Comments 1 - 40 of 41       Last »     Search these comments

1   zzyzzx   2014 Jan 30, 10:10pm  

A higher minimum wage will mostly result in higher unemployment.

2   Paralithodes   2014 Jan 30, 11:01pm  

zzyzzx says

A higher minimum wage will mostly result in higher unemployment.

American Samoa is a perfect example.

3   dublin hillz   2014 Jan 31, 12:45am  

Increase minumum wage to $10 per hour but bomb that ass with 15% tax bracket on the first dollar earned....

4   tatupu70   2014 Jan 31, 12:50am  

Call it Crazy says

So, businesses set their prices BELOW their costs because of supply and demand, right??? How long do they stay in business that way??

Not very long. They don't stay in business long if they set prices higher than their competitors becuase their manufacturing costs are higher, either.

Do you disagree that prices are set by supply and demand?

5   dublin hillz   2014 Jan 31, 1:08am  

Beneath our smiles, we are all competitors in capitalism. While I would be all for improving standard of living, increasing minimum wage will likely not result in increase in standard of living because the "demand" side will bid higher prices. That's why for example in markets with high salaries housing prices/rents are high - because people in those areas can pay more. The ones who will unquestionably benefit from increase in minimum wage are the landlords who will not only increase rents but who will also see the market values of their properties go up accordingly as a result. It will be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

6   FortWayne   2014 Jan 31, 1:32am  

You give everyone money, you'll just create inflation and higher unemployment.

You can't eliminate poverty just by raising minimum wage in a single country... that's gullible communist mentality. It doesn't work, especially when companies are given options to simply send work overseas to cheaper slave labor that do not follow US "minimum wage" laws.

Next time you call HP Customer support and some man or woman with a strong Indian accent answers, you ask yourself just how competitive is their pay to US minimum wage.

7   tatupu70   2014 Jan 31, 2:22am  

Call it Crazy says

Yes, I disagree

OK then--I think we're done.

8   lostand confused   2014 Jan 31, 2:32am  

FortWayne says

You can't eliminate poverty just by raising minimum wage in a single
country... that's gullible communist mentality. It doesn't work, especially when
companies are given options to simply send work overseas to cheaper slave labor
that do not follow US "minimum wage" laws.

Yup. Now if when raising minimum wages, the govt says that any business that imports goods/services to the US should also pay US minimum wages to their employees and must adhere to all US laws-then fine. Else businesses can simply move. NAFTA and now that Obozo the clown is trying to sign the giant free trade deal that dwarfs NAFTA-and in secret-people can just up and move. This has been going on for decades.

9   Paralithodes   2014 Jan 31, 2:48am  

tatupu70 says

I'd phrase it that it will move dollars from the owners' pockets to the
workers' pockets.

Is that what happened in American Samoa?

10   tatupu70   2014 Jan 31, 2:57am  

Paralithodes says

Is that what happened in American Samoa?

Why don't you provide a link that details what happened in American Samoa so I can make sure that we're talking about the same thing.

11   tatupu70   2014 Jan 31, 2:59am  

Call it Crazy says

Yep, we're done with your lack of knowledge on how businesses operate...

Glad to know you've never had an econ class...

12   tatupu70   2014 Jan 31, 3:08am  

Paralithodes says

The price of a product or service has no relationship at all with the cost to to manufacture or provide that service?

Do we need to go back to remedial Econ 101? Of course a price has a relationship with the cost to manufacture or provide that service in the long run in the most generic sense. In the long run, companies don't make economic profits in a perfect market.

The point is that when companies are making record profits, it is absurd to say that they will have to raise prices in order to absorb a slightly higher labor cost.

Paralithodes says

Is mmmarvel's input completely unreflective of how other small businesses would react to a minimum wage increase?

That's a ridiculous question. Small businesses aren't all alike. Speaking of them generically is useless.

Paralithodes says

Just like our conversation you abandoned about regulation, there are only two honest answers here.

There are no answers here because the question is dumb.

13   Reality   2014 Jan 31, 8:56am  

dublin hillz says

Beneath our smiles, we are all competitors in capitalism. While I would be all for improving standard of living, increasing minimum wage will likely not result in increase in standard of living because the "demand" side will bid higher prices.

The sad part is that, raising minimum wage now may well further collapse the "demand side" because people getting laid off don't usually spend more money.

That's why for example in markets with high salaries housing prices/rents are high - because people in those areas can pay more.

Markets with higher salaries do benefit because rising minimum wage laws would least likely eliminate jobs in their area.

The ones who will unquestionably benefit from increase in minimum wage are the landlords who will not only increase rents but who will also see the market values of their properties go up accordingly as a result. It will be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

I doubt even that. Unemployed people can't afford much rent. A family with multiple sources of income from two or more people working has a much more stable rent / mortgage budget than a family where only one person is working.

14   mell   2014 Feb 2, 2:30am  

Totally awesome-o! Even better, let's just set the maximum rent at $300, then we don't need minimum wage laws as everybody has enough money left! Way to juice the economy and everyone is a winner! Who is for capping maximum chargeable rent at $300? Raise your hands ;)

15   tatupu70   2014 Feb 2, 3:34am  

mell says

Totally awesome-o! Even better, let's just set the maximum rent at $300, then we don't need minimum wage laws as everybody has enough money left! Way to juice the economy and everyone is a winner! Who is for capping maximum chargeable rent at $300? Raise your hands ;)

And another logical fallacy. Can't you guys make an argument without resorting to this kind of crap?

16   🎂 Tenpoundbass   2014 Feb 2, 4:44am  

bgamall4 says

This is total crap. The minimum wage based on 1960's wages should be over 10 bucks an hour. That would create jobs by giving the people who spend, money to spend.

And those that don't have a dime, might as well need a 100 dollar bill, just to eek by with basic on the streets necessities for a day.

Big Mac combo meal = $25 to $35
6 pack of beer = $55.00
1 16oz bottled water = $12.00

"Hey buddy can you spare a Benjamin?"

17   indigenous   2014 Feb 2, 4:59am  

This from the Sowell man

Not that any of your self imposed ignorance will compel you to even read these few paragraphs.

When you turn from economic principles to hard facts, the case against minimum wage laws is even stronger. Countries with minimum wage laws almost invariably have higher rates of unemployment than countries without minimum wage laws.

Switzerland is one of the few modern nations without a minimum wage law. In 2003, "The Economist" magazine reported: "Switzerland's unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9 percent in February." In February of this year, Switzerland's unemployment rate was 3.1 percent. A recent issue of "The Economist" showed Switzerland's unemployment rate as 2.1 percent.

Most Americans today have never seen unemployment rates that low. However, there was a time when there was no federal minimum wage law in the United States. The last time was during the Coolidge administration, when the annual unemployment rate got as low as 1.8 percent. When Hong Kong was a British colony, it had no minimum wage law. In 1991 its unemployment rate was under 2 percent.

Why then are they called "poor"? Because government bureaucrats create the official definition of poverty, and they do so in ways that provide a political rationale for the welfare state — and, not incidentally, for the bureaucrats' own jobs.

Minorities, like young people, can also be priced out of jobs. In the United States, the last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate — 1930 — was also the last year when there was no federal minimum wage law. Inflation in the 1940s raised the pay of even unskilled workers above the minimum wage set in 1938. Economically, it was the same as if there were no minimum wage law by the late 1940s.

18   marcus   2014 Feb 2, 5:34am  

tatupu70 says

And another logical fallacy

It's a sign that they don't have any good arguments.

The funny thing is, that what they are arguing with that, is that having minimum wage at all is a problem, and yet that question isn't even on the table. We've had a minimum wage for many decades.

Why don't we all just concede the obvious, that a minimum wage that is too high would be a problem for the economy, and proceed from there. One would think that something so obvious would not have to be conceded, but hey...

They use similar absolute reasoning when it comes to taxes. Supposedly no matter what level taxes are at, if you lower taxes, the increase in economic activity, and the tax revenue on that increase will more than offset the amount by which taxes were lowered.

That is, as taxes approach zero, government revenues approach infinity.

19   mell   2014 Feb 2, 5:35am  

indigenous says

This from the Sowell man

Not that any of your self imposed ignorance will compel you to even read these few paragraphs.

When you turn from economic principles to hard facts, the case against minimum wage laws is even stronger. Countries with minimum wage laws almost invariably have higher rates of unemployment than countries without minimum wage laws.

Switzerland is one of the few modern nations without a minimum wage law. In 2003, "The Economist" magazine reported: "Switzerland's unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9 percent in February." In February of this year, Switzerland's unemployment rate was 3.1 percent. A recent issue of "The Economist" showed Switzerland's unemployment rate as 2.1 percent.

Agreed - Sowell is quite eloquent yet straight to the point. He'd destroy anyone posturing on here within minutes ;)

20   mell   2014 Feb 2, 5:43am  

marcus says

tatupu70 says

And another logical fallacy

It's a sign that they don't have any good arguments.

The funny thing is, that what they are arguing with that, is that having minimum wage at all is a problem, and yet that question isn't even on the table. We've had a minimum wage for many decades.

No, the problem is that you and tat are too caught up in your political dogmas that you fail to see that minimum wage is nothing else than another form of price controls. You could replace the sentence 'we've had a minimum wage for many decades' with any price control, e.g. 'we've had cap on rents for affordability for many decades, too low of a cap would be a problem for the economy, but all we're talking about is tightening the cap down just a bit more'. This is the same principle, you are welcome to call it the same fallacy, but if one is a fallacy than the other is as well. Calling the same principle an awesome measure and then a fallacy doesn't get you any further in this debate ;)

21   tatupu70   2014 Feb 2, 5:58am  

mell says

No, the problem is that you and tat are too caught up in your political dogmas that you fail to see that minimum wage is nothing else than another form of price controls.

Yep--because I see that right now owners have a huge negotiating advantage over workers. Society has deemed that it is preferable for owners to make slightly less money so that workers can actually feed and shelter their families.

Do you disagree with that?

22   mell   2014 Feb 2, 6:22am  

tatupu70 says

mell says

No, the problem is that you and tat are too caught up in your political dogmas that you fail to see that minimum wage is nothing else than another form of price controls.

Yep--because I see that right now owners have a huge negotiating advantage over workers. Society has deemed that it is preferable for owners to make slightly less money so that workers can actually feed and shelter their families.

Do you disagree with that?

That is accurate for those who stay in those minimum wage jobs, but there will be others losing their jobs and again others whose purchasing power will be reduced. It's the same as printing money, there is no benefit in it. What's worse is that the affordability issue is pretty much solely caused by housing (incl. banking) and health care, two sectors being propped up by any means at the same time.

23   marcus   2014 Feb 2, 10:00am  

tatupu70 says

mell says

No, the problem is that you and tat are too caught up in your political dogmas that you fail to see that minimum wage is nothing else than another form of price controls.

Again. We aren't debating whether or not a minimum wage is a price control, and we are not arguing whether or not there should be a minimum wage. We all know that there is a minimum wage and that there will continue to be. So this price control exists and will continue to exist.

The only question on the table is whether increasing it to $10 will do more good than harm. Considering that it has not kept up with inflation and that minimum wage is so low now, that someone trying to live on that pay would need food stamps at least, to survive, I say raise it.

Maybe it will cause some people to decide that working is a better deal than welfare.

24   Eman   2014 Feb 2, 3:26pm  

I support increasing the minimum wage to between $15-$20/hour. This would be very good for landlords and businesses.

25   Paralithodes   2014 Feb 2, 9:07pm  

tatupu70 says

Society has deemed that it is preferable for owners to make slightly less money
so that workers can actually feed and shelter their families.

What do you mean by "slightly less?" Can you please provide a number? A percent?

26   tatupu70   2014 Feb 2, 9:09pm  

Paralithodes says

What do you mean by "slightly less?" Can you please provide a number? A percent?

Obviously not. It will vary company to company depending on a multitude of variables.

27   Paralithodes   2014 Feb 2, 9:17pm  

marcus says

The only question on the table is whether increasing it to $10 will do more
good than harm. Considering that it has not kept up with inflation and that
minimum wage is so low now, that someone trying to live on that pay would need
food stamps at least, to survive, I say raise it.

Put yourself in the shoes of an employer, if you can (i.e., answer as if you were an employer, not with political/ideological generalities about the policy as a whole, including the presumption that the employer has a bottomless source of cash). Those getting minimum wage are often the least skilled. If it were raised to $10 in your scenario, now even those who were already making $10, well above minimum wage, are at the bottom. You are an employer who has employees at different wage levels, including some making minium wage, some making $10, some making $12, and some making $15, what do you do with those who were making $10? Should you give them a raise as well? Or tell them all to suck it up that they're now at the bottom and whether they have some skills or not, they get no more pay than those with zero skills? What do you tell those who worked for you for a couple of years loyally that now someone walking in the door with zero skills will get exactly the same pay as them? If you give them a raise to $12 because you want to maintain the distinction/reward system for skills/experience/tenure/etc., then what about those already at $12, etc.?

Separate question: How many of those making minimum wage are really adults and households trying to "live" on it, vs. teens getting their first jobs, college kids in temp jobs, etc.? In other words, what is the real magnitude of the problem here?

28   Paralithodes   2014 Feb 2, 9:23pm  

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says



What do you mean by "slightly less?" Can you please provide a number? A percent?


Obviously not. It will vary company to company depending on a multitude of variables.

A "multitude of variables..." except for size of business, because you've already dismissed the argument that business size can be variable (both here and in the thread on regulation).

In other words, you really don't know if "slightly less" is really "slightly less" or "significantly less." It's just a guess or assumption on your part.

29   Paralithodes   2014 Feb 2, 9:30pm  

marcus says

They use similar absolute reasoning when it comes to taxes. Supposedly no
matter what level taxes are at, if you lower taxes, the increase in economic
activity, and the tax revenue on that increase will more than offset the amount
by which taxes were lowered.


That is, as taxes approach zero, government revenues approach infinity.

"They" (meaning you specifically and those like you) like to accuse people of using "absolute reasoning" while actually using "absolute reasoning" themselves, such as the strawman arguments you use above. I don't know a single person who believest that as tax rates approach zero, government revenues approaches infinity. But maybe you believe that tax rates of up to 100% are the best approach for increasing government revenue. Is that what you believe?

30   tatupu70   2014 Feb 2, 9:43pm  

Paralithodes says

except for size of business, because you've already dismissed the argument that business size can be variable (both here and in the thread on regulation).

You're really having a hard time understanding my point.

I dismissed the argument that business size can be variable? Really? Paralithodes says

In other words, you really don't know if "slightly less" is really "slightly less" or "significantly less." It's just a guess or assumption on your part.

Of course it's an assumption. Did you think I had gone over the books of every company in the US and analyzed their labor costs? Then determined what the prevailing labor rate would have been in the absence of a minimum wage law and calculated the difference? For every company?

31   Paralithodes   2014 Feb 2, 9:56pm  

tatupu70 says

Of course it's an assumption. Did you think I had gone over the books of
every company in the US and analyzed their labor costs? Then determined what the
prevailing labor rate would have been in the absence of a minimum wage law and
calculated the difference? For every company?

Right... Apparently you have nothing but assumptions (not even based on experience), yet somehow you know that any points contrary to your position, or "narrative" as you like to put it, are wrong. How do you know you are right about all of this?

32   tatupu70   2014 Feb 2, 9:58pm  

Paralithodes says

And you jumped on with him for the ride.

I did? Please show me that. I just wanted you to actually state what you mean rather than hide behind vague, cryptic posts.

If you want to make a point--make it.

My suspicion is that you knew it was a weak point so you didn't really want to spell it out and thought you could gain some nitpicky point without having to actually explain yourself.

33   tatupu70   2014 Feb 2, 10:03pm  

Paralithodes says

Right... Apparently you have nothing but assumptions (not even based on experience), yet somehow you know that any points contrary to your position, or "narrative" as you like to put it, are wrong. How do you know you are right about all of this?

OK--I don't even know what you are talking about now. First off--I have lots of experience (not that it really matters). Logical fallacy--appeal to authority.

How do I "know" that I'm right about all this? I don't think I would say that I "know"--I'm stating my opinions based on history, data, and logic.

34   RentingForHalfTheCost   2014 Feb 2, 10:33pm  

mell says

The US has been consuming way too much and not producing enough, incl. capital formation

Free money baby! Pass the gravy boat! Keep it coming, I need the iphone10 more than I need a job. Unemployment benefits until I die! Love this country.

35   control point   2014 Feb 3, 4:16am  

Fixed employment costs lower employment levels.

Variable employment costs have no bearing on prices. Prices are determined by the market.

36   MisdemeanorRebel   2014 Feb 3, 5:16am  

Princeton University: NJ's 1992 minimum wage increase had no effect on employment in fast food sector, when compared to neighboring PA that did not have a wage increase.
http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

37   FortWayne   2014 Feb 3, 5:17am  

They'll never do that. It's why it became a double edged sword.

lostand confused says

FortWayne says

You can't eliminate poverty just by raising minimum wage in a single

country... that's gullible communist mentality. It doesn't work, especially when

companies are given options to simply send work overseas to cheaper slave labor

that do not follow US "minimum wage" laws.

Yup. Now if when raising minimum wages, the govt says that any business that imports goods/services to the US should also pay US minimum wages to their employees and must adhere to all US laws-then fine. Else businesses can simply move. NAFTA and now that Obozo the clown is trying to sign the giant free trade deal that dwarfs NAFTA-and in secret-people can just up and move. This has been going on for decades.

38   🎂 Tenpoundbass   2014 Feb 3, 8:53am  

Me? Liar, I'm not the one claiming the Jews bombed New York.

39   Reality   2014 Feb 3, 8:54am  

E-man says

I support increasing the minimum wage to between $15-$20/hour. This would be very good for landlords and businesses.

For big business with the capital for automation, I can see (profitting from eliminating competition that can not afford automation). How would higher unemployment among the working age, especially the entry level labor most likely to be renters being shut out of the legal labor market and having to resort to criminal enterprises like drugs dealing and prostitution, how would that benefit the landlords?

Tablets and burger flipping machines don't rent apartments.

40   Reality   2014 Feb 3, 9:08am  

control point says

Fixed employment costs lower employment levels.

Variable employment costs have no bearing on prices. Prices are determined by the market.

Which is why raising minimum wage at this juncture is not only non-inflationary but highly deflationary: the prices of fast food won't go up, but the line cook jobs and counter jobs will be replaced by machines and self-service touch screens. Those marching today for $15/hr fast food service jobs will be remembered like the Air Traffic Controllers of the early 1980's: striking for their own replacement.

Minimum wage workers account for only 1% of the total work force, but is highly concentrated in the fast food industry, where automation is just around the corner.

Comments 1 - 40 of 41       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions