Minimum wage.

Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#1
Minimum wage.
The minimum wage rate?s proportional affect upon a task?s wage scale is inversely related to the difference between the minimum rate and the wage scales amounts. Although the minimum rate affects ALL labor compensation, it?s of lesser importance to middle income earners and of no significant importance to higher income earners. The minimum rate has the greatest affect upon the working poor segment of our population.

Due to the changing value of the U.S dollar, congress determines the timing and extent of the minimum wage rate adjustments. The minimum rate is rarely ahead, much more often behind and almost never actually abreast of the dollar?s value.


If rather than a political determination, the minimum rate would be annually cost of living adjusted in the same manner as social security retirement benefits, it would improve the condition of our working poor and decrease need for public assistance more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#2
The minimum wage effectively incentivizes discrimination in the low-wage job market while also increasing unemployment. Black unemployment and teenage unemployment data before and after the implementation of the minimum wage in the US (and with subsequent hikes) suggest this. Furthermore, several empirical studies in academia have shown these phenomena to be true.

The big benefactor from minimum wage laws are special interest groups- namely the trade unions.
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#3
The minimum wage effectively incentivizes discrimination in the low-wage job market while also increasing unemployment. Black unemployment and teenage unemployment data before and after the implementation of the minimum wage in the US (and with subsequent hikes) suggest this. Furthermore, several empirical studies in academia have shown these phenomena to be true.

The big benefactor from minimum wage laws are special interest groups- namely the trade unions.
MYP, if the federal minimum wage were eliminated or if its value is permitted to decline, the purchasing power of the nation?s median wage will also to some extent decline more than otherwise.
(Refer to the first message of this discussion thread.)

Eliminating the minimum wage would increase lowest paying jobs at wage scales with much lesser purchasing power but it would also decrease our nation?s living standards and poverty more than otherwise.

All unions pay scales are greater than minimum wage, otherwise be less than minimum wage left after paying to join the union and the monthly dues. Trade unions, (AF of L) craft unions pay scales are much higher than industry wide, (CIO) union jobs.

Unions do not benefit from a lesser minimum wages. Employers who have many lower income employees believe they benefit from paying lesser wages for such tasks. They contribute to conservative political funds and lobby for lesser wages.

Actually when wages have more purchasing power the entire economy benefits; all boats rise when a good tide comes in.

E veryone from men?s? room attendants to investment bankers all enjoy greater improved incomes. But employers still prefer lower wages even if they should be aware that their incomes will suffer for it. That?s because employees fearing unemployment are much more docile easier to manage.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#4
MYP, if the federal minimum wage were eliminated or if its value is permitted to decline, the purchasing power of the nation’s median wage will also to some extent decline more than otherwise.
(Refer to the first message of this discussion thread.)
Eliminating the minimum wage would increase lowest paying jobs at wage scales with much lesser purchasing power but it would also decrease our nation’s living standards and poverty more than otherwise.
That is arguable if you consider those who currently cannot find jobs will then get jobs.

As for living standards, again- arguable. But one thing to keep in mind is that most people who work minimum wage jobs or even anything close to that usually do not live solely off their income. These jobs are often temporary or a means to move up later on.


All unions pay scales are greater than minimum wage, otherwise be less than minimum wage left after paying to join the union and the monthly dues. Trade unions, (AF of L) craft unions pay scales are much higher than industry wide, (CIO) union jobs.

That is the point- the minimum wage becomes a negotiating point for the unions. It also limits the labor pool by cutting out the cheap labor (who end up not finding jobs instead of finding low-paying ones), allowing said unions to ask for more for their own workers.

Actually when wages have more purchasing power the entire economy benefits; all boats rise when a good tide comes in.

Everyone except those who compete in the low-wage labor market; specifically those who are disadvantaged. You help out the higher capability workers by hurting the poorest and most disadvantaged workers- I hardly see that as a sensible policy.
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#5
............................. As for living standards, again- arguable. But one thing to keep in mind is that most people who work minimum wage jobs or even anything close to that usually do not live solely off their income. These jobs are often temporary or a means to move up later on..................................
MYP, I believe a very significant portion, possibly much more than a majority of the individuals working at or near federal minimum wage rates during the entire year, (rather than only during summers or school breaks), are dependent upon their wages.

Among the these lower income earners, there are many that contribute to the support of their families and those contributions are a significant portion of their families? incomes.


What?s so wrong with students working while attending school and during their school breaks? Isn?t it helpful that due to a minimum wage, these students may be able to spend more hours studying sand less hours earning their expenses?


It?s to our nation?s economic benefit that all employees be covered by a federal annually cost of living adjusted minimum wage rate.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#6
MYP, I believe a very significant portion, possibly much more than a majority of the individuals working at or near federal minimum wage rates during the entire year, (rather than only during summers or school breaks), are dependent upon their wages.

Among the these lower income earners, there are many that contribute to the support of their families and those contributions are a significant portion of their families? incomes.


What?s so wrong with students working while attending school and during their school breaks? Isn?t it helpful that due to a minimum wage, these students may be able to spend more hours studying sand less hours earning their expenses?


It?s to our nation?s economic benefit that all employees be covered by a federal annually cost of living adjusted minimum wage rate.

Respectfully, Supposn

But once again you are ignoring that minimum wage reduces the number of jobs. Is it really better to have 1 student earn $7/hour and 2 be unemployed as opposed to all three having jobs at maybe $5/hour?
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#7
MYP, what exactly is your complaint and what explicit remedy are you proposing?
You object to unions diligently negotiating on behalf of their members? What is it that you expect unions and/or employers and/or employees and/or government to do?

You object because the lowest earning employees at or near the minimum wage have no one negotiating on their behalf? I agree but I don’t have a solution.
Other than the minimum wage, our government doesn’t do too much for the working poor and we do little to end their poverty.

For a long time our federal laws have not been amiable to labor unions. Unions have trouble organizing companies and recruiting members. Unions have problems negotiating for their own members. They would be pleased if they could also organize and represent those unrepresented lower income earners but that’s not thus far been feasible. Unions like all of us are doing the best that they can.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#8
MYP, what exactly is your complaint and what explicit remedy are you proposing?
You object to unions diligently negotiating on behalf of their members? What is it that you expect unions and/or employers and/or employees and/or government to do?

Absolutely not- I am fine with unions negotiating on behalf of their workers. I have a problem with government falling for their minimum wage plan that hurts more of the worst-off workers just for the sake of increasing union bargaining power.

You object because the lowest earning employees at or near the minimum wage have no one negotiating on their behalf? I agree but I don?t have a solution.
Absolutely not. I object to the law because you take away what little negotiating power they have (you don't need collective bargaining to negotiate) by setting a price floor. For example, when the floor is at $5, no businesses will hire new employees or disadvantaged employees who are expected to only produce $4 worth of productivity. They are now out of a job instead of getting a $4 one. The other example is when there are 2 equally qualified workers with only one difference- let's use race as an example. If one is white and one is black and the business owner is racist, preferring white folks to black, he no longer has to pay for his discrimination if both workers are competing for minimum wage jobs- he'll just hire the white one. Now in a situation without the minimum wage, the black worker might have been able to reduce his wage slightly and in that case, the owner then has to pay extra to pursue his bias or he would have to set aside his racism and hire the cheaper worker for the sake of his business. And before you say this doesn't happen- it does. Look at black unemployment numbers before and after the minimum wage law as well as teenage unemployment. There are also empirical studies on the matter that suggest the same. Heck, Milton Friedman used to call the minimum wage the most anti-black law on the books.

Other than the minimum wage, our government doesn?t do too much for the working poor and we do little to end their poverty.
My point is that it DOES NOT help the working poor, but instead HURTS more of them than it benefits.

For a long time our federal laws have not been amiable to labor unions. Unions have trouble organizing companies and recruiting members. Unions have problems negotiating for their own members. They would be pleased if they could also organize and represent those unrepresented lower income earners but that?s not thus far been feasible. Unions like all of us are doing the best that they can.

Respectfully, Supposn

I have no problem with unions- I said that already. All I am saying is the minimum wage helps them and hurts almost everyone else- including the poorest and worst-off workers. If you want to help the poor, I would start by re-examining the minimum wage law.
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#9
...................................................My point is that it, (i.e. the miniomum wage rate) DOES NOT help the working poor, but instead HURTS more of them than it benefits. .................... If you want to help the poor, I would start by re-examining the minimum wage law.
MYP, we disagree.

I believe the minimum wage is of benefit to all employees, the minimum would be of greater benefit if it were annually cost of living adjusted and employees? benefits due to the minimum rate are inversely related to the difference between their pay rate and the minimum rate.

Do you have any proposal for the benefit of USA?s working poor that you believe we would agree upon?

Respectfully, Supposn
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#10
MYP, we disagree.

I believe the minimum wage is of benefit to all employees, the minimum would be of greater benefit if it were annually cost of living adjusted and employees’ benefits due to the minimum rate are inversely related to the difference between their pay rate and the minimum rate.

Do you have any proposal for the benefit of USA’s working poor that you believe we would agree upon?

Respectfully, Supposn
Well do you have any supporting data or empirical studies to support your claim that the minimum wage helps the poorest of workers? My proposal for helping the working poor is to begin with abolishing the minimum wage and then go from there- perhaps look at a potential negative income tax after a proper cost-benefit analysis (although that might mean scrapping existing welfare plans first if the negative income is sizable). Even then, I think more localized solutions might be better than any Federal behemoth.

Also, do you have any response as to the detrimental effects the minimum wage has on teenage unemployment which is accepted even by most pro-minimum wage economists? And what about the implications it has on discrimination in hiring?
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#11
Minimum wage

Well do you have any supporting data or empirical studies to support your claim that the minimum wage helps the poorest of workers? My proposal for helping the working poor is to begin with abolishing the minimum wage and then go from there- perhaps look at a potential negative income tax after a proper cost-benefit analysis (although that might mean scrapping existing welfare plans first if the negative income is sizable). Even then, I think more localized solutions might be better than any Federal behemoth.

Also, do you have any response as to the detrimental effects the minimum wage has on teenage unemployment which is accepted even by most pro-minimum wage economists? And what about the implications it has on discrimination in hiring?
MVP, the law that prohibits paying employees less than the federal minimum wage rate helps the working poor. You contend that permitting employers to pay less is an advantage to a lower wage employee?

A negative income tax provision somewhat already exists and of course conservatives are striving to eliminate it. We may be in agreement of this.
I?m an advocate of replacing the deduction from taxable income per income taxpayer and dependent with an annually cost of living adjusted income tax credit per capita.

I prefer fewer jobs for students due to a higher minimum wage rather than increased poverty and increased need for public assistance.

There?s no relationship between hiring discrimination and the minimum wage.
What you?re referring to is the non-existence of jobs that do not justify the payment of the minimum wage. Your remedy of eliminating the minimum rate would increase poverty and the need for public assistance.

Respectfully Supposn
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#12
MVP, the law that prohibits paying employees less than the federal minimum wage rate helps the working poor. You contend that permitting employers to pay less is an advantage to a lower wage employee?
Do you have any proof of that though other than intuition? Intuition can often be wrong in these matters and I speak from a strict position which I came to based on data, empirical evidence, logic, and facts that I have read, analyzed, and thought about. As for how it might help low wage employees- simple- it allows for more of them to actually get jobs. You accepted that teens might get left out of the market and you were fine with that, but what about people who are adults with families, but just simply less productive for whatever reason be they lack of experience as a youth, disability, or whatever? They too get left out of the market- what about them?

A negative income tax provision somewhat already exists and of course conservatives are striving to eliminate it. We may be in agreement of this.
What we have is a system of entitlements that often removes incentives to work. A negative income tax is much different and even that I am not 100% sure whether I support just yet.

There’s no relationship between hiring discrimination and the minimum wage.
How do you explain the drastic increases in black unemployment or the data from empirical studies that suggest just that then?

What you’re referring to is the non-existence of jobs that do not justify the payment of the minimum wage. Your remedy of eliminating the minimum rate would increase poverty and the need for public assistance.
So you are saying removing all of those jobs is okay just so the few who are lucky enough to still have jobs under a minimum wage get paid what you deem a decent living wage? I would say that is hardly in favor of the poor. It is only in favor of those who already work since they then get more bargaining power- which is why labor unions like it.
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#13
Minimum wage

.............So you are saying removing all of those jobs is okay just so the few who are lucky enough to still have jobs under a minimum wage get paid what you deem a decent living wage? I would say that is hardly in favor of the poor. It is only in favor of those who already work since they then get more bargaining power- which is why labor unions like it.
Mvp, The extent of minimum wage rate’s affect upon a job’s pay rate is inversely related to the difference between that minimum and the job’s rate;
but the minimum affects ALL labor compensation.

You wrote of wage earners’ “bargaining powers”. Middle income employees do not enjoy significant bargaining powers but employees earning near or at minimum wage rates have extremely little or no “bargaining power”. That’s among the reasons they’re paid so poorly.

If the minimum wage laws were eliminated, lower wages would dive and to some extent the purchasing power of the median wage and all other labor compensation will similarly plunge. It would cause greatly increased poverty and need for public assistance.

The minimum wage rate’s not a “decent” or a “living” wage.
If the jobs you describe as eliminated were economically desirable, they would have been worthy of the minimum wage. You advocate eliminating the minimum wage to induce the creation of jobs that are economically unjustified in order to increase our nation’s poverty and need for public assistance?

There are impoverished nations with no effective minimum wage and no public assistance. Entire families, (elderly and children included) search through garbage dumps for anything that might be eatable, or repaired or melted down and sold. Is that what you propose our nation should do?

Respectfully, Supposn
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#14
Mvp, The extent of minimum wage rate’s affect upon a job’s pay rate is inversely related to the difference between that minimum and the job’s rate;
but the minimum affects ALL labor compensation.

You wrote of wage earners’ “bargaining powers”. Middle income employees do not enjoy significant bargaining powers but employees earning near or at minimum wage rates have extremely little or no “bargaining power”. That’s among the reasons they’re paid so poorly.

If the minimum wage laws were eliminated, lower wages would dive and to some extent the purchasing power of the median wage and all other labor compensation will similarly plunge. It would cause greatly increased poverty and need for public assistance.

The minimum wage rate’s not a “decent” or a “living” wage.
If the jobs you describe as eliminated were economically desirable, they would have been worthy of the minimum wage. You advocate eliminating the minimum wage to induce the creation of jobs that are economically unjustified in order to increase our nation’s poverty and need for public assistance?

There are impoverished nations with no effective minimum wage and no public assistance. Entire families, (elderly and children included) search through garbage dumps for anything that might be eatable, or repaired or melted down and sold. Is that what you propose our nation should do?

Respectfully, Supposn


You accept that the minimum wage increases wages at lower ends of the labor market and at times you've hinted that you accept that it also eliminates jobs. How do you think it increases mean wages at the bottom? It is by pricing people out of the market. Less workers competing for jobs= higher pay for those workers (at the cost that those who are priced out get nothing- not exactly helpful for the poor).

So what you have now is the people who are lucky to get jobs at the bottom get the minimum and those who aren't get NOTHING. Without a minimum wage, you have the people who are productive enough to produce over the minimum make the minimum or maybe even over the minimum and you have the people who produce under it, the people who currently get NOTHING to get SOMETHING. That is the whole point. You act as if the abolition of the minimum wage would mean everyone working at McDonald's or whereever today will suddenly start getting paid cents on the hour. That is not true and we can even see that by looking at job how many low-end jobs today pay the minimum and how many are willing to pay over the minimum for more productive workers even in lower wage labor markets. You can also look at illegal immigration pay rates in the US for that. Pay is not determined solely by businesses- it is determined by the market and there is pressure upwards and a lot of it when you get to those cents on the dollar or even 2-3 dollars/hour. By your logic why not make the minimum wage $50/hour- we would all be rich. Obviously it isn't that simple and there is a cost to making such a price floor. In the same way, there is a cost to making a price floor at $6, $7, or $8- and currently it is the poorest, worst off, and socially discriminated against workers who are paying most of that cost.
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#15
Minimum wage

Do you have any proof of that though other than intuition? Intuition can often be wrong in these matters and I speak from a strict position which I came to based on data, empirical evidence, logic, and facts that I have read, analyzed, and thought about. As for how it might help low wage employees- simple- it allows for more of them to actually get jobs. You accepted that teens might get left out of the market and you were fine with that, but what about people who are adults with families, but just simply less productive for whatever reason be they lack of experience as a youth, disability, or whatever? They too get left out of the market- what about them?.....................
...................So you are saying removing all of those jobs is okay just so the few who are lucky enough to still have jobs under a minimum wage get paid what you deem a decent living wage? I would say that is hardly in favor of the poor. It is only in favor of those who already work since they then get more bargaining power- which is why labor unions like it.
MVP, I understand you have analyzed the proposal to eliminate the federal minimum wage laws and you’ve determined it would be economically beneficial to our nation.

I too have considered the proposal and I’ve determined it would be socially and economically disastrous. We do agree that eliminating the minimum wage would increase the number of jobs but I believe that almost those entire increases would be jobs paying the very lowest wages.

The proposal would decrease the purchasing power of most wage earners more than otherwise. Those earning less than the median wage will proportionally lose more than those with wages exceeding the median wage. Proportionally the greatest losses of wages purchasing power will be suffered by the very lowest earning wage earners.

The increased numbers of jobs (which would be almost entirely jobs paying the very lowest wages), does not compensate for all wage losses of purchasing power due to eliminating the federal minimum wage.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#16
MVP, I understand you have analyzed the proposal to eliminate the federal minimum wage laws and you’ve determined it would be economically beneficial to our nation.

I too have considered the proposal and I’ve determined it would be socially and economically disastrous. We do agree that eliminating the minimum wage would increase the number of jobs but I believe that almost those entire increases would be jobs paying the very lowest wages.

The proposal would decrease the purchasing power of most wage earners more than otherwise. Those earning less than the median wage will proportionally lose more than those with wages exceeding the median wage. Proportionally the greatest losses of wages purchasing power will be suffered by the very lowest earning wage earners.

The increased numbers of jobs (which would be almost entirely jobs paying the very lowest wages), does not compensate for all wage losses of purchasing power due to eliminating the federal minimum wage.

Respectfully, Supposn

On mean purchasing power- if you add in all the workers who are right now priced out of the market then your mean purchasing power at the lower wage job market is likely to be lower right now than what it would be if they had any job at all (which would more likely happen without a minimum wage). Because as is, everyone priced out is a 0 wage earner, which pushes the mean down a lot.

Now, if you are only concerned with the lower wage earners who currently have jobs- then yes, they might take a hit when you allow the even less fortunate to enter the market, but if you are only worried about these folks then you cannot say the minimum wage policy is there to actually care about the poorest or most disadvantaged of all workers because you are fine with pricing them out in order to keep wages a little higher for those who do still get jobs in the current market.
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#17
MVP, I logically conclude that eliminating federal minimum wage will generally decrease wages purchasing powers more than otherwise, but generally the proportional extent of those decreases will be inversely related to the job?s pay scale.
The additional jobs induced by eliminating the minimum wage do not now exist because those tasks are not now worthy of the minimum wage.
The numbers of qualified employed and unemployed potential employees, (i.e. the labor pool) exceeds the number of filled and unfilled jobs. Because there?s a minimum wage, employers refrain from filling such lower paying jobs with lesser qualified people (unless filling the position becomes necessary). Hiring less qualified or motivated workers, (ever at lesser pay rates) is usually a very expensive mistake.

Because there?s a minimum wage, people refrain as best they can from accepting lower wage employment. That?s why so many jobs are offered near, but not at the minimum wage rate. There are some real expenses and penalties attached to any job. The commuting costs of an individual and many other expenses will remain similar regardless of that employee?s pay scale.

We agree that the elimination of the minimum wage will increase the number of lowest wage jobs that are worthy of the labor market?s pay scales, (which have become severely reduced). The elimination of the minimum wage does not create a larger labor pool, but there will still be a labor pool that exceeds the increased number of lower wage jobs. Although there will be increased numbers of lower wage jobs, there will be much greater numbers of people impelled to accept those jobs.

Elimination of the minimum will severely reduce pay scales of the lowest wage jobs. This will induce a ?ripple? that will travel through ALL pay scales. The extent of wage and purchasing power reduction will be inversely related to each task?s pay scale. Poverty and the need for public assistance will increase and the working poor will sustain the most severe harm.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#18
We are really going in circles now, but the one point you continue to step around is that you only speak of the working poor and not the "can't find a job" poor. If you don't care about the latter, then you are only looking to help one segment of the poor population and you look to do so by hurting the other segment. IF you think that is fair, then so be it, but I'd rather look out for all poor people and all people in general- not just one group.
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#19
Minimum wage

We are really going in circles now, but the one point you continue to step around is that you only speak of the working poor and not the "can't find a job" poor. If you don't care about the latter, then you are only looking to help one segment of the poor population and you look to do so by hurting the other segment. IF you think that is fair, then so be it, but I'd rather look out for all poor people and all people in general- not just one group.
MVP, I have often responded with my conclusion; due to elimination of the minimum wage, poverty and the need for public assistance will increase and the working poor will sustain the most severe harm.


If for any instance we consider the working poor that are employed or unemployed at that instance, and all those unemployed persons that have never been employed or effectively self-employed prior to that instance and are not effectively being financially supported by their families, and all persons directly related to those afore described persons, we are considering our nation’s poorest families.

These families’ incomes from all their sources, (i.e. legal or illegal or public assistance sources), are the least or among the least of all our nation’s families. If we eliminate the minimum wage, the purchasing power of all wages will decrease but these families, (proportional to their incomes) will suffer the greatest harm.


You write of non-whites greater unemployment rates. If we eliminate the minimum wage laws more non-whites will be employed (at the expense aggregate wages decreased purchasing power); but the poor or uneducated will continue to experience hiring discrimination.

You write of employment disincentives. If we eliminate the minimum wage laws but make no changes in our tax and public assistance policies, the poor or uneducated will continue to experience greater unemployment rates.

You’re blaming the minimum wage laws for our failing educational, taxing, global trade, border security, contracted foreign labor and public assistance policies.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#20
You write of non-whites greater unemployment rates. If we eliminate the minimum wage laws more non-whites will be employed (at the expense aggregate wages decreased purchasing power); but the poor or uneducated will continue to experience hiring discrimination.
And you don't think that is natural? It is a specialized economy- unskilled people can't do skilled jobs, there is nothing wrong with that. I personally think racist discrimination is wrong though and the minimum wage only supports it although it is still possible without it too.

You write of employment disincentives. If we eliminate the minimum wage laws but make no changes in our tax and public assistance policies, the poor or uneducated will continue to experience greater unemployment rates.

Relative to the skilled? Possibly. But that is why that is irrelevant to this debate. What is relevant is unemployment for the poor with and without the minimum wage- and unemployment goes down without it.

You’re blaming the minimum wage laws for our failing educational, taxing, global trade, border security, contracted foreign labor and public assistance policies.

Respectfully, Supposn

No, I am considering the policy with everything else held constant. Check out the empirical studies on the matter. The actual science where things are held as constant as possible. Look at that data and tell me what I am saying is untrue.
 

Similar Discussions