It seems to me that the push for minimum wage increase is an attempt to minimize the enormity of "Wage Gap" economics that prevails in the United States. Unfortunately it is a small BaindAid on a gaping wound but is also the best one can do when Corporate/Political entities profit so much from the status quo.
Minimum wage rates do not determine wage differentials.
- Thread starter Supposn
- Start date
Tecoyah, regardless if your contention is or is not correct, a legaly enforced minimum wage somewhat reduces the numbers of incidences and extents of poverty in a manner that does not increase or reduce advantages among USA enterprises or employees.
There's no social or economic justification to oppose the minimum rate. Opposition to the concept of a minimum wage rate indicates political pandering to those with character disorders.
Respectfully, Supposn
It seems to me the whole political angle is one of survival, then again so is the minimum wage idea. Politics to keep people in line and poor while getting richer and the fight for wages to keep a family eating well.
Tecoyha, I somewhat agree with you.
USA's lesser minimum wage rates increase poverty in our nation, but does not particularly increase stock market prices or other indications of wealth. Increased degrees of poverty in a nation keeps the general population less secure, more fearful, and often more subservient.
That pleases those who are opposed to the concept of a minimum wage rate. Respectfully, Supposn
I stopped reading your post after you called me ignorant in the first sentence. That’s not really a good way to have a debate. You certainly can’t claim the high ground when you start off with insults.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Southern Dad, I did not decribe you as ignorant. I don't suppose you contend the federal minimum wage rate has only affected the wage rates of those earning the precise $7.25 per hour rate. Was my supposition incorrect? Respectfully, Supposn
You start off the conversation with an insult to those that might disagree with you. I clearly understand that minimum wage increases will increase far more people than those making minimum wage. Ever wonder why unions push so hard for minimum wage increases? Think about it, there aren't too many union employees making minimum wage. The reason is simple, many union contracts require an "in kind" increase to the wage table in the contracts if the federal or state minimum wage increases. What's an "in kind" increase? That's open for interpretation.
When I was in Rhode Island working in management, the union argued that it was an increase that matched the percentage the state minimum wage had been increased. The company was arguing that it was an increase by the monetary amount. In the end it didn't matter. Not long after that dispute, which was never settled, the property was sold. The new company closed the production facility, moving that production to another facility, eliminating those jobs, in question.
Federal minimum wage should not exist. The federal government should not have its hands in everything. Let the states, counties, and localities work this out. At a minimum, leave the federal minimum wage where it is. It has become irrelevant, any way. Let states, counties, or localities continue to pass minimum wage increases. Let the market dictate the fair wage. Why did Walmart raise its starting wage to $11 per hour? They didn't do it because of laws passed. They did it because it was necessary to attract and keep better candidates. Which is exactly how it is supposed to work.
Raising the minimum wage does not hurt companies like Walmart. They like it. Raising minimum wage kills the smaller companies with which Walmart competes. Lastly, the other issue that arises when labor expenses increase, is that companies look towards automation, offshoring, or outsourcing. It's not that they aren't always looking at those options, it is that the ROI starts looking better when the labor expenses increase.
Southern Dad, I often do regret the errors I've made. My previous post further elaborated on the meaning of my words. I did correctly assumed you understood “minimum wage increases will increase far more people than those making minimum wage”. You expect me to apologize for assuming you're knowledgeable?
Your conclusions derived from my choice of words are your own doing. Beyond this and my previous post, I will not further discuss this matter. Respectfully, Supposn
Southern Dad, some people are opposed to the concept of a minimum wage rate; some are opposed only to a single standard federal minimum rate, and there are those that oppose the federal rate, because they perceive its elimination as to effectively eliminating most, if not all minimum wage rates in the USA.
I understand, disagree with, and fully respect those opposed to the single federal minimum wage rate. If your stated position is your entire contention, I fully respect your position.
I have less respect for the arguments opposing the concept of a legally enforced minimum rate. Their invalid economic arguments and sincerity are both questionable. I consider their opposition as only motivated for social reasons.
Respectfully, Supposn
Southern Dad, there are various reasons for wage differentials. Minimum wage rates do not cause wage differentials, but by establishing a definite minimum, they do to some extent effect all wage rates within their nation. That floor is the minimum rate's entire effect upon wage rates within their governments' jurisdictions.
Lesser minimum wage's purchasing power will increase poverty in the USA and have little effect upon USA's annual chronic trade deficits. Much lesser minimum wage's purchasing power will more greatly increase poverty in the USA. (I'm among the proponents of the improved trade policy described in Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article).
Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates
Respectfully, Supposn
Southern Dad, minimum wage rates do not cause or exacerbate the economies of scale enjoyed by larger sized enterprises. Refraining from increasing its purchasing power will not be of small enterprises greater or lesser disadvantage.
A minimum rate of greater purchasing power reduces the incidences and extents of poverty within their jurisdictions, but jurisdictions are effected by other governments jurisdictions. That justifies the federal minimum which each state can increase within their own jurisdiction.
Respectfully, Supposn
Raising minimum wage will result in loss of jobs. Plain and simple. This isn’t the only option. India can operate call centers. China can run manufacturing facilities. Mexico can assemble cars.
Since the left fights tariffs, corporations will continue to take advantage of cheap labor in other countries. Higher wage laws will drive them to it more quickly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Since the left fights tariffs, corporations will continue to take advantage of cheap labor in other countries. Higher wage laws will drive them to it more quickly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Southern Dad, an insufficient wage rate is an attribute of a less preferable job. Spending for public assistance and unemployment insurance is preferable to reducing the purchasing power or eliminating the minimum wage rate. A higher minimum rate increases our median rate and our GDP. A minimum wage rate of lesser purchasing power consequentially drags upon our GDP and increases our nation's poverty and greater need for public assistance and unemployment insurance.
I'm among the proponents of the improved trade proposal described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. The substantially market driven IC policy's direct federal costs would, (as with tariffs) be entirely funded by USA purchasers of imported goods, but unlike tariffs, if imported costs of goods reflect more than the federal direct expenditures on behalf of the policies, the difference serves as an indirect but effective subsidy of USA's exported goods. IC policy is superior to tariffs.
Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates
Respectfully, Supposn
Do the numbers back that up that position? Is the spending for public assistance higher or lower in states with higher minimum wage than in states with lower minimum wage? D.C., Washington, California, Massachusetts, and Oregon have the highest minimum wages. Georgia spends the least on welfare Per Capita. Tell me again, how a higher minimum wage will reduce public assistance spending because I am not seeing it. Give some details with data to back it up.
- Welfare spending per capita: $1,126 (Georgia - Lowest) (Federal Min Wage $7.25 per hour)
- Welfare spending per capita: $1,429 (Virginia - 9th Lowest) (Minimum Wage $7.25 per hour)
- Welfare spending per capita: $2,520 (Oregon - 2nd Highest) (Min Wage $11.25 per hour)
- Welfare spending per capita: $2,911 (Massachusetts - 3rd Highest) (Min Wage $12.00 per hour)
- Welfare spending per capita: $3,305 (New York - Highest) (Min Wage $11.10 per hour)
References:
State Minimum Wages by State 2019 - National Conference of State Legislatures
States That Spend the Most and Least on Welfare - GOBanking Rates
Southern Dad, I posted particularly regard to the federal minimum wage rate which is the basis for wage rates in the entire nation. It has lost more than 39% of its purchasing power since its peak February-1968 value.
Georgia's family poverty levels expressed in dollars, is less than that of NY state and NY city. Despite (as you often point out, the U.S. dollar's purchasing power is greater in Georgia), Georgia's minimum rate being effectively the federal $7.25 per hour as compared to NY state's ranging by locality from $11.10 to $15 per hour. I don't deny that Georgia appears to have almost made the least poor 20 percentile per capita ranking of states, but NY state ranks one state better on this same list:
Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate#cite_note-8 .
If Georgia per capita spends the least proportion of its state budget for public assistance programs, it does not necessarily indicate that Georgia's incidences and extents of poverty per capita is less than what's found in all other USA states. It's no less possible that Georgia has lesser regard for their poor, or they do or do not fully account for other programs that augment their public assistance programs.
There are numbers of moving parts to consider when comparing rates of poverty between states, including each of their poverty level amounts. Regardless of what others contend, I consider economics as a social study rather than the physical science or mathematical philosophy. We cannot really prove or disprove most social study question with statistics. Economics ain't a physical science that can be tested in a laboratory by adjusting each variable item. That's why we employ theoretical modeling as analysis tools. It's difficult to learn on what basis are the differng sources reporting their U.S. dollars, but I'll try to do so.
Respectfully, Supposn
No! You said raising the federal minimum wage would reduced spending on welfare. The states that have higher minim wages prove that position to be incorrect. And Wikipedia is not a credible source for anything.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Southern Dad, I don't recall posting of reducing spending. I do recall mentioning purchasing power and lesser needs for public assistance. Can you find the post or posts you're referring to? My memory is poor and you may be correct.
If you have what you consider more credible links that materially differ from Wikipedia's data, post it and I'll consider it; but ABC for example, is not (in my opinion), credible.
Referring to post #35, your contention that the statistics themselves prove something, is simply not at all certain. Respectfully, Supposn
Last edited:
Lesser need for public assistance. But here's the problem, the data does not bear that out. The states that have the highest wage, still have higher Per Capita welfare spending than the states that use the federal minimum wage. When wages go up, they will be paid for by the consumers. Owners of businesses are not going to take the hit to profit. They'll either outsource, offshore, automate, or pass it on to consumers.
I can find nothing showing that Seattle's higher minimum wage has resulted in any better standard of living, the same with the state of California.
Southern Dad, I cannot prove it, but I stand on what I consider as logical conclusions; to the extent of its purchasing power, a minimum wage rate reduces net poverty among the working poor and the federal minimum wage rate's purchasing power is reflected within all other USA wage rates.
Its logical to conclude a minimum wage rate's affects upon other wage rates to be relative to their proportional differences and those are inverse relationships.
I'm not surprised by failing to find any correlating evidence of this. There are many interrelated moving parts within an economy and the minimum rate has so much lesser proportional effects upon rates as they're approaching middle income rates. Regardless of my never have read of it, I'm no less confident of that due to wage differentials being driven by the lowest rather than the highest wage rates, the minimum rate must be among the factors driving all other wage rates.
Concluding the minimum rate's greatest proprtional influence is upon lower wage rates, I am surprised a relationship between a state's minimum wage's purchasing power, and their population's rate of poverty has not been demonstrated.
Although the minimum wage rate does not affect poverty due to other than lower wages and wage rates, I expected a state's minimum rate's higher purchasing power to grant it a lesser proportion of population in poverty. If it does not, is it due to the state's nominal minimum rate not equating to actually sufficiently higher purchasing powers and permitting their purchasing powers to be further reduced would further increase their proportions in poverty?
If we can statistically demonstrate the state's average or median educational achievements relationship to their proportion of poverty, why has not similar relationships been found with regard to their minimum wage rate? Without good reason, I cannot believe that the purchasing power of their minimum wage rate and their proportion in poverty are not somewhat related.
Respectfully, Supposn
Your first sentence sums it up. You cannot prove it. It is your conclusion. Here's the problem, data, shows that your conclusion is incorrect. Why do you think that the purchasing power of minimum wage isn't greater in states with higher minimum wage? Could it be because the cost of everything increases to pay those higher wages? The data, and I've provided it, already shows that increasing the minimum wage does not decrease spending on public assistance. When you increase the costs of labor, that cost gets passed on to the consumer through increased prices. Increase a gallon of milk by a dime, the price of a Whopper by fifteen cents, the price of a watermelon by... Then at the register, you understand where that additional money came from. Obviously, the dime, and fifteen cents are just example, and not exactly what the increase would be.
Few employers are paying minimum wage. At minimum wage, they cannot attract and keep employees. Without any laws being passed, market forces have caused employers to increase the starting wage that they pay.