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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[guises]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[__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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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...

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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.

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?

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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

[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]

That suggests we should cut CEOs way back and increase minimum wage even more.

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

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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..

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.

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!