are you suggesting that there's a huge amount of US workers just waiting to pick fruit and plant pine trees? And the only thing holding them back is that the minimum wage is too high?

Yes. He's saying that because the minimum wage is too high, jobs are not going to those who expect the minimum wage (i.e. US workers). It's like any sort of market manipulation - screw with the market, create a black market. Frequently, the black market turns out to be worse than the market would be without the manipulation (e.g. because the workers are illegal anyway, they can also be abused without them going to the authorities).

Re:Local testing works?

[mattwarden]

Thanks for talking about temporary welfare. I asked how much does an unemployed person make. The correct answer is $0.

Re:Local testing works?

[LordLucless]

I see you're a fan of the theory that an arrow could never hit a moving turtle, because over small enough intervals, it only moves a negligible fraction of the distance.

Re: Local testing works?

[mattwarden]

This reply is probably the only thing you could have said at this point to save some face. But I doubt anyone but you and me is reading this far down, so you come off a bit paranoid. Nobody knows everything; the trick you have yet to learn is to avoid asserting yourself beyond where your knowledge can support. In order for people to be fooled, they have to know less on the subject in question than you.

Re:Local testing works?

[LordLucless]

The idea that economics is a zero sum game where one person can only get rich if they make others poor is a Marxist viewpoint, not a conservative viewpoint. Economic conservatives recognize that the surest way to increase the wealth of as many individuals as possible is to promote wealth creation by maximizing economic freedom through low taxes, low regulation and strong protection of private property rights.

I have no idea why he targeted conservatives, but zero-sum economics is not just a Marxist viewpoint anymore - it's a popular viewpoint for many who don't understand economics, because they can intuitively understand it.

Re: Local testing works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yours is a fallacious argument. The point of free market capitalism is, through the market pricing mechanism,to determine where resources should be most efficiently allocated. We are not tlking about an infinite pie, we are saying, within the existing constraints, how can we increase the effective use of such limited resources. Ie maximize the size of the pie we can get with existing technologies and existing constraints. Innovation and disruption usually results in orders of magnitude more efficency (eg. Uber is increasing the efficient use of all vehicles, and the market is saying taxis are an inefficient use od capital).

The fed on the other hand, thinks infinite money supply will result in infinite prosperity. Money printing however leads to misallocation of resources by messing up the information we get from the market, viz the price of anything.

Re:Local testing works?

[pslytely psycho]

Indeed! Washington state until recently (not counting the local raise in IIRC SeaTac) had the highest minimum in the country. We weathered the economic downturn better than a lot of states did. It was rough, but it never got Michigan rough.
After all, if you pay someone enough to have a disposable income, they might just dispose of it with you!
And rents (on the east side) are not prohibitively expensive. Seattle rents are comparable to any big city. Prices are not appreciably higher than anywhere else. It has not appeared to harm our economy at all. Washington isn't an economic powerhouse, but it is reasonably stable.
Not to mention it's a pretty decent place to live.
Lakes and mountains within an hours drive. The Pacific Ocean about 5 hours away.
And we have legal Marijuana!

Re: Local testing works?

[guspasho]

It's called basic human dignity, and if you think working a full-time job should not by itself be enough to support oneself, you clearly do not believe in it.

Re:Local testing works?

[Ol Olsoc]

Actually, why don't you show us? Give us the stats, man, or you're just one more trickle downer refusing to accept the idea that people who make some money, spend some money.

Um... you do realize that you just described the exact concept by 'trickle down economics' in your attempt to insult someone for believing what you believe but named another name, right?

Trickle down economics concept is that it you give the wealthiest people large enough meals, that some food will fall of the edges of their plate, and poor people below will eat some of it.

I still await the evidence that a high minimum wage job equals a large illegal labor force.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Re: Local testing works?

[guspasho]

So every time the unemployment rate goes up, it's because more people choose to become ex-cons, drug users, or alcoholics?

Re:Local testing works?

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, since raising the minimum wage will not kill jobs, why are we only talking about raising it to $10.10 an hour (or $15 some places)? Let's make it a decent wage like $50 an hour.

Re:Local testing works?

[Dutch Gun]

I'd suggest a thought experiment: if a small increase in minimum wage is good, why not a large one? What would happen if you made it $25 an hour? What about $100? Counterpoint: Even water is poisonous if too much of it is drunk, so we have to be careful of not reading too much into this thought experiment. It's just to clarify the effects in our minds.

If the cost of hiring employees goes up, the operational costs of a business also goes up. That's simply indisputable (at least, I'd hope no one here would dispute simple math). For many businesses, labor is a very significant portion of their budget. There are only a few realistic options for businesses that I can think of. I've ordered them what I would guess to be the order of probability:

1) Decrease benefits or cut worker hours (especially overtime).
2) Hire fewer workers or reduce staff to compensate.
3) Increase prices, passing the cost along to the consumers.
4) Accept lower profit margins.

It's not because the companies are evil, but neither are they good or altruistic. They're in business to make a profit - that's the entire point of business, and more to the point, *can't survive* if they don't. Many small businesses have razor-thin profit margins as is. So, #4 automatically comes last. #3 is second to last because most businesses are in competition with others, and can't arbitrarily raise prices without hurting their business overall. So, that option has to be used very cautiously, and then only if the same trend occurs among competitors.

Personally, I think it's simply a matter of deciding if we want to accept the consequences of a minimum wage, and whether that overrides the positive net effects. My feeling is that it's not a simple binary issue, more of a scale, where a smaller increase can be beneficial, but larger increases could be significantly detrimental (mostly through inflationary pressure, not necessary unemployment).

To me, this is similar to the taxation issue, which you mentioned. At some point, the drain on the economy outstrips the benefits of high tax rates, so the trick is to find the rate that combines economic benefit with government funding, combined with the moral question of how much money the government should be collecting from its citizens overall.

Re: Local testing works?

[__aaclcg7560]

That's assuming that they're not involved in the cash economy. After my brother ran out of unemployment benefits, he started his own landscaping company and earns cash under the table.

Re:Local testing works?

[cheesybagel]

What would happen is everyone else's wages would go up as would inflation. The idea that raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment assumes the state cannot increase the money supply which is plain bogus.

Of course what it would also means is that in the long term that minimum wage would be worth the same in real terms as the current minimum wage...

Re:Local testing works?

[Attila Dimedici]

So why didn't it cost jobs in the 13 states that tried it?

You apparently have a problem with reading comprehension because you QUOTED his answer to your questions "1) be irrelevant because the minimum wage is set below labor market rates"

Re:Local testing works?

[cheesybagel]

The curious thing is even Adam Smith knew trickle down economics were plain bullshit. The fact is the wealthy already had their basic needs covered with the amount they spent. Any additional money they spend buying toys more likely than not will be buying crap from outside the US and thus funneling wealth outside the US. Case in point: where did Steve Jobs buy his yatch?

When income taxes were high a lot of the wealthy funneled the money into their corporations instead which ended up being a better deal overall rather than buying more useless shit.

Re:Local testing works?

[sjames]

So your theory is that he's a kook bitching about something that had literally zero effect on anything?

Re:Local testing works?

[cheesybagel]

But what all the violence of the feudal institutions could never have effected, the silent and insensible operation of foreign commerce and manufactures gradually brought about. These gradually furnished the great proprietors with something for which they could exchange the whole surplus produce of their lands, and which they could consume themselves without sharing it either with tenants or retainers. All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons. For a pair of diamond buckles, perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchanged the maintenance, or what is the same thing, the price of the maintenance of a thousand men for a year, and with it the whole weight and authority which it could give them. The buckles, however, were to be all their own, and no other human creature was to have any share of them; whereas in the more ancient method of expense they must have shared with at least a thousand people. With the judges that were to determine the preference this difference was perfectly decisive; and thus, for the gratification of the most childish, the meanest, and the most sordid of all vanities, they gradually bartered their whole power and authority.

The Wealth of Nations - Adam Smith.

Re:Local testing works?

[sjames]

Many of those states have been raising the minimum wage every year to keep it pegged to inflation. Where's the gloom and doom? The rhetoric has claimed there would be an instant and devastating downturn. Where's the long line of businesses leaving those states? Where's the pictures of the ghost McDonald's

Re:Local testing works?

[The Evil Atheist]

Sweden has school choice. Fact.

Doesn't make it libertarian. Fact.

Having a choice doesn't make something libertarian. Fact.

Libertarianism having choice does not mean anything else with choice is automatically libertarian. Fact.

Trying to say Sweden's system is libertarian simply because it has choice is like trying to say

http://www.economist.com/news/...

"The system, introduced 20 years ago, allows parents to choose between municipal schools and independent schools, all financed by tax money. The aim was to increase quality by competition, but it has also led to the best students flocking to the same schools."

So here you are, arguing that STATE FUNDED schools, both municipal AND independent, are libertarian because they have choice.

You do not have a clue what you are talking about. Fact.

You have a poor grasp of logic, as evidenced by your apparent failure to understand the non-exclusivity of properties of things. Fact.

You tried to argue that the choice of state funded independent schools is a libertarian system. Fact. And you say *I* don't have a clue. Good job buddy. Showing everyone that libertarianism is a pipe dream that can only work with government backing. You don't really want government money to go away. You just don't want to pay for it but are happy to take the benefits of it.

Re:Local testing works?

[The Evil Atheist]

You can attack any ideals with extreme examples.

Libertarianism IS an extreme ideal.

Liberty is a good ideal to strive for and that just means seeking a system of government which supports as much freedom as possible.

Here's what libertarians don't get: Just because your ideology has "liberty" in the name, does not make it the exclusive owner of the concept. Guess what? Unlike what the US right wing media try to tell you, people who are liberal ALSO want liberty and as much freedom as is SUSTAINABLE.

Libertarianism just means that people recognize that it would be better if we could just have a more free and prosperous society which paid for things based on individual free will instead of forced taxation and dictatorship. There is nothing impractical about an ideal

The impractical part is precisely that part about paying for society wide things based on individual free will. Sorry, but free will is overrated. Some things, like education and human rights are too important to be left up to free will. Children have no option but to go to school, and the South has no option but to accept integration.

Re: Local testing works?

[guspasho]

No, progressives advocate income redistribution because extreme income inequality chokes economic growth. Give money to the people who have none, and they are the likeliest to spend it, and spending money is how you grow jobs and an economy, you grow the pie. Conversely, restrict all the money to the hands of an increasingly elite few, and nobody will have money to spend, the economy will be effectively limited to the handful of wealthy people while the rest of us are shut out. Businesses will close up, people lose their jobs, that's one of the surest ways to kill an economy, the pie shrinks. Time and again this has been borne out, e.g. in the article here.

Re: Local testing works?

[mattwarden]

That's called being employed.

Re: Local testing works?

[guspasho]

Yes, let's have a minimum wage adjusted for inflation. Then it would be around $21/hr, which is what the minimum wage would be if it had kept up with inflation since it was instituted. Yes, at one point the minimum wage was a true, reasonable living wage. That's why our parents and grandparents remember being able to do so much more with their money than we can now, like buying houses right out of college.

Re:Local testing works?

[williamhb]

Here's the test - can you decline to pay the fee, and therefore to use the service? No? It's a tax.

Can you decline to use the service? Can you decline to use the economic benefits from having interstate highways? Can you decline to benefit from having clean water and safe food?

So you're saying my lunchtime sandwiches should be paid for by taxpayers rather than a user-pays fee (me buying them)? Wowsers. Socialists in America go further than I thought!

[other poster]

Education is critically important, yes, which is exactly why we need a competitive market for it

That's not quite it. The problem with social education is that it usually means "the majority" dictating what your education must be like, and you end up with schools under bloated regulation run at a distance by a lowest-common-denominator bureaucracy (the school has little policy freedom, and often cannot even hire or fire its own staff). The majority-decreed form becomes free while anything else becomes very expensive [either through fees or the housing price of living in catchment]; and then if non-state options do better than the state ones [eg, private and church schools in England] you get social campaigns to try to ban them or bring them under state control too. Voucher systems, academies, or charter systems (the naming varies) whereby education does not compete on price but are driven by the school's community rather than by the state, and where you are free to choose your school, seem to be a neat way of bringing choice and deregulation to the state system, but are still young -- the private and state systems have had about 150 years head start on them getting developed.

Re:Local testing works?

[Dutch Gun]

Conservatives truly do not, on a very fundamental level, understand how hard it is to move up rungs on the income ladder when you're at the bottom.

To do the conservative fantasy, and take smart risks which hard work turns into prosperity you need something to risk. Which you don't have unless you're in a City with a) a very high minimum wage or b) excellent mass transit. In the US b) means Chicago or New York.

I've heard very few claim that it's *easy* to move up in life economically, but many argue it's *possible* in the vast majority of cases. Moreover, there's an important distinction to make between equality of opportunity and equality of results. Most conservatives I've talked to seem to understand this fact very well, because a lot of them have lived through it, or have seen their parents or grandparents do it.

Re:Local testing works?

[Attila Dimedici]

No, my theory is that raising the minimum wage is either bad for the economy, or has no impact because it is insufficient to actually make any difference whatsoever.

Re: Local testing works?

[__aaclcg7560]

It's also called tax evasion.

Re: Local testing works?

[Anonymous Coward]

More to the point, the average unskilled, uneducated migrant worker could do as well of a job in driving companies into the ground, and be happy earning substantially less. Now, that's a net win.

Re:Local testing works?

[The Evil Atheist]

Here's the test - can you decline to pay the fee, and therefore to use the service? No? It's a tax.

Can you decline to use the service? Can you decline to use the economic benefits from having interstate highways? Can you decline to benefit from having clean water and safe food?

So you're saying my lunchtime sandwiches should be paid for by taxpayers rather than a user-pays fee (me buying them)? Wowsers. Socialists in America go further than I thought!

No, I'm not saying that. Try reading comprehension and maybe realize that my point was that not everything can efficiently be paid for by individual user fees.

Re: Local testing works?

[tsqr]

People who can't move? Do you have any idea how many dirt-poor people moved out of the dust bowl during the Great Depression?

Re: Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

Yes, this isn't a panacea to solve all the problems in this realm, but possibly an improvement in one targeted area, still needing other solutions to the other problems.

Re:Local testing works?

[phantomfive]

But the point of the article is that the argument that 'raising the minimum wage will kill jobs' has been disproved.

No it isn't, the point of the article is to help people who already agree with that feel good about themselves. If you have any logical sense at all, if this were an article about a topic you disagreed with, I'm sure you could find logical holes in it.

The fact that you haven't tried to poke holes in an argument you agree with shows a cognitive bias on your part. Now the question is whether you'll fix that cognitive bias, or remain the way you were before.

Re: Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

I think we're not talking about destitute unemployed people here but about the working poor who can't take the risk of giving up their minimum wage job for a chance at something better. Pardon me if I misunderstand the nature of those who moved during the dust bowl, but that's my first impression.

Re:Local testing works?

[NicBenjamin]

If less then 10% move up, then the statement "it is possible to move up" is both entirely true and entirely meaningless.

It's not quite at 10% (I'd guess it's closer to 20%), but it's quite unlikely for a kid whose parents only went to High School, put him in a standard neighborhood school, and didn't know which classes to push him into, to move up. You have to be the guy who never screwed up AND got lucky. The time for that has already passed for most of the coworkers I mentioned. They're in their 20s. If they try to get on the college track they have significantly better then even odds of ending up with tens of thousands in debt but no degree. It's not like they can afford to take a year off and devote themselves to school.

Yet they'll continue to get shit from tons of Conservatives. Much of their income (even for the full-time employees) is government support. They get food stamps, EIC, most are on the wait-list for Section 8, etc. They work a hell of a lot harder then a college student does in his early 20s, because unlike a college student they don't get to pick work assignments that are fun.

Right now pretty much their best career path is McDonald's, because you can go from "Do you want fries with that?" to owning a franchise. But that's a pretty fucking long shot.

Re:Local testing works?

[visualight]

Everyone understands it.

Everyone understands that wealth can be created.

Everyone also understands the difference between creating new wealth and acquiring wealth that already exists.

No one believes the economy is precisely a zero sum game. NO ONE.

The phrase "zero sum economics" is only popular because of the propagandists employed by think tanks made it popular. These are the same people who (brilliantly) made trendy to call democrats 'fascists' back when Bush was in office --because it was inevitable for Bush to be called the same eventually, and they successfully preempted it by appropriation. The same with "class warfare". The moment it begin to dawn on people that supply side (voodoo) economics is effectively a war on the middle class and poor, they also realized the propagandists had already appropriated the phrase.

These are also the people who provided the likes of you with phrases like 'class warfare' , 'statist', etc. etc. "Re-framing" is their specialty, and they actually employ people to come up with juvenile insults and labels that can be used as "argument enders". Phrases like "the theory that an arrow could never hit a moving turtle, because over small enough intervals, it only moves a negligible fraction of the distance"...which of course is a belief that no one holds, and moreover, doesn't remotely address the topic in dispute.

Now, before you get started, I am certainly no democrat, and no fan of Obama. I am interested in the truth, and I know the truth is NOT connected to any kind of 'ism, nor any economic or political THEORY raised to the level of dogma such as "free market capitalism" (there is no such thing). And the truth is, our economy has been based on the "supply side economics theory" since Reagan, without change, under every President including now under Obama. Everyone who --really-- understands it knows it (supply side economics) is a lie and some of them have even admitted it. But it won't change, and they'll continue to perpetuate the lie, continue to manipulate people LIKE YOU, because it ENRICHES them.

We live in an oligarchy where people are irrationally accused of belief in nonsense like "zero sum economics" or of engaging in "class warfare" because the --really-- smart people at the top know it helps prevent otherwise intelligent people from actually engaging in constructive discussion (and ending the oligarchy).

Re:Local testing works?

[Rakarra]

Mexico is no longer a net source of immigration (as many Mexicans return home as arrive).

So they cross the border, grab a bunch of cash, and go back.
Hell, that's worse than immigrating and staying.

Re: Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

I didn't have the patience to go 4+ more rounds on this topic under such a hostile tone from my cell phone, but since a civil tone has been resumed (in child posts), and I'm now at a desktop, I can maybe address the issues more appropriately, hoping we can retain a civil tone.

> The employer wouldn't be prosecuted based on their evidence so there would be no 5th amendment issues.

You are clearly talking out of your ass, so I'm not going to waste too much time here. Outside of explicit immunity for employing an illegal immigrant and defaulting on payroll taxes and other various responsibilities, it absolutely would be protected by the 5th amendment.

I confess I neglected to put my usual disclaimer of "this is not a statement of fact, but of my understanding extrapolating logically from what I do understand," and I let everything ride on my "fantasy land" comment (because typing long articles from a cell phone is a pain). But if you have a moment to enlighten me, hopefully I can extrapolate better in the future. I thought the 5th amendment protected you from providing self-incriminating evidence. And I thought I was talking here about the inability to provide supporting evidence (not incriminating evidence). If someone has evidence against you of illegal activity, isn't it your responsibility to provide evidence to the contrary, and if you have none, then the evidence against you that *does* exist is enough to incriminate you on its own? I do not see that as having anything to do with the 5th amendment.

> If you can't provide evidence of legal employment, then you suffer the consequences of illegal employment.

Are you a complete moron? If I go to the Feds and tell them I worked for you and you paid me less than min wage, can you prove I didn't? Is your failure to produce documentation proof that you paid me less than min wage? I never worked for you, so obviously you can't produce documents showing that you paid me more than min wage.

This is where I think you missed my comment "Surprise inspections may not be the only way or best way to prove that employees are there at the behest of the employer. But I think that's *all* that needs to be proven once the employer fails to provide evidence of legal employment." In other words, the employer is not guilty just because someone claims they were working for them and they had no records of payment. There's still the need to prove that the employer was in on the deal. Is there something I should have said to make that more clear, or am I still missing something? It seems that exactly answers the point you think I missed here.

Re:Local testing works?

[budgenator]

My state has a law that any employee can demand to be paid in legal tender, so should we assume any employer paying cash is comitting fraud, I mean fraud other than a bounched pay check the week before Christmass.

Re:Local testing works?

[sjames]

So why all the angst if it had no effect at all on anything?

Re:Local testing works?

[worldthinker]

Maybe some of them reached the middle class and aren't as poor and desperate anymore.

Re: Local testing works?

[mattwarden]

The only exception to the rule is the IRS and audits, so you were just unlucky with what you chose to extrapolate from, I guess.

Showing you proof that I paid an illegal immigrant $10/hr, would prove two things: (1) I did not violate min wage laws, (2) I violated employment laws by knowingly employing an illegal immigrant. Therefore, being forced to show this document would incriminate myself, even though it absolves me from your charge.

> In other words, the employer is not guilty just because someone claims they were working for them and they had no records of payment. There's still the need to prove that the employer was in on the deal.

All that suggests is that I employed an illegal. It doesn't say anything about what I paid them. Just because I cannot prove I paid them more than min wage does not get me into trouble for violating min wage laws. I do not understand why you think the absence of evidence is evidence of wrongdoing. That is only the case if evidence is destroyed by the person it's assumed to incriminate (e.g., if Lois Lerner destroyed her hard drive, it can be assumed its contents were bad for her), and even then the judge has to give that direction. Otherwise, juries are explicitly told they cannot view absence of evidence as negative.

Re:Local testing works?

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re:Local testing works?

[LordLucless]

They got to the middle class by living off welfare? Never happens.

Re: Local testing works?

[Ol Olsoc]

No, progressives advocate income redistribution because extreme income inequality chokes economic growth.

Dude! The monetary redistribution already happened. We won, man, now get out there and enjoy.

I personally find the idea of getting a hundred dollars in quarters and throwing themn upon the ground.

Those stupid poor fuckers go apeshit, sometimes figting each other. One time one bit another, and then broke his arm. It was so enjoyable, I got another hundred dollars worth. We laughed about it at dinner.

It's really fun. In a few years we're going to need your money too, so be a good boy about it - You'll get your quarters.

Re:Local testing works?

[budgenator]

A lot of European countries do, or did have Guest Worker programs, I could see that being a usefull safety valve for Mexico and Central America, it would certainly be better than what's happening now.

Re:Local testing works?

[Ol Olsoc]

How much does an unemployed person make?

Was that in reply to my asking for numbers?

I hope not, or else Slashdot is just turning into Yahoo comment boards. I ask for statistics, I get Neeneenr neener neener, Your wrong,I'm right.

Otherwise, got them stats?

This isn't rocket surgery folks. If higher wages kills jobs, then the numbers must exist somewhere, There are distinct differneces in minimum wage between states.

If it kills jobs, the states with higher minimum wage will have higher unemployment. Simple as that. Otherwise we're just blowing idealistic dogmatic smoke up people's asses. p.

Re:Local testing works?

[mysidia]

My state has a law that any employee can demand to be paid in legal tender

An employer does not have to own or directly provide the legal tender themselves under any circumstances; an employer may deliver to the employee a cheque payable in full for legal tender, from their bank or other financial service provider, which is standard practice in every industry, essentially.

And the direct payment of cash as wages is a bit suspicious, but I only suggest fraud should be assumed if it has already been shown that the employer hired undocumented workers and an investigation of their documentation and private interviews of their employees suggest the possibility of deception by the employer; for example, a large amount of revenue generating activity being completed requiring labor, with little ability to produce sufficient paycheck stubs and show tax witholdings to adequately account for work completed.

Re:Local testing works?

[budgenator]

Nah they just incorporate in the Cayman Island.

Re:Local testing works?

[Ol Olsoc]

The curious thing is even Adam Smith knew trickle down economics were plain bullshit. The fact is the wealthy already had their basic needs covered with the amount they spent. Any additional money they spend buying toys more likely than not will be buying crap from outside the US and thus funneling wealth outside the US. Case in point: where did Steve Jobs buy his yatch?

When income taxes were high a lot of the wealthy funneled the money into their corporations instead which ended up being a better deal overall rather than buying more useless shit.

Absolutely. To me, it's painfully obvious. I'm not a 1 per center, but I do okay. Any tax breaks I get go into investments.

Which only supports trickle down in the most abstract way - meaning almost not at all

How much more efficient that a person that is working a full time job can make enough to support themselves, and not live on the dole?

That is the canard of this whole process. A person cannot be against raising the minimum wage, without being very much appreciative and in favor of Their Tax dollars going to the people who cannot support themselves because they are making it. You can't without making weird gyrations athat come close enough to being lies ..... well they are lies.

Because, just like trickle down, and job creators theory. There is a basic truth

You don't survive on minmum wage without Government assistance. Artificially Low minimum wage means support of your tax dollars and mine being taken from us, and given to poor people.

Re:Local testing works?

[budgenator]

Having Kids at twenty or younger, without a commited significant other is Economic Suicide; all of your attention is on survival not success.

Re:Local testing works?

[Ol Olsoc]

> Case in point: where did Steve Jobs buy his yatch?

Probably at Amazon.com which features lots of yatches.

You can get B-yatches at Amazon? I better scoot on over there.

Re:Local testing works?

[Ol Olsoc]

Not that I'm on his side, but what you're asking for is an inherently difficult thing to do.

Well okay, but then I'm going to claim that lowering the minimum wage raises employment linearly the whole way down to 0, when everyone is employed, and all social problems are cured.

Prove me wrong?

Re:Local testing works?

[NicBenjamin]

Yes, that is entirely true, within the context of an economic system designed basically entirely to benefit middle class people who choose to put off child-rearing until their careers are established. However, just because it is a fact does not mean that government policy should be to encourage said fact.

Moreover the young parents you;re talking about are human beings. They have a right to vote. They have parents. They have siblings. The guy who just says "21-year-olds who have kids are beyond help because they screwed up and had kids" is probably gonna get 0% of those votes. Just ask Mitt Romney.

Hell almost all our economic problems are partly caused by recent generation's inability to get ahead after having kids. Social Security would be a whole lot better off if the actuaries thought that we would have a new baby Boom in the next five years, because then 30 years from now those kids would be supporting their parents Social Security checks.

Re:Local testing works?

[Rakarra]

The FFs designed our system to allow state and local govt to handle most matters because they recognized that local govt was move responsive and accountable

These days pretty much the opposite is the problem. Almost no one knows their city councilmen. They might know who the mayor is, but if they bother to vote, they'll look at all the names of people running for council, for school board, and not know a single one or who to turn to.

Meanwhile, they'll definitely know who the President is, who their US Senator is, and usually who their Governor is.

Re:Local testing works?

[guruevi]

10-15%? Think more along the lines of 50%. You have to add ~15% in taxes but you don't just have to deal with SSI and taxes. You now also have to deal with accountants and lawyers to make sure everything is on the up-and-up, make sure your workplace conforms to OSHA and state standards, disability claims and benefits, vacation benefits and other employees to get coverage, FMLA, a variety of insurances to protect you from litigating employees, medical benefits...

Not saying that workers should go without all those benefits but for some that is a burden too heavy to carry if the competition doesn't follow the same rules.

Re:Local testing works?

[SeaFox]

How about admit to yourself that you are not _supposed_ to be able to support yourself on a minimum wage job?

What is the purpose of having a "minimum wage" to begin with then?

If the jobs that pay this are only supposed to be for people who are co-dependant on others to meet their living expenses (especially shelter and utilities), what is the goal this "minimum" is supposed to be enabling in the people getting paid it?

Re:Local testing works?

[Opportunist]

I'm your shareholder. And I have a zero tolerance for drunk bozos who drive the company into the ground that I own.

Pack your shit and jump out the window. Without the usual parachute.

Re: Local testing works?

[outlander]

If working full-time pays so little that a person cannot meet essential basic needs, I respectfully suggest that there's a disconnect. All the human dignity in the world doesn't make a person full when they're hungry, and to implicitly state that the dignity of full-time employ should cancel out deprivation from income inequality fails to take into account the costs associated with being poor - like not being able to buy items in bulk at low unit costs due to lack of liquid cash, or time losses from using the US' grossly inadequate public transport infrastructure to travel to/from work and appointments, to name two.

Re:Local testing works?

[shutdown -p now]

Here in the UK we had a 50% tax rate imposed on the very richest a few years ago. There were lots of stories about how this was going to drive away people who were successful abroad but in the end it made very little difference

Was it a personal income tax, or a capital gains tax?

I suspect the latter, which would explain why the very richest were not actually bothered all that much.

Re:Local testing works?

[Tom]

The idea that people will move is just a scare story that the rich use to try and maintain the ability to pay less in taxes or employers use to justify being able to pay as little in wages as possible.

Basically: Most of the rich really like having their money in some tax heaven, but they don't want to live there.

Re:Local testing works?

[Dutch Gun]

Speaking as a conservative, I just don't think that trying to artificially adjusting market forces will have a net benefit on the lower working class. It has nothing to do with siding with businesses or hating poor people for whatever reason. I want people to succeed, and the best way to do that is to provide people with the best opportunity to do that for themselves. But it seems unlikely to me that you can pass a law and magically increase a bunch of people's living standards without negatively impacting others in an unanticipated way. Economic reality isn't quite that simple or forgiving, unfortunately, and we live in reality, not a fairyland of good intentions. People on the lower ends of the economic ladder are the first to suffer if the experiment goes awry, which is what I'm afraid of.

Honestly, I'd love to be proven wrong on this, because it's a hard position to take, and it would be great if we could actually help people this way. But the articles in the summary don't give any clear evidence one way or another, as they admit causality can't really be demonstrated. I think it's worthwhile to proceed with cautious increases and carefully watch the results, and do our best to extrapolate results to decide future policies. Unfortunately, I fear this issue has already become too political to avoid coloring opinion and studies, but I guess we'll see.

Re:Local testing works?

[Attila Dimedici]

Because it reflects a mindset where people call for the government to be granted more power to solve problems created by the government.

Re:Local testing works?

[coastwalker]

You mean you run your economy on illegal cheap foreign labour and because criminal money is just as good as real money to you Americans you think its would be a good idea to stop providing welfare to the human beings you threw down the toilet in your own country because you displaced them with foreign slaves..

And you wonder why Putin is able to get worldwide support for his immensely successful propaganda?

He seems no worse than the US.

Re:Local testing works?

[ultranova]

I'm so glad to see they can now sit and accomplish nothing under a welfare system that pacifies them by providing their basic needs and no more, while providing a disincentive to actually bettering themselves.

But if they bettered themselves, they would not be picking produce for sub-subsistence wages, now would they? So those poor farmers would still have to ship in exploitable people so you could keep getting produce for below its actual cost of production. Which is what this is really about: you want stuff for below its actual cost, even if this means exploiting desperate people.

In other words, you are against minimum wage because it makes it harder to transfer wealth from poor people to you. Damn looter.

Re:Local testing works?

[rtb61]

Well of course that unemployed person ends up being employed when those around them with higher minimum wage buy stuff that needs to be made so that unemployed person now has a job. How much does an unemployed person make, likely the minimum wage once they become employed because the minimum wage jobs are the first to re-appear when the minimum wage is raised. As the flow on affect occurs so higher wage positions appear. The area of the market that loses is the slaver 'er' servant market, cheap maids, cheap gardeners etc. all paid for by cheap asses.

Re: Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

The only case I see where there are hints of a 5th amendment issue would assume #1 that we know that the employee is an illegal immigrant. So for now I'll grant that assumption. And it would also assume #2 that whatever evidence the employer has of having paid minimum wage also incriminates them as having known that the employee they were paying was illegal, which is a bigger assumption, but I'll also grant that assumption for the moment. Even under these circumstances, the employer has two choices: provide no evidence and accept the default/de facto consequences of hiring an illegal immigrant if that can be proven based on the evidence of others, or provide the evidence to reduce their responsibility to the employee, if it shows they were paying minimum wage (which I suspect would not often be the case anyway). If that's still a 5th amendment issue (having to make that choice before their guilt is determined), then split the case in 2 and allow them to provide that evidence after their guilt of knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant is determined from others' evidence as a way to reduce the consequences. And those consequences would be support the immigrant until they voluntarily leave or gain legal status if minimum wage was not being paid. If it was being paid, then the consequences would be negligible? I'm open to suggestions here, but curious to know what kind of incentives it would produce if the consequences in that case were nothing (no deportation, no alimony-like arrangement, nothing). One might think all sorts of arrangements might be made to get around immigration laws to let people legally work here, but if you have to pay minimum wage anyway, how many people would want to participate in that on our end?

If it starts out as purely a minimum wage issue I guess there's the possibility that the evidence the employer might provide could incriminate them not only as having employed the person, but indicate that the person they were employing is an illegal immigrant, but I'm not clear why that would ever be proof of that. Why does the employer's evidence of payment entail evidence of having knowingly paid an illegal immigrant? Keywords there being "knowingly" and "illegal".

Re:Local testing works?

[coastwalker]

It may be a fallacy in your mind. But it does beg the question why such a huge number of poor people are in prison camp USA.

Increases in wealth in America have largely gone to the 1% since the 1970's rather than the poor or middle class. Basically the USA has reinvented feudalism.

Re:Local testing works?

[ganjadude]

no, simply what I am saying is instead of giving money to people not to work, give them money to work.

Re:Local testing works?

[ganjadude]

not what I said at all. What I am saying is that the artificially high min wage increases illegal workers

Re:Local testing works?

[MillerHighLife21]

You can solve illegal immigration with the Fair Tax.

Re: Local testing works?

[pnutjam]

No, my experience was from before the economic meltdown. I also think that most people outside those categories have steadier employment options. They don't have to show up at 5:30 am and wait around to see if someone hires them.

Re:Local testing works?

[pnutjam]

Well said, bravo!

Re:Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

The burden of proof for having payed an employee should be on the employer. The burden of proof for being in the employ of a particular employer should be on the employee making the claim. Proof could be a video of the employer giving an employee work instructions, possibly with some indication of the date (newspaper in the shot) so we know it took place after the law took effect.

And in my opinion, the employer should be held responsible for supporting the employee going forward, and not necessarily retroactively.

Re:Local testing works?

[MillerHighLife21]

And intelligent and rationality requires education on mass, which libertarians also don't want to pay for, making libertarianism a self-defeating system.

Libertarians have no issue with paying for education. Libertarians have issue with CENTRAL education at the federal level. The FEDERAL Department of Education that's constantly throwing out blanket changes across the entire country and making us live with an educational system that cannot adapt.

What libertarians want is a more scientific approach to education. 50 experiments. 50 states, competing with each other to provide the best possible education that they can for their citizens. Learning from each others successes and failures to continually improve. What libertarians do not want is one blanket system in place at the federal level that you're stuck with because it's nearly impossible to change anything at that level.

That is the Libertarian approach to just about EVERYTHING and I'm hard pressed to understand how anybody could view that as a bad idea. People like to talk up the education system in Finland (population 5.4 million), which has been extremely successful. What if Finland had to stick to some set of European Union regulations that prevented them from making the education system work the way it does? Instead of being a shining example they would be a blip on the map in a blanket discussion to fix all EU schools. Instead, Finland is free to make it's own decisions and policy regarding education and that autonomy led to a level of success that others wish to emulate.

Except in the US, nobody can emulate it regardless of how badly they want to...because that's the system we have. Finland's population is roughly the size of a smaller state like Minnesota.

Re:Local testing works?

[Daniel Hoffmann]

Honestly I never understood why minimum wages are nation-level or state-level. They should be city-level (and district-level for big cities,) the cost of living varies way too much from one place to another.

Re:Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

I don't imagine illegals would be flooding the market with cheap labor if, as originally suggested, the penalty for employing them below the minimum wage was indefinitely supporting that employee financially via an alimony-like arrangement. And if illegal labor is afforded all the rights of legal labor (plus $1/hour according to the more recent suggestion), what makes it cheaper? Keep in mind that any laborer, legal or illegal, would essentially gain the right to speak up if they thought they were being treated unfairly in any way, and would not risk suffering any negative consequences as a result. Deportation would be discontinued in exchange for illegal employers shouldering the financial responsibility for the immigrant labor they took on illegally.

Re:Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

I had been backing a wealth-based tax instead of an income-based tax myself, but I like the Fair Tax idea too, now that I read about it: http://www.fairtax.org/site/Pa...

Re:Local testing works?

[Lord Lemur]

So enforcing some kind of minimum price floor on wages, and severely punishing those who pay less? Would that do it?

Re:Local testing works?

[Lord Lemur]

We could just return immigration policy to how the founding fathers intended. Anyone is free to come, Citizenship after 14 years. Then just withold the benifits of Citizenship from those who aren't Citizens.

Re:Local testing works?

[sjames]

That doesn't even make sense. Setting a minimum wage isn't at all a new thing. No new power was necessary, just the exercise of an old one.

Re:Local testing works?

[Lord Lemur]

But what about when you can't prove date of hire?

I understand that there is alot of hatred twords "illegals", and doing anything to drive them out gets alot of peoples positive attention. Why not enfranchize the migrant population. Let's open the boarders, and adjust benifits for non-citizens. Give everyone who isn't a violent criminal and who wants it a path to citizenship. Get everyone on the tax rolls, and out of black markets.

Re:Local testing works?

[Lord Lemur]

We will only be able to effectively change Mexican Law is to first march troops all the way to Guatemala. Not that I'm opposed to homogenizing the continent a bit, but it seems extreme.

Re:Local testing works?

[sumdumass]

If the prevailing wage is $20 an hour for a job and illegals come in and do it for minimum wage or less and the employer is only penalized up to minimum wage, they may take the chance. Especially when they can close down and open under a new name using the payments you mention as a reason for the bankruptcy.

But that still relies on them being caught and prosecuted which doesn't seem to be any priority. Especially so in the safe haven areas l.

Re:Local testing works?

[The Evil Atheist]

Libertarians have no issue with paying for education.

The majority comments from libertarians on all issues is "tax is theft" - indicating they don't want to pay for public education.

What libertarians want is a more scientific approach to education. 50 experiments. 50 states, competing with each other to provide the best possible education that they can for their citizens.

So do us "liberals". The difference between libertarians and liberals is libertarians don't want to pay for public schools and want them to compete for survival. We can have competition, but libertarians want to go the extra step of introducing some form of social darwinism - that for whatever reason some kids can't go to a better school, tough luck to them as though their situation is entirely in their control and therefore their own fault.

Liberals also want an improved education with room to experiment with ways of teaching. That libertarians try to claim ownership of that desire is ridiculous.

Re:Local testing works?

[MillerHighLife21]

Libertarians have no issue with paying for education.

The majority comments from libertarians on all issues is "tax is theft" - indicating they don't want to pay for public education.

What libertarians want is a more scientific approach to education. 50 experiments. 50 states, competing with each other to provide the best possible education that they can for their citizens.

So do us "liberals". The difference between libertarians and liberals is libertarians don't want to pay for public schools and want them to compete for survival. We can have competition, but libertarians want to go the extra step of introducing some form of social darwinism - that for whatever reason some kids can't go to a better school, tough luck to them as though their situation is entirely in their control and therefore their own fault.

Liberals also want an improved education with room to experiment with ways of teaching. That libertarians try to claim ownership of that desire is ridiculous.

Liberals want an improved education system handed down from on-high at the level of the department of education. Libertarians want education localized enough that people can decide what the educational needs are for their area. Some people advocate for private schools or school choice and there are certainly good arguments for that, but the best argument for private schools is simply allowing them to make their own decisions based on their own research.

I was curious so I actually toured a private school in my area recently where the cost per student is $1000 more per year than the cost per student everywhere else in the county. The differences were staggering though. The administrators actually had to justify WHY their school was the best place for my children. They provided numbers. They provided programs that teach principles I wish were taught in public schools. They have 3rd graders doing BUSINESS PLANS. The music program is amazing...every kid learns an instrument. The build the entire curriculum around teaching life skills with every single lesson at every single level. If you're going to learn information you're going to learn a skill while you do it. Despite all of the hullaballoo around the common core approach to math, they actually settled on using it...but it wasn't forced on them. They researched programs. They studied them for a few years. Then they presented them to their teachers and got proper training for all those teachers on HOW to teach it. Additionally, they developed strategies for teaching it to kids at different levels who hadn't started out in those methods.

Contrast that with how common core was thrust upon the country from an on-high dictate and the ensuing chaos that resulted from it. With a school choice program in place, I could take the entire "cost per student" amount and send my kids to that school, only having to come up with the $1000 difference per year. As other schools in the area saw parents flocking there, they would find out what was being implemented that worked so well and follow suit.

I see this as a way of applying competition to education but not in a sense of number crunching. You can throw out numbers all day long, but the real success of a business is word of mouth and repeat customers. People choosing to use that business. That's the aim of school choice programs and certainly, it's a really interesting solution.

Wouldn't it be something if a state could decide they were going to try that while another state could stick to the current approach but watch curiously to see what happened? We'll never know under the current system.

Taxes are necessary as a society. Federal taxes and policies are not.

Re:Local testing works?

[TwoEyedJack]

The US government has no legal authority to redistribute wealth. Your Utopian vision has been tried many, many times, always ending in totalitarian nightmare. Hayek wrote about this in "The Fatal Conceit".

Re:Local testing works?

[MillerHighLife21]

"country from an on-high dictate "

Also, I'm aware states "chose" it. But they chose it based on having money dangled at them from the federal government for choosing it. That's how the federal government elicits control over states and it's been going on since Reagan started the trend with highway funds being tied to raising the drinking age. Reagan set the playbook for Federal control which is something that a lot of conservatives aren't comfortable hearing.

Re:Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

It's not clear to me that this problem is different under the proposed rules than it is now. Illegal immigrants would already be depressing wages on jobs that would pay above minimum wage in the current system. So maybe the plan doesn't fix *that* problem, but I don't see it making it any worse.

Re:Local testing works?

[Talderas]

Damn. Who could stomach being a grandparent in their forties?

Re:Local testing works?

[worldthinker]

You have made 2 failures of logic.

1) You assume most people on welfare were black
2) You assume that people on welfare always stay on welfare

In the 1960's 1970's, millions of poor blacks actually made it into the middle class when they got access to good paying jobs in places like Detroit, Ohio, etc.

Re:Local testing works?

[The Evil Atheist]

Liberals want an improved education system handed down from on-high at the level of the department of education.

Complete bollocks. That's how libertarians like to demonize liberals, but that's not the truth of the matter. Most liberals aren't happy with common core - I certainly found it ridiculous.

The main issue libertarians make a big deal of, as I say before, is having to pay taxes at all, at any level. You can look through all the comments on this article, and you'll find a dozen libertarians saying taxation is theft, with no distinction between federal taxes or state taxes.

Stop trying to claim principles for yourself that are not exclusive to you.

Re:Local testing works?

[Lord Lemur]

But Anonymous Coward, that isn't really the whole situation.

The idea that economics is a zero sum game where one person can only get rich if they make others poor is a Marxist viewpoint, not a conservative viewpoint. Economic conservatives recognize that the surest way to increase the wealth of as many individuals as possible is to promote wealth creation by maximizing economic freedom through low taxes, low regulation and strong protection of private property rights.

Why would you accuse conservatives of having Marxist economic views?

It isn't actully either, it is an over simplification. In the short run, it is true. There is a limit to productivity due to technology, and due to resources, so while in the long run the whole pie can increase as processes become more effient, as more resources come online, and products provide more utility this only effects the long run. Neither conservatives, nor marxists make the claim that the only way you can be made richer is to make other's poorer in the long run. Conservatives like Trickle Down, where you depend on the benevolence of the rich to make everyone better off. Marxists, consider profit to be theft. These are not the only theories of wealth distribution, and they aren't in direct opposition, and both have been proven in the real world to be bad for the middle-class.

Conservatives don't oppose giving employees raises. They oppose govt mandates that force businesses to pay employees above labor market rates.

Conservatives generally favor anything that limits the power and reach of corporations. labor unions, safety regulations, enviromental standards, basically anything which prevents a corporation from taking an action that damages the larger community, but nets them larger profits. If you will recall 5 of them decided that corporations are people, and then that corporations rights outweight the rights of actual people.

Spare us your histrionics. Forcing businesses to pay employees a wage determined by politics will either 1) be irrelevant because the the minimum wage is set below labor market rates or 2) cost jobs and, if the minimum wage is set very high, cause businesses to close.

If you don't believe 2), then consider what would happen if the govt required all McDonald's employees to be paid at least $300/hr. How much would fries and a burger cost at McD's if every one of their employees were paid that much? Would you buy a McD's burger if it cost > $15? Of course, you wouldn't and no one else would either and so a $300/hr. minimum wage would kill businesses and jobs. A less extreme minimum wage would have the same effect although the magnitude would be smaller.

Yes, at current production levels a $300/h entry level wage would be damaging to the economy. It would cost jobs. However it doesn't stay true for all wages. Wage is also not the only factor in determining jobs. I agree that politically dicatated minimum wage is silly, we have let is get to an appalingly low rate by having it politically dictated. Way back in the 1972, it was decoupled from how it had been calculated. It was tied to worker productivity, ie how much value a worker can generate in an hour. If we stayed on pace it would be about $30 an hour now, at today's prices. We haven't even paced inflation since then. That margin is going into corporate profits (highest in our history currently), and to pay for return on capital. However, currently corporations, in general, are holding on all those extra dollars instead of trickling them down, either to avoid repatriating the currency from their tax loopholes(our taxes on the very wealthy and on corporations have been falling like a stone for about 30 years, why pay taxes today, when you can hold the funds and pay less taxes next year) or because there is no good place to invest due to supression in demand for goods and services. If that money had been paid out in wages we wouldn't be able to i

Re:Local testing works?

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

As a couple of data points on the thin-skinned study, I had two different people (nicks "Libertarian_Geek" and "c5402dc53929211e1efb") go to the trouble of making me their "foe" yesterday. Try to imagine my sorrow that two random Libtards on the Internet don't like what I said.

Re:Local testing works?

[MillerHighLife21]

Liberals want an improved education system handed down from on-high at the level of the department of education.

Complete bollocks. That's how libertarians like to demonize liberals, but that's not the truth of the matter. Most liberals aren't happy with common core - I certainly found it ridiculous.

The main issue libertarians make a big deal of, as I say before, is having to pay taxes at all, at any level. You can look through all the comments on this article, and you'll find a dozen libertarians saying taxation is theft, with no distinction between federal taxes or state taxes.

Stop trying to claim principles for yourself that are not exclusive to you.

Show me a liberal that advocates for states rights and I'll accept your "bollocks".

I'll not deny that there's a segment of libertarians that are anti-all government. I'll not deny that libertarians are generally anti-tax as well, because taxes feed the size of government.

Imagine a corporation that could simply decide, despite it's inefficiencies, that it needed more money to operate or that it's employees all really deserved raises despite almost 2 months of paid vacation, almost no fear of job loss, excellent retirement packages and the best health coverage...so they simply choose to make everybody may them more money. That's what government does every single day and that's where the idea that "taxation is theft" comes from. Government is the only part of the economy that doesn't have to get more efficient as technology improves. The salaries remain comparable to private sector but the benefits on top of them are dramatically better. It used to be that choosing to be a "public servant" warranted all of those protections and benefits at the expense of private sector comparable salaries.

Re:Local testing works?

[bondsbw]

The US government has no legal authority to redistribute wealth.

Um... have you not heard of the welfare system? My solution is similar but without many of the overhead costs, without targeting industries that hire unskilled laborers, and without being subject to corruption and abuse.

I understand that you may have a problem with redistribution of wealth. Unfortunately for you, I doubt you'll ever see it removed from our government. It's political suicide. So wouldn't you at least agree with me that making it better and more fair would be a reasonable goal?

Re: Local testing works?

[Rob Y.]

The drop in labor force is not a drop in minimum wage jobs. Those are being added at a steady clip - that's part of the problem. Those 'giving up' are giving up on trying to find a job that they're qualified - and not yet ready to stoop to the minimum wage jobs that are available. Y'know, the ones you're only supposed to take when you're still living in your parents' basement...

Re:Local testing works?

[skaaman]

Agreed totally but... The last time we saw a story of a prosecution of a company for illegally using undocumented workers was...? Never as far as I can remember.

Re:Local testing works?

[david_thornley]

Spare us your histrionics. Forcing businesses to pay employees a wage determined by politics will either 1) be irrelevant because the the minimum wage is set below labor market rates or 2) cost jobs and, if the minimum wage is set very high, cause businesses to close.

Nope. There are two reasonable measures of value for a worker. One is the replacement value, which is the labor market rate. Another is the value to the employer, which is going to be greater than the labor market rate (otherwise, why hire?). Like any free market, the labor market sets prices based on individual negotiations, which means that if the employers have more negotiation leverage than the employees, they're going to drive the price of labor down, even if they're already making a nice profit.

A minimum wage changes the negotiating position of the employee, who can't agree to a wage lower than the minimum. If the employee simply isn't worth that much to the employer, that kills the negotiation. If the employee is still worth the higher minimum wage, then the employee settles on it.

Example: suppose I can hire somebody to do a moderately unskilled job that's worth $15/hour to me (or maybe $20/hour but $5/hour goes to miscellaneous expenses of having an employee). If I can hire somebody at $7/hour, I do. I get about $8/hour out of the arrangement, but if the employee asks for more I'll just hire another minimum-wage employee. Now, the minimum wage goes up to $10. It's still worth it to hire somebody at $10, so I do it. The difference is that I'm only getting $5/hour profit out of this.

The questions to ask here are how many minimum wage employees are only worth minimum wage to their employers, and the effect on the employers' finances. Minimum wage workers that aren't worth the new minimum lose their jobs, and businesses that can't function on the reduced profits go out of business. Obviously, if most minimum wage workers are being paid what they're worth, raising the minimum wage will have bad consequences. On the other hand, if most are significantly more valuable than that, they'll keep their jobs and the employers will be able to absorb increased wages. Since lower-paid people tend to spend more of what they earn than higher-paid people, raising the minimum wage can put more money in the hands of the lower-paid, and that can generate economic activity if the economy needs it.

So, the right minimum wage is significantly below what the average unskilled worker is worth to his or her employer.

Re:Local testing works?

[david_thornley]

Very few people argue for more taxes than necessary, or more government restrictions than necessary. In that sense, we're all libertarians. We differ widely on what's "necessary".

Re:Local testing works?

[Rob Y.]

Why is it so hard to grasp the concept that public policy is a balancing act? Just because I say today's minimum wage is too low, doesn't mean you get to extrapolate and say that my argument is equivalent to suggesting a $25 minimum wage, and that would be a disaster, so no increase at all. That's asinine. But it's exactly the argument that so many right-wing pundits are making - and that you're parroting so faithfully here...

Re:Local testing works?

[sumdumass]

I don't see it fixing any problem. Its just busy work more or less unless it has steep penalties and i don't think min wage would be enough.

Re:Local testing works?

[laie_techie]

But the point of the article is that the argument that 'raising the minimum wage will kill jobs' has been disproved.

The article cites data which shows that locally raising taxes doesn't destroy local jobs. The people who argue that higher wages means a loss in employment (or higher cost of living) rely on it happening universally. The locals earning a higher wage can purchase goods produced in an area with a lower wage, thus costs to individuals and companies haven't increased. If all states raised the minimum, there wouldn't be any domestic low-wage alternatives; people and companies would have to pay more or import from other countries.

Re:Local testing works?

[laie_techie]

Until the country is filled with a larger proportion of people with consciences and sanity installed in their hearts and minds than it is filled with self-serving individuals who, for some mysterious reason, *want* and *enjoy* the thought of others suffering, then we will live in a miserable place which punishes people.

I obviously make more than minimum wage (I think that's true of most, if not all /.ers), but am still in the middle class. The proposals raise the minimum wage without addressing those earning more. My buying power goes down for every dollar per hour more that minimum wage increases, unless my salary also increases. I don't want or enjoy other people suffering, but I must first meet my own needs (and I do mean needs and not wants).

Maybe we should get contracts where are salaries are X times minimum wage (or cost of living) instead of a strict Y dollars.

Re:Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

It fixes the problem that started this thread: employers circumvent minimum wage laws by employing illegal immigrants. That was the whole point of the suggestion. Stop employers from paying less than minimum wage to anybody.

Re:Local testing works?

[bigpat]

Very few people argue for more taxes than necessary, or more government restrictions than necessary. In that sense, we're all libertarians. We differ widely on what's "necessary".

I am perfectly content to define everyone who would prefer less taxation and fewer government restrictions as libertarian. I think in a broader and practical sense that is an accurate description. But the fundamental underpinning of libertarianism is the ideal of a society that only uses government force and coercion in order to counter force and coercion.

And although therefore libertarians traditionally view just defense, police and the courts to be absolutely necessary to the function of government most libertarian leaning leaders are usually just seeking modest reductions in taxation and spending as a gradual approach to reverse long term trends.

Since the libertarian viewpoint is based on freedom, prosperity and reducing the use of force and violence in society then it isn't good to go cold turkey on government programs which could result in violence in society as people's lives and livelihood's are disrupted. Merely shifting the use of coercive force from government to individuals isn't a net gain. When it regards dismantling social programs I think it is up to libertarians to demonstrate that non-governmental charities and individuals are up to the task of that transition before we phase any of these programs out completely unless we are talking about merely shifting resources to demonstrably more effective programs.

What I do disagree with those that are critical of libertarianism is on the ideal of a libertarian society. Whether practically achievable or not to its fullest extent, to me the ideal of libertarianism is an inherently good value to strive for. And it is a given that this assumes a healthy society where charity and free will have picked up the slack in areas of social good. To me the libertarian ideal is simply like saying better parents don't beat their children, or we should treat others as we wish to be treated. The point is that you have some ideal to strive for and a system of government to perfect.

And conversely that having a society which is based on the growing use of coercive force against its own people to achieve very narrow partisan political gains is a very unhealthy path to be on.

Re:Local testing works?

[Ol Olsoc]

What's the logic in that Walmart and McDonalds are going subsidized? They pay based on the skills & experience needed. If they can't find anyone willing to work at those rates in the local market, they raise them until they do. It is not their job to make sure the employee has enough to live on. That is the employee's duty.

You did answer your own question. The subsidies allow WalMart ot pay lower rates than tehy would otherwise have to. If no one could survive on WalMart pay, they wouldn't work there, and th reates would automatically go up.

The real question is why are the majority of the jobs being created in this "recovery" mainly part time, min wage jobs?

Once again, you answerd the question. They don't have to pay enough to live on, and part time jobs will allow the employer to not pay any benefits

Lest ye put the part time situation at the feet of the current administration, it has been going on for years. I remember when Sears turned most of their employees into part timers in the early 1980's.

The part time/no benefits model is something that companies use that can really give the shareholders big boners. But it does tend to come at a cost - it burns a big bridge, and is therfore used as a last resort, because it you use part time employees, you get part time employees.

So in this recession, people are desperate to work at whatever they can get. So they take those 32 hour a week, no benefit, not full time jobs.

Frankly, I think that puts the lie to the "lazy American won't work" meme.

So anyhow, waddya want? The companies won't stop until you tell them you won't accept any less pay and benefits, and we have a surprising number of people that think they need to get poorer in order to get the money they deserve. If they could get you to work for the wages they pay the illegals, they would. Or less.

It's a sad day when so many people buy lottery tickets as their retirement plan.

Re:Local testing works?

[Dutchmaan]

My reading comprehension was just fine thank you. If the sentence meant what you say, then it should have had a comma.

"Before welfare, blacks and poor whites picked the produce."

Re:Local testing works?

[micahraleigh]

"or admit that you're okay with America not being a place where all people who work can afford food, shelter and health care (i.e., perhaps not The Greatest Country On Earth (tm))."

A small percentage of people in the US are paid minimum wage. In that group, very few keep that wage for longer than a year before they get a raise (or look elsewhere or get promoted, etc).

To me, the greatest country in the world is one where people have the opportunity to eventually get to a job that pays enough to provide for themselves and their families. Student workers don't have all the responsibilities/goals you mentioned, but they shouldn't be excluded from positions that provide what they want.

Re: Local testing works?

[micahraleigh]

Who are you to impose your view of basic human dignity on someone else?

Are you saying those people lack the basic human dignity of being able to choose for themselves?

Re:Local testing works?

[micahraleigh]

You're saying government should regulate illegal activity?

Re:Local testing works?

[Reziac]

I think you'll find the correlation is not with a higher minimum wage, but with the total cost per employee as imposed by the state. Frex, in California, wages are only about 30% of the mandated cost of each employee. The other 70% is payroll taxes, workman's comp, insurance, and the like.

That 70% is what an illegal labor force saves you, a cost far more significant than any minimum wage increase.

In fact, in some areas illegal laborers make more than minimum wage, because having ducked out of that 70%, the employer can afford to pay more than they would otherwise, and do so to attract a better grade of illegal worker. The illegal worker thereby earns significantly more take-home pay than he could earn as a "legal" worker. (This is common in the construction trade, for instance.) Not only that, but the illegal worker takes home his entire paycheck, minus no deductions or taxes.

Re:Local testing works?

[micahraleigh]

A lot of implicit appeals to herd movements here ...

1) "a general expectation that ..." 2) "there definitely wouldn't be the same call for ..."

To me the general population is very unhappy, and has become very unhappy since the days the US gained independence. There's a lot of anecdotal indicators, but the strongest one is that the suicides rates (either attempted or succeeded) have climbed steadily since then. Divorce has gone up. School shootings have gone up, etc.

Also, you should have enough confidence in your own opinion to have to varnish it with the opinion of other people.

Re:Local testing works?

[Reziac]

That's an interesting insight (I hadn't thought of that, thanks!), and I think you're right about welfare making it just as easy, and about as profitable, to not work at all... but the work still has to be done, so...

I've sometimes thought that if we had "national service", it should involve working these types of seasonal jobs, as a means of getting the work back into American hands.

Re:Local testing works?

[Reziac]

"But if they bettered themselves, they would not be picking produce for sub-subsistence wages, now would they? So those poor farmers would still have to ship in exploitable people..."

Uh, no. Used to be every generation of our own as-yet-unskilled kids did this work. We'll never run out of a next generation of kids.

And I suspect those "exploited" people would tell you it's a better living than they made in the old country -- otherwise, why come here in the first place?

Re:Local testing works?

[Ash Vince]

Even when people are supposedly more mobile, moving is a big thing for most people so they do not do it.

Here in the UK we had a 50% tax rate imposed on the very richest a few years ago. There were lots of stories about how this was going to drive away people who were successful abroad but in the end it made very little difference because while these sort of exceeding rich people might threaten to take their family somewhere else, but then when they talk to their wife and she refuses to move more than a 20 minute drive from her family and refuses to move the kids out of school and away from their friends.

as well as moving, people at that level can move their income elsewhere, pension it, or defer it to avoid the tax. Avoidance is not illegal (evasion is).

Key issue with the 50% rate is - did it raise 20% more money than the 40%, for incomes over 100k ? If not, then people _did_ move either themselves or their income, and the country's finances got less benefit.

HMRC reckons the income moved - http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2... - chart on P28 is very interesting, 25% fall in total declared income over 150k, on the introduction of the tax. Other stats: before 50% tax rate 16,000 people with income over £1M, after - 6000. Gradually increased to 10,000 in following years, but that is still 6k people with 1M+ income who went somewhere else (at least 2Bn in tax they would have paid at 40% rate, gone).

Actually what happened was that many bankers deferred their bonus payments then took them after the rate was abolished. This means the stats are pretty worthless. If it had stayed on the books for a few more years it might have worked, but since people were allowed to just defer paying tax at the higher rate until after it was abolished we will never really know.

Re:Local testing works?

[Ash Vince]

Here in the UK we had a 50% tax rate imposed on the very richest a few years ago. There were lots of stories about how this was going to drive away people who were successful abroad but in the end it made very little difference

Was it a personal income tax, or a capital gains tax?

I suspect the latter, which would explain why the very richest were not actually bothered all that much.

Income tax actually, although over here is there is less difference than you would think.

Re: Local testing works?

[electrosoccertux]

that's dumb. the idea is to incentivize behavior. making them pay the normal wage if caught doesn't incentivize anything but doing what you want until you get caught.

Re:Local testing works?

[Sarius64]

Because they obviously do not work! People still steal because they believe the laws will not be enforced. Statistically, they are correct. I can count on one hand's fingers the number of employers in California this year that have been arrested for illegal labor. I offer you the same test I mentioned before. Please come to San Diego and I'd gladly display hundreds of employers blatantly breaking the labor laws for decades. After that, we'll go down to the SSA office where non-citizens are signing up for some apparent benefits daily by the thousands.

Re:Local testing works?

[mysidia]

But what about when you can't prove date of hire?

I have no hatred towards the individuals. The point is to punish the employer, thus eliminating the market that is causing some businesses to effectively invite large numbers of illegals to come in and work for money under the table under illegal employment conditions.

Why not enfranchize the migrant population. Let's open the borders, and adjust benifits for non-citizens.

The illegals are only able to get work since they can work for such low wages. You could also eliminate the problem of illegals by exempting certain specified non-skilled jobs or completely untrained workers from minimum wage requirements.

The illegals can't be "enfranchized," because this would effectively disqualify them for the jobs that the market wants illegals for ---- which are jobs where they illegally pay undocumented workers below minimum wage. Above minimum wage, they are competing with legal residents for jobs, which causes problems, but most illegals do not have training or skills beyond the simplest of labor.

Give everyone who isn't a violent criminal and who wants it a path to citizenship. Get everyone on the tax rolls, and out of black markets.

I believe that's the case already --- there is a path to legal residency and citizenship available, which many immigrants take: the illegals are just getting an unfair shortcut by ignoring the processes established and required to become a legal resident.

Re:Local testing works?

[Dutch Gun]

Did you even read to the end of the first paragraph? I'll quote myself again:

 

Counterpoint: Even water is poisonous if too much of it is drunk, so we have to be careful of not reading too much into this thought experiment. It's just to clarify the effects in our minds.

I'm acknowledging that even a good thing can be bad in doses too large. The point of the thought experiment is to clarify exactly what the side effects would be. Would those side effects take place in smaller scales with a smaller increase? If that's the case, then is doing this a wise idea, knowing we'll introduce those negative effects?

In fact, I'm not entirely convinced it would NOT be worthwhile to take our chances (although I remain skeptical). Again, I'll quote myself.

My feeling is that it's not a simple binary issue, more of a scale, where a smaller increase can be beneficial, but larger increases could be significantly detrimental (mostly through inflationary pressure, not necessary unemployment).

In other words, I'm not necessarily opposed to modest increases. I'm just saying we have to be very careful not to rush forward increases too large before we really understand the full ramifications of doing this.

Sheesh. This is what happens when issues get too damned political. People just stop listening once they figure out what side they think you're on.

Re:Local testing works?

[ArmoredDragon]

Well okay, but then I'm going to claim that lowering the minimum wage raises employment linearly the whole way down to 0, when everyone is employed, and all social problems are cured.

Prove me wrong?

Well actually I could prove you wrong easily on that one. Namely, it completely throws out frictional unemployment, seasonal workers, migrant workers, those who simply refuse to work, and those in transition. No amount or lack of wage controls will change that.

(Which by the way, while I'm not on his side, I am against wage restrictions in general. If you look at Europe, the countries with stronger economies tend to have the fewest working restrictions, such as Germany which has no official wage floors, overtime rules, etc. Likewise, the one with more restrictive policies tend to do worse, e.g. France.)

Re:Local testing works?

[Ol Olsoc]

I think you'll find the correlation is not with a higher minimum wage, but with the total cost per employee as imposed by the state. Frex, in California, wages are only about 30% of the mandated cost of each employee. The other 70% is payroll taxes, workman's comp, insurance, and the like.

That 70% is what an illegal labor force saves you,

Because cheap. Becausd they value the cheap more than their fellow citizens. Frankly, I think that any employer that knowingly employes an illegal alien should be stripped of their citizenship, then put on the plane with all the drugged deportees. Land them in in whatever country we're shipping them to at the moment .

Then they can come back into America as an illegal alien. If they get shot by border patrol trying to cross into the US Fucking excellent!! Rough justice, most fitting.

Re: Local testing works?

[gordo3000]

Can you define a living wage? we would all do good to know what hurdle we are trying to surmount.

For example, given tax policy, a single adult on minimum wage at 40 hours a week earns about 1200 a month. Assuming medical for 100 a month(8% is a trigger under the ACA I think but I don't live in the US right now), is 1100 survivable with a small pot saved for emergencies?

The answer if it is just a single person is yes. My last year in college house sharing I paid 300 in rent, running costs of 300 in food, 100 in utilities, and 40 for a phone. That is well within those bounds. Its not a great life, but I had enough to go for a beer or a movie from time to time.

But this was suburban NC, not NYC. Should the federal minimum wage guarantee my ability to live in any city in the US? Then it needs to be 20 bucks an hour (Manhattan).

We need to decide if this is actually a federal minimum that caters to the 20th percentile or a number that must function for every American.

But this study is not adding anything new. It is long been studied and proven raises in the minimum wage are basically irrelevant to job growth or economic growth. I'm just asking if the number should support a single adult, a family of 4, and in what way.

Re: Local testing works?

[gordo3000]

Anyone who has studied the labor market knows there are tons of studies showing that minimum wage increases in the amounts being considered are basically irrelevant to job growth or economic growth.

But a non-rigorous thought experiment is this : go look up how many jobs are minimum wage and then go look up the total wages earned at that level. The first is small, the second is miniscule relative to total income in the US. Slightly altering the second will not markedly modify overall income distributions (ie how much less will a rich person earn in real terms vs total earnings). Now go look at work hours reported at higher income groups after taxes went up a small amount. You'll find a change ~0. If that had no effect, there is no reason a much smaller change will someone have a larger effect.

Now you can at least say you have thought a bit about the issue as compared to offloading the thinking to your favorite talking head.

There are also rigorous studies done by many academics that agree the effect if existant, is tiny. If I was still in college with lexis Nexis I'd just post those.

Re:Local testing works?

[Reziac]

No, they value the fact that you just can't stay in business when your out of pocket cost is $28/hour for a $10/hour job that earns the business maybe $15/hour in billable labor (and remember, there's also overhead to pay before you can even think about profit).

The business owners I've talked to would rather NOT hire illegals, because there's also an unreliability factor (90% can't be counted on to show up every day) and a quality control factor (most are less qualified than you'd really want), but when it's hire the illegal or go out of business thanks to the mandated costs of legal labor... well, I don't like it either, but I understand why it happens.

Re:Local testing works?

[NicBenjamin]

I like your response. It's quite reasonable. There really isn't a way to find out what affect jacking up the minimum wage would have without somebody actually trying it. The Seattle experiment should be the closest we have to an answer to that question, but it won't prove anything 100%. Moving to the 'burbs is something you can do if you;re a business avoiding Seattle's minimum wage laws, but it would not prevent you from following the Federal minimum.

The problem for conservative pols in working class communities, is there really isn't anything in a conservative politician's platform that would actually help people making less then $10 an hour. There's a lot of dogma about self-improvement, which can play well but can also seem like a self-righteous asshole calling all your friend's failures. There's a lot of things Conservatives have created for people who make slightly more then that (ie: 401ks, believe me if you make $10 an hour and you live in a city where a car is necessary you ain't putting money in a 401k). For a while you could take credit for Earned Income Credit, but your recent rhetoric makes it really hard for voters who depend on EIC to vote for you. You can get traction with charter schools, but nobody votes for US Congress based on municipal-level school policy.

The core problem seems to be almost everything you could do requires some expansion of government spending. Cheap higher education requires somebody to pay for it, and loans are becoming discredited. You could have an opening with charter schools, if you were willing to make it a Federal issue. Transportation is terrible for you in this community, because these are people who would really like to use the bus or subways. They're a lot more reliable then the cars you get for $10 an hour. But massive infrastructure projects count as government expansion.

With the white working class a combination of pro-life sentiment, a residual faith that the guy preaching self-improvement is right, and an aversion to being dependent on the government saves you. But the in the black working class? Romney got 0% because he offered zero ideas that could conceivably help them. A lot of his ideas (primarily in terms of repealing health care reform) would hurt them.

Re:Local testing works?

[shutdown -p now]

Yeah - what I meant is that if there was no corresponding capital gains hike, then the uber-rich would hardly even notice, since that's what most of their income tends to be.

Re:Local testing works?

[Bratch]

Jailing non-violent people is idiotic.

Ever experienced a severe, life ruining case of identity theft? Medical company goes out of business, throws away all records, criminals obtain records and assume identities of past patients, and victims spends many years fighting off all kinds of fradulent activity. But the entire system is broken with no fix in sight, and the criminals know this and continue their activities, especially when there is no actual jail time to worry about.

Re:Local testing works?

[Ol Olsoc]

Well okay, but then I'm going to claim that lowering the minimum wage raises employment linearly the whole way down to 0, when everyone is employed, and all social problems are cured.

Prove me wrong?

Well actually I could prove you wrong easily on that one.

Of course, because I was being terribly facetious. But the argument that higher minimum wage causes unemployment is based on ideology, not math.

The exact same concept would be true if average wages went up. Not completely linearly, of course. because the poorest workers tend to spend more of their income on necessities, while the wealthiest tend to save or invest more.

But the argument, when reduced to it's basics, is that the higher the average wage, the higher the unemployment rate. Utter bullshit. At least in my case, the more I made, the more I spent, and the more I saved. I'll bet it's the same for other people.

Which argument, oddly enough, completely ignores that the consumer is the largest driver of the economy. How can the largest driver of the economy dive the economy when they don't have the money to do it. The early 2000's credit fest probably won't be repeated, as people tried desperately to hold on to their standard of living by going further into debt.

This is not complicated math. If on average, people buy new cars every 5 years, there will be more cars bought than if they bought on average every 10 years.

Another very simple example - My sister has bought exactly 1 computer since 2001. I've bought 10. Who has pumped more money into the economy? Even if the fact that a lot of that goes to China, it still helps with the employment of the sales people at the store. I used that example for that reason.

Call it the trickle up theory if you like. People making money buy stuff. The more stuff bought, the more people work.

Even more, with Government inefficiencies, does it make any sense to allow businesses to pay a wage that requires it's workers to be on the government dole?

I might have much better things to do with my decreased taxes.

This is what I've been preaching for years. What is pushed as "modern capitalism", is pretty much slash and burn. Make no mistake, the real beneficiaries of the working poor are their employers. Via a socialistic program that takes money from you and me, and redistributes it to the employers profit.

Amazingly enough people put up with it.

I am against wage restrictions in general. If you look at Europe, the countries with stronger economies tend to have the fewest working restrictions,

I am against them in principle. Problem is, the minimum wage has been kept artificially low for a long time now. That has created a completely skewed economy, and when a company is allowed to direct it's employees to the welfare system, that just isn't right. The existence of that is a serious symptom of an underlying problem. SO they might be a necessary evil.

such as Germany which has no official wage floors, overtime rules, etc. Likewise, the one with more restrictive policies tend to do worse, e.g. France.)

You think that Germany's economic system isn't very restricted? The only country among the top ten with a triple-A rating (they are number 4) utilizes a "social Market economy, which is very interesting, but completely impossible in the USAat present. Parts of it are in line with what I preach as the best way to run an economy. It's Capitalism with a moral underpinning.

It's a great read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Rhine Capitalism. is pretty active in regulatory measures, considered the direct highway to hell in our system. And no one plans and implements with greater precision and effect than the Germans. It also takes the people in it's country into account. Yet another great read here:

Re:Local testing works?

[Ol Olsoc]

No, they value the fact that you just can't stay in business when your out of pocket cost is $28/hour for a $10/hour job that earns the business maybe $15/hour in billable labor (and remember, there's also overhead to pay before you can even think about profit)..

Pretty bad business model. If you have to rely on illegal labor, then you not only have a bad business model, but you are a criminal to boot.

Re: Local testing works?

[mattwarden]

Sorry, but I do not find you credible, and you seem to be more interested in winning than understanding the problem with your plan. I gave it a shot.

Re:Local testing works?

[mattwarden]

> If it kills jobs, the states with higher minimum wage will have higher unemployment. Simple as that.

This is incredibly ignorant. I am constantly shocked at how little otherwise intelligent people understand about statistics. It is entirely possible that every single high min wage state has lower unemployment and yet the higher min wage could still kill jobs. I'll give you a few weeks to try to think through why that is. And once you realize what I said is true, then you will realize how ignorant your assertion was.

And, even after you realize how little you understand about data and the world around you, my bet is firmly on you continuing to tell me that you know what's right with min wage policy and I'm an idiot.

Re:Local testing works?

[ArmoredDragon]

At least in my case, the more I made, the more I spent, and the more I saved. I'll bet it's the same for other people.

Other people yes, but not most. I myself have always maintained a cash surplus, even when I had zero income. The majority of the world isn't that way; I can't tell you how many people I know who when they have a hundred dollar bill they say that it is "burning a hole in their pocket" (e.g. they want to pay off their debts and/or buy new things with no concept of savings.)

This is further emphasized by the vast majority of lottery winners who within a few years aren't rich anymore. (When they have money, they can't help but spend lavishly until it's all gone.)

You think that Germany's economic system isn't very restricted?

No, and I don't recall taking that position either. The US's is very restricted as well, perhaps even more restricted, just in different ways, which mainly comes in the form of the government entities arbitrarily creating laws whenever they feel like it. Look at the shit Uber and Lyft have to go through, and because they're providing competition to the official taxi's sanctioned by the city governments, they arbitrarily invent rules that make it impossible for them to operate. Then look at Tesla who wants to skip the dealerships, only they can't because the auto dealerships and their respective unions complain that they'll lose their jobs, so the politicians create laws dictating how Tesla Motors will run its business.

Germany doesn't even have it that bad.

However Germany's labor system is a different story. No wage floors, no overtime rules, few restrictions on how and when you can employ somebody, let them go, etc. If you want to start a business that involves hiring somebody to work directly for you, Germany is heaven compared to the US. In the US it is so bad that hiring somebody merely to clean your toilets is VERY risky, especially in certain states, to the point that you'd rather just hire them on a contract basis (which involves a third party who skims off of the top.)

I don't care if their system has the "socialism" label; it really doesn't strike me as being actually socialist, and in many ways it's better than ours is. I mean shit, I'd even prefer German unions because they're at least out to protect the business they work for rather than just existing as a means of extracting money from it like the mafia thugs that US unions really are. (Which is why Volkswagon wanted to unionize its shops in the US; namely because they are used to unions that aren't total dickwads that are dead set on sabotaging the business if they think it might earn them a nickel.)

Re:Local testing works?

[Areyoukiddingme]

I'm your shareholder. And I have a zero tolerance for drunk bozos who drive the company into the ground that I own.

Oh what a wonderful fantasy world you live in. Where is this mythical responsible shareholder holding the feet of executives to the fire?

*crickets*

Fund managers are the only shareholders that get a seat at the table. YOU are not invited. YOU won't make it through the door, with your 150 shares. YOU would be mistaken for the hired help if you dared show up, and told to bring the coffee, because you're obviously not wearing a $3000 suit.

Meanwhile those wearing those suits are very best buds with the executives you would like to dismiss. They all went to the same schools together. They all played on the same sports teams together. They all raped the same cheerleaders together. It's a tight little club, and you aren't in it, so your opinion of executive performance amounts to a hill of beans.

Re: Local testing works?

[phantomfive]

There are also rigorous studies done by many academics that agree the effect if existant, is tiny.

Well yes, if you make a small change, you'd expect a small effect. I read your post several times, and I'm still not really sure what point you are trying to make.

Re: Local testing works?

[gordo3000]

Really? Florida and Texas have quite low minimum wages across the US and very large illegal populations. Is there any evidence for this?

Re:Local testing works?

[Reziac]

So, you're saying that when 70% of the cost of a legal employee is state-mandated non-wage expense, that's the business' fault?

The problem isn't the businesses, nor the employees, nor the wages. It's the number of fingers the government has in your pocket if you try to do things right and lawful.

I once looked into what it would take to have one legal part-time minimum-wage employee for one year in Los Angeles County. It came to $28,000 before I paid a cent of wages. Since that exceeds my best net and is several times the value of the employee, obviously it wasn't happening. Someone didn't get a job, and I didn't expand my business.

Re: Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

No, I'm not letting you play such cheap tactical tricks. You can give up or accuse me of misunderstanding you, but don't pretend I'm the one playing tactical games and only interested in winning when I adjusted my plan per the issue you exposed and you're the one ending the discussion with unanswered questions. I finally understood why you thought there was a 5th amendment issue, and responded with a way around it by postponing the need for evidence. Why is it so hard to have an honest civil discussion without all these games?

Re:Local testing works?

[david_thornley]

Do libertarians believe that something other than physical force can be coercion? Historically and currently, it appears that individuals who can exert some form of coercion, economic, physical, or other, frequently will.

Re:Local testing works?

[bigpat]

Do libertarians believe that something other than physical force can be coercion? Historically and currently, it appears that individuals who can exert some form of coercion, economic, physical, or other, frequently will.

The issue of economic coercion is a tough one to reconcile. Because not all trades of goods and services are really free exchanges and could be considered more akin to physical force when one party is holding the other person's life or livelihood in the balance. I think there is a good argument to be made that someone not acting in good faith in the market, creating a monopoly on some essential good and service and then hording it and withholding it is an act of force in the similar way to the way that an embargo or trade sanction could be considered an act of war. In that way I think the government has a legitimate role to play in ensuring a well functioning free market with competition. So I fully support antitrust laws and it is one area where I wish the government were more active in breaking up (or otherwise restricting when a break-up is not desirable) large companies which are exercising monopolies in essential goods and services.

But the there has to be some clear relationship to physical harm for economic "coercion" to be regulated and prohibited by the government. Simply offering someone a really high salary could be considered economic coercion, but as long as there is a plentiful job market and there is no other threat associated with that offer, then that is a willing transaction. The essential part of evaluating whether a market is free is whether the participants are willingly engaged in commerce. So, for instance I disagree with laws and regulators that tell individual farmers what they can and cannot grow on their land, but I see a legitimate role for government to try and keep large corporations from buying up too large a percentage of land so that they restrict production in order to raise prices.

But in that example the government should be focused on the return to a free market with competition rather than just shrugging and accepting the monopoly and using it as an opportunity to expand its own powers to regulate that market. Essentially using the growth of monopoly as a symbiotic excuse to grow government oversight and control rather than honestly seeking to restore more balanced free market conditions. I think that is where we are now. Government agencies are allowing corporations to grow too big and using those unhealthy market conditions to justify expanding their own powers rather than honestly trying to address the core problem of loss of competition in the marketplace. Put simply instead of creating barriers to entry for small businesses, government regulation should be focused on creating a steeper curve for the largest businesses.

Re:Local testing works?

[kosh271]

So enforcing some kind of minimum price floor on wages, and severely punishing those who pay less? Would that do it?

Full enforcement of the minimum wage would allow businesses to properly compete. There would still be issues with employment and wage stagnation.

By increasing the number of workers in a region that are qualified for a given position, the employer will not need to pay as much (at least to the minimum wage floor). It also will increase the unemployment rate in the region if there aren't enough jobs.

IMHO having an environment where business have to compete for workers is far better than having an environment where workers have to compete for employment.

Re:Local testing works?

[Opportunist]

I'm honestly surprised we don't hear a few managers getting offed now and then.

My trust in the 2nd was premature, it seems...

Re: Local testing works?

[mattwarden]

All you said was that other evidence could be used to prove the crime and wouldn't be needed from the person accused. Well of course that gets around the 5th Amendment issue. What the hell is your point? Are you just looking for me to say you got around the 5th Amendment issue? Ok. If you don't do the thing that causes the 5th Amendment issue, then of course you "got around" it. Congratulations. But just asserting that other evidence will prove it seems a bit odd, which is why you come off as just trying to win something. I'm not interested.

Re: Local testing works?

[BlueMonk]

All you said was that other evidence could be used to prove the crime and wouldn't be needed from the person accused. Well of course that gets around the 5th Amendment issue. What the hell is your point?

Almost -- I said that if other evidence proves the employer's guilt of hiring illegally, then the employer's evidence would serve only to exonerate them of charges of paying below minimum wage. ("[...] allow them to provide that evidence after their guilt [...] is determined from others' evidence as a way to reduce the consequences," I said.)

My point being that, by avoiding the potential for 5th amendment problems in this way, it looks like the idea still has merit: illegal immigrants could cry foul when they are being paid less than minimum wage because they wouldn't have to fear losing that income as part of being deported if the burden of proof of wages is on the employer and the burden of proof of employment is on the worker. And thanks to the clarification, the employer's burden of proof shouldn't incriminate them more than they already are. I don't doubt that there are other problems with the idea, but I think, with this clarification or adjustment, it can at least avoid the 5th amendment concerns you raised.

My reasons for continuing the conversation are not just about "winning" but about coming to an understanding, I can't do that without questioning your reasoning. I don't mean to sound adversarial, but that's very difficult when reacting to such agressive replies. I didn't immediately understand why you thought the employer providing evidence of wages was a 5th amendment issue, but with further discussion I came to an understanding that you thought the evidence provided by the employer would also incriminate them on their illegal employment. So that understanding helped the idea evolve.

Normally I would be up for working out other issues, but I think our styles of discourse clash violently and I don't think I'm up for much more of this, if you'll excuse me :).

Re:Local testing works?

[budgenator]

an employer may deliver to the employee a cheque payable in full for legal tender
Your spelling of check sugests that your legal circumstances may differ from mine.

Re:Local testing works?

[jwhitener]

You all know that the vast majority of undocumented/illegal labor in this country is technically legal, right? As in, the worker actually does have enough supporting documentation to get a job. The worker has taxes taken from their check, gets a W2 at the end of the year, the whole works.

I know a ton of farmers, and none of them would knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Most farmer's tend to be on the tea party side of debates to begin with.

If you want stop undocumented / illegal labor, going after employers is the wrong way to do it. Start with something like the failure/success rate of systems like http://www.uscis.gov/e-verify . Look at how easy it is to get a Tax ID number.... get one online right now with a stolen SSN. https://irs-tax-id.com/application/?form=soleproprietor .

Here's an article that talks a lot more about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/business/19illegals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Now, if employers actually had the right tools to check if someone was illegal, then sure, you could crack down on employers. But they don't.

Re:Local testing works?

[jwhitener]

Every farmer I know is politically conservative. None of them would knowingly hire undocumented workers. The problem is that the workers do indeed have the documentation. They are technically legal as far as the farmer and the e-verify system can tell. They pay taxes, get a W2... even get an income tax refund from the IRS at the end of the year.

The problem isn't employers. It is the entire immigration / identity / tax system in the US is messed up. We really need immigration reform, and an overhaul of how identify and tax information is done in the US.

And that isn't even counting all the odd state things. Like in Minnesota at a point in the past, you could get a State ID with your Mexican birth certificate...

Some illegal immigrants do not even need the green card. Until the late 1990's, Mexican illegal immigrants typically arrived in Minnesota with their birth certificate and Mexican voting card, which could be used to obtain a legal Minnesota state ID.

But getting a Social Security number could be a little more complicated in the old days. Lily, 38, another janitor cleaning a building downtown, knew no one in Minneapolis when she arrived illegally from Guatemala 14 years ago. So when a neighbor said she needed papers, she called the smuggler who brought her across the border at his home in Mexico.

He asked her to make up a nine-digit number, which she did by combining the date she left Guatemala and the date she arrived in the United States two months later. She sent him some photos and $75 and received her fake papers by return mail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/business/19illegals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Re: Local testing works?

[worldthinker]

So you taint all poor people because you think someone is lazy?

Crazy

[drsmithy]

Economic activity is increased by more people having more money to spend ?

Inconceivable !

Re:Crazy

[Mr D from 63]

States with the healthiest job situations were the first to increase minimum wage.

Inconceivable.

Re:Crazy

[roman_mir]

Nonsense and propaganda. You cannot state anything until those increases actually kick in and are in effect for some time. About 5% of workers are on minimum wage in the first place, out of those 5%, some will not be rehired, and once the wage is in effect fewer new businesses will be created. The money will come from somewhere, higher consumer prices and fewer minimum wage jobs. Fewer minimum wage jobs does not mean "people will have more money to spend" but it will slow down growth of new positions.

Minimum wage is actually minimum ability. It cannot extract non-existing money from small business, but it can prevent people with abilities that are below minimum wage from finding jobs. Large business will transfer costs to the consumers, higher prices will leave you with less money to spend, not more. Small business will cut employment, will hire fewer people. Government stats are manipulated in every category, this is not an exception, best case scenario this is premature.

Re:Crazy

[mrsquid0]

Posted to undo an unintended moderation.

Re:Crazy

[Overzeetop]

So the $600 pre-refund of taxes that Bush2 put in place (which made a negligible increase in per paycheck take-home) and the SS 2% rebate by Obama (which had a similar result) were useless? No, they weren't, they were identified as having an impact on the economy, even though the money wasn't even in consumers hands when it was announced/started.

Minimum wage has nothing to do with minimum ability. It sets a price floor for labor. The people who lose out are those just above the minimum wage floor who see their less skilled/experienced/tenured coworkers elevated to a higher wage while theirs remains stagnant. (This happened to me, btw, and it sowed a short period of discord in that company)

For businesses with very small margins, the costs will be transferred pretty much one for one. As the margin of the business increases, the cost will be passed on in a proportionally smaller magnitude. People are (almost) never hired because they're "cheap" but because work needs to be done to meet demand. Just as nobody hires people if their taxes go down, or fire people if taxes rise. Might it delay hiring? In some instances it makes greater efficiency more valuable, with businesses investing in machines (which are built by people) instead of people. However most of the time it's just a cost of production. If you need to make more silk shirts and the cost of silk goes up, you don't buy less silk - you buy as much as you need to meet demand.

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

Nonsense and propaganda. You cannot state anything until those increases actually kick in and are in effect for some time.

Actually I feel pretty confident stating that if more people have more money, economic activity will increase.

Minimum wage is actually minimum ability.

No, minimum wage is setting a floor on living standards.

It cannot extract non-existing money from small business, but it can prevent people with abilities that are below minimum wage from finding jobs.

If a business can't employ someone for minimum wage, then their business model is broken. They are basically saying that their product or service is of such little value, that people will not pay enough for it such that the workers involved in delivering that product or service can live a bare existence lifestyle.

Re:Crazy

[Ichijo]

Economic activity is increased when wealth is transferred from people who "hoard" money to people who put it right back into the economy as soon as they receive it.

Re:Crazy

[swb]

I heard it argued recently that capitalists aren't interested in increased economic activity, only in increasing their share of economic activity. Suppressing labor markets and high unemployment helps.

Re:Crazy

[PopeRatzo]

With the govt created inflation and its political game to make it look like it cares and thus raising minimum wage over time these jobs disappeared.

It had nothing to do with the invention of self-service pumps.

Minimum wage is minimum ability and it is a barrier to entry into the job market.

Except, that's never been the case. You can not point to any increase in minimum wage in history that has depressed the job market on the low end. It has never happened.

But that will never stop you from repeating the lie.

Plenty jobs would exist just fine without minimum wage

It's not like we don't have data. Plenty good jobs selling apples on the street were available when there was no minimum wage. Of course, a fair number of those workers starved, or lived in horrible poverty conditions, but that's just the Invisible Hand of the Free Market (aka, "goatse").

Re:Crazy

[jellomizer]

Minimum wage is actually not the big of a deal.
Most Companies do not pay their employers minimum wage they pay them higher.
Minimum wage usually will go the the Teens first job, And other part time work.
For people who are working full time, they get paid above the minimum wage.
The exception is for Tip workers. Where these laws do not effect as much anyways.

Most of the growth activity is actually in areas that don't pay minimum wage anyways.

In short minimum wage laws do the following.
For the Democrats it make it look like they are looking out the little guy, with a law without any real benefit or cost.

For the Republicans it gives them a talking point against the democrats, explaining how they are not focusing on the big picture and trying to keep jobs.

Nither side is really that effective, or hazardous. Until you get a significant increase in wages. Say $20 minimum wage, where it would be enough for the low end workers to have a significant improvement in quality of life, however at the same time, making many jobs much to expensive to maintain, and force companies to find ways to improve efficiency or outsource.
 

Re:Crazy

[MrL0G1C]

About 5% of workers are on minimum wage in the first place, out of those 5%, some will not be rehired

That doesn't make any sense, businesses don't hire people on a whim, they hire people because they have roles that need doing, minimum wage doesn't change that. Many European countries have a minimum wage, I've seen no evidence showing that is has a detrimental effect, including where I live where it was put in place over a decade ago.

Any business that doesn't hire the people it needs is cutting off it's nose to spite it's face, or shooting itself in the foot, take your pick.

Minimum wage comparison of countries chart Here

Australia's minimum wage is approx $17.50 USD, it doesn't seem to be wrecking their economy.

Re:Crazy

[Ash Vince]

Minimum wage is actually minimum ability. It cannot extract non-existing money from small business, but it can prevent people with abilities that are below minimum wage from finding jobs

The assumes that business hires people it does not really need, they don't. Any sensible business hire the minimum number of people they need at any one time, there is a little bit of slack as businesses hold on to people they might not need now but might need in a month or two but that is usually a symptom of the cost to train someone up again if you let them go.

In light of this, all that happens when you raise minimum wage is that employers pay more and then have to raise their prices a little to cover it. If a business lets someone go as a result of the minimum wage increasing then that business must be able to do with out them anyway, or they are right on the edge of bankruptcy and are letting someone go who they cannot do without, but in my experience businesses like that are doomed anyway since they are clearly not profitable anyway.

None of this is to say that large increases in the minimum wage would be a good idea, but a slight increase to cover inflation is not going to do anywhere near as much harm as the media make out. Of course very few news outlets in the US put this view across though because they are generally owned by people who are very rich and will have to pay their cleaners and nannies more if the minimum wage goes up.

Re:Crazy

[NicBenjamin]

I doubt it will be fewer jobs. If you need a new cashier because your customers are getting pissed at the wait time you hire her, and then worry about whether increased customer satisfaction is worth $10k (below her salary) or $20k (above it) later.

Higher prices are significantly more likely, but since I think inflation is too low to for healthy economic growth I don't see that as a problem.

Re:Crazy

[sandytaru]

I can still get full service gas at a pump here in town. It's attached to a garage and they charge me 50 cents more a gallon for the privilege. Those jobs didn't disappear, but consumers realized it was dumb to pay a premium for something they were perfectly capable of handling themselves. The primary consumers of the full service gas pump here are the elderly, for whom checking tires and pumping gas IS more difficult.

Re:Crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

Economic activity is increased when wealth is transferred from people who "hoard" money to people who put it right back into the economy as soon as they receive it.

Wealthy people don't keep their money in bank accounts, you big dummy. They buy stocks which provides capital for companies to get started and to operate, creating and maintaining jobs. Learn something about economics, please.

Re:Crazy

[wiredlogic]

The people who lose out are those just above the minimum wage floor who see their less skilled/experienced/tenured coworkers elevated to a higher wage while theirs remains stagnant.

That isn't losing out on anything. Your economic power remains the same. What you lose is the ability to sneer at those making significantly less than you.

Humans judge their happiness by evaluating themselves relative to the local population. That is why people in poorer nations with fewer resources then your typical homeless American are generally happier than those under similar circumstances in a developed nation. You just didn't like the perception of being in the bottom of the heap even though your position hadn't changed.

Re:Crazy

[Ash Vince]

. Case in point, gas stations used to employ yonge ppl in usa to wipe your windshield, check tire pressure, oil level and of course pump gas for you. With the govt created inflation and its political game to make it look like it cares and thus raising minimum wage over time these jobs disappeared.

What utter crap.

Part of the reason those jobs disappeared because people filling their cars up started being driven to buy the cheapest gas they could, that often meant going to gas stations where you served yourself. The end of the gas station attendant probably had more to do with the price of oil going up sharply in the 80's than minimum wage. People were forced to economise, but when the prices started going down again by then they were used to filling their cars up themselves so few businesses bothered moving back to the old system.

The other huge factor now is trust, and this is probably more important than minimum wage and the reason above. Back in the late 70s the only indicator of how much fuel you bought was on the pump. That nice fella who wiped your wind shield was actually doing it because you the business could not do without him, they needed him to use the pump so they knew how much fuel you used and how much to charge you. Once technology enabled the till in the store to be connected to the pump and CCTV to monitor the whole place and record the licence plate of anyone who drove off without paying the businesses realised that customers could be trusted to serve themselves.

This is just another example of technology doing someone out of a job .

Re:Crazy

[nctritech]

Unemployed college age kids appreciate your benevolence and your prevention of them becoming "gas station slaves." They are happy that you have made the choice for them to remain unemployed and "free," and they certainly will not read your comment and think "being paid something is better than being paid nothing and going nowhere in life." /heapsofsarcasm

Re:Crazy

[ranton]

States with the healthiest job situations were the first to increase minimum wage.
Inconceivable.

Well, it should be noted that only 5 of the states that raised the minimum wage this year have a Gross State Product per person above the national average (Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Colorado). The other 8 have below average economies, but are still gaining jobs at a faster rate. Also if you look at the job growth in 2013, these 13 states may have outperformed the average by 0.065% but they are on track to beat the average by 0.3554% this year.

So it looks like these states do not have the healthiest job situations, but still performed better than those who did not raise the minimum wage (by this ridiculous metric that is).

A better metric is comparing how job growth is growing or stalling. The four states with the highest minimum wages are California, D.C., Oregon, and Washington, who all have minimum wages about $9 per hour. Of those four areas, job growth has slowed by 27% on average year over year (comparing June 2013 - May 2014 to June 2012 - May 2013). If you look at the four states with the lowest minimum wage (Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, Wyoming), their job growth has grown by 26% on average year over year. So if you want to compare the trend of job growth increasing or decreasing, it looks like raising the minimum wage does hurt significantly.

source

Re:Crazy

[roman_mir]

cheapest gas they could, that often meant going to gas stations where you served yourself.

- which was always the case, people always bought "the cheapest gas they could". Of-course you can thank government created inflation for the cheapest gas of today being many times more expensive than most expensive gas at the time when there still were gas station attendants who checked your tire pressure, oil, wiped your windshield, pumped gas for you. That was quality service, today you can't get that and that was still being paid from revenue derived from selling "cheapest gas they could" buy.

The difference of-course is minimum wage and of-course inflation (expansion of the money supply by the government printing presses, yes, I consider Fed to be government regardless of the mistaken belief that they are an independent bank, which they are not, they are a political beast that is playing for whatever is the current administration) didn't help at all.

Technology is capital being used to compete with the price for labour and as government makes labour more and more expensive by all means, including inflation, labour laws, discrimination laws, price controls, etc.etc., capital becomes a more viable alternative to the labour.

The modern "mainstream economists" are there to confuse the issue for you on behalf of the government, they are quite successful at confusing the shit out of the masses, given the responses on /.

Re:Crazy

[Charliemopps]

I have an alternative theory... the minimum wage has no affect on job growth at all. The majority of minimum wage workers are highschool students work in fast food. If the employer wants to pay less, they hire illegal immigrants that can't report him, or let his workers work off "Tips" so they think they're making a lot of money when they're really not. What drives job growth in a state are taxes and the regulatory environment. Or, at least, those are the only factors the government has any control over. The minimum wage is nothing more than a red herring for the democrats and republicans to argue about to make it appear like they give a shit. The people that have a real problem with job placement and wage are the huge numbers of people that have felonies on their records for things most of us wouldn't consider a crime worth life long punishment... Expunge all felonies that are over 5yrs old, for people that have no re-offended and their crime was non-violent (i.e. drug offenses, DUIs, statutory rape, etc...) and watch poverty rates plummet.

Re:Crazy

[drinkypoo]

So if you want to compare the trend of job growth increasing or decreasing, it looks like raising the minimum wage does hurt significantly.

What kind of jobs are being created? Are they minimum-wage jobs that you can't actually live on?

Re:Crazy

[hxnwix]

Wrong on all accounts

Nope, correct on all accounts. Try again.

Re:Crazy

[drinkypoo]

people always bought "the cheapest gas they could"

Bollocks. It wasn't true then and it's not universally true now, but it's more true today because you used to be able to scrounge in the couch for gas money, and now you have to take out a loan using your children for collateral. I don't buy the cheapest fuel available, that comes from Rotten Robbie and it is shit. I buy about the third cheapest fuel available, which is from my local Express station which sells Chevron gasoline. I use Chevron because it is arguably the best, Shell having been inordinately proud of their high alcohol content for quite some years now.

The gas station attendant has gone away because they are a liability. It doesn't cost that much to add them to a busy station if you only account for wages and typical overhead. But if they check someone's oil and the your car runs out later, the owner might well sue the station. Better to then check their own oil, especially since that's typically not a specialist job any more. You look for the brightly-colored plastic ring and you pull on it. Now, trans fluid, on the other hand...

Re:Crazy

[countach74]

So the $600 pre-refund of taxes that Bush2 put in place (which made a negligible increase in per paycheck take-home) and the SS 2% rebate by Obama (which had a similar result) were useless? No, they weren't, they were identified as having an impact on the economy, even though the money wasn't even in consumers hands when it was announced/started.

That's a straw man's argument. Reducing taxes is not even remotely close to having the same sort of economic impacts as setting a minimum wage. The first puts more control of the economy back into the hands of consuming public, while the latter makes it difficult or impossible for those who cannot bring in enough productivity to justify the wage to find a job.

Minimum wage has nothing to do with minimum ability. It sets a price floor for labor. The people who lose out are those just above the minimum wage floor who see their less skilled/experienced/tenured coworkers elevated to a higher wage while theirs remains stagnant. (This happened to me, btw, and it sowed a short period of discord in that company)

I think you've just successfully argued against yourself.

For businesses with very small margins, the costs will be transferred pretty much one for one. As the margin of the business increases, the cost will be passed on in a proportionally smaller magnitude. People are (almost) never hired because they're "cheap" but because work needs to be done to meet demand. Just as nobody hires people if their taxes go down, or fire people if taxes rise. Might it delay hiring? In some instances it makes greater efficiency more valuable, with businesses investing in machines (which are built by people) instead of people. However most of the time it's just a cost of production. If you need to make more silk shirts and the cost of silk goes up, you don't buy less silk - you buy as much as you need to meet demand.

You're making so many assumptions here, I'm not really sure where to start. I guess I'll start with the law of supply and demand. Raise a price, ceteris paribus, the demand decreases. This is visible throughout the economy, although possibly it is easiest to see when looking at the supply side of the equation. For instance, look at doctors and lawyers: these fields have artificial barriers to entry, reducing supply and increasing prices. If you want to look at the demand side, I highly suggest reading upon Thomas Sowell's work, where he very often points out that the young black male worker used to be on par with his white counterpart in terms of percentage employed. With the introduction of the minimum wage, however, young black male unemployment skyrocketed. Why? Because that people group is generally not as educated and brings in less productivity (that's not to say that young black males are inherently worse than their white counterparts, but rather that they're at a societal disadvantage and that laws like the minimum wage make that worse).

Regarding people not being hired because they're "cheap," you're only looking at half of the equation. You're right in that work needs to be done, but how the work gets done is hardly as simple as you make it sound. For example, if labor is very expensive, it becomes more advantageous for the business owner to invest in capital goods to offset the high labor costs; this generally comes at the cost of how many laborers he will hire. For example, consider a fast food business where most of the employees are burger flippers. They cost $7/hour to hire (40 hrs a week for each); 10 of them must be employed to produce 5,000,000 burgers annually, which is the business's target. Let's say that the minimum wage is raised to $12/hour, thus drastically increasing the employer's labor costs. What cost him $145,600 before will now cost him $249,600. As it turns out, an automated burger flipper, which can do all of the basic flipping that the employees did, has been developed that costs $150,000. The employer realizes that he can let 8

Re:Crazy

[countach74]

How is this relevant at all to the conversation? The point is that full service used to be so affordable that most of society were okay with paying for it. Now it's so expensive that only people who are well off or find it very valuable to have "what they grew up with" will pay for it.

Re:Crazy

[Gorobei]

Minimum Wage is also an attempt to keep the employer/employee relationship decent.

You could have a business model in which you maim small children so that they can earn more money while begging for you, but we, as a society, have decided that it is a bad thing. Yes, it happened in Victorian England and present day India, but we don't do it, even if it is "optimal" under free market conditions.

So, requiring you pay a person enough to live a decent live might not be that bad of an idea. If your business model can't support it, maybe you shouldn't be in that business.

Re:Crazy

[roman_mir]

You install self check out machines, that's what you do when prices for labour go up. Labour prices and capital are in competition. The more expensive is labour price the more reasons there are to invest capital to automate.

Re:Crazy

[phantomfive]

Just as importantly, you can't look at overall job growth and determine the effect on minimum wage earners, in fact, doing so is such a bad idea it seems almost intentionally deceptive. Most people don't make minimum wage, and most jobs were unaffected by this change.

If you want to know the effect of the minimum wage, you need to look at the people who are effected by the change, which is low income workers, not the overall job market. This seems fairly obvious but people see to be missing it.

Re:Crazy

[wierd_w]

If a business can't employ someone for minimum wage, then their business model is broken. They are basically saying that their product or service is of such little value, that people will not pay enough for it such that the workers involved in delivering that product or service can live a bare existence lifestyle.

More like this...

If a business can't employ someone for minimum wage, then their business model is broken. They are basically saying that their product or service is of such little value, that people will not pay enough for it such that the workers involved in delivering that product or service can live a bare existence lifestyle, while exceeding existing shareholder expectations.

Re:Crazy

[roman_mir]

Whether a job is a 'liability' or not is also a question to the laws, many of which are also designed to destroy competition to the larger players in the field, those who donate money to the politicians. However checking oil and tire pressure and wiping your windshield and pumping your gas is a courtesy that can no longer be provided to you by the gas station, not because of liability, but because of the all the labour laws and inflation and government is the responsible party for all of it.

 

It doesn't cost that much to add them to a busy station if you only account for wages and typical overhead

- you obviously are not running a gas station or any business for that matter, so you should really abstain from making ridiculous statements about what a cost is to hire somebody. The cost to hire somebody today in USA is much more than just the wage itself, an employee cost to business is easily twice their wage if not more given the laws and taxes and liability for all the nonsensical government discrimination laws, etc.

The benefit to the business has to be tangible, it has to cover the cost of having that employee working there and it has to provide something on top, the profit has to be material. If you get more customers than your competition by providing better service that is a material benefit as long as you can measure it. On the other hand given the tiny margins that gas stations live on, it is clearly impossible to hire attendants to check your tire pressure and oil and wipe the windshield and pump your gas, in fact most if not all gas stations are now manned by one person.

One person where it wasn't uncommon to have 4-5 people before all the laws and inflation destroyed all those opportunities and automation was increased and customers were switched to the self-serve model.

Given the higher minimum wage laws (most of which didn't kick in yet, by the way, so the effects are not there yet), there will be more automation done in places where people used to provide the service. You will not have a waiter, you will have fewer clerks, you will not have somebody answering phones.

You'll bring your own food to the table, you'll use a self serve cash register, you'll talk to an answering machine (well, at least off-shore call centres mitigate this problem somewhat, people like talking to people on the phones, not to machines.)

Re:Crazy

[roman_mir]

Maiming small children actually seems to be the business model that modern governments are in today, with all the wars, drones, bombings, wars on 'terrorism', etc. Free market capitalist system does not reward companies for maiming people, governments on the other hand force you to participate, if you do not like it, you can always opt out to go to jail for tax evasion.

Setting up minimum wage destroys opportunities for people with no skill sets, that's all it does, it doesn't provide anybody with "decent living" and it shouldn't. Decent living is provided by better jobs, but you have to find those better jobs in the first place and if you can never get a job to improve your skills, a low wage paying job, you are much less likely to find the next job that actually pays much more than a minimum wage does anyway.

You are getting the opposite effect, not a 'feel good' effect when you use government violence to impose your wrong-headed moral ideas.

Re:Crazy

[ganjadude]

If a business can't employ someone for minimum wage, then their business model is broken. They are basically saying that their product or service is of such little value, that people will not pay enough for it such that the workers involved in delivering that product or service can live a bare existence lifestyle.

Really? I dont believe that at all. one should not be paid 20 buck an hour to pick apples, or take an order at mcdonalds, the job is not worth that much, if it were our food would cost double and we would be in the same boat. just because you now make 50 grand instead of 25 sounds good, but if the cost of everything goes up to match that change, whats the point??

Re:Crazy

[ganjadude]

Or are you suggesting we should have allowed the gas stations to have slaves?

really? I had no idea that gas stations owned people in the past. I thought we were free to come and go as we please....

Re:Crazy

[ganjadude]

Except, that's never been the case. You can not point to any increase in minimum wage in history that has depressed the job market on the low end. It has never happened.

No, but i can tell you when I worked at a mcdonalds as a kid, min wage was 4:80 or something close to that. NY raised it to 7 bucks, the cost of all the food rose by a dollar overnight, the dollar menu was taken down and 3 people did get fired.

Personal stories are by no means indicitive of the entire situation, but thats one example of what happens when you raise min wage

Re:Crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

Just more proof that figures don't lie, but liars can figure. The headline is deliberately misleading to put out a narrative at odds with the facts.

This is aside from the fact that 6 months is not enough time to evaluate the results. Of course there is a no change 6 months later, and there is an immediate boost, but let's see the results in 2 years when leases come up for renewal and are not, and businesses have left town.

If you looked at the results of "cash for clunkers" 3 months down the road, you would think it was a success because it boosted demand, but 6 months later you see that the demand has merely been shifted from one quarter to the next and there was a commensurate drop the following quarter.

Re:Crazy

[Maxo-Texas]

I have a friend who has a misdemeanor and she has a struggle even getting minimum wage jobs. With improved access to people's records even minor crimes become life sentences and create a strong push towards living poverty or turning to crime.

However, I don't think it's being used more as a "filter" at this point. There are 7 employees and 6 jobs. Any kind of criminal record at all is used to select which of the 6 will be hired.

Re:Crazy

[microbox]

once the wage is in effect fewer new businesses will be created.

Just because you believe it doesn't mean that it is true. Even professional economists can't agree on such a simple statement, since the details are so complex. But whatever floats your boat Mr Dunning Kruger.

Re:Crazy

[NicBenjamin]

Apparently you don't work in retail.

Self-check-out requires slightly fewer warm bodies then human cashiers, but they have to be better-paid. Much better-paid. Most shop-lifters will run through that line, so you need somebody who not only recognizes the scams the local heroin addicts run, but is also capable of convincing said heroin addicts that call that just went out has nothing to do with a certain ex-Marine we have on Asset Protection, despite the fact this is a fucking lie and said Heroin addict is about to be politely detained by very large man with a very persuasive manner, and a memory the local prosecutor treasures. Running self--checkout is not a job the kid just out of High School making minimum wage gets

It's usually a two-person job. One is a Head Cashier who costs the company slightly less then $30k a year. 40 hours a week the other is the Front End Supervisor, who is Department Head level and costs slightly more then $30k. Added together that is the salary for six part-time cashiers. We have six self-checkout registers.

So yes, while in economic theory you may be right; in actual reality giving the cheapest cashiers a 2% raise is generally much cheaper then replacing them with self-checkout equipment that has to be babied by your top employees.

Re:Crazy

[ranton]

> A better metric is comparing how job growth is growing or stalling.

Yes. But you did it wrong.
Simply picking the states with the highest and lowest rates doesn't even come close to measuring the effect of increasing the minimum wage.

What you need to do is compare growth rates before and after the change to minimum wage in each state and also compare those numbers to neighboring states and the national average.

Yes, I admit that I wasn't willing to put in the time to do statistically significant original research on this matter. I was merely pointing out that there are better ways of measuring it and did a quick calculation that is at least better than the one done for this story.

The reality is that it would take significant research to actually determine the effect of raising minimum wage. And with only 50 states with an insane number of independent variables, I am not sure how anything statistically significant could ever be "proven". The closest thing we have is the CBO estimates, which neither this story nor my back of napkin calculations refute in any way.

Re:Crazy

[roman_mir]

Apparently you don't work in retail.

- no, but I do build and sell retail management systems, supply chain management, customer relation management, business intelligence, logistics and shipping and handling integration and management systems. My own design, the main systems were my own implementation and now I have people working for me building more on top of what I built in the beginning.

What is wrong is your idea of 2% raise. The current minimum wage hikes that are about to hit are not 2%, they are closer to 40% (for example from 7.25 to 10.10 that's a 39% increase) in just NOMINAL wage. Of-course actually hiring somebody means that your total cost of labour is about 2x that much. To buy labour at 7.25 really means to pay around 13 bucks or so for that labour, so at 10.10 that's closer to 18-20 dollars, depends on how the tax scale goes as well, could be even worse.

Why don't you start a business and hire some people and then talk?

Re:Crazy

[ranton]

I have an alternative theory... the minimum wage has no affect on job growth at all.

The majority of minimum wage workers are highschool students work in fast food [...]

Remember that minimum wage does not just affect minimum wage workers and their employers. It affects everyone who pays for services done by people working minimum wage. And those who pay for services done by people who pay for services done by people working minimum wage. And those who pay for services done by people who pay for services done by people who pay for services done by people working minimum wage. And so on.

It all ripples through the economy. High minimum wages eventually make everything more expensive, not just a McDonald's hamburger. That hamburger may only increase by 2 cents, but the ripple effects end up being much greater.

The bottom line is that if raising minimum wage from $7 to $700 will have a bad effect on the economy, then so will increasing $7 to $7.25. A drastically smaller bad effect, but a bad effect none the less. You then weigh that slightly weaker economy with the human element of caring for your fellow man, and come up with a reasonable minimum wage.

Re:Crazy

[ganjadude]

explain to me why gas in NY (yesterday) was 3.84, no service. But in NJ, it was 3.31 full service??? how can NJ afford to pay their full service attendants, and give us cheeper gas than in NY

Re:Crazy

[roman_mir]

Even professional economists can't agree on such a simple statement, since the details are so complex

- yeah, professional economists don't hire people and don't run businesses, their job is to feed you the pro-state propaganda, but hey, you are only talking to a guy who actually hires people and writes checks, but don't let the reality stand in the way of your fiction.

Re:Crazy

[ultranova]

Economic activity is increased by more people having more money to spend ?

States with the healthiest job situations were the first to increase minimum wage.

Economics: the "science" of fitting the data to whatever theory you happen to favour for ideological reasons.

Sadly, quite easy to conceive.

Re:Crazy

[ranton]

So if you want to compare the trend of job growth increasing or decreasing, it looks like raising the minimum wage does hurt significantly.

What kind of jobs are being created? Are they minimum-wage jobs that you can't actually live on?

They are almost certainly not good jobs. They are probably some of the worst and lowest paid jobs in the country. But that just points out why job growth is a stupid metric to look at anyway. I would like to see an alternative employment figure of "households that make at least twice the poverty level" alongside any unemployment figures.

Growth in median wages would also be a statistic that is more meaningful for most people than job growth. Most people who complain about not being able to find a job could find one if they were willing to work for minimum wage. When people complain about an economy they usually are complaining because they can't keep up whatever standard of living they are familiar with.

Re:Crazy

[ranton]

Drawing conclusions from the second derivative of noisy data is not justified mathematically

If you take away drawing conclusions from the second derivative of noisy data then you would destroy the entire economics profession. Then we would have to rely on common sense ideas such as if you raise someone's wages without raising their usefulness, you hurt their job prospects and raise prices for everyone else in the economy. You make the lives of 9 people marginally better but you destroy the life of the 10th guy who can't find work now.

Re:Crazy

[roman_mir]

Minimum wage is an arbitrary price control, a wage is just a price on labour. Setting minimum wage to an arbitrary number and then declaring that no business that can make a profit hiring people at a price lower than that number should exist is an interesting statement from point of view of some sort of central planner maybe, but from point of view of a real economy that's quite egregious. If somebody is willing to buy a service at 5 bucks but not at 10 for example, then your statement reads like so: because of politics you should have to pay 10 bucks for the service and if you cannot afford it - tough.

When you put it into those terms, then how can you justify such a position if on the other hand you declare that you are somehow pro-people?

Re:Crazy

[Maxo-Texas]

Young black workers were affected by many factors. An "anti acting white culture", poverty left over from slavery, systemic racism in hiring, promotion, and housing.. and most significantly for the last two generations has been the "drug war".

In some states, almost ALL people incarcerated for drug crimes are black- yet the majority of people committing drug crimes are white. Blacks are more likely to be stopped-- then to be searched when stopped- then to be a arrested if something is found- then to be convicted when tried- and finally to be sentenced to much longer sentences when convicted.

Quote:
According to the Sentencing Project's website, the rate of incarceration for white Connecticut residents in 2005 was 211 per 100,000 people; for black residents it was 2,532 per 100,000. The Sentencing Project reports that the national incarceration rate for whites in 2005 was 412 per 100,000, and the rate for blacks was 2,290 per 100,000 people.

Also according to the Sentencing Project's web site, in seven states (Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota) the black to white incarceration ratio is greater than 10 to one.

1. about one in every 33 black men was a sentenced prisoner and the rate for white men was about one in every 205, for Hispanic men about one in every 79; and

2. black men represented the largest proportion of sentenced male inmates at yearend 2006 (38%); white men made up 34%; and Hispanic men, 21%.

More reading here...
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt...

http://www.americanprogress.or...

http://socialistworker.org/blo...

Re:Crazy

[ultranova]

Remember that minimum wage does not just affect minimum wage workers and their employers. It affects everyone who pays for services done by people working minimum wage

And it also affects everyone who sells good and services, since these minimum wage workers can now afford more. That's usually considered a good thing.

It all ripples through the economy. High minimum wages eventually make everything more expensive, not just a McDonald's hamburger.

Higher demand drives up prices, which drives up supply, which drives prices back down. The only thing that actually changes is what level of employment - utilization of production resources - results in the balance.

The bottom line is that if raising minimum wage from $7 to $700 will have a bad effect on the economy, then so will increasing $7 to $7.25.

Which makes just as much sense as saying that if rising price of a product from $7 to $7.25 will increase profits, then so will increasing it to $700.

Re:Crazy

[countach74]

I didn't mean to communicate that there isn't systemic violence aimed at minorities, because clearly there is. But look at black unemployment in 1930; things have not always been this bad for minorities. When the market was allowed to work and we didn't have such egregious things as the war on drugs, minorities faired far better.

Re:Crazy

[PopeRatzo]

No, but i can tell you when I worked at a mcdonalds as a kid, min wage was 4:80 or something close to that. NY raised it to 7 bucks, the cost of all the food rose by a dollar overnight, the dollar menu was taken down and 3 people did get fired.

As you say, "Personal stories are by no means indicitive of the entire situation, "

but thats one example of what happens when you raise min wage

Except, it's never worked out that way, except in your fond memories of working in McDonald's as a kid. Prices never rise in proportion to increases in minimum wage, because wages are only one part of the cost of doing business. In fact, a rather small part, about 20%.

http://www.restfinance.com/Res...

People who are against raising the minimum wage can give you all sorts of theories about how it's going to hurt the economy, but it has never worked out that way. Not at the low end of the scale, not at the high end, and not in the middle.

Re:Crazy

[ranton]

Remember that minimum wage does not just affect minimum wage workers and their employers. It affects everyone who pays for services done by people working minimum wage

And it also affects everyone who sells good and services, since these minimum wage workers can now afford more. That's usually considered a good thing.

In a completely closed system, increasing the minimum wage would have no effect other than shifting which products and services are most successful, and shifting income from the wealthy to the poor. But automation and a global marketplace mean that not all of the increased costs are given to the workers. Some of them are funneled into automation and into other economies with lower minimum wage. The automation at least gives the benefit of hiring engineers, but far less engineers are hired than the large number of low wage workers who are fired.

The jobs lost overseas are just lost. And not only low wage jobs are lost, because as the cost of living increases on the engineers then those jobs start to go away as well.

The bottom line is that if raising minimum wage from $7 to $700 will have a bad effect on the economy, then so will increasing $7 to $7.25.

Which makes just as much sense as saying that if rising price of a product from $7 to $7.25 will increase profits, then so will increasing it to $700.

What they actually say is that rising the product from $7 to $7.25 will increase the profit per widget sold. They also acknowledge that increasing the price will reduce the number of widgets sold, just like it would if they increased the price to $700. They then weight the benefit and the risk and determine a fair price. So I guess I agree completely with your analogy, since it is basically the same as mine.

Re:Crazy

[ultranova]

I dont believe that at all. one should not be paid 20 buck an hour to pick apples, or take an order at mcdonalds, the job is not worth that much, if it were our food would cost double and we would be in the same boat. just because you now make 50 grand instead of 25 sounds good, but if the cost of everything goes up to match that change, whats the point??

Well, for starters, if a McDonald's employee needs food stamps to live, then I'm subsidising McDonald's from my taxes: I'm paying part of the income of their employees. Same goes for apple-pickers, and every other job for that matter.

Allowing a company to pay a lower than living wage results in a massive market failure, and consequently waste of resources. It's much better to force McDonald's and your local apple farm to charge the customers the price of resources - including human resources - it actually takes to deliver their product, and let market decide if it's worth them. An employee must be able to live on his wage alone with a tolerable quality of life, otherwise the employer is simply a parasite upon the economy.

Re:Crazy

[ultranova]

The automation at least gives the benefit of hiring engineers, but far less engineers are hired than the large number of low wage workers who are fired.

You know, we could solve all these problems with unconditional basic income sufficient to live tolerably on. Then we could remove minimum wage entirely and appreciate automation as liberator of humanity from toil rather than fearing it as a threat. At the same time, it would smooth out the boom-bust cycle by guaranteeing a level of economic demand.

Our current model of employment is an artifact of Industrial Era, and is quickly becoming obsolete in our post-Industrial one, which is the ultimate cause of our economic problems.

The jobs lost overseas are just lost. And not only low wage jobs are lost, because as the cost of living increases on the engineers then those jobs start to go away as well.

So basically, if you work for a living, you're screwed.

Re:Crazy

[sjames]

You missed the part about the people with more money will now spend it. Where, you might ask will they spend it? Mostly at the same sorts of businesses that pay minimum wage, since they still won't be wealthy by a long shot.

And what will more customers mean? Gotta hire more staff to handle the load.

I should point you out in the thread above as evidence that it is the conservatives who think it's a negative sum game where the more it is spread the less there is to spread.

Re:Crazy

[bigpat]

I heard it argued recently that capitalists aren't interested in increased economic activity, only in increasing their share of economic activity. Suppressing labor markets and high unemployment helps.

Capitalism is most efficient when capital is not concentrated into a just a few hands. The principle at the heart of the idea of capitalism being more efficient than other economic systems is the same as the principle of democracy, that decisions made by many people are usually better than decisions made by few people.

Both self described capitalists and those who oppose the concentration of wealth and ascribe the term capitalist to those who concentrate wealth often seem to lose sight of the fact that capitalism is and was supposed to be a form of economic liberalization which was about the equitable distribution of capital. The over concentration of wealth is a failure to maintain a capitalist system rather than the natural result of one. In its original form capitalism and the free market simply mean that people themselves instead of governments get to decide what is of value in the economy.

So for example, while kings and tyrants might not bother themselves with the adequacy of the toilet paper supply when they can employ any number of butt wipers, people willing to spend money on toilet paper and people willing to make toilet paper will usually figure out a way to make it happen. This is a real example from the days of the Soviet Union... ample trees to make paper products, just not enough toilet paper and it just was never a priority high enough for the limited attention of central planners.

Re:Crazy

[Bengie]

If drinking 100 gallons of water per day is bad for you, then drinking any amount of water is bad for you. I love you logic!

Re:Crazy

[ganjadude]

I dont disagree with your point on the market. My issue is that you dont want a free market, you want to artificially increase the wages of employees who dont deserve it.

Lets look at it like this. Lets say they do jump from 10-15 bucks overnight. well, what about the people who were making 15.25? are they getting a 5 buck an hour raise as well? or are they now considered minimum wage jobs?? If ive worked to get out of a min wage job and to make 5 bucks over, shouldnt I also get a raise to offset the difference? and so on and so on.

so now we have people who worked hard to get their raises getting shit on

Re:Crazy

[sjames]

One huge beneficiary of food stamps is WalMart. Without food stamps, their workers would be half dead from malnutrition and would frequently die right there in the store (bad for business). That would force them to raise pay. Thanks to food stamps keeping their worker units alive for them, they don't have to pay so much.

So since WalMart isn't real commerce (being a huge welfare recipient), we should jettison it. Fortunately, by raising the minimum wage, we may yet salvage it as an actual contributor to commerce.

As for the comment about cleaners, good luck selling food in a filthy restaurant that gets closed by the health inspector. The fact is, you would be forced to stop mooching off of the food stamp program and actually paying a living wage if you want to stay in business.

Re:Crazy

[ninjabus]

It's not applicable to compare the states with the lowest minimum wage, any state with a wage lower than the federal limit of 7.25 defaults to it in most scenarios. Since there are 24 states with wages at 7.25 or lower, cherry picking the well performing ones is deliberately misleading.

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

Business model is not broken only due to artificial govt laws that do not operate in the free market but are there f9r political purposes.

All laws are artificial and do not operate in the free market.

If minimum wage was set tomorrow to 100 usd per hour by your logic it would mean that every business is broken, because near nobody can afford those labour prices.

No, this is what we call an excluded middle fallacy.

We (and this is a problem afflicting most western countries) don't have high unemployment because people are being paid too much. We have high unemployment because there's not enough work for them to do. Sure, you can get rid of the safeguards around things like minimum wage and worker safety, which will drop the unemployment numbers, but all you've done is engaged in a slightly different form of rigging the numbers. The core problem remains.

Employment for the sake of employment is not the goal. You can do that tomorrow by reinstating slavery and having people move piles of rocks around (which is, basically, what people who think there shouldn't be a minimum wage are arguing for). Creating wealth and increasing living standards for everyone is the goal.

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

Whether a job is a 'liability' or not is also a question to the laws, many of which are also designed to destroy competition to the larger players in the field, those who donate money to the politicians. However checking oil and tire pressure and wiping your windshield and pumping your gas is a courtesy that can no longer be provided to you by the gas station, not because of liability, but because of the all the labour laws and inflation and government is the responsible party for all of it.

No, this is a lie.

That service can absolutely be provided, it's just that no-one is prepared to pay what it costs (in no small part because their incomes have been suppressed for thirty-plus years to facilitate ever-greater corporate profits).

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

Free market capitalist system does not reward companies for maiming people, [...]

It does (and did) if there's money to be made from it.

Setting up minimum wage destroys opportunities for people with no skill sets, that's all it does, it doesn't provide anybody with "decent living" and it shouldn't. Decent living is provided by better jobs, but you have to find those better jobs in the first place and if you can never get a job to improve your skills, a low wage paying job, you are much less likely to find the next job that actually pays much more than a minimum wage does anyway.

Please tell us about the general skills someone learns in an unskilled job paying less than minimum wage, that they don't already have, that are required in a job paying minimum wage.

Re:Crazy

[NicBenjamin]

So how often do you hear the one about Piece of Shit POS systems?

2% or 40% depends on whether you're talking about Obama's proposed raise, or the ones actually studied, and which minimum you start from. Ohio's increase of $0.10 from $7.85 was actually less then 2%. A 40% raise from Ohio's actual minimum wage of $7.95 would be $11 and change. $10.10's actually a 27% increase.

As for your criticism of the relative costs of the people who run a self-checkout line, a lot of those costs were built into my math. Head cashiers have a nominal wage in the ~$10 range, which makes for $20k in salary costs. The FES has a nominal salary in the $11-13 range, which makes for roughly $25k in salary. Benefits for both, plus Social Security and Medicare taxes, and administrative costs should be in the $11k range. Line cashiers are part-time, and start at $9, but the get no benefits, so the $9k or so you'd expect from the part-timer is the vast majority of their cost to the company.

So if Obama got everything he wanted, and got the minimum to $10.10 an hour, my store would be spending about $1.10 more per hour on six part time cashiers. That works out to roughly $6,060. With Social; Security and medicare taxes you'd be roughly $6,500. Call it $7k. Administrative costs don't go up because the HR lady would have to be paid either way. So your POS system has to cost less then $21k or it makes more sense to give the girls a raise. And actually, with the minimum going up, what are the odds our Head Cashier doesn't get a raise? What about the Front End Supervisor? $1 for either both means roughly $2k in extra costs each, plus SS and Medicare taxes, so actual savings to the company is only in the $3k range.

This is America. High income inequality is a fact of life. If you're selling a product which replaces a bunch of cheap-as part-timers with a couple full-timers you aren't saving companies nearly as much as you think.

Re:Crazy

[ranton]

If drinking 100 gallons of water per day is bad for you, then drinking any amount of water is bad for you. I love you logic!

Drinking 100 gallons of water per day is bad for you because it dilutes the sodium in your body. And yes, drinking just one glass of water will dilute sodium in your body as well, just to a lesser degree (just like increasing minimum wage damages the economy just to a lesser degree). The analogy obviously breaks down because you need water to survive, but that is why I used a logical extreme instead of an analogy because analogies that can be applied broadly are rare. I am not really sure why you feel your ridiculous analogy says anything about my logical statement.

Re:Crazy

[PopeRatzo]

It had nothing to do with the invention of self-service pumps.

Uh-huh.

Economic data is historical data. It can produce correlations, never, ever Cause and Effect. Someone please design for me a control system based on correlational data.

In other words, "I can't produce any data showing where job growth slowed or people lost jobs because of a higher minimum wage, thus all data is garbage".

Which is why the economic growth rate is, over the last 100 years, inversely correlated with the power of economists and our government.

You think it's economists who are behind the movements to raise the minimum wage? You think government wants this and working people are against it? Maybe you should look at this:

http://www.politico.com/story/...

"On minimum wage, voters support raising the federally mandated minimum, 72 percent to 27 percent, including a majority of Republicans, who support it 52 percent to 45 percent"

And surprisingly, even 61% of small business owners support raising the minimum wage. Now why would that be?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/...

Your argument that a raise in the minimum wage is something thought up by economists and government is just provably wrong.

Which is why the economic growth rate is, over the last 100 years, inversely correlated with the power of economists and our government.

You complain about "correlations not being causation" and then come up with THAT argument, which is based on a spurious correlation? Every rise in the minimum wage has been not the result of eggheads in government, but because of a groundswell of demand from the people who are, you know, actually doing the work.

There's not a single person in national elected office, House, Senate, or White House who has a PhD in Economics. Not one. There are people with other kinds of PhDs and professional doctorates, but not one single economist. But, you argue, economists control everything. Here's a correlation for you, "People who espouse neoliberal economic theories are highly likely to throw any kind of argument at the wall, based on no data or even any kind of provable theory." If anything, if you want spurious arguments and assertions based on nothing but feelings and doctrine, go to an Austrian School economist or someone who believes that crap.

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

Really? I dont believe that at all. one should not be paid 20 buck an hour to pick apples, or take an order at mcdonalds, the job is not worth that much, if it were our food would cost double and we would be in the same boat. just because you now make 50 grand instead of 25 sounds good, but if the cost of everything goes up to match that change, whats the point??

So your argument is society must always have an oppressed, poverty-stricken underclass, reliant upon charity or welfare to survive ?

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

Lets look at it like this. Lets say they do jump from 10-15 bucks overnight. well, what about the people who were making 15.25? are they getting a 5 buck an hour raise as well? or are they now considered minimum wage jobs??

Can the business raise the price of their product or service to meet those higher salary costs ?

so now we have people who worked hard to get their raises getting shit on

If contemporary businesses weren't driven to minimise the wages of their lowest paid workers purely so they could maximise the wages of their highest paid, there'd be much less angst about paying the lowest earners more.

Only when those businesses have succeeded, and almost everyone is being paid minimum wage (or less), and no-one has any money to buy the products and services those businesses want to sell, will they realise the flaw in their cunning plan.

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

Wealthy people don't keep their money in bank accounts, you big dummy. They buy stocks which provides capital for companies to get started and to operate, creating and maintaining jobs.

If no-one can afford to buy their products and services, why would companies create jobs ?

Learn something about economics, please.

Learn something about reality, please.

Wealth and job creation is driven from the bottom up, not the top down.

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

Nither side is really that effective, or hazardous. Until you get a significant increase in wages. Say $20 minimum wage, where it would be enough for the low end workers to have a significant improvement in quality of life, however at the same time, making many jobs much to expensive to maintain, and force companies to find ways to improve efficiency or outsource.

Or, horrific as the idea might sound to some, reducing profit margins.

Re:Crazy

[LordLucless]

No, minimum wage is setting a floor on living standards.

No it doesn't. If you're unemployed, or not employed full-time, you will be living below the "standard" of people on the minimum wage, all other factors being equal. Also, if you have an unemployed wife or children, your standard of living will be lower than that of people who can spend their entire minimum wage on themselves.

You could say the minimum wage sets a floor on living standards for full-time workers with no dependents, but that's not as catchy.

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

No it doesn't. If you're unemployed, or not employed full-time, you will be living below the "standard" of people on the minimum wage, all other factors being equal.

Well, in an ideal world there wouldn't be any unemployment (other than people transitioning between jobs, genuinely disabled/incapable of working (who should be supported by welfare), etc), but Governments influenced by big business have long since abrogated their responsibility to implement full-employment policies and decent welfare support.

You could say the minimum wage sets a floor on living standards for full-time workers with no dependents, but that's not as catchy.

I would argue the minimum wage should set a floor on living standards for the typical family, not individual. It should be possible for a typical family to live on a single minimum wage.

But, yes, it's not as catchy to give the full breakdown and all caveats. But this is a discussion on Slashdot, and the broad *point* is the same, regardless of the minor incidental details.

Re:Crazy

[dryeo]

I used to pick apples and made about $200 on a good day, average was about $150 a day, probably about 10 hours work, it was all contract work. Of course that was over 30 years ago. Now they import Mexicans and others from Central America, pay them $15 an hour plus lodging, plus airfare, plus the fees to get them temporary visas. This is Canada where we never had illegals, felons and such driving the labour market down.
The real problem is that the middle men have this attitude that their wages should go up way faster then inflation because without them the apples won't get sold so there are whole classes of people who get paid more and more for doing the same job as they've always done and that money has to come from somewhere and since the lower classes are the least organized, their real wages drop.

Re:Crazy

[williamhb]

The automation at least gives the benefit of hiring engineers, but far less engineers are hired than the large number of low wage workers who are fired.

You know, we could solve all these problems with unconditional basic income sufficient to live tolerably on.

It doesn't need [on its own] to be sufficient to live tolerably on to have a positive effect. And that's just as well because getting it in-place in one go would a political impossibility. Oddly you're more likely to get there through the right of politics than the left. The first step would need to be something like Universal Credit (replace means-tested benefits with a universal payment), only hopefully without its bugs and teething problems. The right tend to support these policies because they lower the incremental effective tax rate (after loss of means-tested benefits are taken into account) for part-time workers, giving them a stronger incentive to take on more hours. (Increasing workforce participation is a big issue for the right.) But if you extrapolate it over time (fold in more benefits, gradually increase the rate to approximately minimum wage levels), you get a situation that looks fairly attractive -- people's basic needs are heavily subsidised without question (strong enough safety net that the community sector comfortably fills any gap), reduced financial pressure means you can do work you regard as valuable rather than necessarily lucrative (e.g. being a carer becomes viable as a career while making ends meet), nonetheless there is still a strong incentive to work, and the size of the state itself can be reduced (as it is only in the business of enabling you to take services, not of providing those services itself).

The biggest threat is the leftist push to means-test everything, which reduces the incentive to work and means it'd never get over the barrier.

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

Yeah, let's print some and give it away to people. That will sure boost the economy, at least according to your idiotic theory.

It would if it were going to real people and not banks and (by proxy) businesses and the wealthy.

(Which is not, of course, either condoning or advocating unlimited money printing.)

The economy is depressed because everyone who isn't rich, is unemployed, broke and/or weighed down by debt. And the rich don't spend proportionally as much as they own and earn, and certainly not across as much of the economy.

Re:Crazy

[budgenator]

You'll never get DUI and any sex offense exponged, hell get caught peeing in the alley too many times and your on the sex offender's list for life.

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

Free market capitalist system does not reward companies for maiming people, [...]

It does if there's money in it. Or, at least, it would if it wasn't already illegal.

[...] governments on the other hand force you to participate, if you do not like it, you can always opt out to go to jail for tax evasion.

Or not earn enough to be taxed. Or leave the country.

Setting up minimum wage destroys opportunities for people with no skill sets, that's all it does, it doesn't provide anybody with "decent living" and it shouldn't.

Yes, it should. That's the whole reason it exists.

A minimum wage job shouldn't require any skills. It should be the going rate for unskilled, inexperienced, basic labour.

If it's not, it's not because the minimum wage is too low, it's because the business model is broken.

Decent living is provided by better jobs, but you have to find those better jobs in the first place and if you can never get a job to improve your skills, a low wage paying job, you are much less likely to find the next job that actually pays much more than a minimum wage does anyway.

What skills will someone learn in an unskilled below-minimum wage job, that will help them get a similarly unskilled, but marginally better paid, slightly-above-minimum wage job ?

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

Minimum wage is an arbitrary price control, a wage is just a price on labour.

To an economist or a mathematician, maybe.

In reality, a wage is what people use to live. It is in no way the same thing as something like the cost of a beer.

If somebody is willing to buy a service at 5 bucks but not at 10 for example, then your statement reads like so: because of politics you should have to pay 10 bucks for the service and if you cannot afford it - tough.

Actually it reads: "you have to pay 10 bucks for this service so it can be delivered while meeting the basic requirements for civilised society".

You could make the same argument about anything that increases costs, from worker safety standards to regulations against lead paint.

Though as a Libertarian I'm sure you think employers should be able to endanger their employees and customers at will so long as it increases their profits.

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

What you want is more people working, and those working to be more productive.

And to receive enough benefit from their productivity to be able to live and prosper.

Or, as most people would refer to it, be paid money.

Re:Crazy

[Rakarra]

Most people who complain about not being able to find a job could find one if they were willing to work for minimum wage.

Not necessarily. If you have a college education, for instance, you're "overqualified" and won't get the job because your new employer will suspect you'll be there only for the very short term.

Re:Crazy

[Wildclaw]

My issue is that you dont want a free market

The very core of free market theory is consensual trade. Without mutual consent you can't have a free market. And that is why the low end labor market is in no way a free market. The worker is not consenting to work, he is figuratively forced at gunpoint.

So the only negative impact the minimum wage has on the free market is imaginary as there wasn't a free market to begin with. Well, unless you had some kind of basic income to remove the figurative gun from the picture.

Re:Crazy

[c6gunner]

Actually I feel pretty confident stating that if more people have more money, economic activity will increase.

Sure. So lets pass a law that says every person should be paid $50,000 per hour. Economic activity ought to be AMAZING then!

No, minimum wage is setting a floor on living standards.

Very true. If you meet the minimum skill required for the minimum-wage job, you get a crappy job that pays your basic expenses, but won't pay off that credit card you keep racking up because now you can afford more useless crap. If you don't meet the minimum skill requirements, then fuck you - you're stuck on the government dole because we won't let you sell your services for less. Our minimum living standard says you have to be a parasite rather than contributing to society.

If a business can't employ someone for minimum wage, then their business model is broken.

Totally right. Especially when we implement our $50,000 minimum wage idea. If those fatcat small business guys can't afford it, fuck 'em; someone else will come along to start a business once the economy settles down.

Re:Crazy

[Tom]

Minimum wage is actually minimum ability.

No, it is not. You are complaining that people who are "worth" less than X cannot be differentiated out. But that, exactly, is the point. Society says that below X, we do not want to differentiate anymore, because the cost to society for doing it is higher than the benefit. We should probably do the same at the other end of the spectrum, but that's a different discussion.

but it can prevent people with abilities that are below minimum wage from finding jobs.

It works the other way around. If your business needs the job done, it will pay minimum wage. Your decision is not between different people, your decision is whether or not this job is worth hiring someone for at all.

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

Sure. So lets pass a law that says every person should be paid $50,000 per hour. Economic activity ought to be AMAZING then!

Excluded middle fallacy.

The rest of your mindless tripe is no better.

Re:Crazy

[dywolf]

Yes, far better to pay people subhuman wages so they have no choice but to go on public assistence than force companies to pay a living wage.
After all, corporate profits are more important than the ability of people to keep off the street.
Your viewpoint is basically that people should serve the economy, rather than the economy should serve the people.
And that's just evil.

Re:Crazy

[ganjadude]

Can the business raise the price of their product or service to meet those higher salary costs ?

yes of course, but that defeats the point of getting a raise if the cost of everything goes up to match it. Sure I have more money but it has the same buying power as before

Re:Crazy

[ganjadude]

the sad truth is yes. not everyone is going to be successful, however everyone today has the means to become successful if they want to. eventually those jobs will be replaced by robots, and then what happens to those who are unemployable??

Re:Crazy

[rhodium_mir]

Human life has whatever value the free market says it does and not a penny more.

Re:Crazy

[Tom]

First of all this wasn't "society",

hogwash. It's a law. Laws are passed by elected representatives, which is the form that we, as society, have agreed upon. Saying "this wasn't society" is the same handwaving as saying "it wasn't me who pulled the trigger, officer, it was my finger".

Minimum wage is a vestigal expression of racism in the US.

Which is why it exists in a hundred other countries who don't have the US racism, yes? Try again, maybe with an argument that survives for three seconds.

Secondly there are plenty of people that [...]

If you don't like democracy, how about you say it outright? If you have a couple million people, then no matter what you will always find "plenty of people" who disagree. You could pass a law that says the sky is blue and you'd find people who dislike it. That doesn't prove a thing and it's not an argument. We live in a society that has agreed that majority decides which way we go. If you don't like it, at least say you hate democracy. But I'm pretty sure you don't - you only hate it when you're not part of the majority, right?

The minimum does not apply to various categories of people, for example the mentally retarded (medical term).

Yes, but in that case there is an objective, rational reason for it. That's quite a different category from "I and some other people don't like it".

economically horrid idea

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Unless you have actual evidence of economic damage, you're spreading lies here.

and the likes of you are so economically illeterate,

Maybe you shouldn't throw cheap ad-hominem attacks on people whose educational background and profession you don't know. There's a real danger it'll make you look like a complete idiot later in the discussion. ;-)

Re:Crazy

[Maxo-Texas]

Actually, blacks did not fare well.

A couple quotes:
THE GREAT Depression of the 1930s was catastrophic for all workers. But as usual, Blacks suffered worse, pushed out of unskilled jobs previously scorned by whites before the depression. Blacks faced unemployment of 50 percent or more, compared with about 30 percent for whites. Black wages were at least 30 percent below those of white workers, who themselves were barely at subsistence level.

There was no relief from the liberal Roosevelt administration, whose National Recovery Act (NRA) of 1933 was soon referred to by Blacks as the Negro Removal Act. Although its stated goal was nondiscriminatory hiring and an equal minimum wage for whites and Blacks, NRA public works projects rarely employed Blacks and maintained racist wage differentials when they did.

---
  In 1950 a black person's income was around $3,828 but a white
person's income was $7,057. By 1956 a black person's income was around
$4,768 and a white's income was $9,060. As you can see from these
figures, because of segregation and the various laws around black and
white people, white people led a much higher standard of living
compared to black people.
---

Blacks have also consistently run about double the unemployment of whites as long as we've had data.

http://people.ucsc.edu/~rfairl...

And this was also true for the 1960's and 1970s. Double unemployment and much lower income.

Regarding 1930...

During most of the 1930's Blacks faced unemployment of 50 percent or more, compared with about 30 percent for whites. Black wages were at least 30 percent below those of white workers, who themselves were barely at subsistence level.

However, if you look at 1880 and 1910, during a period of general 3% unemployment- blacks had slightly lower unemployment.

----

I guess what I'm reacting to in your original post is the assumption that a lower or no minimum wage will automatically result in higher employment and that blacks benefited from lower minimum wages in the past. The data shows that from 1920 onwards, they had lower employment despite lower wages.

I don't want to bust your chops too much- I think the trend in robotics is going to replace humans generally with machines which can do the job 3 shifts a day for 1/6th the cost of a human per shift- never take vacations- never get sick (with a proper SLA). That's a good 15-30 years away before it becomes a dominant factor that can't be ignored tho.

Re:Crazy

[c6gunner]

Excluded middle fallacy.

I don't think you know what that fallacy actually means. Nothing I wrote is even close to an excluded middle fallacy. The particular bit you quoted might be considered a sweeping generalization, if it weren't so blatantly evident that I was mocking your kindergarten-level understanding of economics.

The rest of your mindless tripe is no better.

Hurr, durr, ad-hominem fallacy!

Re:Crazy

[Lord Lemur]

The point is that full service used to be so affordable that most of society were okay with paying for it. Now the alternative is so much less expensive that only people who are well off or find it very valuable to have "what they grew up with" will pay for it.

Re:Crazy

[Lord Lemur]

And ofcourse OPEC.

Re:Crazy

[roman_mir]

Maybe you can tell me this, oh wise one, just how many people are supposed to be on welfare provided by a few companies in the world exactly? Let's say the companies make it possible for people to buy enough food and energy and shelter and clothing and medical help to sustain 70 billion people, not 7, should the companies be forced to provide these 'human wages', however you define them or maybe the companies should be forced to pay everybody welfare (the way it is done now)?

Ok, so let's have a 1 working person to 10 parasites ratio, how about 1 to 100, 1 to 1000? The parasites that are given free stuff never fail to procreate, so the ratio will never decrease, it will always go up. So in your generous estimation, do you think that at some point if one person runs a bunch of factories that produce everything that everybody needs, should he be forced to subsidise everybody?

1 to (ALL-1) ratio? Interesting, what if he decides to stop and blows up all of his factories and all of these people are only alive and eating because he is so productive to feed them all? 99.99999% of them will die from starvation, right? Good plan. Let's turn one guy into the slave of the all. That's basically your idea, if not that extreme in the beginning.

Re:Crazy

[countach74]

My claim was not that during the Great Depression, blacks had low unemployment, but that before the Great Depression (which hadn't really set in by 1930), they had low unemployment. Also, I never claimed that they made the same wages as whites; in fact, my claim assumes the opposite.

Re:Crazy

[JesseMcDonald]

The worker is not consenting to work, he is figuratively forced at gunpoint.

Emphasis very much on the "figuratively"—and it's not the employer holding the gun. If the worker does not consent then he is merely left in his original state, and is no worse off than he would be in the absence of the employer. Regardless of any external pressures, whether from nature or the government or other sources, the employer-employee relationship itself is completely consensual. A free market is one where people's natural rights are respected, not one where everyone is guaranteed an equal bargaining position. The fact that the job means more to the worker than it does to the employer does not prevent this from being a free market.

Re:Crazy

[roman_mir]

No, this is a lie.

- just because you are economically illiterate doesn't make something "a lie".

That service can absolutely be provided

- if it could and it were economically advantageous for companies to provide it, they would have done it. Nobody had to force the gas stations in the past to provide the service, it was in their best interest to do it because it attracted more customers and there was a competitive pressure to do it.

no-one is prepared to pay what it costs

- precisely why the service can not be "absolutely provided" and what makes you not only economically illiterate but also so confused as to make 2 separate completely contradicting statements in the span of 2 paragraphs.

in no small part because their incomes have been suppressed for thirty-plus years to facilitate ever-greater corporate profits

- that's the propaganda line, sure. The reality is of-course completely different. The wages of the workers have been destroyed by inflation, not by 'corporate profits'. The inflation is created by the Federal reserve bank of America buying up bad USA debt from the Treasury (and the rest of the market) for decades following Nixon's default on the US dollar in 1971.

The corporate profits are driven up by the inflation as well, unless those corporations are selling worldwide and not only within USA itself. It is quite frustrating to be surrounded so tightly by so many people with so little knowledge and so much desire to talk.

Re:Crazy

[sjames]

And those corporations are also welfare recipients. As for sources, take your pick. Forbes is probably good.

Re:Crazy

[Reziac]

More interesting would be minimum wage vs cost of living. Every time I've priced anything from Australia, I've been shocked at how much more expensive everything is (typically 2-3x the same item in the U.S.)

Labor isn't worth an arbitrary value. It is worth some fraction less than the value it brings the employer (no one is going to hire workers at a loss; the whole reason you hire workers is to produce sufficient value to generate profit). It's amazing how the same people who don't grok this are all over the Big Media industry for pricing their goods above their demonstrable value, leading to the "Pirate Bay Economy".

Re:Crazy

[JesseMcDonald]

That doesn't make any sense, businesses don't hire people on a whim, they hire people because they have roles that need doing, minimum wage doesn't change that.

Businesses hire people when they have a job that needs doing, provided that it's worth the cost. Not every potential job is worth its cost, and minimum wage artificially raises that cost, with the obvious result that some jobs simply go undone.

There is also the matter of competition which is not subject to the minimum wage—not just under-the-table employment and offshoring, but also automation. With the increased minimum wage, businesses may find that it's now cheaper to employ a machine, where before they would have given the job to a human. Or perhaps they simply increase their existing employees' workloads rather than hiring someone else to handle the "unskilled" jobs.

Even if every business did act like it was insensitive to wages, as you seem to think, that would just mean that the marginal ones are no longer profitable and thus go out of business, further reducing both the supply of goods and the demand for labor.

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

I don't think you know what that fallacy actually means. Nothing I wrote is even close to an excluded middle fallacy.

Really ? You don't think there's any possibilities between no minimum wage and a $50k/hr minimum wage ?

Call it a slippery slope fallacy if it makes you feel any better, it doesn't make your argument any less wrong.

Hurr, durr, ad-hominem fallacy!

You clearly believe the absurd rhetoric that people choose to be unemployed "because welfare!", then you launch off onto another straw man fallacy.

Like I said, mindless tripe. Unthinking regurgitation of conservative articles of faith.

Re:Crazy

[MrL0G1C]

Yes, some badly run businesses may go out of business, but that is a regular occurrence anyway. A substantial increase in the minimum wage means poor employees have more money to spend in their local economies, which of course can lead to more jobs.

I personally think that there is an obvious overall benefit to the economy and crime is also likely to fall as some people no longer feel the need to commit crime to make ends meet. Having a high minimum wage is worth it because it takes people out of poverty and benefits the taxman with more taxes and means that other tax payers can pay less because they don't need to support poor people who are so badly paid that they are still claiming benefits whilst they work.

Why should tax-payers subsidise corporations like Walmart who pay low wages?

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

just because you are economically illiterate doesn't make something "a lie".

You argue the service "can no longer be provided".

That is a lie. It *can* be provided. It's just that customers clearly don't value it enough to make providing it worth the cost.

if it could and it were economically advantageous for companies to provide it, they would have done it.

Yes. I believe that was my point. It's not sufficiently "economically advantageous" to cover its cost.

Nobody had to force the gas stations in the past to provide the service, it was in their best interest to do it because it attracted more customers and there was a competitive pressure to do it.

I'm not quite sure what your point is with this straw man. No-one said anything about anyone being forced to provide full service in the past.

that's the propaganda line, sure. The reality is of-course completely different. The wages of the workers have been destroyed by inflation, not by 'corporate profits'.

Ratio of labour to capital share of GDP says otherwise. Nearly all the benefits of productivity increases over the last few decades have been siphoned to the top 10%, and especially the top 1%. Workers have been getting shafted as their bargaining power has been progressively destroyed by removal of their legal protections and the sadistic philosophy of NAIRU (to say nothing of the ever-increasing "rights" of corporate entities). Meanwhile, the taxes that are supposed to discourage the inevitable greed, selfishness and hoarding of the wealthy and recover some of their waste into productive endeavour, have been completely gutted.

That's before even talking about the mind-boggling explosion in private debt that has been taken up by households in an effort to maintain increasing living standards in the face of stagnant or declining incomes. Encouraged by banks and the wealthy, of course, because people madly paddling the canoe rarely have time to rock it.

It is a pattern that has repeated across the entire Anglo world for decades, it is the aftermath of Thatcherism, Reaganism, and whoever-your-local-neoliberal-psychopath-copying-them-was-ism. Every country has had one, and the outcomes have been the same in all of them - reduced unionism, reduced workers rights, increasing unemployment (because of the previous two events), dramatically decreasing taxes (primarily for the wealth), privatisation of public assets, decaying public infrastructure, decreasing public services, decreasing welfare, decreasing social mobility, increasing income inequality, etc, etc.

What's astounding (well, not really) is that after 30 years of this disaster, most politicians and a sizeable chunk of economists argue the problem is we're not doing it enough !

The world is heading towards a new fuedalism, where the serfs are kept in their place not by threat of arms, but by barely adequate incomes and oppressive debt. It's a Libertarian wet dream - all the slave labour they want to make the rich richer, while maintaining a facade of voluntary participation from the victims since no (overt) physical coercion is involved.

The inflation is created by the Federal reserve bank of America buying up bad USA debt from the Treasury (and the rest of the market) for decades following Nixon's default on the US dollar in 1971.

The core problem in the money supply isn't inflation, it's usury.

Re:Crazy

[c6gunner]

Really ? You don't think there's any possibilities between no minimum wage and a $50k/hr minimum wage ?

I never gave my opinion on the matter. Your ignorant political stereotypes led you to make assumptions about what things I never even commented on. This is common amongst political ideologues and other loudmouths and pundits.

Like I said, mindless tripe. Unthinking regurgitation of conservative articles of faith.

If it were mindless tripe you'd swallow it without a second thought. The fact is you've completely failed to grasp the points which were being made. Calling it "mindless tripe" because you don't understand it is ... pretty childish. Reminds of the hick I met down in the bible belt who called evolution "mindless tripe". You two would get along great.

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

I never gave my opinion on the matter.

Yes, you did. Your opinion was:

"So lets pass a law that says every person should be paid $50,000 per hour. Economic activity ought to be AMAZING then!"

Which, while obvious hyperbole, is meant to somehow refute the original point by taking it to an extreme never suggested or implied.

Your ignorant political stereotypes led you to make assumptions about what things I never even commented on.

I didn't make an assumption about anything. Your following comment called people who couldn't find work "parasites".

Re:Crazy

[countach74]

Cycling money through the economy faster does not stimulate economic growth.

Re:Crazy

[drsmithy]

Not necessarily (think about it!), but in any event, it is far from clear that minimum wage actually gives more people more money.

Counter examples (actual, real-life, counter-examples supported by data) would be interesting to read.

You can, of course, add the money received by those people who benefit from the minimum wage laws to the total money available to spend. However, businesses pass increased costs on to consumers, or go out of business.

Or they could, shock, horror, take less in profit.

In effect, people's net purchasing power goes down. Instead of helping the people you want to help, you end up hurting them.

Purchasing power isn't going down because labour is getting more expensive, it's going down because labour is steadily getting paid less and less because capital is taking more and more.

The only place the continual downward pressure on wages ends is a tiny proportion of wealthy people who own everything and a huge proportion of people of subsistence incomes. When hardly anyone has any disposable income, where do you think economic activity is going to happen ?

Thus, merely "increasing" economic activity is not a valid goal: to be beneficial to society the economic activity has to be healthy activity, not the production of shoddy products. This can only be the case if we don't cause a net reduction in people's buying power (which is what minimum wage laws tend to do).

Again, evidence to support this claim would be useful.

In reality, countries with higher incomes at the lower-end, rather than the rock-bottom incomes you are advocating, are the countries that have the higher quality goods you are insisting they will not.

No this is done by welfare laws (of which there are a plethora).

No, welfare is there as a safety net for people who are unable to work. Since neoliberalism took over the western world and maintaining a certain level of unemployment became a policy goal (to reduce worker bargaining power and suppress their wages), it has become a necessity for millions of people ready, able and willing to work but who cannot find anyone to work for.

What you are talking about is a universal basic income, which would need to be set at a similar level to minimum wage to meet that objective.

Re:Crazy

[Tom]

unions pushed for this legislature,

Anyone can push for anything in our society. If you hate Free Speech as well, just come out and say it. Also, unions are not deep sea monsters, they are groups of people, so claiming that people didn't, but unions did is just more handwaving.

The democracy is broken specifically because it allows large organisations to destroy individual rights of people that are not organised that way,

I'm not a big fan of our current political system. But you're a lunatic. Individual people have the right to form these organisations and have them push for legislation. It's how the system works. It's actually a pretty great part of the system, because through unions and other organisations, groups of individually weak people can accumulate enough voice to actually be heard.

Unions destroyed competition in the job market.

Yes, that's their job. It's because total competition is good for the bottom line, and bad for absolutely everything else, including society, freedom, health. Read a history book about when and why unions formed. You want to go back to the times before that, when people worked 16 hour shifts and serious health issues or death were regular results of your work conditions?

as many other horrific things that were pushed through during the FDR

This is the first time ever I've heard anyone call the New Deal "horrific". You do realize that even the hardcore Keynesians who argued strongly against it at first later on agreed that it was a success, yes?

which is what destroys the economy when the majority (employees) are pitted against a minority (employers).

You could've said that earlier, it would've saved me a lot of time if you had admitted that you are completely delusional and honestly believe that in the employee/employer relationship, the employers are the weaker party. Now I understand why you're afraid of majorities dominating minorities - you are a member of a very, very tiny minority with that POV that the real world refutes every minute of every day.

- I am not part of the majority on anything, when you find yourself to be 'part of the majority' that is the time to reform yourself. Majority rule is 2 wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner.

And your advise to the wolves one sentence before that is to become sheep. Priceless. :-)

- the facts are in, I am an employer

anecdotal evidence isn't, and a single data point is meaningless in any and all statistics.

including the fakes with the PhD behind their names, the likes of Krugman, who only proves that illiterate fools can too get Nobel prizes

Sorry, can't answer, I'm laughing too hard.

Re:Crazy

[jellomizer]

For some placed like small companies. Profit margins are not as big as you think

Re:Crazy

[owski]

Because gas taxes in NY are more than 3 times higher than in NJ. http://taxfoundation.org/artic...

Re:Crazy

[jwhitener]

So if you want to compare the trend of job growth increasing or decreasing, it looks like raising the minimum wage does hurt significantly.

There is no evidence indicating causation from that correlation though. (or have you found some?)

Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because the additional money goes back into the local economy and not into an offshore account.

Re:Duh

[BonThomme]

but who will speak for the unemployed Swiss Bankers?

Re: Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, the US government offers huge subsidies to prevent trouble for bankers.... Worldwide.

Short-Lived?

[craigminah]

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.

Re:Short-Lived?

[Imrik]

People don't need more motivation to get jobs, they need available jobs.

Re:Short-Lived?

[gnasher719]

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.

That may be true, but there is a difference between jobs and job growth. Job growth in one year means there are more jobs. Forever.

Re:Short-Lived?

[Mr D from 63]

Maybe long lived, but not because of Min Wage;

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

Did the study account for the fact that those states already were adding jobs faster than the other states? It appears not. Drawing conclusions without historical context is a common stupidity these days.

Re:Short-Lived?

[Bing Tsher E]

It's not stupidity to juggle with statistics until they can plausibly be distorted to meet your need.

Re:Short-Lived?

[Ardyvee]

If you read the rest of the summary, they do make the note that while they can't say that that growth is the result of increasing the minimum wage, it doesn't negatively affect it either.

Re:Short-Lived?

[physicsphairy]

One would kind of hope that the states are doing their own economic analyses. The ones that found a minimum wage hike would be most productive and sustainable for their economies did so; the ones that didn't, didn't. Given how much cost of living and average income vary across the nation, it's hardly surprising that some places would want a different minimum wage than others.

Re:Short-Lived?

[beelsebob]

No, it's simple - by raising the minimum wage, they also raised the spending power of the people in the state, increasing the profitability of the local companies, and driving growth. Most of the companies that will have had to raise their wages significantly are the very large out of state companies like McDonalds, who will remain there whatever. Thus, no jobs really are lost due to the fast food chains moving out, but jobs are created by the increased spending power of the people who work at McDonalds.

Long story short, the increased minimum wage took money from McDonalds' off shore tax avoidance fund, and put it into the state.

Re:Short-Lived?

[Bengie]

When it pays more to be unemployed, just having jobs isn't enough, you need jobs that pay a livable wage.

Re:Short-Lived?

[craigminah]

...and that money taken from McDonalds will result in higher prices at McDonald's making everyone's earnings seem less driving wage increases, ad infinitum,.

Re:Short-Lived?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Job growth in one year means there are more jobs. Forever.

What an intriguing theory you have.

Note that if self-driving trucks were to become available, truck driver jobs would all disappear...forever. In other words, new technology sometimes makes jobs disappear.

And job growth last year doesn't guarantee the existence of jobs next year. Otherwise, the Great Depression would never have happened.

Re:Short-Lived?

[Mr D from 63]

The ones that found a minimum wage hike would be most productive and sustainable for their economies did so; the ones that didn't, didn't..

Maybe some used this method, but the decisions were was highly political in most cases. Personally, I don't think it hurts or helps as much as those who sit solidly on either side of the debate believe, and fundamentally there are much larger concerns on driving a stronger economy.

Re:Short-Lived?

[beelsebob]

Which is actually a good thing for the state in question. People's incomes are divided up proportionally typically between shelter, living costs, and savings. That is, a low income family will generally spend 50% of their income of shelter, and 50% on living. A middle income will typically spend 33% of their income on shelter, 33% on living, and 33% will be saved etc. This is independent of the actual absolute wage they get, as you rightly say.

The key though is that that 33% saved by the middle income family will be a larger absolute amount, which will give them more opportunity to move to lower average income areas in later life, and have a higher quality of life.

It is in a state's interest to have high inflation, as long as it's not extreme. Inflation is what makes that state's citizens better off than the neighbouring one.

Re:Short-Lived?

[Mr D from 63]

But they'll never know what the results would look like had they not implemented minimum wage hikes, so its all a game of 'twist the data'. And frankly, its quite early to be claiming anything wrt results. There are much larger drivers of the economy than min wage. Frankly, I doubt we'd see any different results had those states not made changes, and there is probably a much stronger argument for that position at this time.

Re:Short-Lived?

[wvmarle]

Money is just one motivation for people to get a job.

There are other motivations as well: to have a life, for starters. To feel (somewhat) useful. To get out of the house, meet other people.

You may have heard of the concept of volunteering, people spending many hours every week doing unpaid work. In those cases, money is obviously not a motivation.

Re:Short-Lived?

[Hardhead_7]

Did the study account for the fact that those states already were adding jobs faster than the other states?

Yes. RTFA.

Re:Short-Lived?

[RabidReindeer]

But they'll never know what the results would look like had they not implemented minimum wage hikes, so its all a game of 'twist the data'. And frankly, its quite early to be claiming anything wrt results. There are much larger drivers of the economy than min wage. Frankly, I doubt we'd see any different results had those states not made changes, and there is probably a much stronger argument for that position at this time.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference. Obviously the economies of these states didn't tank overnight like so many predicted.

Re:Short-Lived?

[NicBenjamin]

In at least one of those 13 minimum wage is legally required to go up every year. Ohio pegged it's minimum wage to inflation back in the Strickland administration.

Which means that if job growth was negatively affected by an increasing minimum wage Ohio would be worse off then Michigan, and this would be part of a multi-year trend. The opposite is true.

Re:Short-Lived?

[Mr D from 63]

Michigan's woes are in a large part due to the auto industry failure. In some respects, if you want to equate minimum wage law with union wage requirements, one could argue that Michigan is a prime example of the negative effects of higher wage requirements, as the industry clearly decided to leave that state behind.

I'm not really on one side or another of this debate, although I do believe some jobs just aren't that valuable. I just hate when folks start making claims where the numbers really aren't mature enough to support it.

Re:Short-Lived?

[Idarubicin]

...and that money taken from McDonalds will result in higher prices at McDonald's making everyone's earnings seem less driving wage increases, ad infinitum,.

Wages - and especially that subset of wages which are paid at the legal minimum - represent only a fraction of the total costs of operating a McDonald's restaurant. All wages together are about 25% of the total costs, and that includes a non-trivial number above-minimum management and support staff. So even if we make the unreasonable worst-case assumptions that a) all employees do earn minimum wage, and b) that increased wages don't result in any improvement in average employee productivity (because employees are physically healthier and because of reduced turnover) then a 1% increase in minimum wage only makes for a 0.25% increase in cost-of-Big-Mac.

And a 0.25% increase in cost-of-Big-Mac doesn't actually equate to a 0.25% increase in actual cost-of-living. The effect will be smaller or negligible for businesses where staff costs represent a smaller share of total costs, and where dealing with businesses in which employees are already better paid than minimum wage.

And finally, there are a number of costs associated with minimum-wage workers that you're already paying out of your own pocket, without realizing it. Wal-Mart and McDonald's know perfectly well that minimum wage isn't a living wage. Food stamps, state-subsidized health insurance programs, school lunch programs--that's money you're paying because Wal-Mart isn't. Forcing McDonald's to pay its employees a living wage (or closer to one, at least) means that your Big Mac's price is (less) subsidized by the government.

Re:Short-Lived?

[sumdumass]

Yes and no.

The problem is a complex one but raising minimum wage is a lot like raising taxes. In periods of good economic health, its impacts are hidden and negligable. In periods of poor economic health, they are noticable and strongly impactful. Over a period of time, the prices of products and services equalize the impacts of them. Who gets hammered the hardest is the small business with a handful of employees because they both do not have the market force to alter pricing to adjust and have the least capitol to float on while adjusting.we do know that a combination of raising taxes and interest rates tipped the economy over and started the great depresion.

Now where it is not like a tax is in that many businesses including small businesses already pay above minimum wage to most of their employees. Where minimum wage is most prevailent seems to be areas with a lot of unemployed and fast food joints. Low unemployment sort of forces employers to pay more in order to stop employees from switching jobs to get raises or the benefits they want.

So raising the minimum wage will hurt strugling economies more so than thriving economies. As an invester, if anything lowers my rate of return, i look for something else to put my money in. So until prices for goods and services equalize with the increased costs, you may find areas people refuse to invest in seriously slowing any recovery efforts.

But iit is not just taxes or minimum wage that can cause this damage. Increased energy costs and regulation can have the same impacts.

Re:Short-Lived?

[NicBenjamin]

Michigan is the one state I know more about then Ohio. I lived there most of my life;. And I can guarantee you anybody who told you Unions were the problem got his info from a manager at a Big Three automotive company. Michigan's problem for literally decades has been that the conservative movement (in particular the business community) and the liberals (particularly blacks and unions) can't/won't make peace. Which means every explanation everyone ever gives on the internet for Michigan's problems is propaganda. It's half-right, but the half that's wrong is so badly wrong that it doesn't matter.

For example, this little chestnut was invented to cover the ass of management at the Big Three. The problems at the Big Three didn't start due to high wages, they started due to management's inability to design a car that didn't suck ass. Seriously. In the late 70s and early 80s Americans decided they wanted reliable cars with good gas mileage, not huge pieces of shit you had to fix yourself every six months. Between 1975 and 1985 there literally wasn't an American car that anyone with an IQ above room temperature would buy, and that isn't the fault of the poor schmucks who bolted the damn things together. The high cost of labor deterred the Japanese from opening plants in Michigan, but nobody would give a shit about that if Ford had come out with the Taurus in 1975.

Detroit's problems are another example. If you look at the map Detroit is basically designed to have problems because it's all poor black people. Their tax rates have to be three times as high as their neighbors, because their per capita income is a third of their neighbors. Their costs can't be lower then said neighbors, because if the poor blacks of Detroit figure out some magical new method to cut police costs in half the people of Grosse Pointe will simply copy it and cut their tax rates. The way municipal income tax law is written Detroit can get a significant chunk of suburban worker salaries, as long as those folks work downtown, but in the long-term a municipality with Detroit's current borders is simply not viable.

Rather then respond to this fairly obvious fact by merging Detroit, and it's surrounding municipalities (including Oakland and Macomb Counties), into one big-ass city which would have lower crime rates, better education rates, etc. then most US Cities; they put Detroit through bankruptcy. This allowed them to avoid a terribly divisive racial confrontation of black vs. white -- everyone can continue to blame eachother without changing their own behavior -- but int he long term it's a band-aid. There isn't enough of a tax base in the City to run the City, and there's no way to attract a tax base without massively increasing spending (ie: building a subway).

Re:Short-Lived?

[mjwalshe]

Which is why the UK's conservative chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne wants to increase the minimum wage so as to cut the in work benefits bill

Re:Short-Lived?

[sjames]

By that argument I can claim that had they not raised minimum wage, they would have plunged into a new dark ages populated exclusively by roving bandits. But hey, we'll never know so I am safe from ever being disproven. How nice for me!

Re:Short-Lived?

[bigpat]

If you read the rest of the summary, they do make the note that while they can't say that that growth is the result of increasing the minimum wage, it doesn't negatively affect it either.

Correlation is not causation. There are real numbers to look at here, but just saying that the minimum wage was increased and the economy is still growing in these states is a very coarse and misleading way of looking at it. The minimum wage hike affected very few people in most states, so I wouldn't expect it to impact the overall numbers... Raise it to $15 or $20 and then I think it would have more noticeable effects. Or find a number that 20% of the workforce is under and raise it to that wage then it would be a real experiment. Giving a few thousand people $20 or $40 or even $80 more per week might allow those people to afford more things, but it probably won't show up as even a blip in the aggregate economic numbers. I support a higher minimum wage, not because I think it will help very many people or address issues of inequity in society, but because it will help some people.

Re:Short-Lived?

[sumdumass]

No, its not opinion. Its accepted observations of economic reality.

You are not going to find any meaninfull study concerning it because the economy is more complex than a single point of input.

Re:Short-Lived?

[im_thatoneguy]

I live in Washington and we've always had a high minimum wage. In fact it's currently tied to cost of living/inflation. Our job growth has been excellent prior to our latest min wage increase and I don't see any reason why our next wage increases won't continue to be associated with a long term quality job market.

There is a lot of doom and gloom towards Seattle, WA's new $15 min wage proposal. But if Washington has proven anything over the last few decades it's that when you ignore the doomsayers about economic progress your state still prospers and the sky doesn't fall. Maybe Washington has lost out on some jobs, but you know what if Washington is an example of what happens when you raise the minimum wage then I'm more than happy with the result. Alabama can keep their "increasing change in growth", the fact still remains that while Washington's latest growth might be slowing, it's still higher.

I don't know about the other 12 states, but you can draw conclusions about Washington over the long term because our Min wage has been higher for the long term. And over the long term we've prospered.

Re:Short-Lived?

[outlander]

> You may have heard of the concept of volunteering, people spending many hours every week doing unpaid work. In those cases, money is obviously not a motivation because they are possessed of sufficient income provided by their own work, a pension fund, investment account, or other means of income to cover their basic needs .

FTFY...

Re:Short-Lived?

[wvmarle]

Of course - but I hope you realise that the source of the income is rather irrelevant - it even works like that when the income they receive is something like an unemployment benefit that's almost as much as what they make when working, or under a guaranteed "basic income" system where the state provides an basic income to everyone.

Re:Short-Lived?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, its not opinion. Its accepted observations of economic reality.

You are not going to find any meaninfull study concerning it because the economy is more complex than a single point of input.

It takes a special kind of hubris to describe your own view as "accepted observations of economic reality", when it not only has no factual documented support but also is not how some fairly knowledgeable economic institutions and economists, like IMF and OECD see it ("the IMF and the OECD both now reckon that minimum wages do little harm and may do some good", Source: The Economist.) and some former formidable opponents of minimum wage have turned around and changed their mind on the topic lately (same article), including the magazine The Economist itself.

You are of course free to disagree with all of these, and if you had data to support it I would actually be interested, but that doesn't make your opinion a fact.

And btw, of course you can do studies on individual factors in a complex system, this is done all the time, in fact most of modern science and economic studies are like this. You might also arrive at complex conclusions, but this is not the same as having no studies and no documented effects.

Re:Short-Lived?

[sumdumass]

I'm parroting the gao reports.

But judging from your reply, i'm guessing yoh difn't bother reading my post or are trolling. Nowhere did i say raising minimum wage was always bad and in fact, i specifically said there were times it was not harmful.

And no, you cannot do a studdy on a single factor in the economy and expect it to be always accurate. The economy is not just a complex system, it is also irrational and changes on nothing more than emotion at times. My point still stands.

Economists

[Intrepid imaginaut]

It's a bit baffling how "some economists" weren't fully cognisant of what would happen when the minimum wage was raised. I mean it's not as though it's the first time it has happened, the effects should be well known by now. Kind of reminds me of the old joke:

A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathemetician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."

Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says "What do you want it to equal?"

Re: Economists

[K. S. Kyosuke]

A Cardassian detainee, I suppose?

Re:Economists

[roman_mir]

It is true that the entire field of "mainstream economics" is exactly what you joke it is. If you repeat lies and propaganda long enough, people will no longer understand the truth, many will lose the ability to differentiate the reality from fiction. Government needs these "economists" to turn the population into economic illiterates. The waters are muddied enough that even logic is no longer understood or followed. Simple logic: rising prices reduce demand, wages are also prices, price controls do not provide feel good results, if you are in debt spending more does not get you out of it, rising prices are not a result of growing economy, in a growing competitive economy prices fall not rise over time, inflation is expansion of the money supply, inflation causes prices to rise or prevents them from falling, government induced spending is fake economy, it is not self sustaining and it is done at the expense of a real economy because that is where the capital is taken from, etc.

In that world 2+2 is whatever government says it is and logic is against the policy and will be ridiculed and laughed at. In that world people will be confused enough to stop thinking rationally. In that world the real economy will be destroyed without doubt.

Re:Economists

[mdfst13]

It's a bit baffling how "some economists" weren't fully cognisant of what would happen when the minimum wage was raised. I mean it's not as though it's the first time it has happened, the effects should be well known by now.

The problem is that it's not clear what happens when the minimum wage increases. It's also not clear whether something different happens when a city or state does it versus a national change.

Case in point: thirteen states increase the minimum wage and employment increases faster (on average) in those states than in those that do not increase the minimum wage. The presumption in the post is that the causality is that increasing the minimum wage causes employment increases. What if the causality goes the other way? Increasing employment could make states more willing to raise the minimum wage. Correlation does not indicate causality, so economists can't differentiate between the two explanations.

There's actually been quite a bit of study of the effects of raising the minimum wage. The problem is that it's impossible to produce a real double blind study. Without that, there will always be reasonable doubt. In one study, they won't be able to eliminate the possibility that employment would have gone up faster without the change. In another study, they won't be able to tell if people are moving from the comparison area to the change area for the higher wage jobs. In another study, perhaps employment increases occur because kids drop out of school to take jobs.

Economics isn't anywhere near as mature a science as physics or chemistry. It doesn't lend itself to repeatable experiments. Without objective data, subjective opinions take a far greater role.

Re:Economists

[mrsquid0]

The real question is who got the job? I have worked at places where the economist's answer would have been considered correct.

Re:Economists

[Rockoon]

It's a bit baffling how "some economists" weren't fully cognisant of what would happen when the minimum wage was raised.

The difference between micro-economists and macro-economists is that micro-economists are wrong about specific things, and macro-economists are wrong about things in general...

You know who knows their shit? People that make their living making predictions about markets and economies. I do not mean people that get paid to talk about it - I mean people that put their money on the line and make money when and because they are right. Warren Buffet, Peter Schiff, etc..

..and I do not mean listen to what these people say (which like politicians can be the opposite of what they do.) I mean actually pay attention to what they do (like you should be doing with politicians but probably aren't.) Talk is cheap.

What is Buffet doing? Well the top four stocks for him right now are Wells Fargo, Coca-Cola, American Express, and IBM. His company has about $68 billion in holdings in these 4 companies alone.

Re:Economists

[NicBenjamin]

I suspect in a true double-blind experiment you'd find that minimum wage's biggest effect was in inflation. Businesses are much more likely to respond to a government-mandated increase of their costs by 2%, with a 5% price hike then by firing people. Mass firings look terrible on TV, while reducing both revenue and profit. OTOH raising prices by more then your costs grow increases both revenue and profit, and allows you to shove the blame onto somebody else. In the long term it could affect job growth (if people cost more, you hire less of them), but that should be somewhat mitigated by increased demand for jobs caused by minimum wage workers spending more money. This comparison seems to indicate that reduced job sup[ply is mitigated by increased job demand. The fact that it's so simple is partly encouraging (clearly the researchers didn't engage in any trickery to massage the numbers), but partly discouraging (there could be something very basic they should have factored in).

This would actually be really hard to prove or disprove by experiment even if it was ethical to do this kind of thing to people. The problem is that if you just take 50 people and drop them on one deserted tropical island, and put another 50 people on another, you have completely different groups of people. Somebody probably has great Island Survival Skills, which will mean his island will end up doing a whole lot better then the other island, regardless of minimum wage. If you try increasing it, the problem becomes how did you increase it? If you did it by decree of the guy you gave a gun and a radio the islanders will probably figure out that they're part of an experiment on the minimum wage, and since they probably don;t like you very much they'll probably try to sabotage the experiment. It's always unfortunate when PoliSci destroys the experiments of another discipline.

So to do this, you'd not only need to gut ethics standards completely; you'd also need the physical ability to copy people. That way you'd be 100% sure that Island A was doing better because island A had different laws. You'd also need a bunch of starting people socialized to obey a computer terminal without question, because that's the only way you'd be able to implement a minimum wage without that nasty political science invading your precious economics experiment. Even then you'd need to repeat the experiment a couple times to ensure the result wasn't simple an artifact of the 50 people you;d selected for the experiment.

Re:Economists

[mattwarden]

You seem to be implying that the CBO is wrong when it says that raising to $10.10 will result in a net loss of 500k jobs. Do you think they are not using models based on what has happened before?

Raising the min wage or not raising the min wage is not some magical binary action. It matters what you raise it to. Raising it by 5 cents probably will affect nobody, because only 3% nationally actually get paid the min wage (which makes you wonder why we need one). Raising it by 40% will definitely cause many wages to increase measurably, which shifts the cost structure of many companies, and will absolutely make some number of jobs nonviable. Some will simply go away, because the company's previous optimal quantity sold will go down. Others will be replaced by automation. Others will be replaced by outsourcing.

People who refuse these basics are letting their ideology get in the way of their ability to think through rationally.

Re:Economists

[sjames]

One thing is perfectly clear though. Since employment didn't go down, those who were earning minimum wage have more money now than they did before.

Re:Economists

[ahaweb]

inflation is expansion of the money supply

Let's take this one example. In Macroeconomics 101, there is the formula: MV = PY

M = money supply, V = velocity of money, P = price level, Y = real GDP

So an increase in P (inflation) could be many things, not just an expansion of M (money supply). Even your knowledge of the model is wrong. How much more so your understanding that reality demands more complex models as the reality you're investigating is more complex.

Re:Economists

[david_thornley]

Businesses can't arbitrarily raise prices to make more money. After all, if they could make more money by raising prices, they'd already have done it (with some minor exceptions, usually in live entertainment). They may have to compensate for higher costs of making and selling things (2% in this example), but raising prices less than 2% would hit the new optimum.

Re:Economists

[Reziac]

They may have more money, but do they have more spending power? Probably not, since in my observation, prices as driven by business costs, being cumulative of all costs, tend to increase faster than wages. And either a business raises prices to cover expenses, or they go out of business (which of course puts some people out of work).

Re:Economists

[sjames]

That makes no sense. Minimum wage labor is only a portion of the actual cost of anything. That is the only part that went up due to minimum wage increases. Any other rise in price would have happened anyway. So unless businesses illegally collude to raise prices in a big FU to the state, it won't absorb all of the increase in income.

Re:Economists

[Reziac]

"The presumption in the post is that the causality is that increasing the minimum wage causes employment increases. What if the causality goes the other way?"

I had the exact same question. I'd guess those states where the causality is as per TFA may be driven by regional costs, like basic living in the SF Bay and Puget Sound areas -- where if you're going to have entry-level or service workers at all, they have to make an increased minimum wage or they simply can't afford to live there, not even 3 families to a hut. And those regions are such a majority of the state's population as to completely skew the results. Maybe things get better in S.F. and meanwhile the whole Central Valley starves... observationally, this seems to be the case; small businesses are folding all through the minor population areas of California.

But otherwise, I'd expect prosperity and profit opportunity comes first, followed by competitive and rising wages (for a sterling example, see the North Dakota oil patch).

Re:Economists

[NicBenjamin]

Businesses can't arbitrarily raise prices to make more money. After all, if they could make more money by raising prices, they'd already have done it (with some minor exceptions, usually in live entertainment). They may have to compensate for higher costs of making and selling things (2% in this example), but raising prices less than 2% would hit the new optimum.

In elegant economic theory that is the case. And in the long-term it's true. however in the mess that is reality it tends not to be true in the short term.

In actual practice when businesses know that their customers know everyone has to change prices, they tend to high-ball on the new prices. If enough of them jack up prices 5% instead of 2%, then 105% of last month's price becomes the new optimum price. If most businesses low-ball their increase and only go to 101%, the folks who went straight to 105% will know that in a month or two and can cut back.

The most prominent example of this happening was when the Euro was introduced. Everybody rounded up their prices. Since everybody had done it, consumers could not reward companies that did not do it with increased business, which led to an immediate (and measurable) uptick in inflation. I suspect the same would happen with a quick, and radical, rise in the minimum wage.

This will only buy a little time

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re: This will only buy a little time

[GameboyRMH]

That probably would work, if not for automation now replacing far more jobs than it creates. To paraphrase a guy I don't like to quote, these jobs aren't coming back.

Besides, at this point I think we can do better than hacking more fixes onto this tarted-up barter system. Why not be more ambitious?

Re:This will only buy a little time

[GameboyRMH]

Who said I was advocating totalitarian communism or democratic socialism (which is just as doomed because it still runs on a contemporary capitalist economy) or perfect equality (which is impossible)?

Giving about as much of the planet's resources as possible (including the work of its population) to a few hundred people is completely unsustainable however.

People could still work if they want to for some extra money. It just wouldn't be mandatory for living beyond mere survival. And if there isn't much demand for human labor, what's the problem?

Re:This will only buy a little time

[Bengie]

If everyone's equal, then nobody has incentives to do anything

Research shows that paying people too much is worse than paying too little. You get the best performance out of people when they get paid just enough to be content with their life. Where they can have a decent roof of their head, be healthy, afford the bare necessities and a bit extra to have fun with the family a few times a week. That's it. They need to be secure and they need to be happy, but no more.

On average, if someone is getting paid enough to own a flashy car, their productivity will go down.

This only applies to job with any amount of creativity. Jobs that are repetitive manual labor show an almost linear increase in productivity with pay, so increased pay works just fine. But we're in the process of automating manual labor and will at some point in the future have replaced all manual labor with automation.

Re:This will only buy a little time

[sjames]

Russia jettisoned their mockery of Marx decades ago. How are they doing now?

Re:This will only buy a little time

[sjames]

That suggests we should cut CEOs way back and increase minimum wage even more.

Re:This will only buy a little time

[JonnyCalcutta]

Fine with me. Make it so.

Re:This will only buy a little time

[scamper_22]

The minimum income is one thing.

I'm much more in favor of work sharing.
Here's my reasoning.

We're at an odd point in society where despite having massive efficiencies as you rightly point out via automation, people are still working extremely hard.

It's pretty tough to keep demanding some people continue working so hard and then keep increasing their taxes and hand other people free money. It's one of the reasons asking people to pay higher taxes in America is very hard.

American professionals work very hard. Ask that IT person/accountant/engineer/doctor/lawyer working 60 hour weeks to pay more taxes.

Now suppose you have a 35 hour work week with 6 week vacation... then your professionals are not feeling like they're carrying the whole weight and will come to support more benefits for others and they're getting some of the benefits of socialism rather than just paying and paying for it.

Unfortunately, the mixed-market economy has in some places produced a weird situations were countries are addicted to the high performance of these hardworking people and the tax money they generate. Do you think silicon valley or Wall Street would exist with a mandated 35 hour work week and 8 weeks vacation?

This of course is not the case in all countries.

Now could the minimum income encourage employers to make working conditions better? Possibly.

But you also run the risk of many jobs not being filled. I don't know enough in every sector to know if those jobs could be made nice enough to be attractive. If a minimum wage is good enough to give me nice housing, food, shelter, cellphone, tv... you couldn't pay me enough to go mine Lithium in some remote area.

I think it's much safer to move to job sharing. We still have enough human jobs that we don't want to risk them not being done. Maybe all it takes is 2 weeks per year for me to go mine lithium to get a good years salary. I might choose to do that.

Re:This will only buy a little time

[romons]

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.

I wanna be a rider of the purple wage.

10.10 per hour

[rmdingler]

Although it still sounds a bit low for subsistence living, it's still better than what we have now.

Depending on where you live (state taxes?), that's at best a cool $350-$365 after payroll taxes (259-270 Euros) per week for a family of two to four.

After necessities like food, rent, electricity, phone, transportation, clothing, and so on, it's going to take some wicked budgeting skills to have any disposable income at all. Get it together Washington.

Re:10.10 per hour

[rmdingler]

Believe it or not, there exist poor people who are too proud to take the welfare. Imagine having to work two minimum wage jobs to make ends meet.

I am not supporting a hand out as much as a hand up, but if a person shows up to work everyday and does the job well enough to keep it,

he or she shouldn't have to apply for assistance to enjoy the basics of survival.

Re:10.10 per hour

[Nimey]

Just so. When the minimum wage is so low that one can't support a family on it without government aid, then government aid to the worker is effectively subsidizing the employer's business model; it's socialism for capitalists.

Re:10.10 per hour

[evilviper]

Depending on where you live (state taxes?), that's at best a cool $350-$365 after payroll taxes (259-270 Euros) per week for a family of two to four.

Really? And would that $10.10/hr magically become more or less money with a family of 1, or a family of 10?

And actually, with a family of 4 on $20,000/year, you probably wouldn't be paying ANYTHING in state or federal income taxes in most states, so it would be $404/week take-home.

And more relevant than abstract cash figures:

"If you have a [full-time] job in this country, (thereâ(TM)s a) 97 percent chance that you're not going to be in poverty."

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Re:10.10 per hour

[rmdingler]

Just so. When the minimum wage is so low that one can't support a family on it without government aid, then government aid to the worker is effectively subsidizing the employer's business model; it's socialism for capitalists.

Corporate welfare.

To the five nines, pride will be no factor in that effort to apply for benefits.

Re:10.10 per hour

[Bengie]

I understand where you're going with that, but I don't think minimum wage is meant to support a family. It should be just enough for a single person to fully support themselves, including basic healthcare, eating healthy, and a bit of extra to have fun with friends so they don't get stuck in depression. Essentially enough to be a physically and mentally healthy social individual.

Re:10.10 per hour

[DerekLyons]

After necessities like food, rent, electricity, phone, transportation, clothing, and so on, it's going to take some wicked budgeting skills to have any disposable income at all.

So? It sucks to be poor. It's *always* sucked to be poor. It always *will* suck to be poor. You can't legislate that away.

Lack of living wage jobs is a problem. But so are the excessive expectations, created in part by our material culture and in part by the belief (created from whole cloth) that nobody should ever suffer because life is unfair nor have a life that sucks.

Re:10.10 per hour

[rmdingler]

There are many conditions worse than being poor. Off the top of my head, I would rather be poor than sick all the time or unhappy, and I would extend that claim to cover my children's health and well being.

There are things that you cannot fix with material wealth, and as all things including wealth are relative, there will, as you suggest, always exist a segment that is poor.

The people you extend an extra few dollars an hour will still be poor. I contend they shouldn't need to apply for the welfare if they work full time, as the program(s) that supports them is actually supporting workfare jobs to the benefit of low margin business models.

Re: 10.10 per hour

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not. I'm in north Florida with basically the lowest cost of living in the state. I work minimum wage 40 hrs a week taking home ~$1100 after federal taxes (FL has no state income tax). I pay 535/month for a 1 bed/1 bath, ~80 for utilities (AC on 80 heat on 60) 60 a month for internet (no cable, just the internet. Yah local monopolies!) 35/mo for a virgin phone. Plus food, gas, car insurance. Strictly speaking it's actually more economically feasible for a couple both making minimum wage to survive at current levels than it is for the stereotypical single person (biggest single expense is housing), then again Bortz or Savage would probably tell me that because I have a fridge in my apartment, and AC/heat, plus other "luxury" items like a phone, internet, and a computer I can't actually claim to be poor.

Or you can just write it off because it's merely anecdotal evidence and thus "obviously" not representative of anything other than my inability to manage money. (Really, who needs internet. Or a car to get to work. Or a phone, cause you know, back when my gran pappy was looking for jobs they didn't have phones. He had to hike uphill, 20 miles, in the snow to apply at the hill flipping factory. They hired him, and after his first day he had to hike 20 miles back, uphill, in the snow)

Re:10.10 per hour

[drinkypoo]

I understand where you're going with that, but I don't think minimum wage is meant to support a family.

Supporting a family is a privilege of the wealthy and well-connected? If people aren't meant to have children that they cannot afford to raise, perhaps we should stop shitting on the education system so that doesn't happen. Of course, if our citizenry were to be educated we couldn't produce enough Republican voters to maintain the one-party system through the illusion of balance.

The minimum wage should be sufficient to raise a family. If the objection is that this will lead to overpaying teens and children, that problem can be solved for a lesser wage for them, but down that road lies a bunch of ageism and special cases anyway — do we really want to give people incentive to force children to labor in lieu of adults who need the money to exist due to our system, which criminalizes poverty? Didn't we already decide as a society that child labor is a bad thing? I moved out of the house at 15 because my mother was emotionally unstable and it was impinging on my quality of life. Did I deserve any less pay because of my age? I had every bit as much need of money as someone three years older. I realize you didn't even bring this up, but it is a typical part of the conversation when discussing the ramifications of increasing the minimum wage, especially when discussing whether it should be sufficient to support a family.

In short, yes, the minimum wage should be sufficient to support a family. Basic health care is not something that a person should have to pay for today; it is in all our best interests to be surrounded by healthy, happy people. We have a basic drive to reproduce, and if you don't give people the tools to overcome it, they're not going to be happy without satisfying it. I'll note also that we have an artificial housing shortage in this country. Banks are foreclosing on properties because they are greedy and they have the opportunity, and they are then refusing to sell them at fair market value (based on supply and demand, the latter of which is in turn based on what the market is able to pay) or to rent them out. This then causes the properties to lie empty, which promotes an assortment of crimes. Even when it does not, it still tends to result in property damage, because most homes are vulnerable to intrusion by plants, pests, and/or elements of weather when not occupied and maintained.

Essentially enough to be a physically and mentally healthy social individual.

Our entire corporate system is based on people not being physically and mentally healthy, nor indeed capable in general. People buy more shit when they're unhappy. Most advertising is aimed at making people feel inadequate due to lack of a product; the remainder is split between attempts to breed familiarity (you know, those creepy ads where they show you a bunch of nice pictures, make some vague statements, and repeat the name of a corporation a few times) and advertising designed to make you feel better about purchases you've already made, to maintain brand loyalty even in the face of evidence that you've made a poor decision. It's all meant to trick you into doing something you don't want to do, or trick you into thinking that your bad decisions were good ones. It's lies all the way down.

Re:10.10 per hour

[Osgeld]

except Washington pays for food rent,and phone so most of that money is pure profit (and a family of 4 has 4 potential income earners)

get it together dude

Re:10.10 per hour

[Osgeld]

at what point do we feel bad for these people, if your working two minimum wage jobs to support a family then they are obviously a fuckup to begin with and should not be rewarded for it, if they are rewarded for it what it the incentive to improve themselves or position in life, even if that improvement is going from burger flipper to night manager?

Re:10.10 per hour

[zr]

so.. what you're saying is, as long as one has a job, skilled or not, they should be able to afford to live comfortably and support up to four people?

thats a great utopia if you can find it, but i'm not sure it exists on this planet..

Re:10.10 per hour

[argStyopa]

If you are working a no talent job, at which you are completely replaceable, you shouldn't have any fucking disposable income.

Christ. If you want a better life, make some better goddamned choices.

Re:10.10 per hour

[drinkypoo]

thats a great utopia if you can find it, but i'm not sure it exists on this planet.

In countries with national health, it's perfectly feasible.

Re:10.10 per hour

[sjames]

So you firmly believe people's lives should suck? (presumably not your own, of course).

Re:10.10 per hour

[sjames]

That means the rest of us are subsidizing their employer's payroll.

Re:10.10 per hour

[zr]

you'd have to subsidize much more than just health if $400/wk was to provide for 4 people.

allow me to propose an alternative.

how about spending 6-18 months to develops marketable skills before starting a family? too much to ask?

Re:10.10 per hour

[drinkypoo]

how about spending 6-18 months to develops marketable skills before starting a family? too much to ask?

Yes, yes it is. It's not too much to ask me, I have no intention of reproducing. But the education system is failing to prevent unwanted pregnancy, which to my mind is one of its most important jobs. If we're not going to manage education properly, and instead will sabotage it with nonsense like Common Core and NCLB, then we're going to have to subsidize unwanted pregnancy — especially if we're not going to subsidize birth control, let alone abortion.

So yeah, it's too much to ask. It shouldn't be, but it is. And until we return to the idea that we should educate our people and make them into the best citizens that they can be instead of failing to do so and prepping them to go either into prison, the military, or fast food, it's going to continue to be that way. We can either gripe about education spending, or gripe about both having a nation of slackjawed yokels, and spending money supporting their rugrats. Or, you know, we could criminalize all of this behavior, and simply throw all of the people who our society has failed to educate into prison so that some truly morally bankrupt pieces of shit can profit from our failure. That's a perfectly viable solution with no side effects whatsoever!

Expecting people to solve this problem through personal responsibility whilst being shit upon is a truly asshole point of view.

Re:10.10 per hour

[zr]

you get no argument from me about messed up education system. but minimum wage is no way to deal with the fallout of it.

also, in all honesty, how hard would it be for someone with an ounce of personal responsibility to take few classes from a local community college and get a more gainful employment than minimum wage? or, spend few weeks in a library?

its the proverbial "fish vs fish pole" thing.

Re:10.10 per hour

[drinkypoo]

also, in all honesty, how hard would it be for someone with an ounce of personal responsibility to take few classes from a local community college and get a more gainful employment than minimum wage?

It would be hard for them to see the value in it, from where they're standing. And it would be hard for them to actually get a job paying more than minimum wage with their two-year degree. A few of them will, most of them won't. The world is just not flush with jobs right now, and more jobs have been minimum-wage year-by-year for years now.

Re:10.10 per hour

[dryeo]

That was the original idea of the minimum wage, just enough to own a home and have a small family. If you wanted luxuries and/or savings then you had to make more money which was how it worked as most good jobs just needed experience. The old cliche of starting out in the mail room and ending up as VP used to happen and for others it was being an assistant or dumb labourer and then an apprentice and eventually a tradesman.
Since then the wage gap has widened, the cost of living has gone up much faster then inflation and now minimum wage isn't even enough to support one person in many places.

Re:10.10 per hour

[dryeo]

A lot of people are simply ignorant, as in uneducated and a common lack in education is how not to start a family when you're suffering raging hormones. Ignorance can be fixed with education but many people don't want other people getting educated due to religious and similar beliefs.
There are also those who due to circumstances beyond their control, have defective minds, a common one is fetal alcohol syndrome where some poor kid is born to an alcoholic mother and their brain just does not work properly. In the worse cases they can't do simple math. Should we continue to punish these unfortunate souls?

Re:10.10 per hour

[zr]

It would be hard for them to see the value in it, from where they're standing.

indeed it would be if the minimum wage was enough to subsist at a level they've been conditioned to think was sufficient.

Re:10.10 per hour

[drinkypoo]

indeed it would be if the minimum wage was enough to subsist at a level they've been conditioned to think was sufficient.

All thoughts come from our conditioning.

Re:10.10 per hour

[zr]

agreed.

would you then agree that its important to help folks both with fish _and_ fish poles?

Re:10.10 per hour

[drinkypoo]

would you then agree that its important to help folks both with fish _and_ fish poles?

Yes. That is in fact precisely how I feel about it. Teaching 'em how to use the pole is right in there as well. It's woeful what the education system in this country has become. It's awful how entitlement programs are designed to self-perpetuate by cutting off recipients when they just begin to get their shit together. And it's awful how we don't actually permit people to be self-sufficient in this country; grow your own food in your own backyard and you just might get a visit from the cops.

Ranty McRanterson, I know. But seriously, at the rate at which we shit upon the disadvantaged in this country, it's a wonder we ever even hear from them, let alone see or smell them.

Re:10.10 per hour

[Nimey]

I suppose it might seem that way if you're an idiot.

Re:10.10 per hour

[zr]

would you then agree that its important to help folks both with fish _and_ fish poles?

Yes. That is in fact precisely how I feel about it. Teaching 'em how to use the pole is right in there as well.

terrific. we agree.

It's awful how entitlement programs are designed to self-perpetuate by cutting off recipients when they just begin to get their shit together.

i think you have causality exactly backwards here. i doubt we'll agree on this point though, so lets move on.

do you think too much fish can be a factor in demotivating people from learning to use the fish pole?

Re:10.10 per hour

[Reziac]

Per the last stats I saw, hardly anyone earning minimum wage is "supporting a family". 80-90% of minimum wage jobs are held by supplemental earners (second job or teenager in the same household as a primary wage-earner who gets more than minimum wage). So the notion that we're starving families via the current minimum wage is bogus. Nor have min.wage increases in the past made any difference, for the same reason.

And before you accuse me of being one of those fat cats who just don't give a shit -- as a small business owner, my income rarely exceeds the minimum wage. Hey, let's legislate =me= a better income while you're at it!

Re:10.10 per hour

[drinkypoo]

do you think too much fish can be a factor in demotivating people from learning to use the fish pole?

Yes, but alas, the situation is much more complicated than fishing.

I don't think growth is enough to judge

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of the demand for jobs is at the part time and low skill side. Maybe job growth has not been affected, but what about hours? Benefits?
Businesses generally were already at a level of employee's that is minimal. So I don't even if those businesses have to pay more they can reduce staff.

Was there really an increase?

[tomhath]

Nine of the 13 states increased their minimum wages automatically in line with inflation

In other words, in most states there was no increase. The minimum wage wage boost followed the economic growth.

Re:Was there really an increase?

[Nimey]

That's one way of looking at it. I expect that if more states pegged minimum wage to inflation you'd see a lot of bellyaching from conservatives about minimum wage always going up.

Re:Was there really an increase?

[wvmarle]

inflation != economic growth.

They're often not even closely related.

Just have a look at the rate of inflation in Zimbabwe over the past years (thousands of percent a month of even a week it has been) vs. the economic growth (highly negative) for an example.

Re:Was there really an increase?

[tomhath]

True, they are different. But growth is (usually) followed by inflation. My point was that the increase in minimum wage came about because of inflation, which was (probably) the result of growth.

Re:Was there really an increase?

[NicBenjamin]

Inflation != growth.

In fact if you were a few decades older you'd probably remember a time when we had massive inflation, but no growth, which meant you'd get a 10% raise every year and still lose ground. As a direct result of stagflation the fed as been on an unofficial no inflation policy for decades (officially they want 2% inflation, but they much prefer 1.9% to 2.1%).

IMO we would probably have more economic growth if we had more inflation, which is one reason I really like policy that automatically increases the minimum wage every year, but the fact remains that inflation != growth.

Re:Was there really an increase?

[jwhitener]

I don't know about other states, but if your starting point is already one of the highest minimum wages in the country, then tying it to inflation is just a way of making sure it stays high over time.

http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/ArticleReader?itemid=00007830

9 States automatically increased

[Ngarrang]

Um, yeah, talk about misleading.

"Nine of the 13 states increased their minimum wages automatically in line with inflation: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Four more states - Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island - approved legislation mandating the increase"

Correlation really does not indicate causality when you read the entire article. North Dakota has an oil boom, which is spiking employment. Ohio still grew, despite a MW of $7.95. The whole complaint by the CBO was that jobs would be lost if MW was increased to $10.10 across the ENTIRE COUNTRY. In these 13 states, most are no where close to $10.10/hr.

Re:9 States automatically increased

[sandytaru]

I have to say, I frequently travel from Georgia to Montana for business, and I was quite surprised that food and basic commodities there are CHEAPER than they are in my home state, despite the higher minimum wage. I'm guessing that housing and utilities must be more expensive or something to equalize it.

Re:9 States automatically increased

[deathguppie]

Here in Washington the min wage is $9.32. So 68 cents less than $10.10. Employment has gone up or stayed the same in most areas, but certainly there has been no job loss. Here in Seattle people are fighting to get a higher min wage so that people aren't living in poverty, but it isn't the $15 everyone is talking about. Most people won't see $15 for years, and there are some exemptions as well.

Re:9 States automatically increased

[mattwarden]

Good points. Also, raising to account for inflation is not a raise at all.

Re:9 States automatically increased

[ray-auch]

Actually, that is the interesting bit.

Of the 9 states that increased automatically, 8 are in the top half of the growth league - conversely 3 out of 4 of the states that voted an increase are in the bottom half.
(link to chart: http://www.cepr.net/images/sto...)

The thing about that correlation is that there is actually a plausible mechanism for causation - predictability. When a business decides to invest in hiring more people, you want to try and work out the costs, the potential for profit and the risk of failure. If you are hiring at or near minimum wage, then the level of minimum wage comes into that business plan. If any increase is automatic then you can simply add it in to costs (based on inflation assumptions which you need elsewhere anyway) - it will go up, but that can be accounted for. If any increase is _not_ automatic, then it becomes an unknown in your costs, a _risk_, dependent on politicians. Even in states that did _not_ raise it but _might_ have, that unknown, political risk, may have adversely affected investment decisions.

Businesses like a predictable environment more than anything.

If my suggested effect is real, then there is also a flip side - it will work like this in an expanding economy, but if the economy is contracting then having an automatic minimum wage increase could conceivably accelerate firing decisions - minimum wage jobs might be lost faster because of the known future costs.

Florida Best Performance.

[trout007]

The best performer is Florida which only raised it's minimum wage to keep pace with inflation by 14 cents/hr.

"The number of jobs in Florida has risen 1.6 percent this year, the most of the 13 states with higher minimums. Its minimum rose to $7.93 an hour from $7.79 last year."

In reality inflation is much worse for low income people in Florida so in real terms the minimum wage decreased for those people.

One question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone with an ownership interest in any business have more money than they need to survive?

If yes, they can reduce their own income and pay more to their employees. There's no reason not to beyond short-sighted, bloody-minded greed.

America was doing a lot better when it paid the owning classes less, and the working classes had more purchasing power.

Re:One question:

[BonThomme]

yachts and private jets are often seen as critical to 'survival'. and you need more than one..

Re:One question:

[Shados]

Business ownership is a pain in the ass though. If it ends up only paying enough to survive, no one will do it.

Re:One question:

[BitZtream]

America was doing a lot better when it paid the owning classes less, and the working classes had more purchasing power.

What 'America' are you talking about? The USA has never really been any different than it is now. You certainly don't mean when the 'owning classes' actually owned the people that worked for them, do you? Or any time in the last century?

Contrary to what your closed eyes might believe, the working class in America is better off than its ever been. That doesn't preclude the ability for it to be better, but if you think the working class in America have it harder now than any other point in the countries history, you're just ignorant.

Yeah, well, sure...

[jpellino]

if you're going to use reality as an indicator. Who does that?

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:So what?

[mrsquid0]

The AC was talking about Germany 20 year ago. East German ceased to exist more than 20 years ago.

Re:So what?

[purpledinoz]

In Germany, where there's no minimum wage, there are people who earn less than 5 EUR per hour. This is ridiculously low. These low wage workers then get topped up by the state so they're not homeless. Essentially the state is subsidizing cheap labour. In this case, I would say a minimum wage is necessary so that the employers have to pay the full cost of labour. Sure prices will go up, but I see that as a necessity. I don't understand the argument that any minimum wage is bad 1EUR/h is clearly too little. No one will work for this. 100EUR/h will destroy the economy. I suspect there's a sweet spot somewhere.

Re:So what?

[ubertopf]

Germany introduced minimum wage of 8.5EUR like two weeks ago. There are some exemptions for minors and elderly though.

Re:So what?

[Tom]

Now, after the neoliberal Hartz "reforms", the unemployment rate has decreased,

Not really. Lots of people are stuffed into projects, short-term contracts that pay next to nothing, or encouraged to start their own business even though they know nothing about business and will certainly fail - all so they drop out of the statistics.

There's a huge amount of actually unemployed people who don't count, but the exact number is everyones guess.

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).

In everything, there is good and bad. While the past 20 years are largely bad, there are some good things I'd like to keep. For example, privatization is a huge failure at massive costs in most industries, but in telecommunications it worked pretty well and gave us DSL and three mobile networks to choose from. (though I agree right now half of the telcos have become scumbags after realizing their own price wars have driven them to the brink of not being profitable anymore).

Re:500,000

[CRCulver]

There are plenty of jobs out there ("We are experiencing a heavier call volume than usual, please be prepared to wait up to 40 minutes to speak to someone."

Have you not considered that phone support is a loss center, not a profit center? It may be that the company would lose more money on hiring more call center workers than they would get from people happy about the shorter waiting time. Human beings, even when paid fairly low salaries, are not cheap.

There are plenty of examples of unreasonably risk-adverse companies, but I don't think this is one.

Because...

[jpellino]

minimum wage is not about putting everyone at the current 80th %ile, it's about using diffuse market-collected money to make sure 20% of the people don't have to (a) starve or (b) mostly have the gummint pay for their stuff. I'm judged as a liberal by most people I meet, and even I don't want taxes paying for stuff the market can do if there is a workable alternative, which this seems to be. I'll take a law that creates a market condition over taxpayer largess. Why? The law sets a minimum that above which the market can adapt based on economic conditions. Taxes and handouts need constant tweaking by more laws and amendments.

Because...

[Anonymous Coward]

Minimum wage was originally about making sure them damn n*****rs didn't take good union jobs by stopping them from undercutting the union with better prices. Now it is either pointless because in a booming economy you get paid more than min wage anyway, or it hurts those most in need, young school leavers with no experience and most likely the wrong color, by costing the business more than they are worth. Needless to say the business then turns around and hires older people with more experience and the young blacks get screwed over again.

bad maths

[v1]

Raising the minimum wage doesn't cost jobs any more than inflation creates jobs.

It's a never-ending cat-and-mouse in a freemarket. Wherever they happen to be at this moment in the game, it reqiures the same people to play it.

Govt raises minimum wage. Consumer prices go up. Rinse, repeat, forever. Consumer prices are going to go up due to greed (as well as increases in minimum wage) so raising the minimum wage occasionally to offset it is necessary, even though it contributes to its own need.

Since the only way to offset inflation in a free market is to raise the minimum wage, it cannot be considered as a method to slow it. It's all just a shell game, aimed at trying to food the greedy into being less greedy, by doing things like lowering federal interest rates etc. They'll never stop it, all you can do is hope to keep its pace slow so you don't have runaway inflation. But it's a difficult act to balance, because retarding inflation tends to slow the economy.

Re:End of Extended Unemployment Bennies

[Joe_Dragon]

well in the past and still now?

Some people where better off staying on unemployment and not taking any job as at times unemployment payed more then some part to semi full time mc job.

also some people where better off working part time at min wage as if they moved up to full they lost there medicare / medicaid and they only plans for them where shity mini med plans.

Re:One problem...

[Tokolosh]

It will take more than one election cycle for the effects to fully play out. Any time someone makes a statement about economics, ask the question, short-term or long-term? Two completely opposing views can both be correct, but on different time scales.

When y ou find the other study ...

[johnlcallaway]

... the one that was done with a 'double blind' testing system, I'll pay attention to the results. Until then, there are far too many factors to establish any true cause/effect.

But I do know this ... living on a minimum wage salary has NEVER, in my entire 35 years in the labor force, been a 'living wage'. That's why most people learn new stuff and don't stay in it for more than a few months.

Or until they get motivated enough to find something else so they can move out of their mom's basement.

I have little sympathy for someone that can't find anything but a minimum wage job and then have to stay in it. I remember a few years ago when I saw a sign at a local fast-food place advertising a starting salary over $9/hour, a full $2 higher than the minimum wage at the time. When I looked behind the counter, I understood why, the staff was actually WORKING. The owner could afford the higher salary because he needed fewer people because they worked harder.

People with good attitudes and a willingness to learn don't make minimum wage for very long. People with limited skills who aren't very self-motivated do.

That's called 'competition' and it works very well. Subsidies (that is, paying more for something than it's worth) rarely work in the long term. They become crutches and excuses. The US has a long history of such failures .. student loans (increases tuition costs, created a price spiral, saddled thousands with high debt), housing subsidies (increased house prices and created a bubble), Cash for Clunkers (didn't do a damn thing), farm subsidies (can't get rid of the hidden tax that all US citizens that pay taxes pay for that ends up costing 50% of the population almost 3 times what the actual subsidy would be to them in terms of taxes and national debt), etc.

Too bad we haven't learned from these mistakes..

Re:500,000

[BonThomme]

yes, I'm sure they've made scrupulous measure of customer satisfaction and the long-term financial impacts of poor customer service.

Re:Against Minimum Wage, For "Jobs"?

[mrlibertarian]

It's always amusing to see these people who are against raising the minimum wage justify their claims by saying that it will decrease jobs. For one, there is no evidence of that, only primitive debunked economic theory.

If you want to really see the effects of minimum wage, you should look at teenage workers. Teenage workers tend to be the most untrained, and therefore, the workers most affected by changes in the minimum. When you look at the effects of the minimum wage on teenage unemployment, the evidence is absolutely damning: In both the UK and New Zealand, teen unemployment rose strongly after a teen minimum wage was introduced.

Now, if you want to argue that teenage workers should be unemployed, go ahead. But if you're willing to admit that the minimum wage increases teenage unemployment, then you're going to have to do some serious mental gymnastics to believe that the minimum wage does not have any negative effects on those members of society who are older, but also relatively unskilled and/or untrained. The study referenced by slashdot proves nothing, because it is focused on the general unemployment rate, rather than the unemployment rate of the least productive members of society.

Re:Cost of living tracks minimum wage

[trout007]

You don't need big data. If people have more cash they will buy more which is all the indicator a store needs to raise prices.

Workers are Better Off

[MarkWegman]

There is a mixed economic record of what happens to unemployment when you raise the minimum wage when there are more people looking for jobs than there are jobs. This adds some more evidence showing lack of correlation but not about causation. But the evidence is clear that for those employed raising the minimum wage is a very big win. The minimum wage will still keep people in poverty. It will keep Walmart workers needing to get food stamps, with the federal government in essence subsidizing the Walmart pay. The CBO's original estimate said there were different models for what would happen to unemployment, some increasing is slightly some even decreasing it. But the original estimate also showed that it would help a wide swath of Americans. The problem with the current economic situation is a lack of demand and that companies are hording money instead of spending it. If everyone and every company decided to go out and buy the sellers would feel better and since most buyers are actually also sellers we'd all do well. Raising minimum wage causes some more spending and that's good. That's not to say that it's always good. If the economy were overheating and minimum wage workers were paid say 10% of what corporate CEO's were, raising the minimum wage would probably be bad. But we're no where near that.

The economy is supposed to make our lives better

[tie_guy_matt]

The purpose of an economy is to support humans; the purpose of humans is not to support the economy. If your business is not successful enough that you cannot remain profitable while paying your employees a living wage then maybe we don't really need your business. Maybe you should go out of business and if your company really was filling a need then someone smarter than you can figure out how to fill that need while making enough profit to pay their people enough to live on. In the end only the really competent business will survive and workers will have enough money to actually live (and they will just end up plowing their income back into the economy thus spurring even more growth.) Or I guess we could have it the other way. We could have just a few rich people who can't figure out how to sell anything anymore because a large part of the population is too poor to even buy a pot to piss in.

Borders

[ArgumentBoy]

When you look at list of states that raised the minimum wage, you see that they mainly border other states that didn't. I'd like to see an analysis of whether they just pulled people from the neighboring states. If that happened even to a small degree it would increase one state's stats and lower the other's.

Like $0.13 raise in Florida

[dammy]

Florida raised it's minimum wage by $0.13 and that is going to have a detectible impact on employment in a state that is a magnet for business? It had virtually no impact on anyone except food delivery services raised their delivery fees to cover minimum wage increase for tip based employees (pizza delivery drivers) up to $4.91 @ hour. Had Florida raised it to $10.10 an hour, one would expect to see food delivery charges go to about $5.

Give it some time

[ichthus]

In other news, the plants I fertilized and watered a little extra yesterday show no sign of extra growth today.

Because 3 months is an appropriate timeline

[Chas]

Yeah. Because the kick started back in April with Connecticut voting to bump its minimum wage to 10.10...gradually...by 2017.

And that was in late March.

Everything else has happened since April (or later).

Sorry but this study is bunk. It hasn't had a long enough time to affect the market in any statistically significant way.

There's no allowances that existing open jobs weren't filled, as they had previously gone unfilled due to the pay being insufficient for people to bother.

Re:Because 3 months is an appropriate timeline

[Chas]

"because the kick started in March".

http://thinkprogress.org/econo...

Started typing the wrong month then brain farted and didn't go back to correct.

doesnt work

[GrimShady]

increasing the minimum wage to advance the economy is like putting a fan in front of a windmill to increase output. There are plenty of people that would greenlight and fund that project but I think I would rather hold out for a better investment opportunity.

good luck with that though....

Re:Of course employment went up

[nctritech]

For small businesses, employee wages can be the majority of the expenses paid by the business. Take a very small business (let's say it's lawn care or a computer repair place) that makes a gross $100,000 a year and pays two helpers plus the company's owner $10 an hour 40 hours a week (ignoring taxes and other overhead for simplicity). Assuming two weeks worth of unpaid days off per year, each of those people consumes 20% ($20,000) of the gross income for a total of 60% of all gross income going to paying everyone that works there. If the minimum wage is driven to $11/hr, the business will forcibly lose an additional 6% of its gross income to wages. The owner will have to decide between passing the overhead to the customer by raising rates (potentially losing customers due to the rate hike) or terminating a helper plus working longer hours to compensate. This type of hard choice happens all the time for small businesses anytime a major unexpected change occurs in the mechanics of the world that power that business. Computer repair shops weren't doing so hot a few years ago when Thailand flooded and new hard drive prices literally doubled overnight, for example; I wonder how many of them went out of business because of the spike.

Everyone seems to point at Wal-Mart and McDonald's when these discussions come up, but small and family-operated businesses are still the majority of the economy and the situation for them is very different from that of a large publicly traded corporation.\

One more thing to remember is that a small business with less than five employees doesn't have to report hiring and firing to the government. If 100,000 very small businesses fired one employee each, you'd never see it in the national [un]employment figures. Some places also pay people "under the table," further hiding the employment losses when they fire their secret workers.

Re:Its real purpose is to reduce competition for t

[ledow]

Because even $9 an hour is a shitty, exploitative wage?

I feel sorry for countries that don't see this. Minimum wage in the UK at the moment is $10.70 an hour, and it's risen (and will continue to rise) by about 20-30p (50c) an hour every year.

And this, this is the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM legal wage we expect someone to pay. And it's still shitty. A young kid, with no home or family, works their arse off just as much as I do (if not more) for the same amount of time, gets home, and discovers he can barely pay rent and eat food. That's not a wage. And in that kind of "work environment", we can't expect people to choose work over social security, which harms everyone.

Minimum wage is about stopping employers exploiting desperate workers. It's NOT about generating jobs, or curing poverty. It's stopping exploitation. In the same way that regulating prostitution doesn't generate jobs (just the opposite) or cure poverty (again, just the opposite), it just stops someone exploiting another human being.

To then bring race into it destroys your argument. You can play the race card if you like, but to bring it in when race isn't mentioned at all is just - again - exploitation of humans.

And, as the stats here show, minimum wage does nothing to harm existing jobs. That means the employers KNEW they were exploiting workers, and could have stopped it at any time voluntarily by charging more / paying more wages, but didn't. Instead they waited until they were MADE to, kicked up a token fuss, and then carried on as normal without thousands of businesses going bankrupt because of it.

If you want to hire someone, pay a fair wage. That's the message. All those companies didn't sack all of their workers when the laws came in, so they NEED to hire someone. They just want to exploit those people as much as legally possible.

For someone that wants to play the race card in the way you did, I would think you'd be more concerned about ending unnecessary exploitation of low-earners by high-earners, not allowing them to continue.

Re:One problem...

[NicBenjamin]

Keep in mind that in most of these state the minimum wage increase is already written into the law. If you're in Ohio, paying people less then $8 an hour, you know you're gonna be giving them all a raise pretty much every year. If you have to slow hiring because the increase from $7.85 to $7.95 took you by surprise you are a fucking moron and you will probably go out of business real soon now. $0.10 is actually pretty low, so you should have a little extra in your labor budget this year.

This particular increase happens every year in Ohio, and has been happening since 2006. Hours worked does not seem to correlate with the minimum wage hikes, but it wouldn't because massive changes in the economy (ie: the Great Recession, and the tepid recovery) will overwhelm a tiny variation in the minimum wage.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

[Anonymous Coward]

Really. So, business is forced to raise its labor cost and rather than seeking ways to maximize profit, they double down on more hiring?

There are so many logical fallacies here that I just can't believe that people engaged primarily in tech and science can be so stupid!!!

First, even if the representation of the article here is to be believed, the conclusion that somehow the cause of the job growth was the raise in minimum wage isn't actually supported. This is is the fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc). At Slashdot, such thinking can just chalked up to wishful thinking since the report purportedly supports the socialist wet dreams of the typical Slashdotter editor/reader. At the end, I bet the economic growth was substantially for other reasons and the minimum wage suppressed growth that might have been had without it... which brings me to the second fallacy here...

Second, the broken window fallacy (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html). The fallacy that says we tend to focus only on "what is seen", and ignore the 'unseen, even though the unseen can be as consequential. The pro-minimum wage crowd focuses on what is seen: people with more spending money, but don't give a second thought to where that money came from. It came from profits which inevitably become capital investments that could have been put to better uses (which would have in turn expanded employment even moreso). Also I saw people talking about that capital going offshore, but it's capitalism unfriendly policies, like higher minimum wages that make foreign investment more attractive (after all, why would anyone want to move their workforce far away if all things were equal?) Also, the unseen are the losses taken in the ranks of the marginal worker. The worker than can be hired profitably at $9.00 an hour, because they produce $9.50 of output, but ceases to be a good investment at $10 since their output doesn't also change. These are entry level jobs and jobs that the very least skilled are qualified for and so are the job seekers that suffer when the minimum wage goes up. I started my career with just such a few of these jobs (bus boy, pizza delivery), and learned very basic work skills that I continue to use to this day (management and enterprise technology consulting). But everybody still with a job is what is seen, and those still standing have a little more money in their pocket. So we cheer when we in fact have shrunk what might have been.

Put all of this together, and we see the intellectual dishonesty that the minimum wage supporters, the egalitarians, the socialists and the fascists of Slashdot are willing to engage in to see their ideas imposed on those of us unwilling to grant it any moral standing.

wow 7 months of data

[Osgeld]

fuck it it must be true then, since January, wow

by extrapolation

[supernova87a]

Well if there are no ill effects, why don't we raise the minimum wage to $30 so that everyone gets to join in this wonderful phenomenon?

Re:by extrapolation

[labnet]

Australia has a minimum wage of around $20/hr and we are a very prosperous country.
Higher wages just take profits from the mega corps and give it to the working poor who , shock horror, spend it, and create more wealth!

Logic 101 fail

[mattwarden]

Try to keep up.

Raising the minimum wage mandate tells you absolutely nothing about whether any wages were increased. Nationally, only about 3% of people are paid the minimum wage.

Summary says:
> 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.

That's nice. This tells you exactly zero. This is like saying: after eating my own poop, my IQ was higher than John's. Comparing your post-state to others' post-state is pretty much the weakest approach to (trying to) suggest a causal link. You need to at least compare the pre-difference to the post-difference. In other words, prior to eating my own poop, I was 13 IQ points higher than John. After eating my own poop, I was 4 IQ points higher than John. I'm still smarter than John after eating my own poop, but looking at the initial state suggests a very different story.

Of course, none of this allows you to establish anything causal, but summary is so bogus with basic logic that this is obviously a conclusion looking for supporting data.

Cost of living increase

[BitZtream]

So how much did the cost of living raise in those areas?

How much did it suck for every person above the new minimum wage that suddenly got an effective state mandated pay cut?

Raising the minimum wage is worthless if you don't control pricing of products as well, the price of bread, milk and everything else just goes up to compensate for the new higher minimum wage.

It goes up not only because it must to balance out the increased cost, but it also goes up because it CAN, those minimum wage workers can afford to pay more so they will be charged more.

The standard of living remains the same for minimum wage workers, and goes down for everyone else who got off their asses and put effort into being more than a burger flipper.

Well, that proves it

[cascadingstylesheet]

Price controls never have negative effects.

In that case, why not $20/hr? $50/hr? Since it has no negative effect.

Job growth?

[WCMI92]

Where?

There isn't any job growth. Hell, Microsoft is ditching 18,000 employees while STILL begging for more H1B Indian slave visas.

Re:Minimum wage should be 5 US dollars

[__aaclcg7560]

On a political website, someone was advocating $0.50 per hour as a minimum wage. The last time I made $0.50 per hour was when I was eight-years-old. The was big comic book money back in the 1970's. Woo-hoo!

Why bother with facts?

[bussdriver]

Minimum wage has a plenty of historical proof behind it but that never makes any difference in our political debates. So why do we even bother with crap like this? If it creates jobs it'll be ignored; if it kills jobs it still will be ignored (and dismissed since it won't fit with history.)

Sure, you can raise the rate to higher levels eventually everything will go up in price as well with no net benefit; however, the world isn't that simple. Since the USA exports nothing and imports everything the impact won't be evenly spread as imports continue to be cheap and the 1 or 2 exports will rise in price (ignoring weapons export industry because that is special.) Local medium and small businesses will be at a disadvantage against larger business which can/do import easily --- but that isn't a whole lot different than today where most the big import friendly businesses have killed off smaller competition already.

As far as teen jobs paying enough to live on, those are no longer teen jobs--- there are simply not enough jobs to go around and that problem will continue due to outsourcing, automation, and "free trade." One can't try to maintain the past because that situation no longer exists today. Also don't forget, inflation is no longer reported (because it is got too high) so almost everybody is NOT getting enough of a raise to compensate for the inflation losses. I've never had a pay raise that even matched inflation; one has to switch jobs.

Re:this can't be right

[Anonymous Coward]

You insist that the report "can't possibly be correct" on the basis that it conflicts with what you think one company would do, while making no attempt to demonstrate any kind of flaw whatsoever in the report itself, the data it uses, or its methodology.

This is stupid, and only a stupid person would even consider doing it.

You will now screech your agreement and total capitulation. No other course of action from you is possible.

Re:Of course employment went up

[NotSanguine]

...The owner will have to decide between passing the overhead to the customer by raising rates (potentially losing customers due to the rate hike) or terminating a helper plus working longer hours to compensate. This type of hard choice happens all the time for small businesses anytime a major unexpected change occurs in the mechanics of the world that power that business. Computer repair shops weren't doing so hot a few years ago when Thailand flooded and new hard drive prices literally doubled overnight, for example; I wonder how many of them went out of business because of the spike.

What you're leaving out is that just as that employer is required to pay more, all the other employers are required to do so as well. This eliminates the crux of your main argument. No additional pressures are put on the business, since all other like businesses need to conform to the same standard. It's possible that prices might rise as a result, depending on the profit margins desired by the business owner.

What happens when more people have more income? Perhaps they'll be able to afford goods and services they were unable to afford in the past, or weren't able to purchase in the quantities desired/required without the wage increases.

Applying minimum wage hikes (perhaps $.50/hour each year in addition to increases to address inflation, until the minimum wage is, in fact, a living wage) would drive folks who don't save to spend more, driving consumer demand and pulling the economy along with it.

Feel free to disagree, but don't expect me to subscribe to your (IMHO) incorrect assessment of the situation.

Irrelevant.

[jcr]

The minimum wage affects those who are unable to earn some arbitrarily-set cutoff price. Growth of any jobs that pay that much or more is entirely beside the point.

Statists like to pretend that they're helping the poor with law that says "here you go, you get to earn at least this much!", but what these statues really do is say is "UNLESS you can earn this much, no job for you!"

-jcr

Of course raised minimum wage creates job growth!

[JoelBunker3616]

Wow.... Who teaches the congressional analyst macro economics, but of course raising the earning potential and income of an entire state is going to cause job growth. Consider it trickle up theory. As the income of citizens go up, so to does and will their amounts of discretionary income and ability to pay their bills in whole and on time. Therefore, while every employer had to pay more out in pay, due to minimum wage increase, those employers are probably experiencing larger then expected profits as an entire state's worth of workers now has more money to spend. More spent on more goods and services, means more job creation as businesses need to keep up with increased demand. Imagine what would happen if it were Federal, like the minimum wage laws already are.

A minimum wage job is not a career...

[Nocturrne]

Working as a cashier at McDonold's should not pay a wage high enough for someone to "live." Minimum wage jobs should be something people do while they are young, living with family, students, etc. If you want to earn a "living" get a real job and work your way up the ladder. If you are illegal, GTFO.

Low Minimum Wage Doesn't Make Things Better...

[linearz69]

Look at states with the lowest minimum wages. These states generally correlate to highest unemployment, lowest household median income, and highest poverty.

These are usually the same states that vote for politicians from the party that more openly advocates for business friendly taxes laws and minimum wage.

Suckers.

Re:Low Minimum Wage Doesn't Make Things Better...

[MooseMiester]

Statistics we can trust please? It's easy to make such statements, and easier still to find someone lying with statistics trying to prove this or that.

Re:Low Minimum Wage Doesn't Make Things Better...

[linearz69]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Minimum+W...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Unemploym...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Poverty+b...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Household...

Re:Low Minimum Wage Doesn't Make Things Better...

[MooseMiester]

Yeah I thought so.

All the people that have eaten bread have died, so clearly there's a relationship between bread eating and death, so don't eat bread unless you want to die.

However I did learn that the story about how raising the minimum wage = job growth was on NPR, that's all I needed to hear.

Re: Low Minimum Wage Doesn't Make Things Better...

[linearz69]

You seem angry. Did you miss part where "these states generally correlate", or did the cat urinate in your Wheaties? . Regarding correlation, we seem to agree.

The correlation is interesting because an argument often given for not raising the minimum wage is that a rise in the minimum wage will increase unemployment and negatively impact the economy. The evidence, from a list of standard economic indicators that anyone with an internet can look up, suggest this argument to be bunk.

As you've so eloquently reiterated, in the end this is just a correlation....

One can either accept that a connection between the conomic indicators and minimum wage exists, or one can place arguments about the minimum wage negatively impacting the economy and stick them in an orifice of their choosing. Can't have it both ways.

Re: Low Minimum Wage Doesn't Make Things Better...

[MooseMiester]

Sorry didn't mean to come off angry. I am tired of people who know very little about economics, or business declaring absolutes based on one or two statistics, or when you dive into the analysis you quickly discover they did a fine job of lying with statistics, or they have an axe to grind because they believe that one group of people is inherently evil, and another group is not.

I have a bachelors degree in Economics - and a strong case of plain old common sense. Wage/Price controls... are wrong on so many levels. It's like we are starting with a very wrong premise (wage/price controls) and trying to prove it's really not such a horrible idea after all - without ever thinking that we started out with a bad idea in the first place. The whole system... has been so completely fucked by the business/government "alliance" also known as pay to play, business as usual, that's just how the system works, etc. that it's hard to see how one more "adjustment" in the system is going to help at all. We have chronic underemployment - not because we need to "force" business to do one thing or another, but because we keep pretending that a centrally planned economy will actually work - when all evidence is that it fails miserably. So we dance around with a partially planned economy, where every group tries to control this micro economic indicator or that one, and we we watch the system get more and more fucked up, the solution is always that we need to adjust this lever, or that one, or punish this group by rewarding that one.

I'm old enough to remember when the system actually worked for the majority of the people, and to remember the point in time where we started screwing it up....

...in the short term

[thepainguy]

As with an increase in the price of gas, most of the effects of raising the minimum wage (and thus the price of labor) will have their impact felt over the course of years, as employers have time to implement programs that will replace more expensive people with less expensive machines.

Re:Of course employment went up

[dywolf]

....

Walmart and McDonald's alone account for more than 50% of all low income workers.
And the fired people would still show up because they dont just take reports from employers, but also the number of people filing for unemployment

and the thing people alwasy forget, is history and/or dcurrent example.
"if you raise the minimum wage, the sky will fall! the sky will fall!"

horse manure.
we had a higher minimum wage decades ago, and not only did the sky NOT fall, but everyone was more prosperous, the economy was the best the world had ever seen, and a person earning the minimum was actually above the poverty level. even today we can see dozens of countries with a higher minimum wage than the US (and better/more benefits, and more social support, etc etc)....and they're doing ust fine too. they sky has not fallen. but somehow we're supposed to believe that it wont work here, cause the US is somehow "special". Well that's horse manure.

Well.. duh!

[doccus]

We could have told you that.. no , wait.. we frikken DID! Over, and over, and over, and...

Re:Its real purpose is to reduce competition for t

[doccus]

I believe, one of your founding fathers said any company that can't afford to pay a living wage to it's employees doesn'[t deserve to staay in business...

Classic Simpons Quote Is Appropriate

[TonyXL]

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
  Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
  Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
  Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
  Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
  Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

CT has raised the minimum wage

[pebear]

CT has done so and there is absolutely no job growth in CT before or after the wage increase.

A few points

[MooseMiester]

First no numbers coming out of the Obama Administration should be trusted as they have a history of lying to suit the politics du jour.

Second, before the government got involved wages were based on demand and supply. If you couldn't find a job there was no safety net, you relied on the kindness of strangers. And big surprise, there were just as many poor folks as we have now, wages were fair, and everything worked out just fine. The whole idea that the government mandates wages, and pays unemployment is a creation of the Great Society of the 1960's, we survived just fine for millennia before that. Many would say we were better off...

It is already illegal to hire undocumented aliens, just enforce the damn laws...

Think they meant it costs H1-B and illegal jobs

[WillAffleckUW]

A higher minimum wage means more Americans working.

Corporations don't care about that.

helps social security

[also aswell]

raising the minimum wage up to $10.50 or higher has the added benefit of funding social security at a higher level at the same time many hardworking americans are set to retire... congress has borrowed against ssi funds every year to keep their budgets down and it has inhibited the growth of them. all our debts would be so much higher if we had not been screwed by congress this way...

Estate tax

[NewYork]

Increasing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... will create more jobs in the economy

Cap on Market Capitalization

[NewYork]

Put a cap on Market Capitalization of NYSE listed companies. Economy will create millions of local and Non-H1B jobs.

Not so fast

[dumky2]

Economist Don Boudreaux and econ PhD Liya Palagashvili look at the published data of this study and evaluate whether the conclusion holds water in Obama's Misleading Minimum Wage Statistics.