Slashdot Mirror
States That Raised Minimum Wage See No Slow-Down In Job Growth
An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. Department of Labor has released data that some proponents of raising minimum wage are touting as evidence that higher minimum wage promotes job growth. While the data doesn't actually establish cause and effect, it does "run counter to a Congressional Budget Office report in February that said raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, as the White House supports, would cost 500,000 jobs." The data shows that the 13 states that raised their minimum wages in January added jobs at a faster rate than those that didn't. Other factors likely contributed to this outcome, but some economists are simply relieved that the higher wage factor didn't have a dramatically negative effect in general.
Economic activity is increased by more people having more money to spend ?
Inconceivable !
That is because the additional money goes back into the local economy and not into an offshore account.
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.
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?"
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.
I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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).
When it pays more to be unemployed, just having jobs isn't enough, you need jobs that pay a livable wage.
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.
I dont read
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.
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?
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.
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.
Namely, our native poor aren't as desperate as they used to be.
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...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
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.