Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 26 of 29 FirstFirst ... 16 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 LastLast
Results 501 to 520 of 569
  1. #501
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Maybe in 2050, after adjusting for inflation.
    Why not $100,000/yr now. Who gets to say how much is enough?

    How many people should you be able to support when you make MW? Just yourself or a wife too?
    Do kids get included?
    How many kids?
    Do you need to be able to afford a car?

    Should everyone be able to afford:
    a vacation every year?
    to leave their state for vacation?


    How much is enough and who decides?
    And why not $100,000/yr, if $20k or $30k or $40k is good. If we are going to artificially put a price on labor, why not a price that can let the common man afford some luxuries as well as the basics of life?


    But the reality again is:

    These jobs are disappearing and it's accelerating and the higher MW goes, the more THAT will contribute to the loss.

  2. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  3. #502
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Why not $100,000/yr now. Who gets to say how much is enough?

    How many people should you be able to support when you make MW? Just yourself or a wife too?
    Do kids get included?
    How many kids?
    Do you need to be able to afford a car?

    Should everyone be able to afford:
    a vacation every year?
    to leave their state for vacation?


    How much is enough and who decides?
    And why not $100,000/yr, if $20k or $30k or $40k is good. If we are going to artificially put a price on labor, why not a price that can let the common man afford some luxuries as well as the basics of life?
    I don't understand the term 'artificially put a price on labor'. It appears to be some kind of economic term but I don't see anything artificial in a minimum amount of money a worker needs in order to survive. Since an MW-worker has no bargaining power then they either have to unionize or the government has to step in - but even then, that's not 'artificial' since they come up with the number via debate over facts (hopefully).

    As far as luxuries - that would be "nice" but we're talking about starvation and poverty so this is a strawman argument that has zero relevance to the problem we're trying to solve. I think that some amount above the poverty level with scaling down of benefits would be a fair amount. It will track inflation and provides incentives to work.

    But the reality again is:

    These jobs are disappearing and it's accelerating and the higher MW goes, the more THAT will contribute to the loss.
    These jobs are indeed disappearing but is that because of MW alone? I doubt it. A lot of jobs are beginning to get automated away - see McDonald's new ordering kiosks. They're much more efficient than any person and since it's technology driven, I expect there to be a phone app that I can use on the way to the restaurant such that it will be ready by the time I get there. I don't see why that's a bad thing.

    This is no news - awful jobs have been disappearing since there were jobs and since there was technology. We don't need as many people, or any people, to do some tasks and those that there are left are done by migrants because they agree to work for much less money. Americans will not want to do those kinds of back breaking jobs any more anyway and that's a good thing: why would anyone want to make them so desperate for a job that they would do them?

  4. #503
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don't understand the term 'artificially put a price on labor'. It appears to be some kind of economic term but I don't see anything artificial in a minimum amount of money a worker needs in order to survive. Since an MW-worker has no bargaining power then they either have to unionize or the government has to step in - but even then, that's not 'artificial' since they come up with the number via debate over facts (hopefully).
    Big "hopefully".

    But you answered nothing in my post.
    MW is a "living wage" for whom?
    A person?
    A family?

    Does "not living in poverty" include being able to vacation?

    Different parts of the country have vastly different cost of living and you are advocating treating all areas the same.

    ---------- Post added at 06:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    These jobs are indeed disappearing but is that because of MW alone? I doubt it.
    I said "a higher MW will accelerate the loss of MW jobs" which are already expected to mostly disappear in the near future.

    I said nothing remotely about "MW alone" being the cause of the job loss....
    (emphasis mine)
    Last edited by Squatch347; January 31st, 2018 at 06:02 AM. Reason: Tag Edit

  5. #504
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    So if a scientifiic principle does not have 99% consensus, doubt is reasonable?
    I don't agree that there's 99% consensus.
    The Economist notes:
    The paper attracted withering criticism from some other economists. Some noted that its analysis left out workers who adjusted to the changes by becoming contractors rather than full employees or by moving away from Seattle, or who switched to jobs at large firms with multiple locations (which were not included in the data set used by the authors). Others pointed out that even though there was no offsetting rise in employment at wages between $13 an hour and $19 an hour, employment at wages above the $19 mark rose sharply. What is more, the fine-grained data used in the report covered only the state of Washington, whereas other parts of America might have provided a better control case. Some of these criticisms are stronger than others. There are limitations to the data, as the authors themselves admit, and this is hardly the last word on the subject.

    The “high road” Seattle labor market and the effects of the minimum wage increase
    Data limitations and methodological problems bias new analysis of Seattle’s minimum wage increase
    Report • By Ben Zipperer and John Schmitt • June 26, 2017
    Summary
    A team of researchers at the University of Washington has released an analysis of the economic impacts of the 2015 and 2016 increases in the Seattle minimum wage. The study, Jardim et al. (2017), looks at the first two stages of a phased-in set of increases that will eventually take the minimum wage in the city to $15.00 per hour. The authors of the study argue that they find large job losses associated with these first two rounds of increases, in which the minimum wage for most workers rose from $9.47 per hour to $11.00 per hour in April 2015 and then to $13.00 per hour in January 2016.


    Professor Michael Reich, Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics, University of California at Berkeley writes:
    A. Robustness of the UW Synthetic Seattle results

    B. Exclusion of multi-site businesses

    1. The UW report excludes multi-site businesses from its dataset, which removes 48 percent of Seattle’s low-paid workforce out of their study.3 This major exclusion raises a big red caution flag about the representativeness of their sample and therefore about the interpretation of their findings. Yet the UW report provides essentially no evidence that their sample is representative of all jobs in Seattle and Washington.


      C. Exclusion of jobs that paid less than $19 implies higher estimates of actual wage effects



    I know that you have addressed some of these points before but my aim here is to note that the 99% consensus seems suspect. There are plenty of other economists that also cite the same issues and perhaps others. So I really have a hard time accepting your claim of consensus.


    Here are some problems with the article. 1) "Fortune" doesn't have a problem with it, it is an OPed, thus not even subject to the same editorial standards of a real article. 2) It isn't peer-reviewed, so the author's claims aren't verified. 3) It links the same article you already linked with the NYT article, thus we don't have two objections, we have one, from a think tank whose position was already shown (as did the NYT) to be rejected by economists. 4) The author isn't an economist either, so putting forward his position is an appeal to authority fallacy.
    These are irrelevant points: 1) the OPed is was still printed with Fortune's banner - it doesn't make it any more or less true. 2) It's referring to peer reviewed papers 3) It is another reflection on the Berkerly paper, which reflects points that are supported by other economists (see above) 4) it doesn't matter if he's an economist or not - he's quoting from valid sources and valid points.

    Multi-site Companies Objection

    The Reich letter referred to above cites another flaw:
    In the UW data set, workers who leave a single-site business for a multi-site business to benefit from the higher wage mandate or because they received a better offer are not counted in the wage gains, but are counted in jobs lost.Seattle’s policy essentially sets a higher minimum wage for all multi-site businesses, counting them as large employers.4 The exclusion of multi-site businesses, which is not standard in studies that use these data, may therefore create major biases in their results. Of course, some employees may move from multi-site businesses to single site businesses, but this mobility direction is likely to be smaller. It is not possible to estimate the size of this bias without access to the underlying data.
    Recently, David Neumark (UC Irvine) conducted an environmental scan of the current state of economic research on the minimum wage. He reviewed more than 100 major academic studies (since 1992) and found that 85% of them find a negative effect on employment of low skilled workers.
    Depends what a 'negative' effect actually is. The ones you have stated thus far aren't negatives:

    - fewer people are hired in MW jobs due to raise: just means that companies were taking advantage by paying the lower rate and relies on the taxpayer to support their business.
    - rise in prices: this hasn't really been proven across the board, nor has it been shown that these raises will affect MW workers to the point that they might as well not had the raise in the first place, and it hasn't been shown that MW workers are guaranteed to be worse off.

    I still haven't seen proof that these companies raising prices are doing so solely due to MW and that they're not otherwise attempting to maintain their profits by doing so: in which case, if they want to pass on the costs then that's fine but that's because they're greedy about their profits.

    I don't think 16% unemployment increase in MW workers is some "side effect" that is a pretty major effect.
    Not sure where the 16% came from. If it's Seattle then I still dispute it's completeness (now with the additional point that the "lost" jobs in their dataset could have gone to the sector they decided not to review). I'm not even clear whether this is the case in ALL MW raises or just a few. So please clarify the source for this.

    No one has that power in a market. Market prices aren't set by individuals, they are set by the confluence of buyer percieved value and seller percieved value.
    Are you claiming (despite all the evidence provided regarding monopsony power) that employers have "power to affect" wages? Can you support that claim?
    And, more centrally, you never answered the point. How do you know that MW workers are being paid below what the job is "worth?"
    And the "seller's perceived value" is set by unions and the government. what's wrong with that!?
    Employers certainly have power to affect wages, and I've said this before, if it weren't for MW, they would be paid less. I support it with the migrant workers' wages because they have just as little bargaining power as the average MW worker. Also, I'm not just talking about undocumented workers but actual migrant workers on visa programs - they have no such fear of deportation. it's also clear that employers would prefer to pay migrants less money than to pay Americans more so they're always going to choose to spend as little on labor as needed.

    Also, I'm not talking about how much the job is "worth" because it's irrelevant. If a job is only worth $1/hr then it will never get to be filled and the business must go under. Or the company must somehow pass the cost to the customers or take less profit. Obviously, if the job is needed and can't be done by machines then it must be "worth" at least minimum wage because that is the floor that you can buy labor at.


    What does that unsupported claim have to do with supporting your claim? Why would the wages of fruit pickers in California would have anything to do with the wages of a waitress in New York. Can you support this claim? If not, can you please retract it?
    It is to support the fact that an MW-worker has little bargaining power, just as migrant workers have little bargaining power. They just have to accept the minimum and take multiple jobs or work longer hours to earn enough to live on. A waitress relies on tips to supplement her income so that's actually a different situation from other MW-workers that have jobs in the service industry or factories.

    SharmaK: Perhaps it's because the MW isn't high enough? That's why we should be talking about a 'living wage' and not just a bare minimum.





    Hmm, well given that we established that the Living Wage for most MW workers is about $5.81/hour, these two sentences are contradictary.
    Per https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/...rly-to-salary:
    An hourly rate of $5.81 equates to a weekly pay of $232, monthly pay of $1,007, and an annual salary of $12,085.

    The US poverty level for one person is
    $12,060. So this is pretty much a bare minimum.

    Are you seriously quibbling that the poverty is not a decent living wage?

    1) The origins of the MW are attempts by various groups to price out minorities and prevent them from competing with whites. While their motives are undeniably worse, their understanding of the effects seems better than most MW supporters today.
    Perhaps but that's because racist employers would prefer to pay a white person the same minimum vs a minority one. And there are fewer companies that are so blatantly racist so I have to reject your point here.

    2) I'm still interested in an answer to this question: If I said President Trump just put forward a bill whose effect would be to decrease black employment by 10% and increase perpetual poverty for blacks by 14% would we think that that is a policy we should adopt or reject?
    Obviously any blatantly racist policy shouldn't be supported. This is nothing like MW, even if MW sometimes negatively affects minorities worse.

    From $1760 to $0 16%
    From $1760 to $1880 41.16% (49% of the remaining)
    From $1760 to $1635 42.84% (51% of remaining)
    I don't get how the 51% remaining are losing money if the MW was raised.

    ---------- Post added at 09:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Big "hopefully".
    Not really - there's no reason why the discussions are random.

    But you answered nothing in my post.
    MW is a "living wage" for whom?
    A person?
    A family?
    At least one person - I think families would have two workers.


    Does "not living in poverty" include being able to vacation?
    Of course not.

    Different parts of the country have vastly different cost of living and you are advocating treating all areas the same.
    States are free to pass legislation on a higher wage but a national one would at least set the lowest in a consistent way.

    I said "a higher MW will accelerate the loss of MW jobs" which are already expected to mostly disappear in the near future.

    I said nothing remotely about "MW alone" being the cause of the job loss....
    (emphasis mine)
    OK, and that's a bad thing how? Forcing companies to improve technology is always a good thing. We don't need 'typesetters' or 'secretaries' or any number of jobs that have fallen by the wayside because of improvement in technology. I'm not bothered that MW helps move that along a bit - we have a safety net for those people that lose jobs and they should be improving their own skills anyway.

  6. #505
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,494
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK
    Yet, if economics as a discipline is a real science then why do countries all over the world implement a minimum wage?
    Since when does politics = science? If Global Warming is true, why do countries all over the world ignore it? There are hundreds of examples of politicians ignoring scientific guidance, right?

    The short answer is that historically, they implemented it to suppress minorities (see South Africa, Indonesia, and a host of Micronesian countries). More recently, because it is a great soundbite that no one thinks through. "I'm going to raise your wages" is an easy sell to voters and easier to fit on a bumbersticker than an understanding that labor is hurt by artificial prices.

    I should also point out that it really isn't the case that countries all over the world implement these kinds of price controls. As pointed out earlier in the thread, European countries have largely scaled back their MW laws or exempted large swathes of labor and people out of its coverage. Australia likewise implemented an enormous internship loophole that allows many people to ignore the MW laws under a guise of an internship. So I'm not sure it really is the case outside the US that MW laws are on the march.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    On the other hand, all this negativity is worthless because we have MW and it’s a real fact of life. I haven’t seen a good way to deal with the issues of poverty yet.
    Is/Ought fallacy. Given the harm the MW does to those in poverty, I think a good step for poverty reduction is eliminating it, thus increasing their chances to move up the economic ladder.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK
    Their weakness in being able to negotiate a higher salary is because...
    Except, we know, from peer reviewed sources that they don't have a weakness in being able to negotiate salaries. MW workers generally accept the market dictated wage rate. MW employrs generally accept the market dictated wage rate. Neither has any power to push wages up or down.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    What do you even mean by “artificial price”? I feel this might be the crux of our differences.
    In this case, a price determined by those who aren't participants in the transaction. MWs are determined by city, state, and federal legislative bodies, not by the employer or the employee.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    To your question: yes, it absolutely would. It happens in the real world when resources get scarce and prices have to go up and some businesses will have to fold because they can no longer rely on the original price.
    You are conflating two vastly different mechanisms. When resources become scarce, their price rises because they are only available for their most valuable uses. That isn't the same thing as a couple of legislators sitting in conference and determining a new price.

    If legistlators simply changed the price to $1B/foot for lumber, why would that be indicative that the business shouldn't exist? You defended why they shouldn't exist on an open market (because there are more valuable uses for their inputs), but not in a legislative context like the MW.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Besides, this is a red herring - there aren’t any MW raises that don’t just skim off existing profits so I don’t see any real issues in this regard.
    Wait, what? This is a pretty bold claim. So you are claiming that there has never been a MW raise in all of history that has caused job losses or automation? Every single one simply came as a profit decrease?


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK
    Depends what a 'negative' effect actually is...So I really have a hard time accepting your claim of consensus.
    I combined a couple of statements because they seem to be related to the same misconception.

    When I say "consensus" I'm not referring specifically just to consensus around the UW study (though there certainly is that). I'm referring to a specific consensus about the negative employment effects resulting from MW increases.

    Specifically, there is consensus around the following claim in economic literature: "A 10% increase in the minimum wage increases MW unemployment in a range of 1% to 5%, with a strong clustered median of 3.9%."

    IE, for every 10% you raise the minimum wage, you put 3.9% of minimum wage workers out of work.




    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I don't agree that there's 99% consensus.
    I recognize that. I'm asking you: a) why is 99% the relevant number to create a "consensus" and b) are you willing to retract your claims in this thread based on that claim: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post502411


    As for your criticism of the paper, you are quoting the same source over and over again as if it is a wide range of dispute. The Economist is citing EPI, you quote EPI, and you quoted EPI in your last post and an article quoting EPI. You really have only two sources. EPI (a stated pro-MW think tank) and one of the researchers from the Berkley study, which we've already shown to be rejected by other economists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    These are irrelevant points: 1) the OPed is was still printed with Fortune's banner - it doesn't make it any more or less true. 2) It's referring to peer reviewed papers 3) It is another reflection on the Berkerly paper, which reflects points that are supported by other economists (see above) 4) it doesn't matter if he's an economist or not - he's quoting from valid sources and valid points.
    These are absolutely relevant points. 1) You cited it as if it was Fortune making an objection, but it wasn't Fortune, it was an OPed (and therefore not reviewed by their fact checkers) by a guy for a source you had already cited. 2) No, it isn't. The only peer-reviewed paper it references is the UW one. No other peer-reviewed work is noted. And, more to my point, his claims of their problems aren't peer reviewed, that was my objection. His criticisms would be a lot more convincing if they were in some kind of source where other, trained economists reviewed them as valid. 3) I would recommend reviewing your source. He is citing EPI as well, so this link simply serves as a repeat of your earlier, not a new criticism from an actual economist. 4) No, he isn't. He generally isn't quoting from a source, he is stating his criticisms. Thus, given that he isn't an economist, it is an appeal to authority.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    The Reich letter referred to above cites another flaw:
    Except, as noted in the UW paper, those should be counted as job losses since surveys of employees in precisely that situation were noting that they intended to leave the MW zone to keep their job. This is precisely one of the mechanisms that this paper (and several others presented) put forward for job loses resulting from MW increases, that workers flee to regions that aren't as impacted. What's more, it is entirely unlikely (as Reich notes) that this effect would have any measurable change in the findings. It is unlikely that anything like 10-15K workers just happened to get better offers during the same three month period, above the number who had recieved better offers in the prior three months and above the number that got better offers in surrounding communities.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK
    I still haven't seen proof that these companies raising prices are doing so solely due to MW and that they're not otherwise attempting to maintain their profits by doing so: in which case, if they want to pass on the costs then that's fine but that's because they're greedy about their profits.
    1) That proof is embedded into the papers. These are trained economists with peer-reviewed work, not high school students. They isolate those factors that aren't related to the MW and control for them using control variables (like similar areas that didn't have a MW increase) and multi-variate analysis (testing the findings against age, race, sex, etc.). Thus, the findings stated in the OP and OP II are about the MW specifically, not about other factors.

    2) Lets assume they were just greedy (though we could show that virtually all MW employers operate on less than a 1% profit margin). So what? How does that affect the fact that MW hurts those are economically vulnerable? Sure, in this case we should criticize companies, but that isn't a defense of a policy that harms the poor, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK
    So please clarify the source for this.
    It came from the consensus view noted above related to MW increases as a whole (Seattle's being much more dramatic has been shown to be worse). Economists generally agree that a 10% increase in the minimum wage will make 3.9% of MW workers unemployed. Given Seattle's level of increase, that would mean a 16% increase in unemployment for MW workers there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    And the "seller's perceived value" is set by unions and the government. what's wrong with that!?
    Because they aren't the ones who own the labor? Should the government tell you how much you must sell your car for? Especially if that means that you won't be able to sell your car now? The problem with that scenario is that the end result is that more poor people end up without a job, and end up materially poorer, with a smaller chance of escaping poverty for them and their children.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Employers certainly have power to affect wages
    I get that you believe that, but you haven't offered support for that. I've offered peer-reviewed studies that show that employers do not have the ability to push down wages like you think. If you want to maintain this claim, you need to support it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Are you seriously quibbling that the poverty is not a decent living wage?
    I'm pointing out that by your standard the minimum wage is far, far above a living wage for an individual. Right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    And there are fewer companies that are so blatantly racist so I have to reject your point here.
    What does the current ideological make up of the US have to do with the origins of the MW? You do realize we are talking about two different time periods, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Obviously any blatantly racist policy shouldn't be supported. This is nothing like MW, even if MW sometimes negatively affects minorities worse.
    How is it different? Please be specific. How are these two statements materially different?

    A) If I said President Trump just put forward a minimum wage bill whose effect would be to decrease black employment by 10% and increase perpetual poverty for blacks by 14% would we think that that is a policy we should adopt or reject?

    B) If I said President Trump just put forward a bill whose effect would be to decrease black employment by 10% and increase perpetual poverty for blacks by 14% would we think that that is a policy we should adopt or reject?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I don't get how the 51% remaining are losing money if the MW was raised.
    Because, as pointed out earlier, increasing the MW is increasing the rate at which people are paid, not the total amount paid to them.

    Thus, I can increase your hourly rate, and decrease the hours you work and, in total, pay you less, right?

    Given that, do you have any objection to this math?

    From $1760 to $0 16%
    From $1760 to $1880 41.16% (49% of the remaining)
    From $1760 to $1635 42.84% (51% of remaining)

    So for every 100 people we saw:

    Employment Effect Total Wage Effect
    16 people lost their jobs -$28,160
    41 people took home more pay +$4,920
    43 people took home less pay -$5,375
    Total A loss of -$28,615 in wages
    Please let me know if you have any questions about the math. But given that the goal is to ensure thy have a living wage, it would seem the policy has the net effect of increasing the burden on the government by $28,615 for every 100 workers.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #506
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Not really - there's no reason why the discussions are random.
    I see, that is why YOU felt the need to add the qualifier "hopefully"....

    ---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    At least one person - I think families would have two workers.
    Families (if they had a child) would probably have one worker as day care costs more than MW.

    I really don't think MW was ever meant to support to more than one person.

    ---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Of course not.
    Really? Who decides these things?

    ---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    States are free to pass legislation on a higher wage but a national one would at least set the lowest in a consistent way.
    But again, the lowest "living wage" in one state would be much more comfortable lifestyle in another. Where I live a two bdrm/two bath apt can easily cost $1100. Other states $1100 could rent a decent, much larger house or the same size apt for considerably cheaper.

    ---------- Post added at 05:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    OK, and that's a bad thing how?
    Because these are entry level, no skill jobs and there is no place else for them to go. Once the majority of this type of work no longer exists (probably the fairly near future) what are these people to do?

  8. #507
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Since when does politics = science? If Global Warming is true, why do countries all over the world ignore it? There are hundreds of examples of politicians ignoring scientific guidance, right?
    That's probably true - clearly economists aren't always listened to - see Brexit. I wonder why that is?

    However, in the case for MW, it seems very one-sided from the way you tell it and when you tell it, the story involves "artificial pricing of labor", it involves only the negative aspects of MW and sees zero benefits. By your own telling, a company would not only fire people, they would also raise prices and then lower the number of hours, such that practically every worker ends up losing.

    The doom and gloom and apocalyptic glee at the Seattle case makes one wonder why the rest of the civilized world just doesn’t abandon all social programs at once and let the market forces act according to their nature; the arguments are so strong and detailed and objective and educated and obviously true in all cases that it’s a wonder why collective bargaining is even a thing any more.

    The answer is that whereas there may well be politics driving a government mandated MW, that's kinda their one job. That's why we have politicians, taking their directions ideally from the country, in order to enact policy. On GW, that's just kicking the can down the road - I disbelieve the doomsday side of things as much as I disbelieve clean coal. And I certainly disbelieve the scenarios your trying to push.

    You haven’t made a case that the free market is better; you may have some points that MW has flaws but they’re exaggerated and, worse, you continue to ignore the disparity in bargaining power that can only be solved by the government or a union; and you downplay the fact that MW is basically welfare to run companies that are either too greedy or not profitable enough to support a proper working wage. So regardless of whatever research and facts and consensus and arguments, MW continues to be a fact of life in the modern civilized world. We will discuss the points below so don’t respond to this summary.


    The short answer is that historically, they implemented it to suppress minorities (see South Africa, Indonesia, and a host of Micronesian countries). More recently, because it is a great soundbite that no one thinks through. "I'm going to raise your wages" is an easy sell to voters and easier to fit on a bumbersticker than an understanding that labor is hurt by artificial prices.
    What is an "artificial price"? And are you suggesting that because of the origins of MW are racist and designed to hurt minorities, that this is a specific goal of its proponents? World-wide?

    I should also point out that it really isn't the case that countries all over the world implement these kinds of price controls. As pointed out earlier in the thread, European countries have largely scaled back their MW laws or exempted large swathes of labor and people out of its coverage. Australia likewise implemented an enormous internship loophole that allows many people to ignore the MW laws under a guise of an internship. So I'm not sure it really is the case outside the US that MW laws are on the march.
    Yes, and those European countries have strong unions to the point that workers practically have to join one in order to work. These unions have collectively bargained their own industry-based MW.
    Sweden

    Sweden is often touted as the poster-child for abolishing the minimum wage. However, the Nordicnation is certainly no free-market free-for-all. Instead, minimum wages are set by sector or industry through collective bargaining. Nearly all Swedish citizens belong to one of about 60 trade unions and 50 employers' organizations that negotiate wage rates for regular hourly work, salaries and overtime. The minimum wage tends to hover near 60-70% of the average wage in Sweden.

    The link describe similar situations in Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland. And I'm sure you know this, which makes me wonder what your point is. Are you deliberately not seeing that union-mandated MW and government-mandated MW have the same effect? Are unions bad too? Artificial as well?


    Is/Ought fallacy. Given the harm the MW does to those in poverty, I think a good step for poverty reduction is eliminating it, thus increasing their chances to move up the economic ladder.
    I haven't yet seen any proof that having no MW provides economic mobility. I don't see migrant workers (in the US or Europe) becoming super rich off their work. Tiffin delivery boys in India I’m sure are not mobile either; neither are any kind of low income work in countries that don’t have MW.

    The fact is that MW provides more benefits that the perceived harm that you claim. In a modern country such as the US, MW is literally the government telling companies to pay people a decent salary so that taxpayers don’t have to supplement their meager income. What incentive does a company have to pay anything beyond the bare minimum that a worker will work for if they can always rely on the government to back them up?

    Except, we know, from peer reviewed sources that they don't have a weakness in being able to negotiate salaries. MW workers generally accept the market dictated wage rate. MW employrs generally accept the market dictated wage rate. Neither has any power to push wages up or down.
    This is only thing you offer - the platitude that workers and employers will find an “equilibrium” - you're not offering that this equilibrium allows them an LW. Until you do that we're arguing against different goals: you, the quasi-religious idea that the market is always "right" and me, arguing for a fair living wage that doesn't require governments supplementing company's profits.

    You also disregard the disparity in bargaining power: as proven in the migrant worker cases, or when a union gets a higher rate for their workers. Both these examples show that an individual MW is at a severe bargaining disadvantage and it is because they are easily replaceable. So I totally reject that "MW workers generally accept the market dictated wage rate" is a boon: facts on the ground show that this generally isn't as high a wage that they would otherwise get from a government (or union) rate.


    In this case, a price determined by those who aren't participants in the transaction. MWs are determined by city, state, and federal legislative bodies, not by the employer or the employee.
    And so what if it isn't? Putting aside the fact that both governments and unions represents the participants, your charge of it being 'artificial' is exactly why economics can sometimes sound cultish. Indeed, in the free market of ideas regarding wages, it is the MW (via government or unions) that have won out and "pure economists" have lost. They're the ones 'artificially" removing tried and tested ways to level the bargaining power playing field by suggesting non-solutions that gain nothing.


    You are conflating two vastly different mechanisms. When resources become scarce, their price rises because they are only available for their most valuable uses. That isn't the same thing as a couple of legislators sitting in conference and determining a new price.

    If legistlators simply changed the price to $1B/foot for lumber, why would that be indicative that the business shouldn't exist? You defended why they shouldn't exist on an open market (because there are more valuable uses for their inputs), but not in a legislative context like the MW.
    I'm not sure whose doing the conflation here: you're the one putting forward the example. Either way, my point is valid: cheap labor being scarce is the same as a price increase of labor: numerically they're identical. If a company can't afford to pay their workers, then it's correct that they fold, right? I don't see the problem!

    Legislators change prices all the time using taxes and tariffs and fines and legislation and other economic triggers to tweak behavior. If it happened that lumber is super expensive, e.g. to perhaps save trees, then it is clear that this is mandate that the company should not exist. By making it more expensive to do business, the government is attempting to sway things in one direction or another: see Trump's recent tariffs on solar panels - he wants to make renewable energy more expensive to use than taking natural resources. Thus he will end up shutting down those companies for a while and perhaps give his favored industries a breather.

    Wait, what? This is a pretty bold claim. So you are claiming that there has never been a MW raise in all of history that has caused job losses or automation? Every single one simply came as a profit decrease?
    Well, unlike your wholly negative picture of MW in order to preserve a pure-market-driven view of the labor pricing, I have already accepted that there could be a loss in jobs! We literally just discussed it and I have already conceded that this might happen for some of those small businesses (who likely would have folded anyway) that can't afford a minor raise. And I have also pointed out that those left behind have a social buffer in terms of government assistance.

    That said, I think it's safe to say that most companies will be able to absorb any MW hike. It's kinda obvious since MW doesn't really track inflation anyway, so in real terms, MW has been falling and increasing it just takes money from profits, if any. If there aren't profits to take then as I have repeatedly suggested then the company frankly shouldn't exist since it only does so by the taxpayers' expense anyway as proven by the inability to pay people a decent wage.


    I combined a couple of statements because they seem to be related to the same misconception.

    When I say "consensus" I'm not referring specifically just to consensus around the UW study (though there certainly is that). I'm referring to a specific consensus about the negative employment effects resulting from MW increases.

    Specifically, there is consensus around the following claim in economic literature: "A 10% increase in the minimum wage increases MW unemployment in a range of 1% to 5%, with a strong clustered median of 3.9%."

    IE, for every 10% you raise the minimum wage, you put 3.9% of minimum wage workers out of work.
    I'm sure that there are a loss of jobs. As I've pointed out and I will again: these losses have to be from companies that either do not want to reduce their profits or they would have folded anyway because they don't have enough profits. The former is just greedy firms and they're irrelevant in the equation and we should raise it even more. The latter are clearly weakly run companies that don't provide enough profits to run a company that properly pays people.

    And if the other 96% have a decent salary then that's a decent price to pay - I don't think anyone expects MW to be perfect for everyone.

    I recognize that. I'm asking you: a) why is 99% the relevant number to create a "consensus" and b) are you willing to retract your claims in this thread based on that claim: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post502411
    Not sure why that old thread is relevant here - are you literally using 99% because I did so in another thread?

    Except, as noted in the UW paper, those should be counted as job losses since surveys of employees in precisely that situation were noting that they intended to leave the MW zone to keep their job. This is precisely one of the mechanisms that this paper (and several others presented) put forward for job loses resulting from MW increases, that workers flee to regions that aren't as impacted. What's more, it is entirely unlikely (as Reich notes) that this effect would have any measurable change in the findings. It is unlikely that anything like 10-15K workers just happened to get better offers during the same three month period, above the number who had recieved better offers in the prior three months and above the number that got better offers in surrounding communities.
    Nope, the job loss isn't because employees wanted to leave - they were forced to leave by employers being too cheap and greedy to pay a proper wage whilst suckling off the taxpayer's teat to support the remaining people. The employer is 100% in control of those jobs and if they choose not to, for whatever reason, it is not because of MW per se - it is wholly due to them wanting to maintain their profits.


    1) That proof is embedded into the papers. These are trained economists with peer-reviewed work, not high school students. They isolate those factors that aren't related to the MW and control for them using control variables (like similar areas that didn't have a MW increase) and multi-variate analysis (testing the findings against age, race, sex, etc.). Thus, the findings stated in the OP and OP II are about the MW specifically, not about other factors.
    Not according to other economists who disagree. And thus we are in a position where we have anti-MW economists offering no solutions in order to maintain the questionable value of leaving it up to the markets. Which no modern country does and in all accounts the free market forces (as evidenced by migrant workers) makes people much worse off. Thus, the findings are suspect.

    2) Lets assume they were just greedy (though we could show that virtually all MW employers operate on less than a 1% profit margin). So what? How does that affect the fact that MW hurts those are economically vulnerable? Sure, in this case we should criticize companies, but that isn't a defense of a policy that harms the poor, right?
    If your 1% profit margin is true then clearly MW should be raised - those companies are literally therefore being assisted by the government in order to employ those people in the first place! The answer to "so what" is to understand the true reasons - if having a LW is a desirable goal, which you haven't opined on yet, then we have to understand the reasons behind the apparent loss in jobs. The MW levels certainly aren't onerous anyway so I suspect that some companies are just taking revenge anyway. And once we recognize greed and vengeance as drivers then maybe we can legislate against that.

    Certainly, not having MW and not raising MW and not doing anything is not a good direction. I certainly haven't seen that your counterpoint of having no MW would result in better wages and your metric of employment rate is specious: what good is it of 100% employment if those workers need their salaries supplemented by the government. You're literally arguing that it's a good thing to have companies that can't survive a free market world.

    Because they aren't the ones who own the labor? Should the government tell you how much you must sell your car for? Especially if that means that you won't be able to sell your car now? The problem with that scenario is that the end result is that more poor people end up without a job, and end up materially poorer, with a smaller chance of escaping poverty for them and their children.
    This is not a valid comparison - if you can't sell your labor you will have government assistance. Employers need to pay people more money than government assistance otherwise the taxpayer is just propping up badly run companies who otherwise would have folded.

    And the problem with your scenarios is that you think it should end at MW, whereas, we should be understanding why those losses are happening in the first place. It may well be that MW is the trigger, but what are the thought processes of the companies? If all of a sudden their perception of the worth of the work done doesn't align with MW then that's just their opinion - meanwhile, their CEO gets millions in bonuses and all the middle managers are still fine too. And why? Because all their bargaining power is vastly greater than that of the average MW. There's no objective 'formula' as to how a worker contributes - it's a mix of some facts and some negotiation: it's why there's a male-female wage gap.

    I get that you believe that, but you haven't offered support for that. I've offered peer-reviewed studies that show that employers do not have the ability to push down wages like you think. If you want to maintain this claim, you need to support it.
    I have - migrant workers and women have less bargaining power and thus earn less. Unions can always get a higher rate for their workers than each worker alone. These are all proof that a disparity in bargaining power is why MW-workers are at a disadvantage. And I would think that if MW was actually lowered then companies aren't going to keep those MW-workers at the old rates - they would lower it to the lowest legal minimum. So I don't really think that those studies are valid outside of their likely highly restricted scenarios.

    I'm pointing out that by your standard the minimum wage is far, far above a living wage for an individual. Right?
    And what do you think that standard is?

    What does the current ideological make up of the US have to do with the origins of the MW? You do realize we are talking about two different time periods, right?
    I have no idea why you're raising the point then!


    How is it different? Please be specific. How are these two statements materially different?

    A) If I said President Trump just put forward a minimum wage bill whose effect would be to decrease black employment by 10% and increase perpetual poverty for blacks by 14% would we think that that is a policy we should adopt or reject?

    B) If I said President Trump just put forward a bill whose effect would be to decrease black employment by 10% and increase perpetual poverty for blacks by 14% would we think that that is a policy we should adopt or reject?
    One is constitutional and the other isn't. It's why in Trump's Muslim ban he went to great pains to exclude the word Muslim.

    Because, as pointed out earlier, increasing the MW is increasing the rate at which people are paid, not the total amount paid to them.

    Thus, I can increase your hourly rate, and decrease the hours you work and, in total, pay you less, right?

    Given that, do you have any objection to this math?

    From $1760 to $0 16%
    From $1760 to $1880 41.16% (49% of the remaining)
    From $1760 to $1635 42.84% (51% of remaining)

    So for every 100 people we saw:

    Employment Effect Total Wage Effect
    16 people lost their jobs -$28,160
    41 people took home more pay +$4,920
    43 people took home less pay -$5,375
    Total A loss of -$28,615 in wages
    Please let me know if you have any questions about the math. But given that the goal is to ensure thy have a living wage, it would seem the policy has the net effect of increasing the burden on the government by $28,615 for every 100 workers.
    Then your table is still missing the number of hours worked. But your conclusion that the government supplies $28K of benefits doesn't seem right - given these are MW workers on some kind of assistance anyway, when they lose their job, they may end up taking some more assistance but it may not be $2K more per person. So I don't think your model is complete.

    ---------- Post added at 09:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I see, that is why YOU felt the need to add the qualifier "hopefully"....
    Not quite, I was thinking of those politicians that don't raise it as much as it could be because they're in the pocket of corporations. Or they'll ruin it by giving companies some kind of tax break in order to pay for it.

    Families (if they had a child) would probably have one worker as day care costs more than MW.
    I really don't think MW was ever meant to support to more than one person.
    I suspect that those on MW can't afford day care; they probably rely on family or friends. Also, you're right MW isn't meant to support a family - that's why we have government assistance programs to help them. And that's why MW-workers end up with multiple jobs to make ends meet.


    Really? Who decides these things?

    Voters, as with everything else, decide.

    But again, the lowest "living wage" in one state would be much more comfortable lifestyle in another. Where I live a two bdrm/two bath apt can easily cost $1100. Other states $1100 could rent a decent, much larger house or the same size apt for considerably cheaper.
    I'm pretty sure MW-workers aren't living in two-bath apartments and neither are they living in a house, large or otherwise. I think they're mainly living in older houses that are run down, mostly damp or otherwise poorly finished.

    Because these are entry level, no skill jobs and there is no place else for them to go. Once the majority of this type of work no longer exists (probably the fairly near future) what are these people to do?
    I don't know - where did the people that lost jobs in the past end up? There's likely always going to be building jobs and I'm sure there are other industries where automation is not likely going to change things soon.
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 1st, 2018 at 07:51 AM.

  9. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  10. #508
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,494
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I'm sure that there are a loss of jobs.
    Ok so let's start with this because it is the most central point of the thread.

    We agree that there is some portion of people that lose their jobs due to the minimum wage. I'm not sure if you are accepting the majority finding of 3.9% per 10% or not, but it is some positive number.

    Can we then agree that those people are worse off under the minimum wage?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    However, in the case for MW, it seems very one-sided from the way you tell it and when you tell it, the story involves "artificial pricing of labor", it involves only the negative aspects of MW and sees zero benefits.
    I think this highlights that you haven't actually been reading my responses for any nuance, but rather to find something to respond to. I have not been arguing it one-sidedly at all. Take a look at the chart at the end of my last post. One of my assumptions in that chart was to maximize the numbers who both retained their job and got more take home pay under the MW. So I'm not arguing at all that every single worker is worse off, clearly that isn't the case. In fact, one of my arguments in the OP was that if we look at the data the workers that do tend to be benefited by the MW are those who generally need it the least. They tend to be children in middle-class homes within upper middle and middle class zipcodes.

    But are there poor, disadvantaged individuals that benefit from the MW? Absolutely. They are just outweighed by both the scope and scale of those disadvantaged individuals that were hurt by the MW.

    We can absolutely disagree on the politics and political motivations of the voters and politicians, but the above statement isn't one of politics, its relatively undisputed economic fact.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    you continue to ignore the disparity in bargaining power that can only be solved by the government or a union
    Two points here. One, I'm not ignoring it, I've given you the peer-reviewed data showing that companies do not have the ability to push down wages. Do you disagree with that data?

    Two, do you know how unions raise wages (at an individual company, they tend to depress wages within an industry)? They create unemployment by establishing a minimum wage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    What is an "artificial price"? And are you suggesting that because of the origins of MW are racist and designed to hurt minorities, that this is a specific goal of its proponents? World-wide?
    Not at all, if you re-read my posts you'll see that I specifically said that modern day supporters have positive motives, they just understand the economics poorly. My point was that if you are supporting policies that were designed with racist goals in mind, you need to perhaps rethink why it is a good policy.

    As for artificial prices, they are prices established by outside agents. IE someone not involved in the cost or beneift of a decision. Like going over to your neighbor and telling them they can't buy a new car for less than $1M. It is artificial because it is not part of the mutually beneficial voluntary exchange process between two persons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Yes, and those European countries have strong unions to the point that workers practically have to join one in order to work.
    No argument there. That is also why they have ridiculously high unemployment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    The link describe similar situations in Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland. And I'm sure you know this
    Indeed. If you had bothered to review the evidence in the thread, you would see that I had already rebutted this information in the OP, , here, here, here, here, here, and then tbh, I got bored with looking, but there are some additional rebuttals around page 18 I think.

    Long story short (all data is taken from this post), the reason that these don't really mean what you seem to imply is because the industries covered by these kind of collective bargaining agreements are incredibly small. What's more important, in most EU countries those under 25 aren't covered by CB requirements and there are few under 40 that work in industries covered by CB. So if we look at Youth unemployment in EU countries with and without a MW, we see a pretty stark figure:




    And, let's take a look at one of the countries listed, Denmark, where certain MW begins applying on their 18th birthday;


    Before you create a bunch of hypotheticals about what caused this, read the paper linked here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post555437


    Hard to ignore the unemployment effect there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I haven't yet seen any proof that having no MW provides economic mobility.
    I can only assume that is because you haven't reviewed the thread at all:

    I've made the argument on this forum several times that income mobility and income inequality are largely artifacts of a growing economy. Prof. Powell agrees with me in a very convincing post:

    Income mobility can be measured over the course of an individual’s life or by the mobility between generations in the same family. Most people start their adult lives with relatively low earnings, because they have few job skills, little work experience, and incomplete education. As they build skills, gain experience, and complete their education, their earnings rise through their 20s, 30s, and 40s, and they typically achieve their maximum earnings in their 50s or 60s before they retire.

    Historically, this “lifecycle” of earnings has created a great deal of income mobility. Data from the University of Michigan Panel Survey on Income Dynamics show that, of people who were in the lowest fifth of income earners in 1975, only 5.1 percent of them were still in the lowest fifth 16 years later and 29 percent had actually risen all the way to the top fifth of income earners.

    Mobility between generations is less dramatic. A recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research examined how children born in the 1980s did relative to their peers compared to how their parents did relative to their peers. It found that 8 percent of children born into families in the bottom fifth of income earners made it to the top fifth of income earners of their own age by the time they were 30. For children born in the middle fifth, 20 percent made the top by age 30.

    Contrary to the claims of the President, the study also found that the rate of intergenerational mobility was largely unchanged over the last 50 years. Yet, this does not mean that there are not barriers to upward mobility. The study found significant local and regional variations in mobility across the country. Neighborhoods with large densities of African-American populations tended to demonstrate lower relative income mobility.

    Unfortunately, President Obama’s proposals are unlikely to help increase income mobility in the lower-mobility segments of the U.S. population. The greatest barrier to income mobility for some workers is their ability to get up onto the first rung or two of the economic ladder that will allow them to build the skills in order to achieve a normal lifecycle of earnings.

    The minimum wage is one policy that prevents workers from stepping onto the first rung of the ladder. Some workers’ hourly productivity is below the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour. These workers are prevented from getting their first job and beginning the process of acquiring the skills that would lead to higher incomes in the future. Young African-Americans are disproportionately harmed. Nearly half of the workers earning the minimum wage are under 25, and unemployment among 16 to 24 year old African Americans remains at more than 23 percent. It is likely that an increase in the federal minimum wage would prevent even more workers from getting their first job that allows them to start climbing the economic ladder.

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post534887

    There are additionally several peer-reviewed sources in OP II that support this finding.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    MW is literally the government telling companies to pay people a decent salary
    Let me ask a relatively basic question to level set. When you increase the price of a good or service, do people purchase less of it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    This is only thing you offer - the platitude that workers and employers will find an “equilibrium” - you're not offering that this equilibrium allows them an LW.
    Three points here.

    1) You keep talking about unequal negotiating power, but unequal power to accomplish what? To affect wages, right? Isn't that what your concern is? Companies have far more negotiating power so they will drive down wages? The problem is, that doesn't actually happen. We know that, in the US, companies don't actually have that unequal power because employees have the option of moving to another company. You might find that emotionally not convincing, but we know, with objective, factual data, that that is the case.

    Really, what it is in the context you are referring to is the ability of an employer to dictate wages because they are the only employer (or there are very few employers, and I mean very few, like 2 or less). In that scenario there is no competition for labor and as such the employer can capture a large portion of the marginal contribution of labor. What can the employee do, he can’t go anywhere else after all.

    Here is the problem with that though. There are no monopsonies. Study after study has been conducted to detect monopsony power in markets. In big cites, small towns, restricted fields like medicine, technical fields like welding, and relevant here, low skill roles like harvesting fruit. No study has yet to find a hint of monopsony power (except one, more on that in a minute), not even in extreme cases of low skill roles in very small communities.

    A monopsony is when an employer has market power in the labor market, sort of the employer equivalent of a monopoly. The argument is that a monopsonist is able to hold wage below the equilibrium level, just like a monopolist would hold prices below the competitive equilibrium. Economic theory suggests that in response to a price floor that increases prices slightly, a monopsonist might not decrease labor demand. However, a recent study provides empirical evidence that seems somewhat at odds with this: large retailers pay more than small retailers.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledb...nopsony-power/

    First, the exception. This paper found monopsony power in Indonesia when employees were forbidden (by law) from moving to other towns for political stability reasons. This inability to move did seem to produce monopsony effects. However, the author finds them to be less than 5% and specifically notes that they noted no such effects in American labor markets
    http://www.iza.org/conference_files/...mund_p6819.pdf

    This paper examines the thesis that monopsony power is an important determinant of wages in nursing labor markets. Using data from the 1985-93 Current Population Surveys, measures of relative nurse/non-nurse wage rates for 252 labor markets are constructed. Contrary to predictions from the monopsony model, no positive relationship exists between relative nursing wages and hospital density or market size. Nor is support found for the presence of monopsony power based on evidence on union wage premiums, slopes of experience profiles, or the mix of RN to total hospital employment.
    http://www.angelfire.com/wizard/moti...bor/nurses.pdf

    The market for registered nurses (RNs) is often offered as an example of “classic” monopsony…Wage level analysis fails to provide support for classic monopsony, the relative wages of RNs in 240 U.S. labor markets being largely uncorrelated with hospital system concentration. Longitudinal analysis shows nursing wages declining with increases in hospital concentration. …Two conclusions follow. First, upward sloping labor supply need not imply monopsonistic outcomes. Second, absent more compelling evidence, nursing should not be held up as a prototypical example of monopsony—classic or new.
    http://www.trinity.edu/eschumac/JHE_...sony_Sep05.pdf

    Recent theoretical and empirical advances have renewed interest in monopsonistic models of the labor market. However, there is little direct empirical support for these models. We use an exogenous change in wages at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals as a natural experiment to investigate the extent of monopsony in the nurse labor market. We estimate that labor supply to individual hospitals is quite inelastic, with short-run elasticity around 0.1. We also find that non-VA hospitals responded to the VA wage change by changing their own wages.
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dstaiger/P...ole%202010.pdf

    Although interest in monopsonistic influences on labour market outcomes has revived in recent years, only a few empirical studies provide direct evidence on it. This paper analyses empirically the effect of monopsony power on pay structure, using a direct measure of labour market ‘thinness’. We find that having fewer competitors for skilled labour is associated at the level of the establishment with lower pay for both skilled labour and trainees, but not for
    unskilled labour. These findings have potentially important implications for the economic theory of training, as most recent models assume that skilled pay is set monopsonistically but both unskilled and trainee pay are determined competitively. Our results support those assumptions for skilled pay and unskilled pay, but not for trainee pay.
    http://www.researchgate.net/publicat...e_and_Training

    This paper is a bit older, however the author conducts a series of longitudinal scans of the state of research in 94, and finds no evidence for monopsony effects. http://www.amazon.com/The-Minimum-Wa.../dp/0255363443

    Here is my favorite though:

    Summary
    The simple monopsony model provides an alternative explanation to the standard competitive model of how wages are determined. It predicts that employers will hold wages down below the value of the last worker’s contribution to output (“exploitation”) by limiting the number of workers they hire. But it is too simple to fit real American labor markets, so elaborations such as oligopsony or differentiation of employers are needed.

    Estimates of monopsony exploitation to date in American labor markets have yielded surprising results (see Table 1 for a rough summary). Monopsony does not appear to have been important in company mining towns, a standard textbook example, or in markets for teachers and nurses, early suspects. In fact, the largest plausible estimates of monopsony exploitation to date are not for blue-collar workers but rather for professional athletes and possibly college professors.
    ...

    http://eh.net/encyclopedia/monopsony...labor-markets/
    Now, you’ll notice that 1-3% at the bottom. Does that range seem familiar?
    I referenced this earlier when I mentioned that the difference between marginal contribution and wage is generally 2-3% different. That was an empirical comment about what we see in the market place. Employers really don’t have the kind of wage controlling powers we often assume.


    2) Your own data shows that low skilled wage rates are already above a "LW" as you define it, so how can you possibly hold this position rationally?

    3) Isn't this an argument to stop offering corporate welfare rather than forcing people out of the labor market and onto welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Indeed, in the free market of ideas regarding wages, it is the MW (via government or unions) that have won out and "pure economists" have lost.
    In the political arena, this is perhaps the case. But so what? As you agreed above, politics =/= reality. Do you have any data or material dispute with the reality that the MW impoverishes those who are most economically vulnerable?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Either way, my point is valid: cheap labor being scarce is the same as a price increase of labor: numerically they're identical.
    I'm afraid that isn't the case because you are forgetting that the quantify of workers in those two scenarios is different. In one, there are few workers unemployed and so prices rise. In the other prices rise so there are a lot of unemployed workers.

    This is my scenario:





    This is your scenario:






    Under the minimum wage, the difference between Q1 and Q2 are the number of workers now unemployed. Under a supply contraction you describe, the difference between Q1 and Q2 are workers who have moved into other jobs (or whatever mechanism you are proposing to reduce their availability).



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    If a company can't afford to pay their workers, then it's correct that they fold, right?
    If they can't afford to pay their workers because people don't want to buy their products, sure. If it is because someone wholly unrelated to the job decides to interfere and coerce employees from accepting job offers, then no.

    You also keep acting like it is large, evil, greedy corporations that fold here, but as I showed earlier (and elsewhere in the thread) that isn't the case. Increasing the minimum wage generally creates minority, low income worker unemployment, but it also tends to cause businesses that are owned by and serve minority, impoverished communities out of business.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Legislators change prices all the time using taxes and tariffs and fines and legislation and other economic triggers to tweak behavior.
    So you concede that these price changes do actually affect employer behavior right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    That said, I think it's safe to say that most companies will be able to absorb any MW hike.
    Do you have evidence to support this?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Not sure why that old thread is relevant here - are you literally using 99% because I did so in another thread?
    I'm saying 99% because you stated that as your threshhold in this thread. If 99% is your threshhold for "consensus" then you could reject the consensus economic view on MW, sure. But you would also have to reject the consensus view on Anthropogenic Global Warming as well. I'm citing that old thread to point out that you are cherry picking. You were certainly happy to accept values well below 99% in the past, but aren't anymore. To be consistent you either have to accept this consensus or reject those.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Nope, the job loss isn't because employees wanted to leave - they were forced to leave by employers
    Yada, yada, yada, they left due to the effects of Minimum wage, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Not according to other economists who disagree.
    Well, no. Less than 10% of economists disagree. So we have a tiny minority of economists, almost none of which claim a net positive effect
    , the bulk of that 10ish% number think that an effect isn't measurable, but that there is still an effect.


    That isn't to say that there aren't any economists who support a minimum wage, there certainly are (Mr. Krugman is a great example), however they generally don't publish peer-reviewed work (Mr. Krugman's peer-reviewed work on the minimum wage finds an unemployment effect, as does his published textbook) or aren't labor economists. But even if we include these individuals, and I think we need to evaluate their work as it is presented, just like with any work, you have to agree that the vast majority of economists find that increasing the minimum wage reduces employment of economically vulnerable individuals.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    if having a LW is a desirable goal...
    Let's presume for a second, for the sake of argument that it is. How does implementing a policy that puts 16% or so people at a wage of $0 (and makes their finding future jobs more difficult) further that goal?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    if you can't sell your labor you will have government assistance. Employers need to pay people more money than government assistance otherwise the taxpayer is just propping up badly run companies who otherwise would have folded.
    So which is a more desirable condition?

    a) The government pays 30% of some set living wage value.

    b) The government pays 100% of some set living wage value?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    meanwhile, their CEO gets millions in bonuses and all the middle managers are still fine too.
    Uh huh. You do realize that 60% of minimum wage employees work for a company of less than 100 people right? That those company's CEOs aren't making "millions" nor do they likely have middle managers. They are generally lower middle class self-employed owners who earn less than $30K from their business and are disproportionately from a poor and minority background. All of this data has been presented in thread before.

    Yeah! Let's stick it to those lower middle class minority capitalists and their unrepetent greed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    migrant workers and women have less bargaining power and thus earn less.
    Actually no, you've asserted this, you haven't shown it. The claim about women is wholly new. If you are going to claim this, you need to offer tangible, peer-reviewed support or retract it.

    a) Migrant workers are proper comparables for all minimum wage employees.

    b) Migrant workers bargaining power is equal to minimum wage employees.

    c) Migrant workers make less in comparable jobs to minimum wage employees.

    Challenge to support a claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    And what do you think that standard is?
    I personally don't subscribe to living wage ideas because of its origin in the eugenics movement, its lack of technical definition, and its subjective nature. But none of that is relevant. Do you agree that, by your definition, current wage rates are above the living wage rate?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    One is constitutional and the other isn't.
    How so? Please be specific. Both policies are identical in details, how is one consitutional and the other not? Neither bill talks about race, right?

    A) If I said President Trump just put forward a minimum wage bill whose effect would be to decrease black employment by 10% and increase perpetual poverty for blacks by 14% would we think that that is a policy we should adopt or reject?

    B) If I said President Trump just put forward a bill whose effect would be to decrease black employment by 10% and increase perpetual poverty for blacks by 14% would we think that that is a policy we should adopt or reject?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Then your table is still missing the number of hours worked. But your conclusion that the government supplies $28K of benefits doesn't seem right - given these are MW workers on some kind of assistance anyway, when they lose their job, they may end up taking some more assistance but it may not be $2K more per person. So I don't think your model is complete.
    The number of hours worked is implied in the wage decrease since that was mentioned earlier in thread. Regardless, it is a simple division problem if you wish to see the number of hours reduced and is supported by the data presented in thread. I'll add it to the table if that makes you happy though.

    I'm game to add the benefits. If we assume that all minimum wage workers were getting an additional $200/week in benefits before the rate increase (I'm happy to plug in whatever number you want), the table should look like this;


    From $1760 to $0 (40 hrs @ 11/hr to 0 hrs @$0/hr) 16%
    From $1760 to $1880 (40 hrs @ $11/hr to 31.3 hrs @$15/hr, representing the 120/month increase from the data) 41.16% (49% of the remaining)
    From $1760 to $1635 (40 hrs @ $11/hr to 27.25 hrs @$15/hr, representing the 130/month decrease from the data) 42.84% (51% of remaining)


    So for every 100 people we saw:

    Employment Effect Total Wage Effect Total Benefits paid/week
    16 people lost their jobs -$28,160 $31,360 (16 people, 200 per week +1760 lost wages)
    41 people took home more pay +$4,920 $-8200 (These 41 people no longer need benefits)
    43 people took home less pay -$5,375 $13,975 (43 people, 200 per week +$5,375 lost wages
    Total A loss of -$28,615 in wages Increase of $37,135 benefits paid)

    Please let me know if you have any questions about the math. But given that the goal is to ensure thy have a living wage, it would seem the policy has the net effect of increasing the burden on the government by $37,135 for every 100 workers. (This doesn't factor in tax loss due to decreased income).
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #509
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    @squatch. Another thing missing in your responses is a modern example of a country with no minimum wage set by either the government or union or any kind of collective bargaining.

    I’ll get to responding to you later but you seem to be pointing out negatives with no real proof that the world would be better off without “artificial” interference. Prove it with facts, not theory!

  12. #510
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    @squatch. Another thing missing in your responses is a modern example of a country with no minimum wage set by either the government or union or any kind of collective bargaining.

    I’ll get to responding to you later but you seem to be pointing out negatives with no real proof that the world would be better off without “artificial” interference. Prove it with facts, not theory!
    Well, at least you acknowledge the "artificial" part

  13. #511
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Well, at least you acknowledge the "artificial" part
    Right - as in I don't think it is pertinent or relevant to the discussion; i.e. governments and unions and other collective bargaining groups are just as valid a part of the transaction between a worker and a employer as any other kind of regulation, law or constraint on business.

  14. #512
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,494
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    @squatch. Another thing missing in your responses is a modern example of a country with no minimum wage set by either the government or union or any kind of collective bargaining.

    I’ll get to responding to you later but you seem to be pointing out negatives with no real proof that the world would be better off without “artificial” interference. Prove it with facts, not theory!
    I'm a bit confused why you label any kind of collective bargaining in with MW. Individuals forming groups to negotiate benefits has little to nothing to do with the MW. What you are referring to is collective action laws. Where a union is installed as the legal representative of labor, regardless of membership. While there is a lot of work on the unemployment and poverty producing effects created by such laws, they are slightly different than this thread.

    More relevantly, it is pretty ironic for you to ask me to "prove it by facts" when I'm literally the only one to present peer reviewed evidence. Before I move on, I want to point out that the requests for support and challenge made in the last post still stand.


    The first point to note is the sheer ridiculousness of saying "you've only pointed out how it harms people, not how not having it would benefit them." If something is, on net, harming people, its removal, by definition helps them, right?

    1) We agree that the minimum wage creates unemployment. Those people, whose wages drop to zero, are clearly worse off and would be better off under a no MW environment.

    2) For a majority of the rest of those who keep their jobs, they recieve less take home pay by having their hours cut. The evidence for this has been provided in several posts from a half dozen peer-reviewed sources. If you would like it again, I can point you to the relevant post.

    3) For a small minority, there is a net benefit. They generally recieve a higher paycheck (though they too often lose hours). The difference between group 2 and group 3 is their make up. Groups 1&2 are largely made up of minority employees in worse economic conditions. Group 3 is generally composed of whites that are part of a middle to upper middle class household with more than one income source.

    4) Community, as shown earlier, the minimum wage tends to drive small businesses under. While you seem to praise this as good, I'd point out that most of these businesses serve economically depressed neighborhoods. The minimum wage limits poor neighborhoods' access to goods and services, exacerbating their poverty. It is also a large driver in the "food desert" concept touted by the former First Lady. As shown, a large number of businesses that go under are small gorcery stores and markets.

    5) The minimum wage has been shown to stunt poverty reduction and increase poverty rates in communitites. Lower minimum wages have been shown (see OPII) to decrease poverty rates in communities and the associated crime, homelessness, drug use, etc that comes with multi-generational poverty.

    6) Related to 4, the makeup of businesses that tend to be driven away under minimum wage increases is important. These businesses are primarily owned by local lower income members of the community and tend to be disproportionately owned by minorities. These businesses also tend to disproportionately give back to local charities and individuals.

    7) The decreased business environment and employment also decreases the tax base, reducing funds available for other social programs or economic development. Likewise, it increases expenditure on welfare payments, further sapping funds away from other social programs and increasing the tax burden on remaining businesses and employees, slowing growth, reducing take home pay, and decreasing benefits.

    8) The minimum wage is directly correlated with a lower job growth rate, especially for low income individuals. Even overall job growth rates decrease in communities with higher minimum wages.

    9) The above is partly because a high MW creates a barrier to starting a new business and because of slower economic growth created by the decreased employment, increased taxes, etc. caused by MW. Capital investment into cities with high unemployment drops following the law's enactment, businesses leave, and the community sees a much smaller level of business startup and level of existing growth.

    10) Because of the large surplus of unemployed labor caused by minimum wage laws, wage growth rates tend to decrease as well. This is, interestingly, true for incomes above the minimum wage as well. We know that incomes in the next two quintiles slow their growth rates following a minimum wage hike. There isn't consensus on the mechanism here, it could be that there are fewer employees available (because we removed the traditional jobs people used to prepare for those jobs) so those jobs aren't created or it could be due to the depressed economic environment. In any scenario, the slow down in wage growth is a measured and verified phenomenon.

    11) Increase in automation. As we well know, large employers tend to invest capital to replace MW workers after a wage increase (see Panera).


    All of these factors are ones that would be better, and have been empirically shown in this thread with peer-reviewed work.






    You also have this request for me to talk about countries with no minimum wage. It is an odd request showing that you didn't actually read my last post, or any other post in this thread.


    From my last post.




    Within that blue data set includes Switzerland and Leichtenstein, neither of which have any kind of mininum wage law, and both of which have some of the best economic figures in Europe, especially for their citizens in lower wealth brackets.


    And, let's take a look at one of the countries listed, Denmark, where certain MW begins applying on their 18th birthday;

    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #513
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    @squatch

    I appreciate the effort you’re putting into your view but I haven’t been clear in my last question.

    Let’s say you’re correct and that there should be no kind of minimum wage of the sort you don’t like - either by government or unions, do you have evidence of such a world? Is it better than what we have now with the specific problems with MW removed?

    It just seems that you’re complaining without proof that your alternatives are going to be better in the long run. And I suspect that this is why MW is still the most popular mechanisms to fix the issue of low pay.

    So I have to ask again, can you show a modern economy that doesn’t have some kind of MW.
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 2nd, 2018 at 05:03 PM.

  16. #514
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm a bit confused why you label any kind of collective bargaining in with MW. Individuals forming groups to negotiate benefits has little to nothing to do with the MW. What you are referring to is collective action laws. Where a union is installed as the legal representative of labor, regardless of membership. While there is a lot of work on the unemployment and poverty producing effects created by such laws, they are slightly different than this thread.
    I too am confused as to how a position so well argued is equally as well ignored. No MW, no unions is a nice world for employers but I’m finding it hard to believe that these things would still exist if what you’re presenting is the best alternative, despite its apparent flaws.

    Hopefully you can address properly why in the market place of ideas this idea has not seen much success.

    More relevantly, it is pretty ironic for you to ask me to "prove it by facts" when I'm literally the only one to present peer reviewed evidence. Before I move on, I want to point out that the requests for support and challenge made in the last post still stand.
    I’ve presented evidence but all you do is moan about people not being economists or not researched well enough or partisan. That said, I have agreed that there needs to be more papers presented by myself. I just don’t have access to them and therefore have to rely on secondary sources.


    [Quote]
    The first point to note is the sheer ridiculousness of saying "you've only pointed out how it harms people, not how not having it would benefit them." If something is, on net, harming people, its removal, by definition helps them, right?
    Not quite. It could be that the harm done is much less than your alternative. Having an injection hurts a little bit not having it might be death. All your negative vibes makes it sound like a terrible idea yet the only thing you tout is the idea of less unemployment but not much about the standard of living of who would be left.


    1) We agree that the minimum wage creates unemployment. Those people, whose wages drop to zero, are clearly worse off and would be better off under a no MW environment.
    I agree that MW can trigger companies who don’t choose to absorb the increase salary budget will decide to fire their staff instead. Those people that the company has chosen to rid themselves is directly due to the company has fired. Now we need to understand the motivations of these companies who have reduced their output or the quality of their product in order to maintain their profits.

    2) For a majority of the rest of those who keep their jobs, they recieve less take home pay by having their hours cut. The evidence for this has been provided in several posts from a half dozen peer-reviewed sources. If you would like it again, I can point you to the relevant post.
    Again, the cuts aren’t due directly to MW. They are directly as a result of a company to maintain their salary budget at a certain level. Choosing instead to give those remaining workers less work and therefore less output or poorer service.


    3) For a small minority, there is a net benefit. They generally recieve a higher paycheck (though they too often lose hours). The difference between group 2 and group 3 is their make up. Groups 1&2 are largely made up of minority employees in worse economic conditions. Group 3 is generally composed of whites that are part of a middle to upper middle class household with more than one income source.
    Well, that’s unfortunate but hardly due to MW either. If companies choose to hurt one racial group over another then there must be measures taken.


    4) Community, as shown earlier, the minimum wage tends to drive small businesses under. While you seem to praise this as good, I'd point out that most of these businesses serve economically depressed neighborhoods. The minimum wage limits poor neighborhoods' access to goods and services, exacerbating their poverty. It is also a large driver in the "food desert" concept touted by the former First Lady. As shown, a large number of businesses that go under are small gorcery stores and markets.
    This is sad too but again, a company that cannot pay their workers really shouldn’t be in business. It’s neither good nor bad but simply the market at work. If the profits are so meager that raising salaries is going to wipe them out then, I would be surprised if they would last long anyway. And it’s not like those raises are even massive - they’re usually done slowly.

    I know many small immigrant businesses. And they succeed by their workers, usually family including children, working long hours and earning just enough to survive. Business owners just have to take the brunt since they’re rewarded the most.


    5) The minimum wage has been shown to stunt poverty reduction and increase poverty rates in communitites. Lower minimum wages have been shown (see OPII) to decrease poverty rates in communities and the associated crime, homelessness, drug use, etc that comes with multi-generational poverty.

    ....


    6) Related to 4, the makeup of businesses that tend to be driven away under minimum wage increases is important. These businesses are primarily owned by local lower income members of the community and tend to be disproportionately owned by minorities. These businesses also tend to disproportionately give back to local charities and individuals.

    7) The decreased business environment and employment also decreases the tax base, reducing funds available for other social programs or economic development. Likewise, it increases expenditure on welfare payments, further sapping funds away from other social programs and increasing the tax burden on remaining businesses and employees, slowing growth, reducing take home pay, and decreasing benefits.

    8) The minimum wage is directly correlated with a lower job growth rate, especially for low income individuals. Even overall job growth rates decrease in communities with higher minimum wages.

    9) The above is partly because a high MW creates a barrier to starting a new business and because of slower economic growth created by the decreased employment, increased taxes, etc. caused by MW. Capital investment into cities with high unemployment drops following the law's enactment, businesses leave, and the community sees a much smaller level of business startup and level of existing growth.

    10) Because of the large surplus of unemployed labor caused by minimum wage laws, wage growth rates tend to decrease as well. This is, interestingly, true for incomes above the minimum wage as well. We know that incomes in the next two quintiles slow their growth rates following a minimum wage hike. There isn't consensus on the mechanism here, it could be that there are fewer employees available (because we removed the traditional jobs people used to prepare for those jobs) so those jobs aren't created or it could be due to the depressed economic environment. In any scenario, the slow down in wage growth is a measured and verified phenomenon.

    11) Increase in automation. As we well know, large employers tend to invest capital to replace MW workers after a wage increase (see Panera).


    All of these factors are ones that would be better, and have been empirically shown in this thread with peer-reviewed work.






    You also have this request for me to talk about countries with no minimum wage. It is an odd request showing that you didn't actually read my last post, or any other post in this thread.


    From my last post.




    Within that blue data set includes Switzerland and Leichtenstein, neither of which have any kind of mininum wage law, and both of which have some of the best economic figures in Europe, especially for their citizens in lower wealth brackets.


    And, let's take a look at one of the countries listed, Denmark, where certain MW begins applying on their 18th birthday;


  17. #515
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    I’ve been doing some research to understand why ideas around MW have very little traction around the world.

    Firstly, nearly every country has some kind of minimum wage per the Wikipedia page on the topic (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ges_by_country).

    There are some interesting things to note:

    Austria: ... . Wages where no such collective agreements exist, such as for domestic workers, janitorial staff and au pairs, are regulated by relevant legislation and are generally lower than those covered by collective bargaining.
    So does this not demonstrate that employees do indeed have power to lower wages? And shows that there really isn’t economic mobility when there is no minimum wage? And that monopsony exists?

    Djibouti: None; canceled by the 2006 Labor Code for occupational categories, establishing that wages be set after common agreement between employers and employees.
    Egypt: None; for the public sector the minimum wage is LE 1,200 ($68) per month.
    Ethiopia: None; some government institutions and public enterprises set their own minimum wages: public sector employees, the largest group of wage earners, earned a monthly minimum wage of 420 Ethiopian birr ($21); employees in the banking and insurance sector had a minimum monthly wage of 336 birr ($18)
    Even some of the ones that canceled MW replaced it with some other kind of legislation. And those that don’t do it for government anyway


    Singapore: sets MW for domestic workers https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-...105754101.html

    Singapore’s government on Wednesday moved to set an entry-level minimum wage of S$1,000 for its cleaners.

    Deputy Prime and Finance minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam announced this in a speech at a best sourcing symposium on Wednesday morning, saying it will mandate an up-to-20 per cent increment in the entry-level wages for cleaners.

    DPM Tharman noted that the 55,000 cleaners in the country’s resident workforce earn a median gross wage of $850 per month on average.

    “Not only is that low pay, but most cleaners have also not enjoyed the real wage growth seen among workers nationally, including other low-income Singaporeans, in the last five years,” he said, in what some labour activists are seeing as a significant step from previous positions the government has taken against stating a minimum wage.

    He stressed, though, that these required minimum wages are not a national minimum wage, saying that they have been specifically targeted due to the prevalence of cheap-sourcing tactics that have depressed workers’ wages in both industries. He also clarified that the government was not moving to set a base wage “by political decree”, but wages that are “determined through tripartite negotiations”.
    So this is another real world example where no minimum wage disadvantages those workers such that the government had to step in. Again, it means that employers do indeed have the power to set lower wages and/or seek the lowest wages possible: which again, proves my point that some workers just do not have bargaining power.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hist...e_minimum_wage Describes how MW came about in some countries:

    Great Britain
    The main provision was to set minimum wages in certain trades with the history of low wages, because of surplus of available workers, the presence of women workers, or the lack of skills.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage
    The movement for minimum wages was first motivated as a way to stop the exploitation of workers in sweatshops, by employers who were thought to have unfair bargaining power over them.

    "It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions. It was formerly supposed that the working of the laws of supply and demand would naturally regulate or eliminate that evil [...and...] ultimately produce a fair price. Where... you have a powerful organisation on both sides... there you have a healthy bargaining.... But where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst... where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration."
    Winston Churchill MP, Trade Boards Bill, Hansard House of Commons (28 April 1909) vol 4, col 388

    It was not until the 1890s that the first modern legislative attempts to regulate minimum wages were seen in New Zealand and Australia.[9] The movement for a minimum wage was initially focused on stopping sweatshop labor and controlling the proliferation of sweatshops in manufacturing industries.[10] The sweatshops employed large numbers of women and young workers, paying them what were considered to be substandard wages. The sweatshop owners were thought to have unfair bargaining power over their employees, and a minimum wage was proposed as a means to make them pay fairly.
    Shows monopsony power does it not when there are more workers than needed? It also confirms, as I have repeatedly pointed out, that some workers will be taken advantage of and have been in the past.

    __________________________________________________ _________________________
    These are just some thoughts that might help establish why MW is needed. Your arguments are very one sided, i.e. they all say MW is bad overall and you do not really have evidence that having no MW not worse in some other way. Some the examples above show that it isn’t and that MW is needed to fix salaries to a decent level.

    So either your studies are wrong, i.e. they unfairly blame MW for factors that aren’t related; or incomplete, i.e. they don’t go far enough to understand why jobs are lost or hours reduced; or they’re politically motivated or exaggerated. Or it’s wholly possible that the MW effects are actually better than what came before and that getting rid of it may make things worse. Certainly, it would result in the reasons why it was put in place in the first place: because employers were not originally paying a fair working wage to begin with.

    I feel that your general thrust in all your commentary doesn’t try to understand the real world very much and why MW appears to be a solution to a problem of wage disparity, poverty, and likely, to reduce the burden on the taxpayer to supplement a company’s corporate greed.

    If indeed, MW is the wrong approach, then what is the right approach? It’s not simply, as you suggest, no-MW since that puts things back to the way they were before MW was needed; which was probably worse that when there was MW.

    So I think your general thesis that MW hurts the most vulnerable might really be that “MW hurts the most vulnerable LESS than the alternative of not having MW”. I don’t know how else to explain why your ideas have no traction.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 3rd, 2018 at 06:13 PM.

  18. #516
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    FYI Squatch... The two countries mentioned in your graph Lichtenstein and Switzerland do not have government minimum wages, but they do have strong labor systems. Switzerland has very strong laws allowing union organizing and Lichtenstein has a single national union that negotiates minimum wages for most professions and industries in the country, and it's pretty high, well above what is considered poverty level income in what is one of the highest per capita income countries on earth. So it's a little bit cherry picking to take two, small, financial system powerhouses with strong labor systems and compare them to the rest of europe.

    Minimum wages are almost always reactions to social conditions and market forces. No one wants a minimum wage just to have a minimum wage. They exist to try and address situations where people are working jobs that can't effectively pay for the cost of living in society or are trying to address the disperate bargaining power of companies vs individual employees.

    Even Adam Smith in the wealth of nations recognized this problem, that workers, especially low skilled workers with families, have a significant disadvantage in negotiating wages with employers. Unions are a better way to address those weaknesses, but here again, the low skill / low wage workers don't generally earn enough to form and maintain union apparatus. It becomes something of a catch 22.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #517
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,494
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Is it better than what we have now with the specific problems with MW removed?
    ...
    So I have to ask again, can you show a modern economy that doesn’t have some kind of MW.
    I'm happy to discuss the relative economic policies of certain countries, but appealing to the MW's existence there is an is/ought fallacy. Who cares if country X has policy y if we are discussing whether policy Y has outcome A? Most European countries have signficant, Trump-like trade barriers and tarrifs. That doesn't mean that tarrifs don't make the host nation poorer, right?


    There seems to be two significant pieces of evidence related to your question.

    1) I did. See the examles above of Switzerland and Lichtenstein (I'll address Sig's point below).

    More importantly 2) I've shown significant harm is caused be the enactment of these laws. Let's say I showed a bevy of medical data proving that if you get stabbed, you are worse off. Then I said, "if you get stabbed, it causes bad things." Would an appropriate rebuttal be, "You haven't shown that not being stabbed is good?" Of course not.

    Given the large consensus of economic experts and peer-reviewed studies showing that the economic condition is, on the whole, worsened by the minimum wage, we are left with a position to ask which is better?

    A world where we adopt a policy that, on net, causes more poverty, unemploys the poor, and hurts minorities, but that benefits a small fraction of people who are members of middle income households

    or

    A world where we haven't adopted a policy that hurts the poor and minorities to benefit members of middle income households?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    It could be that the harm done is much less than your alternative.
    Related to the above, note that I didn't say that we are considering MW in absence of all other effects. I'm saying that the vast bulk of the evidence shows that the MW hurts on net meaning accounting for the positives as well. Notice in the table we accounted for people getting a raise due to the policy, they are just massively outweighed by those hurt.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Shows monopsony power does it not when there are more workers than needed?
    Could you elaborate on this a bit? I think you are confusing excess supply pressure with monopsony power. Having a bumper crop of apples is not an example of consumers being able to dictate prices to a grocery store right?




    Sharmak, I think a lot of your concern with it being "one sided" seems to come from the idea that I'm only pointing out the bad, and not the good. I think that misses that I'm discussing the sum total effect, not every single sub issue. A bank account might be a good example. If you had the following changes to your bank account (+$100, -$200, +$50, -$50, -$100) it would be fair to say that your bank account decreased by $200, right? That doesn't mean I'm saying there were no deposits, only that they were out weighed by the withdrawals.

    The same is true here. I'm not arguing that there are no positivies (see the table below, some people are better off), I'm simply pointing out that the total effect is negative, especially when you consider who we are helping vs who we are hurting.



    From $1760 to $0 (40 hrs @ 11/hr to 0 hrs @$0/hr) 16%
    From $1760 to $1880 (40 hrs @ $11/hr to 31.3 hrs @$15/hr, representing the 120/month increase from the data) 41.16% (49% of the remaining)
    From $1760 to $1635 (40 hrs @ $11/hr to 27.25 hrs @$15/hr, representing the 130/month decrease from the data) 42.84% (51% of remaining)


    So for every 100 people we saw:

    Employment Effect Total Wage Effect Total Benefits paid/week
    16 people lost their jobs -$28,160 $31,360 (16 people, 200 per week +1760 lost wages)
    41 people took home more pay +$4,920 $-8200 (These 41 people no longer need benefits)
    43 people took home less pay -$5,375 $13,975 (43 people, 200 per week +$5,375 lost wages
    Total A loss of -$28,615 in wages Increase of $37,135 benefits paid)

    Its hard to argue with this math, but I'm open to areas I might be missing. Are there other positive factors I haven't considered?



    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    FYI Squatch... The two countries mentioned in your graph Lichtenstein and Switzerland do not have government minimum wages, but they do have strong labor systems.
    I think this is a bit of an overstatement. Lichtenstein has collective bargaining for a large set of industries, but these aren't generally applicable to all workers (though the equivilant of the labor department can make them so). Lichtenstein also has about 30 or so exemptions from these laws, including their largest industries such as education, finance, banking, and agriculture. Switzerland is organized in a very similar manner to Lichtenstein and allows local areas to exempt individuals, communities, and businesses from these coverages by local decree.

    Now, that said, you charge of cherry picking isn't unjustified. Neither of these countries is very representative of Europe. I definitely don't mean to put these forward as proof, rather simply as a response to Sharmak's request for an example of a country without a MW.

    The evidence for the harmful effects of the MW via European data is much better stated in the OP and OPII (and I think best illustrated by the Denmark data offered earlier) where we compare changes within a country or specific peculiarity of the laws (they apply at a certain age or they don't apply in a specific scenario).



    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    trying to address the disperate bargaining power of companies vs individual employees.
    I think this type of comparison seems really reasonable to a lot of people (which is partly why the MW has such electoral success) because they are used to going into an interview and generally being told what the pay was. To them that seems like the company is dictating the wage. But they forget what is happening on the other side of the table. That employer is also competing with other employers for that labor (even in scenarios with lots of excess labor, they are competing for the most productive employee). That is why we see that employers generally don't have such disparate bargaining power. Just as you fear you can be replaced by another employee, they can be replaced by another employer (especially in low skilled environments where switching costs of industries is so low), which is why when we look at studies on just this subject we really only find that kind of disparate power in incredibly specialized fields like professional sports and college professors.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #518
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    I'm happy to discuss the relative economic policies of certain countries, but appealing to the MW's existence there is an is/ought fallacy. Who cares if country X has policy y if we are discussing whether policy Y has outcome A?
    This is a Red Herring. I'm not even at the stage where I'm saying MW ought to be the way things are. I am saying that despite decades of so-called mathematical proofs and all this evidence to counter MW countries are still using the mechanism to get more money into people's hands and in all cases, they do so when there is a history of employers taking advantage of workers who are in a weak bargaining position. So there must be something incomplete about the models you're using; and it's clear from your simple charts that something isn't being taken into account of.

    The one point I keep coming back to is that there's no evidence as to the reasons why companies reduce hours or to fire people rather than raise prices or reduce their own profits. So at the very least, all the studies appear to be an incomplete story to support the cult of the free market. (A cult incidentally that only economists apply to others, and not themselves when their own ideas fail in the market place of ideas).


    There seems to be two significant pieces of evidence related to your question.

    1) I did. See the examles above of Switzerland and Lichtenstein (I'll address Sig's point below).

    More importantly 2) I've shown significant harm is caused be the enactment of these laws. Let's say I showed a bevy of medical data proving that if you get stabbed, you are worse off. Then I said, "if you get stabbed, it causes bad things." Would an appropriate rebuttal be, "You haven't shown that not being stabbed is good?" Of course not.

    Given the large consensus of economic experts and peer-reviewed studies showing that the economic condition is, on the whole, worsened by the minimum wage, we are left with a position to ask which is better?

    A world where we adopt a policy that, on net, causes more poverty, unemploys the poor, and hurts minorities, but that benefits a small fraction of people who are members of middle income households

    or

    A world where we haven't adopted a policy that hurts the poor and minorities to benefit members of middle income households?

    What's odd here is that MW is meant to raise the salaries of the poorest of people, so I'm not clear why this "small fraction of middle income households" would benefit at all -- are you suggesting that they're earning MW even though they're in the "middle income"? You're not being very clear here about what's going on and who specifically you’re talking about. Please explain.

    What you also appear to be missing is also that MW is introduced to fix an existing problem: that some people are already being paid poorly. It already proves that the "free" market isn't working for these people. In the cases we have discovered, we know employers will take advantage of the employees whenever possible - firstly due to being a migrant worker under threat of deportation but also due to a high supply of low income workers. You appear to be saying that this situation, of poverty levels of earnings, is the best that these people can (or should) possibly have and that we also must do nothing because their lives are going to end up much worse.

    Essentially, your world-view has already failed and continuing to do nothing (or reverting back to the free market and their prior terrible salaries) doesn't seem to be a good option. Rather, it is better to tweak something that's tweakable and obvious and move on from there; and that is the MW. If there are negative side-effects then we need to understand why those are the case and attempt to head them off by producing more legislation or otherwise mitigate the risk of the negative side effects coming to fruition.

    In short, your solution of not adopting MW is worthless (it changes nothing), reverting MW is pointless (it puts us back to square one) and offering no alternatives is a position is useless. If you're suggesting that the market has set a "fair" wage and per the cult of market-forces that's the way things are then all you're doing is opting out of solving the problem.

    Could you elaborate on this a bit? I think you are confusing excess supply pressure with monopsony power.
    By definition, the MW is for all those unskilled service jobs where there is an excess of supply! Whether it be young people, the unskilled, the unemployed or those in retirement, these people are, as I have repeatedly pointed out, are easily replaceable. So let's say then that it's not about monopsony power but "excess supply pressure" then surely that proves my earlier points that they are in a much less powerful bargaining position and therefore need to have the government or unions step in.


    I'm not arguing that there are no positivies (see the table below, some people are better off), I'm simply pointing out that the total effect is negative, especially when you consider who we are helping vs who we are hurting.
    I'm not saying that you're claiming no positives - that's a strawman interpretation of my point that you're only highlighting the bad points of MW. Obviously some people are going to benefit otherwise there would be no point.

    What you have been doing is pointing out all the negative side-effects of MW but I feel that they might be exaggerated, or you're taking some kind of worst-case scenario and over-applying it as if every single situation around the entire world in every type of economy is the same. And that's the problem I find with most of your studies and arguments - that perhaps they're not taking into account other complexities: why do employers respond in the way they do, should we be supporting small-businesses who are operating at such small margins, why can't large companies absorb the MW - why should the taxpayer help them?

    Ultimately, it does boil down to the moral question as to whether people should be working one or even two jobs yet still have to live off the government? If you say yes, and that's the free market at work then that's fine - at least you have some simple supply-demand charts to point to and present evidence that appears to only convince other economists who believe only in the free market.

    If however, you agree with the rest of the world, that this is not a good situation, then either come up with an alternative to MW, or figure out how to mitigate the negative side effects.

    Since literally all have you done is to repeat decades old objections to MW, with questionable (or at least questioned) studies, and no other alternatives or fixes then being accused of being one-sided shouldn’t be a surprise. Your primary disagreement against MW trots out the quasi-religious objection of the government not being an “artificial” participant which is not only wrong (governments are literally meant to represent people, are made of people and provide the rest of the framework that business exist within anyway), but wholly besides the point: governments have had to step in because the free market has already failed to provide those in need. It’s ironic that the charge of not holding to “market principles” or economics (101) is held against those very people trying to solve problems caused by free-market principles in the first place.

    So what are the next steps? Fixing some of the side effects of MW or working on a better alternative?
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 6th, 2018 at 12:15 AM.

  21. #519
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,494
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Sharmak, to avoid what seem to be nonsequitors and unrelated concerns you have, I want to boil down this thread to a single question (as I did in the OP).

    Does the minimum wage negatively impact the poorest in our society? Yes or no?


    Secondly, do you have any specific objections to the reality of this table?



    From $1760 to $0 (40 hrs @ 11/hr to 0 hrs @$0/hr) 16%
    From $1760 to $1880 (40 hrs @ $11/hr to 31.3 hrs @$15/hr, representing the 120/month increase from the data) 41.16% (49% of the remaining)
    From $1760 to $1635 (40 hrs @ $11/hr to 27.25 hrs @$15/hr, representing the 130/month decrease from the data) 42.84% (51% of remaining)


    So for every 100 people we saw:

    Employment Effect Total Wage Effect Total Benefits paid/week
    16 people lost their jobs -$28,160 $31,360 (16 people, 200 per week +1760 lost wages)
    41 people took home more pay +$4,920 $-8200 (These 41 people no longer need benefits)
    43 people took home less pay -$5,375 $13,975 (43 people, 200 per week +$5,375 lost wages
    Total A loss of -$28,615 in wages Increase of $37,135 benefits paid)





    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    The one point I keep coming back to is that there's no evidence as to the reasons why companies reduce hours or to fire people rather than raise prices or reduce their own profits.
    This is a kind of double argument from ignorance fallacy. First, it is an argument from ignorance because the absence of that data doesn't mean that the effect isn't happening (and it is the effect that matters, not the justification). Second, it is an argument from ignorance because you are assuming that because you, Sharmak, haven't see the evidence that it therefore doesn't exist. The fact that this thread has about a dozen studies on why employers reduce hours, cut back on benefits, and reduce staff along with at least three studies on their marginal revenue rates is pretty good evidence that the mechanism and reasoning is well understood.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    What's odd here is that MW is meant to raise the salaries of the poorest of people, so I'm not clear why this "small fraction of middle income households" would benefit at all -- are you suggesting that they're earning MW even though they're in the "middle income"? You're not being very clear here about what's going on and who specifically you’re talking about. Please explain.
    Perhaps. I would encourage you to slow down and reread my response since you seem to have overlooked a few words:

    ...that benefits a small fraction of people who are members of middle income households

    We are talking about people who live in a household (IE a grouping of more than one individual, usually represented by the term family). The income of the entire household is middle income. That doesn't mean that every single member is middle income. Some wives work part time jobs, their kids work after school or summer jobs, an adult child perhaps is working a MW job, etc.

    It is that group of people that tend to benefit from MW increases because they are largely "safer" hires. Their transportation is more reliable, they tend to have better grades, are able to dress well for the interview, etc, etc. All kinds of factors that might not normally be considered, but when you artificially reduce the number of jobs created, you make non-pecuniary factors incredibly relevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    What you also appear to be missing is also that MW is introduced to fix an existing problem:
    Well, not exactly, as I showed, the MW was introduced to keep darker skinned people from competing with white workers.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    By definition, the MW is for all those unskilled service jobs where there is an excess of supply!...So let's say then that it's not about monopsony power but "excess supply pressure" then surely that proves my earlier points that they are in a much less powerful bargaining position and therefore need to have the government or unions step in.
    Step in by creating additional excess supply? How exactly does that make the problem better?

    And, that isn't the definition of MW at all. MW isn't related to excess supply at all, it applies in scenarios where there are critical shortages of workers as well (see North Dakota). What MW was aimed at are jobs where the marginal contribution (IE the amount of revenue contributed by an hour of work) was low. That is related to the job's function, not the labor market.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    What you have been doing is pointing out all the negative side-effects of MW but I feel that they might be exaggerated, or you're taking some kind of worst-case scenario and over-applying it
    I get that you feel that way, but that isn't a logical defense, it is an emotional appeal. Do you have any evidence? I've literally presented nearly a hundred peer-reviewed studies by incredibly well respected economists, surveys of economists of every stripe, a dozen examples where the minimum wage hurt poor communities, and surveys by employers and employees to highlight the problem. You can understand why, given that, it is slightly annoying to have someone respond with "well I don't know, that feels wrong."
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  22. #520
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Sharmak, to avoid what seem to be nonsequitors and unrelated concerns you have, I want to boil down this thread to a single question (as I did in the OP).

    Does the minimum wage negatively impact the poorest in our society? Yes or no?


    Secondly, do you have any specific objections to the reality of this table?
    The answer to 1) is no - MW doesn’t make those decisions. Show me a law that says that companies must fire poor people or otherwise marginalize them! Only companies have the power to perform these actions and only they have the knowledge to balance profits and costs. How they react to a changing market place is wholly up to them. As I point out earlier, your charts are incomplete; we need to understand why companies will harm the poor. And if they’re practically broke anyway, then that’s just market forces operating as they should - why should taxpayers prop up failing companies?

    And therein lies your main flaw. It’s revealed when the cult of the free market plaintively complains that governments are “artificial” participants. What this clearly shows is that you’re confusing a technical term and not only making it disparaging, that they should not interfere, but worse, making the claim that they “must not” participate at all! This is clearly ludicrous - governments already participate and they already provide a myriad of other rules and regulations and mechanisms to keep things running fairly, smoothly and according to the countries best interests.

    The answer to 2) is that I’m not clear where you get the breakdowns for these numbers and even if they’re applicable outside of the specific study you got them from. It’s also distracting, I concede that you have disputed studies to back your case. So showing numbers adds no value to the debate.

    As far as non sequitor are concerned, this thread may be the biggest one. You’re literally saying that the free market is fix the for the problems that the free market “caused” in the first place. The arguments you forwarded are a distraction from this very basic fact and I find it unlikely I’m the first to point this out. That you continue being unable to defend your ideas having failed to affect policy despite the solid proofs you present tells me that there’s more to this than your pro-free-market stance is pushing. The arguments are the non-sequitor and are treated by all countries as such.

    As I keep pointing out - in the free market place of ideas your central point has failed in the real word. It’s not surprising since your ideas basically boil down to doing nothing about low wages in the first place or going back to square one with basically no alternatives on offer. In other words, the entire set of studies you have presented boil down to not solving any problems at all. I feel that the rest of the world agrees.

    This is a kind of double argument from ignorance fallacy. First, it is an argument from ignorance because the absence of that data doesn't mean that the effect isn't happening (and it is the effect that matters, not the justification). Second, it is an argument from ignorance because you are assuming that because you, Sharmak, haven't see the evidence that it therefore doesn't exist. The fact that this thread has about a dozen studies on why employers reduce hours, cut back on benefits, and reduce staff along with at least three studies on their marginal revenue rates is pretty good evidence that the mechanism and reasoning is well understood.
    It’s an argument from the fact that MW is applied to a situation where there were none. Your suggestion to roll things back does nothing to fix the reason for MW. And I still dispute that these stories are the complete story since they’re focused on the initial responses of MW by companies.


    Perhaps. I would encourage you to slow down and reread my response since you seem to have overlooked a few words:

    ...that benefits a small fraction of people who are members of middle income households

    We are talking about people who live in a household (IE a grouping of more than one individual, usually represented by the term family). The income of the entire household is middle income. That doesn't mean that every single member is middle income. Some wives work part time jobs, their kids work after school or summer jobs, an adult child perhaps is working a MW job, etc.

    It is that group of people that tend to benefit from MW increases because they are largely "safer" hires. Their transportation is more reliable, they tend to have better grades, are able to dress well for the interview, etc, etc. All kinds of factors that might not normally be considered, but when you artificially reduce the number of jobs created, you make non-pecuniary factors incredibly relevant.
    So you’re saying that MW *only* benefits those families that don’t really need the job in the first place and that’s because companies are firing or reducing the hours of the actual low income earners? How can that be globally true or even true when those jobs are in low income neighborhoods. You’re either over applying the study you’re drawing this from or the study is making claims that are too general.

    Maybe I missed the proof on that but I pretty much don’t see that in the city I live in. The vast majority of MW workers are definitely not middle class


    Well, not exactly, as I showed, the MW was introduced to keep darker skinned people from competing with white workers.
    Maybe a long time ago in the US but you’re talking about MW globally in all sectors. I don’t see it. And how does that apply to Africa where everyone is darker skinned - are you suggesting that skin color factors into your argument? And what about in Singapore where they don’t have darker skin people or the history you’re resting your argument on?


    Step in by creating additional excess supply? How exactly does that make the problem better?
    Not quite. A company needs to hire a minimum number of people to operate efficiently so increasing MW just makes it more expensive to maintain their hires. If they choose profits over quality then that’s their decision. And what is “additional excess supply”’anyway? If it’s already in excess then raising MW doesn’t increase the number of available workers? It just makes them more expensive to hire - or more accurately, they are now being paid a living wage and hopefully will rely on the taxpayer less.

    And, that isn't the definition of MW at all. MW isn't related to excess supply at all, it applies in scenarios where there are critical shortages of workers as well (see North Dakota). What MW was aimed at are jobs where the marginal contribution (IE the amount of revenue contributed by an hour of work) was low. That is related to the job's function, not the labor market.
    In the cases I have shown, it was explicitly stated that over supply caused lower wages. If you’re narrowing your argument to specifically low contribution jobs then what exact jobs are you arguing for here?

    You’re incredibly specific when your argument doesn’t hold generally in all industries and all jobs and all countries yet you still maintain MW is bad in all cases. Which is it?



    I get that you feel that way, but that isn't a logical defense, it is an emotional appeal. Do you have any evidence? I've literally presented nearly a hundred peer-reviewed studies by incredibly well respected economists, surveys of economists of every stripe, a dozen examples where the minimum wage hurt poor communities, and surveys by employers and employees to highlight the problem. You can understand why, given that, it is slightly annoying to have someone respond with "well I don't know, that feels wrong."
    You’re certainly right and no doubt there are lots of studies to support your case. But there are also people who dispute your case and they hold more sway for some reason.

    Your lack of an alternative solution and your lack of admission that people ought to have low wages speaks volumes. You keep side stepping these questions and I wonder why?

    Your stance is one that makes no sense given that most of the world use MW to combat low wages - they have access to both sides of the argument too. Yet universally they choose to do the opposite. Your side loses because you won’t help MW work or offer an alternative better than low wages. Your side is to leave things as they are whereas there are others who are trying to fix the problems. So pointing out negative side effects can be wholly ignored unless you’re really contributing. Which as far as I can see you’re not.

    Your OP should really be discussing better ideas not just knocking existing ones. Instead, you keep arguing some very specific US-based studies to argue a more general point: the historical arguments are irrelevant because every country has a different history; the racial arguments are irrelevant because only the US had slavery to the extent where you actually believe it to be a factor.

    Under all the different conditions and history all around the world, they all converge towards a single solution. Your results fail to sway those determined to help and I have to suspect that your simplification of the world and your over application of some specific US studies might explain why. Thoughts?
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 7th, 2018 at 05:37 AM.

 

 
Page 26 of 29 FirstFirst ... 16 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Minimum wage is better than nothing
    By Wolf Myth in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: June 28th, 2010, 11:50 AM
  2. Welfare vs. Minimum Wage
    By KevinBrowning in forum Politics
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2007, 02:59 AM
  3. Minimum Wage Hike?
    By market state in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: December 7th, 2006, 09:02 PM
  4. Minimum Wage
    By Dr. Gonzo in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 14th, 2006, 07:27 PM
  5. Minimum Wage
    By emtee10 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2004, 08:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •