American Politics

[Jasoncw 11,949]

Saying that you're a socialist is a liability in the general election and also in the primaries. So a politician who makes a loud point about being a socialist, but who isn't actually even a socialist (Sanders does not have socialist policy ideas) is a joke as far as I'm concerned.

[LexusInfernus 908]

 When you mandate a raise of the minimum wage and tax rich corporations the costs of those hikes will affect the consumer and nothing is gained. Companies like Walmart will end up hiring less people. Raising the minimum wage will also hurt smaller business that can't afford it. The reason minimum wage isn't good enough for people is because of inflation and loss of value of the dollar.

Another thing is that while Sanders is better than Hilary he doesn't have presidential charisma. Look at how weak he was with those BLM protesters. He doesn't have the fire and you need a bit of that. Sanders is too "intellectual".

Actually no. Raising the minimum wage can just as equally mean more business for companies like Walmart. After all, in a consumer driven economy, success of a business depends on how much they can sell their products to people, and that is largely determined by how much money people have to spend. People with more money, spend more money, especially at the lower income levels. That boosts the economy and raises profits again. Especially a company like Walmart would profit from a nation wide minimum wage hike. 

As for price increases and companies hiring less people. Well, thats all nonsense. Yeah, prices may go up a bit, but that price increase is lower than the minimum wage increase. And companies hiring less people? Well, the minimum wage has been increased drastically before, and that didn't result in an economic meltdown either. Why should it now? Besides, most of the work thats done by minimum wage workers is not something that can just be axed. Those companies already run on the minimum amount of workers needed to simply operate. If they start firing people, it would start affecting their own efficiency as it would simply leave their businesses understaffed. Sure, in some cases it might drive companies to move to cheaper countries. But then again, businesses already did that even before the minimum wage got increased, so its not much of a good argument. Better yet, over the past 30 years the incomes of at the top have increased to obscene levels, but has this resulted in businesses hiring less people at the top? Hell no, if anything we are living in a period with the highest amount of people working at the top. Sure, its still only 1% of the population, but thats still more than what it used to be. If traditional wage theory is correct then there should be less people working at the top because they are such a massive drain on company resources. 

Now, as for it driving businesses to go under because they can't afford it. Well, keep in mind that those business apparently run at such small profit margins that this instantly kills them are maybe not really good businesses then. These businesses only survived because they were essentially subsidized by the government who has frozen the minimum wage for the past 30 years. Normally, wages increase naturally over time, both to compensate for inflation as well as to simply pay more for their workers. But thanks to a bunch of neo-liberal economic policies, the wages of nearly everyone have frozen or simply only increased in as much to compensate for inflation. This is a very unhealthy and unnatural state of things which is now getting rectified. And because of that, instead of having to add a few percent to the wage each year over the course of 30 years, they now basically have to double the wage in only a few years. Every business that cannot maintain itself under the new regime was therefor only profitable thanks to government subsidies that now disappear.

And Sanders not being presidential enough? The guy attracts thousands of people to all of his rallies. Way more than any other politician. 

  Edited August 16, 2015 by LexusInfernus  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Such blatant nonsense.  Raising the minimum wage is inflationary.  All it does in the end is devalue the currency even further.

The solution for obtaining a living wage is to replace the capitalist system with something else.  What is a good question because many others have been tried and found wanting.  Perhaps some kind of supply side system can be found that supplies without scarcity.  This would put paid to the competition for a dearth of supply.  Probably means a world-wide overhaul of the ideas of sovereignty, patriotism, and nationality.  In effect a world state.

In such a system the currently "well off" will find themselves less so, while there will be an improvement for the poor.  If all men are created equal, why not supply them equally?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

 When you mandate a raise of the minimum wage and tax rich corporations the costs of those hikes will affect the consumer and nothing is gained. Companies like Walmart will end up hiring less people. Raising the minimum wage will also hurt smaller business that can't afford it. The reason minimum wage isn't good enough for people is because of inflation and loss of value of the dollar.

Another thing is that while Sanders is better than Hilary he doesn't have presidential charisma. Look at how weak he was with those BLM protesters. He doesn't have the fire and you need a bit of that. Sanders is too "intellectual".

Actually no. Raising the minimum wage can just as equally mean more business for companies like Walmart.

It could increase business, but will it increase profits? If it would increase profits why are companies against a government mandated minimum wage raise?

 When you mandate a raise of the minimum wage and tax rich corporations the costs of those hikes will affect the consumer and nothing is gained. Companies like Walmart will end up hiring less people. Raising the minimum wage will also hurt smaller business that can't afford it. The reason minimum wage isn't good enough for people is because of inflation and loss of value of the dollar.

Another thing is that while Sanders is better than Hilary he doesn't have presidential charisma. Look at how weak he was with those BLM protesters. He doesn't have the fire and you need a bit of that. Sanders is too "intellectual".

As for price increases and companies hiring less people. Well, thats all nonsense. Yeah, prices may go up a bit, but that price increase is lower than the minimum wage increase.

If you increase the tax rate on large companies and the rich plus a minimum wage increase you can almost guarantee prices will go up and the wages gained by the increase will be mostly nullified by the price hikes of products.

 When you mandate a raise of the minimum wage and tax rich corporations the costs of those hikes will affect the consumer and nothing is gained. Companies like Walmart will end up hiring less people. Raising the minimum wage will also hurt smaller business that can't afford it. The reason minimum wage isn't good enough for people is because of inflation and loss of value of the dollar.

Another thing is that while Sanders is better than Hilary he doesn't have presidential charisma. Look at how weak he was with those BLM protesters. He doesn't have the fire and you need a bit of that. Sanders is too "intellectual".

    Well, the minimum wage has been increased drastically before, and that didn't result in an economic meltdown either. Why should it now?

Don't think I said or even suggested it would lead to a meltdown. It would increase unemployment.

 When you mandate a raise of the minimum wage and tax rich corporations the costs of those hikes will affect the consumer and nothing is gained. Companies like Walmart will end up hiring less people. Raising the minimum wage will also hurt smaller business that can't afford it. The reason minimum wage isn't good enough for people is because of inflation and loss of value of the dollar.

Another thing is that while Sanders is better than Hilary he doesn't have presidential charisma. Look at how weak he was with those BLM protesters. He doesn't have the fire and you need a bit of that. Sanders is too "intellectual".

 Besides, most of the work thats done by minimum wage workers is not something that can just be axed. Those companies already run on the minimum amount of workers needed to simply operate. If they start firing people, it would start affecting their own efficiency as it would simply leave their businesses understaffed.

Some can be axed, others could have their hours reduced. Big companies could add more automated or self serve systems. I recognize that automated systems also have a cost, but in the long run could be cheaper than hiring people at a raised minimum wage level.

You say "those companies already run on minimum amount of workers needed", but do you have any statistical evidence to prove that? Big businesses will always find ways to cut corners while still running "efficiently".

 When you mandate a raise of the minimum wage and tax rich corporations the costs of those hikes will affect the consumer and nothing is gained. Companies like Walmart will end up hiring less people. Raising the minimum wage will also hurt smaller business that can't afford it. The reason minimum wage isn't good enough for people is because of inflation and loss of value of the dollar.

Another thing is that while Sanders is better than Hilary he doesn't have presidential charisma. Look at how weak he was with those BLM protesters. He doesn't have the fire and you need a bit of that. Sanders is too "intellectual".

 

If traditional wage theory is correct then there should be less people working at the top because they are such a massive drain on company resources. 

The reason people get paid for working is because they provide value to whatever business or industry they work for. People working at the top get paid so much because their work provides much more value to the business or industry they work for than the wage they make. They are not a drain.

tl;dr: People who work at the top are at the top because they add value to a company, they don't drain it.

 When you mandate a raise of the minimum wage and tax rich corporations the costs of those hikes will affect the consumer and nothing is gained. Companies like Walmart will end up hiring less people. Raising the minimum wage will also hurt smaller business that can't afford it. The reason minimum wage isn't good enough for people is because of inflation and loss of value of the dollar.

Another thing is that while Sanders is better than Hilary he doesn't have presidential charisma. Look at how weak he was with those BLM protesters. He doesn't have the fire and you need a bit of that. Sanders is too "intellectual".

Now, as for it driving businesses to go under because they can't afford it. Well, keep in mind that those business apparently run at such small profit margins that this instantly kills them are maybe not really good businesses then.

The businesses this affects the most are the ones that are just starting out. Also, isn't it better to have a "poor" business that, for example, employs 2 people at minimum wage than no business? Just because a business has a small profit margin doesn't mean it isn't important to the economy or people in a certain community. Do we just defer to companies like Walmart who can afford it and everyone else who can't should just shut down?

 When you mandate a raise of the minimum wage and tax rich corporations the costs of those hikes will affect the consumer and nothing is gained. Companies like Walmart will end up hiring less people. Raising the minimum wage will also hurt smaller business that can't afford it. The reason minimum wage isn't good enough for people is because of inflation and loss of value of the dollar.

Another thing is that while Sanders is better than Hilary he doesn't have presidential charisma. Look at how weak he was with those BLM protesters. He doesn't have the fire and you need a bit of that. Sanders is too "intellectual".

   These businesses only survived because they were essentially subsidized by the government who has frozen the minimum wage for the past 30 years.

This is a huge generalization and you don't have any examples to prove this.

The minimum wage isn't "frozen". The government just has a standard for how low the minimum wage can be. Companies have the ability to increase minimum wage of their own accord, they don't need the government to tell them what it should be.

 When you mandate a raise of the minimum wage and tax rich corporations the costs of those hikes will affect the consumer and nothing is gained. Companies like Walmart will end up hiring less people. Raising the minimum wage will also hurt smaller business that can't afford it. The reason minimum wage isn't good enough for people is because of inflation and loss of value of the dollar.

Another thing is that while Sanders is better than Hilary he doesn't have presidential charisma. Look at how weak he was with those BLM protesters. He doesn't have the fire and you need a bit of that. Sanders is too "intellectual".

And Sanders not being presidential enough? The guy attracts thousands of people to all of his rallies. Way more than any other politician. 

He's popular, but is he presidential? In the last two presidential elections Ron Paul, who was "my guy", attracted huge crowds of young people, similar to Bernie Sanders. However, as much as I hate it, image matters more than policy.  Also people are gravitating to Sanders more out of the fact that he's the only other real choice in terms of opposition to Hilary.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It could increase business, but will it increase profits? If it would increase profits why are companies against a government mandated minimum wage raise?

If more people buy your stuff you probably make bigger profits. Of course, in this case, costs would also increase a bit, but since this is a mandatory minimum wage that affects all sectors of the economy, for retail businesses at least, their customer base is bigger than their employee base. 

In any case, how do you think we expanded our economy in the first place? Our purchasing power today is much greater than it ever was back in the 19th century, but I can assure you that is not because stuff has gotten so much cheaper. Quite the opposite in fact. Our purchasing power has increased because our wages, including the lowest ones, have increased significantly. Has that hurt our economy? Are there less businesses operating today and are they having more problems staying afloat? I think not. Again, more proof that increased wages are good for the economy as a whole. History provides us with example after example of how strengthening the economic position of the lower and middle class has benefited everyone. 

So why don't corporations want this? I don't know, but would it be such a stretch to suggest that corporations are short sighted, greedy and that this wouldn't be the first time they choose to ignore long term gains in favor of short term profits? 

If you increase the tax rate on large companies and the rich plus a minimum wage increase you can almost guarantee prices will go up and the wages gained by the increase will be mostly nullified by the price hikes of products.

No you can't. In fact, I can guarantee you that this hardly will be the case. Look for an individual company to compensate the extra cost of a higher wage and assuming they won't sell more products, they generally only have to increase the prices of their products by a few percent. Business first of all sell multiple products most of the time and they sell it to a lot of different people, meaning they can spread out the extra costs over all their sales. Meaning that per product, the price only sees a minimal increase.

If what you are saying were true, then every wage increase, mandatory or not, would be accompanied directly with price inflation to the point that you can't actually increase someones purchasing power ever, because it would always be nullified directly by inflation. You just have to look outside your window to know that this is total nonsense. 

Some can be axed, others could have their hours reduced. Big companies could add more automated or self serve systems. I recognize that automated systems also have a cost, but in the long run could be cheaper than hiring people at a raised minimum wage level.

You say "those companies already run on minimum amount of workers needed", but do you have any statistical evidence to prove that? Big businesses will always find ways to cut corners while still running "efficiently".

Automation will happen anyways regardless of how expensive people become. The simple fact is that machines can do almost everything we do better, faster and cheaper. Even if we paid people nothing, machines would still be a better option at some point, because they are just that much more efficient. 

Simple economic theory already suggests that companies run at the minimal amount of workers necessary to efficiently function. Even at a lower minimum wage, a worker costs money, so why the hell would you spend that money on a worker if you don't need them? It only makes sense to start firing workers if raising the wage raises their efficiency, but frankly I don't think one can squeeze more efficiency out of people working at McDonalds. So, when efficiency remains the same, it means you need to keep the same amount of workers to keep the same amount of output, meaning you can't fire people without decreasing your own output. Decreasing your own output means you can handle less customers, meaning you get less money meaning you take a hit in your profits as well. 

Currently, big business is indeed firing people, laying off entire divisions in order to boost profits. But this is short term profits for long term losses. By selling bits and pieces of your company, you get a one time boost in profits, but in the long run it simply means that you can do less with your company. For example, take Phillips. 20 years ago, they were one of the market leaders in consumer electronics, they invented the DVD, they sold light bulbs and they had a division in medical technology. In comes some overpaid CEO who promises to boost profits. What does he do? He sells off parts of the company over the next few years. And what is Phillips now? A company that only builds medical technology, and even there they are finding that profits are down. The company went from being one of the largest electronic companies in the world to being completely irrelevant. The people that invented the DVD no longer exist. 

That is the current corporate climate. Boost profits by selling your own company until there is nothing left to sell and the company no longer exists. 

The reason people get paid for working is because they provide value to whatever business or industry they work for. People working at the top get paid so much because their work provides much more value to the business or industry they work for than the wage they make. They are not a drain.

tl;dr: People who work at the top are at the top because they add value to a company, they don't drain it.

Nonsense. I do not buy for a moment that a CEO provides anywhere between 150-400 times more value to any given business than the people that actually do the work. 

Look, I don't think that a CEO should be paid the minimum wage. Obviously the CEO of McDonalds has a more complex job than the people that are flipping the burgers. Obviously the guy deserves to be paid more than the person flipping the burgers. But really, that does not mean that the guy flipping the burgers should not be paid enough to make a basic living.  

Don't think I said or even suggested it would lead to a meltdown. It would increase unemployment.

Same thing. 

The businesses this affects the most are the ones that are just starting out. Also, isn't it better to have a "poor" business that, for example, employs 2 people at minimum wage than no business? Just because a business has a small profit margin doesn't mean it isn't important to the economy or people in a certain community. Do we just defer to companies like Walmart who can afford it and everyone else who can't should just shut down? 

First, there are plenty of businesses that operate under extremely low profit margins. Increasing the cost of labor could realistically push them into the red. Walmart for example is such a business, its how they managed to out compete nearly everyone. Accept low profit margins and no one can afford to compete with you. But it does mean that Walmart has done this to some extend by getting subsidized by US law, because it never enforced a higher minimum wage. 

Second, no its not better to employ two people who don't earn enough money to afford a basic living than having no business. Because frankly, for those two people, it doesn't matter, in both situations they don't earn enough money, in both cases they will still have to rely on government support. 

Three, if the minimum wage hike is mandatory for everyone, the playing field does not change. Both Walmart and your local mom and pop store have to pay their employees fairer wages. And those smaller stores, the inefficient ones? Well, they are more expensive than Walmart. Accept that. You can't have local stores and have them be as cheap as Walmart as well. 

This is a huge generalization and you don't have any examples to prove this.

The minimum wage isn't "frozen". The government just has a standard for how low the minimum wage can be. Companies have the ability to increase minimum wage of their own accord, they don't need the government to tell them what it should be.

Its worse actually, since the 1970's the minimum wage has been going down.

The minimum wage is frozen in the sense that the government hasn't really mandated that it goes up by all that much. Of course companies can pay more if they want too, but when there is enough labor to go around, there is no need to pay more. 
 

 

 

 

  Edited August 16, 2015 by LexusInfernus  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

An increase in minimum wage will result in price increases in organizations that depend on minimum wage workers.  A price increase is inflationary.  Who benefits?  In the long run, nobody.

It is all part of the inflationary spiral that will destroy the present economic system in the end.  The wage-slave paradigm needs to be replaced by something equitable, but what?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

New post on a separate subject.

Current primary races: BBC article and summary.

If The Donald is the front runner of the Republican Party, what does that say about the party?  Oh, oh, say it isn't so!?

As for the Democrats, if The Donald becomes Republican candidate, they will be steam rollered.  I don't think any of them have a war chest to touch his.

All things being equal, it is clear in recent times that the Oval Office is for sale.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

It could increase business, but will it increase profits? If it would increase profits why are companies against a government mandated minimum wage raise?

If more people buy your stuff you probably make bigger profits. Of course, in this case, costs would also increase a bit, but since this is a mandatory minimum wage that affects all sectors of the economy, for retail businesses at least, their customer base is bigger than their employee base.

If less people are employed there is no gain or even possibly a loss in profits.

It could increase business, but will it increase profits? If it would increase profits why are companies against a government mandated minimum wage raise?

In any case, how do you think we expanded our economy in the first place?

Each country has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. How did the U.S. expand their economy? Well there are a lot more factors than just "people got paid more and therefore they could buy more." "We printed more money, therefore we had more money, and we spent it on stuff."

It could increase business, but will it increase profits? If it would increase profits why are companies against a government mandated minimum wage raise?

Our purchasing power has increased because our wages, including the lowest ones, have increased significantly. Has that hurt our economy?

Who's economy?

Nothing wrong with wages going up, the problem for the U.S. Economy, as some are pointing out, is that a government mandated wage increase would not actually achieve the stated goals and would actually harm business, and the people who work for them, rather than actually raise people's living standard.

It could increase business, but will it increase profits? If it would increase profits why are companies against a government mandated minimum wage raise?

   

Are there less businesses operating today and are they having more problems staying afloat? I think not.

Compared to what time period? What kind of businesses? In what parts of the United States? If you asked that question of a city like Detroit your answer would be completely wrong.

Are there more businesses? Well yes - there is more everything.

However there are less independently owned businesses, relative to the population of 30 or 40 years or so ago in the United States.

It could increase business, but will it increase profits? If it would increase profits why are companies against a government mandated minimum wage raise?

   Again, more proof that increased wages are good for the economy as a whole.

Is it? In the 50ies and 60ies the middle class in the United States was much larger, they lived on lower wages, and many lived off the wage of a single earner - the father.

The problem isn't that wages are too low. The problem is that the dollar buys less.

 

It could increase business, but will it increase profits? If it would increase profits why are companies against a government mandated minimum wage raise?

So why don't corporations want this? I don't know, but would it be such a stretch to suggest that corporations are short sighted, greedy and that this wouldn't be the first time they choose to ignore long term gains in favor of short term profits?

Sure, but corporations aren't these amorphous entities. The people who run them care about their survival. Super wealthy people care about legacy, what they hand down to their heirs.

When their analysts go to them and say: "hey we did the numbers on this and it turns out raising the minimum wage will increase profits." You think CEOs are just like: "Nah, I just want to buy stuff and watch the world burn"?

If a better economy leads to better business then why resist? Cause they're just evil? Come on - that's way too simplistic.

 

If you increase the tax rate on large companies and the rich plus a minimum wage increase you can almost guarantee prices will go up and the wages gained by the increase will be mostly nullified by the price hikes of products.

No you can't. In fact, I can guarantee you that this hardly will be the case. Look for an individual company to compensate the extra cost of a higher wage and assuming they won't sell more products, they generally only have to increase the prices of their products by a few percent. Business first of all sell multiple products most of the time and they sell it to a lot of different people, meaning they can spread out the extra costs over all their sales. Meaning that per product, the price only sees a minimal increase.

If what you are saying were true, then every wage increase, mandatory or not, would be accompanied directly with price inflation to the point that you can't actually increase someones purchasing power ever, because it would always be nullified directly by inflation. You just have to look outside your window to know that this is total nonsense. 

You're right. I described it wrong. It's not an on/off switch. It would ripple. The working/middle class would be able to deal with the minimal increase, but it would hurt the poor a lot more. When every dollar you live on counts, minimal price increases have great impact.

But, again, this will hurt small/independent business the most.

 

Some can be axed, others could have their hours reduced. Big companies could add more automated or self serve systems. I recognize that automated systems also have a cost, but in the long run could be cheaper than hiring people at a raised minimum wage level.

You say "those companies already run on minimum amount of workers needed", but do you have any statistical evidence to prove that? Big businesses will always find ways to cut corners while still running "efficiently".

Automation will happen anyways regardless of how expensive people become. The simple fact is that machines can do almost everything we do better, faster and cheaper. Even if we paid people nothing, machines would still be a better option at some point, because they are just that much more efficient.

You're right again, but if it doesn't happen gradually or at the right place it could damage the economy and take away jobs people still need. A minimum wage increase could force the hand of big businesses too soon.

Think about a grocery store. Have you been through one of those self serve check-out counters? Pretty neat right? You don't actually need someone to ring up your bill and it isn't hard to do it yourself. People could easily get used to it. Now imagine they increase the minimum wage in the United States. A company like Walmart has two options: pay your employees more or replace 5 of the 10 check out counters with self-serve? What do you think they'll choose?

This is just one area where people could immediately be replaced by some form of automation, I'm sure there are others. If you push before the economy has time to shift it will disproportionately affect the poor and hit them pretty hard.

 

Simple economic theory already suggests that companies run at the minimal amount of workers necessary to efficiently function.

There are many economic theories, none are simple.

Even at a lower minimum wage, a worker costs money, so why the hell would you spend that money on a worker if you don't need them?

You do a cost benefit analysis. Yes, you need those workers, as long as you can afford them and it doesn't cut in to your bottom line. If they become un-affordable you invest in alternatives - some which already exist but you (the company) haven't bothered implementing because the current model work for you.

   So, when efficiency remains the same, it means you need to keep the same amount of workers to keep the same amount of output, meaning you can't fire people without decreasing your     own output.

No, because people still need and want stuff at the same rate they did before. Take my grocery store example. The output of a grocery store isn't going to change if you replace 5 of 10 check-out clerks with self-check-out counters.

 

Currently, big business is indeed firing people, laying off entire divisions in order to boost profits. But this is short term profits for long term losses. By selling bits and pieces of your company, you get a one time boost in profits, but in the long run it simply means that you can do less with your company. For example, take Phillips. 20 years ago, they were one of the market leaders in consumer electronics, they invented the DVD, they sold light bulbs and they had a division in medical technology. In comes some overpaid CEO who promises to boost profits. What does he do? He sells off parts of the company over the next few years. And what is Phillips now? A company that only builds medical technology, and even there they are finding that profits are down. The company went from being one of the largest electronic companies in the world to being completely irrelevant. The people that invented the DVD no longer exist.

I think you just proved my point about CEOs and executives in general ("those at the top") adding value to their companies and being worth their salaries.

Yes, a terrible CEO can cripple a company. It happens. A potted flower dies if you don't water it. But the actions of a good CEO can increase the value of a company and grow it without compromising it.

If you're a hedge-fund manager or a trader and you bring in to your company 2 - 4x your salary are you not worth it?

Nonsense. I do not buy for a moment that a CEO provides anywhere between 150-400 times more value to any given business than the people that actually do the work.

So CEO's don't do any actual work? They just dress sharp and pose for pictures with bikini clad women dancing around them all day?

CEO's of that value run businesses that affect the livelihoods of possibly thousands of people under them. One wrong decision, an excess of greed, miscalculations, bad deals, poor investments, could cost you and everyone who works for you to lose their jobs. It's a lot more pressure and a lot more work than you think it is.

That is the current corporate climate. Boost profits by selling your own company until there is nothing left to sell and the company no longer exists.

That's just totally wrong. So you're saying the trend for big businesses is to just intentionally run themselves into the ground so that the CEOs can get rich?

Companies have shareholders too. A CEO can lose their position as such if investors feel the company isn't going in the right direction.

 

Second, no its not better to employ two people who don't earn enough money to afford a basic living than having no business. Because frankly, for those two people, it doesn't matter, in both situations they don't earn enough money, in both cases they will still have to rely on government support.

What? So it's better for people to have no money, and no job, over people having some money and a job? Just because both of them still need government assistance? Having a job is a path to having another job. People can move up from earning minimum wage. When a person has a job they are contributing to the economy in some way. Maybe they're helping to sell or make a product. That product gets sold. The taxes on that product pay for some of that welfare. 

There are also people who work more than one minimum wage job to make end's meet.

 

Three, if the minimum wage hike is mandatory for everyone, the playing field does not change. Both Walmart and your local mom and pop store have to pay their employees fairer wages. And those smaller stores, the inefficient ones? Well, they are more expensive than Walmart. Accept that. You can't have local stores and have them be as cheap as Walmart as well.

Yes, the playing field does change because Walmart can afford and compensate for it and the independently own business can't. Either way if people lose jobs it hurts the economy more than those who remain getting paid more.

 

Its worse actually, since the 1970's the minimum wage has been going down.

The minimum wage is frozen in the sense that the government hasn't really mandated that it goes up by all that much. Of course companies can pay more if they want too, but when there is enough labor to go around, there is no need to pay more. 
 

Holy crap the minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60, and $1.60 from 1968 would be worth $10.16 today!

The minimum wage has "gone down" because the value of the dollar had decreased.

Also remember that Bernie Sanders wants to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. That's $5 more than the minimum wage at it's peak (adjusted for inflation) in 1968 and 2x more than the current minimum wage. Never in American history has the minimum wage increased that much in such a short period.

  Edited August 18, 2015 by MilitantRadical  
new information, corrections

[wallacet 336]

Holy crap the minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60, and $1.60 from 1968 would be worth $10.16 today!

The minimum wage has "gone down" because the value of the dollar had decreased.

Also remember that Bernie Sanders wants to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. That's $5 more than the minimum wage at it's peak (adjusted for inflation) in 1968 and 2x more than the current minimum wage. Never in American history has the minimum wage increased that much in such a short period.

I've said time and time again that having a high minimum wage like that will lead to a decrease in college attendance, which will never be good no matter how you spin it. If you give a 17 year old the choice of spending a ton of money to go to college, or graduating high school and working at McDonalds for $15 an hour....I believe the choice they would make would be obvious. Taking the easy way out seems to be the way the younger generation is heading, and I believe that they are way too young to understand that in order to have a decent living you have to work for it, no matter how much it sucks. We should keep the minimum wage low to encourage younger people to actually go to college and learn things and make a living for themselves instead of working right away. A high minimum wage will only encourage an unsustainable lifestyle. And watch...5 years from now, people will be complaining that $15/hr is too low, and there will be calls for $20...mark my words.

[MushyMushy 3,618]

Well, considering the fact that, adjusted for inflation, minimum wage should be significantly higher if it were to be equal to what it was before the corporatization of the nation occurred (which subsequently led to the freeze on minimum wage), there should be no complaints about it being increased. As younger person, I've always taken great issue with significantly older people who argue against increasing minimum wage (which people like myself live on until we get out of college, if we get the chance to go (since it's outrageously expensive)), since, if I'm not mistaken, many of them grew up in times when minimum wage was proportionally better. Some of them grew up in the 50's, when (in the U.S. at least) it was probably one of the easiest times to make a living off various wages. People from that time who call the more recent generations 'lazy' should seriously reconsider (don't take that as me saying the people from then are lazy, because they're not. They worked quite hard. They just had certain things going for them that the people the came before and after them did not). In some ways, I look at it as people climbing a ladder. The people of the past who had certain advantages climbed up, and proceeded to pull the ladder up behind them, which why I personally think that the wage issues have gotten noticeably worse for subsequent generations (Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z soon enough).

Just because minimum wage goes up doesn't mean that suddenly everybody's going to take the easy way out. I wouldn't drop everything educational I was doing to go work for the nearest fast food chain, and plenty of people share that sentiment. Minimum wage jobs aren't easy. Just because one does not need specialized skills to do a minimum wage job does not make it easy. Once can pick between lovely choices like: mindlessly flipping burgers in a greasy, hot kitchen for an entire day all week long, collecting shopping carts and bagging groceries, or standing on their feet for hours doing things like maid services, being a cashier, or being a waiter. I am not devaluing higher-paying jobs in any way, many of them are just as grueling, or even more so, it's just that people have this false conception that minimum wage jobs are easy because they're cheap.

I also take issue with the huge pay gap between CEOs and their execs, the average worker, and of course minimum wage workers. Considering the fact that CEOs make, on average several hundred times more a year than the average worker (So, basically earning in a day what the average Joe earns in a year), where does that put people close to or at minimum wage? They're being told their time is worthless in comparison to CEOs. Of course CEOs are entitled to make more money, it's their company and they run it, but the gap has gotten too big. In the past, CEOs earned about 20-40 times as much as the average worker... what happened? Why is OK for them to earn 10 times that and for the rest of the people to be making proportionally less than they used to?

The other thing I don't like is why do people always assume that minimum wage workers are high school students or people that never tried in life? There are educated adults with degrees in whatever that work the cash register at grocery stores. There are people who would've tried to get an education if they had the chance, but their parents were too poor to get them into college. The grocery stores that I shop at in town (a city with about 1/4 to 1/3rd of its population below the national poverty level) are mostly staffed by people in their late 20s, 30s, and 40s. Some of them are educated but couldn't find a job. Some of them were laid off. Some of them never had a chance in life. Now they're trying to support a family on either one or two counts of $7.25 and hour or something similar. It doesn't work. People who are employed full time by stores like Walmart are so poor they have to move in with relatives and live on food stamps and other taxpayer funded systems... so basically we the people are paying their wages, not their company. I could go on and on, but I wont.

  Edited August 17, 2015 by MushyMushy  

[matias93 7,535]

I'll try to address most of the disjunctives that have been exposed in the last days here in a simple way (please forgive my slow and cumbersome English).

First, effectively, Sanders is not 'socialist' in the strict sense of the word. Socialism, as an ideology, promotes the ending of private property and the socialization (hence the name) of the production mediums. Most socialists are also statists, so they envison the named socialization by means of making the State (the federal government, in US speech) owner of all private property.

Clearly, Sanders is not so crazy or radical to promote that. If we want to put a label on Sanders, maybe the best would be Leftist Populist. I recommend you to read some quotes by Ernesto Laclau, an argentinian political theorist that drawed the foundations of modern populism and is refeered as inspiration by people like Pablo Iglesias, Alexis Tsipras and many populist latin american presidents.

About policy issues, effectively, what Sanders have promoted is mainly the same most latin american populist presidents have used to get their offices, a vague promise of decommodification (the possibility, for people, to have things and services independently of their wealth or working status; a concept created by Gösta Esping-Andersen), without a clear plan to archieve it, in macroeconomic terms.

As the right has said innumerable times, no good or service is actually 'free' (gratis, to be precise). All of the State expenditure is taxpayers' expenditure, and the question lies about the efficience of the spenders. When a conscious government decides to spend money on social policies, is because it has strong evidence that a relevant risk would not be addressed by people if they get their taxes as expendable money.
In a simple example: we are pretty certain vaccines avoid infectious diseases, but they are expensive and a relevant share of the population would avoid ussing it deliberately; what is more, a bigger share of the population would buy another thing if the government gives them the money (a 'voucher') to buy themselves the vaccines. So the government decides to buy the vaccines wholesale and to induce (or even force) people to get it injected.

The opposite case is possible and really common: an unconscious government spends money on social policies not because an objective neccesity of do so (based in a contrafactual analysis), but to gain public favour, votes or simple loyalty. So you get unefficient spending channeled to pivotal voters (like free university in Argentina, that allows the Peronists to count with universitarians on elections and polls), and real needs unnattended.

One of the unefficient spending options is to raise global wages (or more speciffically, the minimum wage). Even if the market isn't efficient (so there's margin to pay higher wages without compromising productivity), sudden increases in wages are inflationary:
The increase in wages is not backed (or at least, not entirely) in a productivity increase, so a part of the newly paid money is speculatively created. When the money arrives to the workers, they spend it inmediately (we are thinking about minimum earners, they cannot afford saving money), creating a surge in demand. Economics 101 says us that a surge on demand means people is disposed to pay more for goods, so producers make more goods and sell it for more money. Macroeconomically, what we get is an increase in the Consumer's Price Index (CPI), so in real wealth, nobody has nothing more than the past month.

So, what can we do, as policymakers, to avoid inflationary spending, if we want to improve the material life quality of the minimum earners? A reasonable solution (and the most successful alternative already used) is to offer goods and services partially isolated from the market, what is to say, to decommoditize basic needs. For example, if we detect poor alimentary chooses in low-wage families, we can use the money the economy would lose in a wage increase to buy quality food and to deliver it to those families. Because food is mainly a perishable good, we will be forcing those families to assimilate the spending in the intended use, and not to be diverted to the market. At the same time, their monetary income would be relieved to be used in alternative spending (that is outside guvernamental control). The decommodification maximalist ideal is to get vital needs addressed communitarially (by means of the State) and to free all individual income to be used in suntuary goods and services.

In macroeconomic terms, a commodified economy is equivalent to a decommodified one, because all people gain and spend the same amount of surplus and the acumulated surplus is equal. The difference is mainly political, because a commodified economy equates with a way more free society in terms of rutinary chooses, and a enormously less powerful State. Giving the bureaucratic apparatus the responsability of our basic needs could increase efficiency (if it is well done), but is also creating an State that controls most of the economy.

[wallacet 336]

s why do people always assume that minimum wage workers are high school students or people that never tried in life? There are educated adults with degrees in whatever that work the cash register at grocery stores. There are people who would've tried to get an education if they had the chance, but their parents were too poor to get them into college. The grocery stores that I shop at in town (a city with about 1/4 to 1/3rd of its population below the national poverty level) are mostly staffed by people in their late 20s, 30s, and 40s. Some of them are educated but couldn't find a job. Some of them were laid off. Some of them never had a chance in life. Now they're trying to support a family on either one or two counts of $7.25 and hour or something similar. It doesn't work. People who are employed full time by stores like Walmart are so poor they have to move in with relatives and live on food stamps and other taxpayer funded systems... so basically we the people are paying their wages, not their company. I could go on and on, but I wont.

Just FYI, over 50% of minimum wage workers are under 25. 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Well, considering the fact that, adjusted for inflation, minimum wage should be significantly higher if it were to be equal to what it was before the corporatization of the nation occurred (which subsequently led to the freeze on minimum wage), there should be no complaints about it being increased.

When was this time before the "corporatization" of the United Sates?

The problem is the idea of a federally mandated minimum wage hike, especially one that doubles the current. There are consequences to this. It would have a negative impact on the job market - at least that is the argument from my perspective.

As younger person, I've always taken great issue with significantly older people who argue against increasing minimum wage (which people like myself live on until we get out of college, if we get the chance to go (since it's outrageously expensive)), since, if I'm not mistaken, many of them grew up in times when minimum wage was proportionally better. Some of them grew up in the 50's, when (in the U.S. at least) it was probably one of the easiest times to make a living off various wages. People from that time who call the more recent generations 'lazy' should seriously reconsider (don't take that as me saying the people from then are lazy, because they're not. They worked quite hard. They just had certain things going for them that the people the came before and after them did not). In some ways, I look at it as people climbing a ladder. The people of the past who had certain advantages climbed up, and proceeded to pull the ladder up behind them, which why I personally think that the wage issues have gotten noticeably worse for subsequent generations (Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z soon enough).

You're assuming that the other side of the argument is only coming from old people. I turned 30 this year, not exactly young, but not "old either". The reason some people are against this proposed wage hike is because we see the larger ramifications - the consequences. "Young people" and people who live on minimum wage are easily seduced by these kinds of promises but they aren't rationally evaluating the repercussions. They are being bribed for their vote. "Vote for me and you'll get more money!"

Raise the minimum wage to $15/hr and now everyone who was getting paid $15/hr need to have their salaries raised to $20/hr and so on.

A government mandated wage hike in the United States will affect the job market (negatively) and it will affect prices of commodities and services.

Would you rather have a minimum wage job or no job? (not saying minimum wage jobs will disappear, just that there will be less of them)

Just because minimum wage goes up doesn't mean that suddenly everybody's going to take the easy way out. I wouldn't drop everything educational I was doing to go work for the nearest fast food chain, and plenty of people share that sentiment. Minimum wage jobs aren't easy. Just because one does not need specialized skills to do a minimum wage job does not make it easy. Once can pick between lovely choices like: mindlessly flipping burgers in a greasy, hot kitchen for an entire day all week long, collecting shopping carts and bagging groceries, or standing on their feet for hours doing things like maid services, being a cashier, or being a waiter. I am not devaluing higher-paying jobs in any way, many of them are just as grueling, or even more so, it's just that people have this false conception that minimum wage jobs are easy because they're cheap.

I'm with you on this one. The problem, as I pointed out, is that a wage increase, especially such a large one, would force companies to cut back on full time jobs, benefits, and hours. It would also lead to an increase in prices that would disproportionately affect the very people you're trying to help.

I also take issue with the huge pay gap between CEOs and their execs, the average worker, and of course minimum wage workers. Considering the fact that CEOs make, on average several hundred times more a year than the average worker (So, basically earning in a day what the average Joe earns in a year), where does that put people close to or at minimum wage? They're being told their time is worthless in comparison to CEOs. Of course CEOs are entitled to make more money, it's their company and they run it, but the gap has gotten too big. In the past, CEOs earned about 20-40 times as much as the average worker... what happened? Why is OK for them to earn 10 times that and for the rest of the people to be making proportionally less than they used to?

Are you suggesting there should be a pay cap? Who are you to determine what getting paid too much is? You don't know the stress and hard work a CEO puts in to running his or her company. A CEO has the weight of everyone who works under them on their shoulders. The time of a minimum wage worker is indeed worth much less than that of a CEO.

This is just class envy. We look at these people making so much money and we think it's so unfair but most of us haven't really thought of what their jobs entail and how much knowledge, expertise, and hard work is required. It's not all a party like Wolf of Wall Street or a reality TV show billionaire actor Donald Trump.

 

The other thing I don't like is why do people always assume that minimum wage workers are high school students or people that never tried in life? There are educated adults with degrees in whatever that work the cash register at grocery stores. There are people who would've tried to get an education if they had the chance, but their parents were too poor to get them into college. The grocery stores that I shop at in town (a city with about 1/4 to 1/3rd of its population below the national poverty level) are mostly staffed by people in their late 20s, 30s, and 40s. Some of them are educated but couldn't find a job. Some of them were laid off. Some of them never had a chance in life. Now they're trying to support a family on either one or two counts of $7.25 and hour or something similar. It doesn't work. People who are employed full time by stores like Walmart are so poor they have to move in with relatives and live on food stamps and other taxpayer funded systems... so basically we the people are paying their wages, not their company. I could go on and on, but I wont.

Yes, there is a problem that there is less upward mobility in the United States and the job market has shrunk. Another problem is the value of "education". It's a shame that people can't make a living wage and we feel bad for them, but this is the trap. We want to help these people and giving them more money sounds like a good thing. It appeals to our emotions, but we have to think about the consequences which will negatively impact those you're trying to help much more than it will help.

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

Damnit it becomes almost impossible to properly quote you  Forgive me if I cut out or merge a few of your points.  

Each country has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. How did the U.S. expand their economy? Well there are a lot more factors than just "people got paid more and therefore they could buy more." "We printed more money, therefore we had more money, and we spent it on stuff."

No, its exactly that. Thats how economies grow. You raise peoples wages, they buy more stuff, your profits increase and the economy expands. Inflation happens, but an inflation rate of 1-3% is actually healthy for the economy, as long as wages grow with it or faster. 

Nothing wrong with wages going up, the problem for the U.S. Economy, as some are pointing out, is that a government mandated wage increase would not actually achieve the stated goals and would actually harm business, and the people who work for them, rather than actually raise people's living standard.

A fair point, however it should be noted here is that what those people point out is their expectations based on the current, dominant neo liberal economic paradigm. It should also be noted that both that paradigm is old, outdated and has been spectacularly wrong about nearly everything they ever predicted. Those people have shoddy evidence at best that suggests that raising the minimum wage is bad for the economy, and all that evidence directly contradicts historical experiences of when the minimum wage got raised before. 

Compared to what time period? What kind of businesses? In what parts of the United States? If you asked that question of a city like Detroit your answer would be completely wrong. 

Are there more businesses? Well yes - there is more everything.

However there are less independently owned businesses, relative to the population of 30 or 40 years or so ago in the United States.

Any time period you like, business in general, the US in general. Things like Detroit are not the result of raising wages but the result of poor economic planning and the over reliance on a single type of industry. 

There are more business today then at any other moment in history, the economy has never been bigger, yet people earn more money, at least in absolute terms. According to the people that are against raising the minimum wage, this should have been impossible. 

Is it? In the 50ies and 60ies the middle class in the United States was much larger, they lived on lower wages, and many lived off the wage of a single earner - the father.

The problem isn't that wages are too low. The problem is that the dollar buys less.

Thats not really a problem. Inflation is expected and required for an expanding economy. If inflation causes people to lose purchasing power, then people aren't planning ahead, because wages should at all times have kept up with inflation. They haven't. Now its time for a correction and thats gonna hurt, but it only hurts because businesses themselves were stupid enough to pretend they could just keep raising the prices of their products but never had to raise the wages of their workers. 

 

   Sure, but corporations aren't these amorphous entities. The people who run them care about their survival. Super wealthy people care about legacy, what they hand down to their            heirs.

When their analysts go to them and say: "hey we did the numbers on this and it turns out raising the minimum wage will increase profits." You think CEOs are just like: "Nah, I just want to buy stuff and watch the world burn"?

If a better economy leads to better business then why resist? Cause they're just evil? Come on - that's way too simplistic.

Do they? Do you think that some CEO that has been brought from outside the company, has never worked for that company before, and who will be gone within half a decade actually cares about the company? He cares about his paycheck and he cares about performing well enough to get a big fat bonus on top of his paycheck. 

But sure, if he thought that raising the wages would increase his profits I'm sure he would do it. The problem is that he likes to listen to analysts who tell him that its bad for the company, even though those analysts are basing that predictions on a number of flawed assumptions made by an even more flawed theory. I'm sure that they genuinely believe that they are right and that this is whats best for them. 

You're right. I described it wrong. It's not an on/off switch. It would ripple. The working/middle class would be able to deal with the minimal increase, but it would hurt the poor a lot more. When every dollar you live on counts, minimal price increases have great impact.

But, again, this will hurt small/independent business the most. 

Yeah, but it are the poor that will earn about twice as much as they do now. They won't end up rich from it, but at least they will get a bit of economic breathing space from it. 

And yeah, it will hurt small business. But frankly, I dont care about small business. If they only manage to turn a profit because they are underpaying their employees, then they don't deserve to survive. The idea of a successful business is that you pay your employees a living wage AND THEN turn a profit. If you can't do that, I'm sorry but then you are running a failed business. 

You're right again, but if it doesn't happen gradually or at the right place it could damage the economy and take away jobs people still need. A minimum wage increase could force the hand of big businesses too soon.

Think about a grocery store. Have you been through one of those self serve check-out counters? Pretty neat right? You don't actually need someone to ring up your bill and it isn't hard to do it yourself. People could easily get used to it. Now imagine they increase the minimum wage in the United States. A company like Walmart has two options: pay your employees more or replace 5 of the 10 check out counters with self-serve? What do you think they'll choose?

This is just one area where people could immediately be replaced by some form of automation, I'm sure there are others. If you push before the economy has time to shift it will disproportionately affect the poor and hit them pretty hard.

Better sooner than later in that case. Look, its gonna happen somewhere between now and the next 10-20 years. Not raising the wage maybe makes the 10-20 years the more likely option, but who does that benefit except the corporation? The wage slave who works a 40 hour workweek but still requires government support? And the sooner automation happens, the more pressure this creates for the government to adapt the economic system to move to a post scarcity model. Otherwise we are just going to keep trudging on with a situation where a significant part of the workforce just doesn't earn enough money to stay alive but where their bosses earn obscene profits. 

You do a cost benefit analysis. Yes, you need those workers, as long as you can afford them and it doesn't cut in to your bottom line. If they become un-affordable you invest in alternatives - some which already exist but you (the company) haven't bothered implementing because the current model work for you.

No, because people still need and want stuff at the same rate they did before. Take my grocery store example. The output of a grocery store isn't going to change if you replace 5 of 10 check-out clerks with self-check-out counters. 

But then at least you have 5 people who earn a living wage and only 5 people that require benefits, as opposed to the situation where 10 people had a job yet all 10 required government benefits to stay alive. 

I think you just proved my point about CEOs and executives in general ("those at the top") adding value to their companies and being worth their salaries.

Yes, a terrible CEO can cripple a company. It happens. A potted flower dies if you don't water it. But the actions of a good CEO can increase the value of a company and grow it without compromising it.

If you're a hedge-fund manager or a trader and you bring in to your company 2 - 4x your salary are you not worth it?

So CEO's don't do any actual work? They just dress sharp and pose for pictures with bikini clad women dancing around them all day?

CEO's of that value run businesses that affect the livelihoods of possibly thousands of people under them. One wrong decision, an excess of greed, miscalculations, bad deals, poor investments, could cost you and everyone who works for you to lose their jobs. It's a lot more pressure and a lot more work than you think it is. 

Sure, a good CEO can be a tremendous asset to the company and sure, they deserve to be well compensated. I do however object to the notion that whatever a CEO does, its so much better that he deserves to earn 250 times as much as the average employee at his company. I'm sorry, but no matter how good of a CEO you are, your company would be nowhere without its employees. A successful business is a matter of good teamwork, and it would be good if CEO's remembered that, instead of thinking that they alone are responsible for their companies success or failure. 

That's just totally wrong. So you're saying the trend for big businesses is to just intentionally run themselves into the ground so that the CEOs can get rich?

Companies have shareholders too. A CEO can lose their position as such if investors feel the company isn't going in the right direction. 

Oh but the shareholder profits as well as first. After all, the initial profit boosts also boost the worth of the shares. Its just that at some point, 15 years down the line, they suddenly find that they sold off most of the company and now their own remaining business activity isn't doing so great and those profit boosts were purely artificial, leaving them with an overhyped share price that is nowhere near the actual worth of the company. And as they figure that out, the share plummets and the company goes down. 

Besides, who are the shareholder? People with an actual stake in the company? Or hedgefunds that buy a bunch of shares, force the company to sell bits and pieces of themselves, watch the shares go up, and then sell them again? 

Welcome to predatory capitalism, where nothing of value is produced and people get rich destroying the long term viability of the economy. 

What? So it's better for people to have no money, and no job, over people having some money and a job? Just because both of them still need government assistance? Having a job is a path to having another job. People can move up from earning minimum wage. When a person has a job they are contributing to the economy in some way. Maybe they're helping to sell or make a product. That product gets sold. The taxes on that product pay for some of that welfare. 

There are also people who work more than one minimum wage job to make end's meet.

Yeah, its better to not have a job and be on government benefits than have a job, maybe even two jobs, work 40-80 hours a week and still require government benefits. The first option is simply a dent on your self esteem and pride, the other is a dent on your self esteem and pride coupled with soul crushing stress, lack of sleep, lack of free time and all the negative health effects that come from existing solely to work your ass off. 

Honestly, why let yourself be used as a disposable object used to maximize the benefits for someone else if you don't even get paid enough to afford all the basic necessities to live? 

Holy crap the minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60, and $1.60 from 1968 would be worth $10.16 today!

The minimum wage has "gone down" because the value of the dollar had decreased.

Also remember that Bernie Sanders wants to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. That's $5 more than the minimum wage at it's peak (adjusted for inflation) in 1968 and 2x more than the current minimum wage. Never in American history has the minimum wage increased that much in such a short period.

Yes, that is correct, the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation as it should have. But the only way to remedy that is to increase the wage. 

Also, they doubled the minimum wage over a six year period back in the 70's. 

 

 

[hym 358]

And yeah, it will hurt small business. But frankly, I dont care about small business. If they only manage to turn a profit because they are underpaying their employees, then they don't deserve to survive.

By most definitions of a "small business," over 85% of C corporations are small businesses, and they collectively employ somewhere between 48-80 million Americans.  The collective failure of the US small business landscape would represent an economic catastrophe never seen in human history.  Even ignoring the effect that would have on the US (and world) economy, widespread losses in the small business landscape would cripple the major C corps also, as many of them are critically dependent on smaller service companies to survive.  (Most Fortune 500 companies cannot perform all of their critical functions in house and are dependent on service companies to prevent operations from freezing up in a matter of days or weeks.) In other words, realistically, you don't get the option to not care about small businesses.  They represent a large portion of the US employment market, and most of the largest US corporations cannot survive without them.

The idea of a successful business is that you pay your employees a living wage AND THEN turn a profit. If you can't do that, I'm sorry but then you are running a failed business.

In general, businesses are formed to generate profit and accumulate wealth.  This is the standard upon which businesses are judged as successful or not.  If the business achieves more than that, that's a nice bonus.  If it does not, that does not mean the business is a failure.  Judging a business by a different standard rarely serves to accomplish anything other than promoting distortion and delusion.

  Edited August 21, 2015 by hym  

[LexusInfernus 908]

By most definitions of a "small business," over 85% of C corporations are small businesses, and they collectively employ somewhere between 48-80 million Americans.  The collective failure of the US small business landscape would represent an economic catastrophe never seen in human history.  Even ignoring the effect that would have on the US (and world) economy, widespread losses in the small business landscape would cripple the major C corps also, as many of them are critically dependent on smaller service companies to survive.  (Most Fortune 500 companies cannot perform all of their critical functions in house and are dependent on service companies to prevent operations from freezing up in a matter of days or weeks.) In other words, realistically, you don't get the option to not care about small businesses.  They represent a large portion of the US employment market, and most of the largest US corporations cannot survive without them.

Yeah, a collective failure of all those businesses would be a disaster. But you'd have to try real hard to accomplish that, and raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour is definitely not going to cause such a collective failure. Even then though, if the economy is build on a basis of wage exploitation, a fundamentally rotten, immoral and unethical basis, then screw the economy, it deserves to collapse. Whatever gains come from it, they have come from human misery. 

In general, businesses are formed to generate profit and accumulate wealth.  This is the standard upon which businesses are judged as successful or not.  If the business achieves more than that, that's a nice bonus.  If it does not, that does not mean the business is a failure.  Judging a business by a different standard rarely serves to accomplish anything other than promoting distortion and delusion.

Yeah, the problem I have with that definition is that it means that businesses build on slavery are technically highly successful capitalist ventures. 

See, by detaching or ignoring the moral and ethical components and base success solely on such a small and narrow definition, we get a very nasty, inhuman, immoral, unethical society. Who cares if our workers are exploited, who cares about their suffering, because $%&^! isn't our business successful! Look at those profits! People will have to ask themselves in what type of society they want to live. One that is based on moral and ethical standards, or one that is so consumed by greed that they happily step down on others so their businesses can make a bit more profits. 

America has had to answer this question before, back when it was about to abolish slavery. The same arguments that are made today against raising the minimum wage were made back then against abolishing slavery. "You can't abolish slavery, that would cause our economy to collapse!" (You can't raise the minimum wage, the economy would collapse!) "What about the freed slaves? We have no place or work for them in our society. Surely its better that they are kept as slaves where they are housed and fed than be freed and become unemployed and on government welfare?" (What about all the unemployment it would cause? Surely its better to be employed and still need government welfare than being unemployed and needing government welfare?) "Black people are to stupid to live independently, god made them to serve the white man!" (Minimum wage workers are to stupid to get better paying jobs, they should be happy we employ them at all!) Thankfully back then it was decided that morality trumped greed and profits of 'successful capitalism'. 

As I said, if businesses can only survive because they rely on human exploitation, I can't sympathize with them. 

[Duke87 1,070]

A general point here: it is logically fallacious to argue that "we did X in the year Y in the past and things were better than they are now, therefore we should do X again". The reason being that year Y in the past cannot be used as a simple analogue to today. The one proposed change is far from the only difference between then and now... and many of the other differences are outside of our control or things which have changed forever.

Some very important economic parameters which are very different today than they were decades ago:
- in the postwar era, the US had a near-monopoly on industrialization because Europe and East Asia were all bombed out from WWII. This enabled us to set our standards of living high because anyone who wanted our stuff either paid our price or didn't get it. Today, we are competing with other industrialized nations that have lower standards of living, we can't compete with them unless we lower our standards of living to match. As things stand our goods and services are more expensive than those from other countries and not of any superior quality. The inevitable result in a free market system is that now everything is made in other countries, because no one wants to pay more for something that isn't worth more.

- due to shifts in trade policy it is now a lot easier to manufacture things in other countries and import them to the US than it used to be. Since it's no longer necessary to make it here in order to sell it here, and since other countries have a competitive advantage on the price of manufacturing, we now import goods and export jobs.

- decades ago, it was very often have a human do a job or have it not be done, even at the minimum wage level. Today, the technology already exists to automate most basic service jobs out of existence. The only thing preventing it from happening is that human labor is too cheap for it to be worth the capital investment necessary to eliminate the need for it. If the price of human labor were to be raised substantially, it would become a lot more cost effective to invest in automation and so a lot of employers would.

 

The last point is particularly noteworthy since this is a trend we can only expect will continue as technology advances. And it will result in massive changes to everyone's way of life since it will undermine one of the basic foundations of capitalism itself: that people earn a living by being employed and getting compensated for their work. When every job previously done by a human can be handled by a computer or a robot, then what? How will people make money? We won't be able to and we're going to have to figure out some other way of living.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Each country has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. How did the U.S. expand their economy? Well there are a lot more factors than just "people got paid more and therefore they could buy more." "We printed more money, therefore we had more money, and we spent it on stuff."

No, its exactly that. Thats how economies grow. You raise peoples wages, they buy more stuff, your profits increase and the economy expands. Inflation happens, but an inflation rate of 1-3% is actually healthy for the economy, as long as wages grow with it or faster. 

If you could grow your economy like that - so easily, why aren't the biggest economies the ones with the highest minimum wage? China is the world's second largest economy partially because it has a very low minimum wage. (I'm not suggesting that lowering the minimum wage for countries like the United States is good or better for the economy).

I'm far from having any expertise in economics, but I know just barely enough to tell you with certainty that it is infinitely more complex than what you've described, and that if you could grow your economy by doubling the minimum wage, countries around the world would constantly be doing it.

Besides, the health of your economy matters much more than it's size.

Any time period you like, business in general, the US in general. Things like Detroit are not the result of raising wages but the result of poor economic planning and the over reliance on a single type of industry.

I wasn't trying to say that the poverty in areas like Detroit are the result of raising the minimum wage. You asked if there are less businesses in the United States, and I was merely pointing out that some States were doing better than others. The economic growth isn't across the board. In some areas, there has been a reduction in the amount of business/jobs.

 

There are more business today then at any other moment in history, the economy has never been bigger, yet people earn more money, at least in absolute terms. According to the people that are against raising the minimum wage, this should have been impossible. 

Like I said, there's more everything these days. The fact that there are more "businesses" does not prove your point at all.

 

Thats not really a problem. Inflation is expected and required for an expanding economy. If inflation causes people to lose purchasing power, then people aren't planning ahead, because wages should at all times have kept up with inflation. They haven't. Now its time for a correction and thats gonna hurt, but it only hurts because businesses themselves were stupid enough to pretend they could just keep raising the prices of their products but never had to raise the wages of their workers.

One of the main drivers of inflation in the United States in from the Federal Reserve printing money to compensate for the debt. It isn't because businesses raised their prices. Business are forced to raise prices to compensate for inflation, they don't cause it.

    Yeah, but it are the poor that will earn about twice as much as they do now. They won't end up rich from it, but at least they will get a bit of economic breathing space from it. 

Some people will earn twice as much. Others will be fired and earn nothing. That doesn't help the poor.

And yeah, it will hurt small business. But frankly, I dont care about small business. If they only manage to turn a profit because they are underpaying their employees, then they don't deserve to survive. The idea of a successful business is that you pay your employees a living wage AND THEN turn a profit. If you can't do that, I'm sorry but then you are running a failed business.

Ok...

So you don't care whether or not people have jobs.

 

Its better to not have a job and be on government benefits than have a job, maybe even two jobs, work 40-80 hours a week and still require government benefits. The first option is simply a dent on your self esteem and pride, the other is a dent on your self esteem and pride coupled with soul crushing stress, lack of sleep, lack of free time and all the negative health effects that come from existing solely to work your ass off. 

Honestly, why let yourself be used as a disposable object used to maximize the benefits for someone else if you don't even get paid enough to afford all the basic necessities to live?

Seriously? That's so bourgeois.

You ignored my point about jobs leading to other jobs. If you can't get that first job to get your foot in the door of the job market you can't get other jobs that will earn you a living wage.

It is far better for people, and the economy, to have more jobs then to have less jobs.

Also, your statement is based on the idea that everyone who works minimum wage is on government assistance. That just isn't the case. As wallacet pointed out, over 50% of minimum wage workers are 25 and under, many of them are students or people just entering the workforce. If you reduce the number of minimum wage jobs it affects the whole job market because fewer people can enter and gain experience.

Also, they doubled the minimum wage over a six year period back in the 70's. 

Yeah, a six year period - it was gradual. The global economy was very different in the 70ies. And if you look at the minimum wage adjusted for inflation it never actually doubles in value.

  Edited August 22, 2015 by MilitantRadical  

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Oopsies

  Edited August 22, 2015 by MilitantRadical  

[AkemiAzula 280]

On minimum wage I will say that here in the UK it is seven pounds or so, which is maybe twelve or thirteen dollars?

 

This is enough to feed oneself clothe oneself and pay for heating in wintertime.

However the main cost these days is rent or mortgage rent of ones house or flat.

If you lived in the bush and were able to be employed it would be plenty enough.

The reason wages are not good enough is we have to pay rent until we can afford to buy a property.

This both restricts fluidity of movement to work and live elsewhere and forces one to stay putbrather than follow opportunity, and means we live poorly.

The fact most housing is privately owned suggests to me that maybe there lies the problem.

If we owned our dwelling instead of having to buy or rent one from a real estate or landlord the minimum wage would be plenty enough, certainly to cover basic needs like food and warmth.

I thus think all residences should be government owned rather than held in a parasitic way by landlords who in return for doing very little are paid large rents.

Property ownership methinks is the worst problem with capitalism and the ideal of freedom and equality getting along.

[LexusInfernus 908]

If you could grow your economy like that - so easily, why aren't the biggest economies the ones with the highest minimum wage? China is the world's second largest economy partially because it has a very low minimum wage. (I'm not suggesting that lowering the minimum wage for countries like the United States is good or better for the economy).

I'm far from having any expertise in economics, but I know just barely enough to tell you with certainty that it is infinitely more complex than what you've described, and that if you could grow your economy by doubling the minimum wage, countries around the world would constantly be doing it.

Besides, the health of your economy matters much more than it's size.

Technically you can argue that the world largest economy also pays some of the highest wages. The EU has for the most part pretty high minimum wages, at least compared to China and the US and the EU is the largest economy in the world. 

China's economy is large because China is large. You can afford to pay relatively low wages to your workers if you got more than a billion of them. The sheer size of the population ensures that you get a large economy fairly quickly. And while the Chinese minimum wage is low, its only low compared to the US or the EU. For the average Chinese, wages have never been higher. 

Yes, you are right, it is a little more complex than I made it out to be. Its true you can't just double the wage every year. But to increase the wage to compensate for inflation, and possibly a little more? Yeah thats definitely possible. And its also healthy. Look at the US, they are the third largest economy in the world and its unhealthy. All the growth goes straight into the pockets of the 1%, the middle class is completely wiped out and wealth inequality keeps growing. Such an economy will suffer significantly from economic shocks, expect economic crisis to happen every 10 years or so and expect political unrest to grow until the situation gets so out of hand that the whole thing collapses. 

You are right, health is more important than size, yet the arguments against raising the minimum wage are all arguments that argue that it will hurt the economies size, not its health. 

 

Like I said, there's more everything these days. The fact that there are more "businesses" does not prove your point at all.

Sure it does. There is more of everything, exactly! Do you know what that means? That the economy has grown. There is more of everything because people can buy more of everything. They can buy more of everything because they have more money than before. Their purchasing power has increased. But how can people have more money, yet also have more stuff if wage increases are instantly compensated for by inflation? Well it can't, meaning that wages have increased faster than inflation has. 

 

One of the main drivers of inflation in the United States in from the Federal Reserve printing money to compensate for the debt. It isn't because businesses raised their prices. Business are forced to raise prices to compensate for inflation, they don't cause it.

No, inflation literally means that you can buy less for one dollar. In other words, that means that the prices have gone up. Therefor, inflation literally means that stuff gets more expensive. Hence, businesses do not raise prices to compensate for inflation, the very act of raising prices causes inflation. That said, often if someone starts pumping a lot of extra money into the economy that causes businesses to raise the prices. 

Some people will earn twice as much. Others will be fired and earn nothing. That doesn't help the poor.

Ok...

So you don't care whether or not people have jobs.

Sure it does, it means that some people will earn enough to pay for all the basic necessities, while for the others they have to continue relying on government support. For some people it gets better, for others nothing changes. 

And of course I care if people have jobs. But, I do think its way more important that a job actually brings in enough money to at the very least pay for all the basic necessities. If a job doesn't do that, then why bother, its only an extremely unfair deal. Again, why should I work 40-80 hours a week and get nothing out of it? Work is at its core a trade. I spend my time helping you out, and in return you compensate me for my time, right? But in order to trade, the trade has to be fair, so compensation should be high enough for me to make it worth my time. The current minimum wage is an unfair trade that highly favors one party but leaves the other party with nothing, so why should people make the trade? 

Seriously? That's so bourgeois.

You ignored my point about jobs leading to other jobs. If you can't get that first job to get your foot in the door of the job market you can't get other jobs that will earn you a living wage.

It is far better for people, and the economy, to have more jobs then to have less jobs.

Also, your statement is based on the idea that everyone who works minimum wage is on government assistance. That just isn't the case. As wallacet pointed out, over 50% of minimum wage workers are 25 and under, many of them are students or people just entering the workforce. If you reduce the number of minimum wage jobs it affects the whole job market because fewer people can enter and gain experience.

Hmm, no I disagree. First of all, for a lot of people minimum wage jobs don't lead to better paying jobs. There are roughly 50 million Americans who are on government assistance, 40 million of them have a job. Second of all, as I said before, work is part of a trade, I give you some of my time and in turn you compensate me for it. I'm fine with that as long as the trade is fair and as it stands now the trade is simply not fair. The compensation you offer is simply not in proportion to the amount of time and work I put in for you. The trade has to be fair, or there should not be a trade at all. It would be ridiculous if people are required to stick with unfair trades because according to some thats better than no trade. Even the idea that sticking to unfair trades right now may lead to fairer trades in the future is simply not enough. I can't buy food with money I might potentially earn in the future.

And remember what you said? The size of the economy isn't as important as its health? Well then why are you arguing that more jobs is better than less jobs? 

Yeah, a six year period - it was gradual. The global economy was very different in the 70ies. And if you look at the minimum wage adjusted for inflation it never actually doubles in value.

First, this raise of minimum wage also happens over the course of several years. Second yes I expect that inflation will prevent the minimum wage to actually double in value. It will be slightly less. But it will increase in value and thats what is important. 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Ever consider the solution that ties the minimum wage to the cost of living index?  Not a set value, but declared quarterly perhaps?

And do any of you prolific text writers think anyone reads those walls of text?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

lol, initially told myself I wasn't going to respond in detail.

If you could grow your economy like that - so easily, why aren't the biggest economies the ones with the highest minimum wage? China is the world's second largest economy partially because it has a very low minimum wage. (I'm not suggesting that lowering the minimum wage for countries like the United States is good or better for the economy).

I'm far from having any expertise in economics, but I know just barely enough to tell you with certainty that it is infinitely more complex than what you've described, and that if you could grow your economy by doubling the minimum wage, countries around the world would constantly be doing it.

Besides, the health of your economy matters much more than it's size.

Technically you can argue that the world largest economy also pays some of the highest wages. The EU has for the most part pretty high minimum wages, at least compared to China and the US and the EU is the largest economy in the world.

Combined, yes the EU has the world's largest economy, but it isn't a country. There are, as you know, a few EU member states like Greece and Spain who are in a lot of financial trouble (not blaming this on wage levels).

The highest national minimum wage in the EU is $9.24 (Luxembourg). It's around $6 higher than the federally mandated minimum wage in the United States, but it's still under $10.

On minimum wage I will say that here in the UK it is seven pounds or so, which is maybe twelve or thirteen dollars?

According to the OECD the minimum wage (take home) in the UK is $7, that's only $1 higher than the United States. But maybe the minimum wage is different in certain areas of the UK, i don't know.

 

China's economy is large because China is large. You can afford to pay relatively low wages to your workers if you got more than a billion of them. The sheer size of the population ensures that you get a large economy fairly quickly. And while the Chinese minimum wage is low, its only low compared to the US or the EU. For the average Chinese, wages have never been higher. 

I agree, but this destroys your point about the EU. The EU has the world's largest economy because it is large, not because of minimum wage levels.

China doesn't have a national minimum wage. (Just learned that)

Yes, wages have never been higher, but they're still low compared to the countries they're competing with.

 

Yes, you are right, it is a little more complex than I made it out to be. Its true you can't just double the wage every year. But to increase the wage to compensate for inflation, and possibly a little more? Yeah thats definitely possible.

But they have to remain competitive in the global market. Nevermind losing 5 out of 10 cashiers, what about losing entire factories and franchises which employ hundreds of people? Just go somewhere where the minimum wage is lower, move to Canada.

 

Look at the US, they are the third largest economy in the world and its unhealthy. All the growth goes straight into the pockets of the 1%, the middle class is completely wiped out and wealth inequality keeps growing. Such an economy will suffer significantly from economic shocks, expect economic crisis to happen every 10 years or so and expect political unrest to grow until the situation gets so out of hand that the whole thing collapses. 

You are right, health is more important than size, yet the arguments against raising the minimum wage are all arguments that argue that it will hurt the economies size, not its health. 

The United States is the world's largest economy according to CNN money. If we count the EU then it is the 2nd. (Just a nitpicky correction)

The minimum wage increase to $15 will harm the health of the US economy by driving away jobs and businesses. (imo)

 

Like I said, there's more everything these days. The fact that there are more "businesses" does not prove your point at all.

Sure it does. There is more of everything, exactly! Do you know what that means? That the economy has grown. There is more of everything because people can buy more of everything. They can buy more of everything because they have more money than before. Their purchasing power has increased. But how can people have more money, yet also have more stuff if wage increases are instantly compensated for by inflation? Well it can't, meaning that wages have increased faster than inflation has. 

No because you're not factoring in ratios, per capita, population, demand, time period, inflation rate, market trends, business and industry types, States and Cities (where are those businesses?). Yes there are technically more businesses than before, the economy is bigger, but this isn't because of wage increases. As an economy grows, wages can increase, it isn't the other way around. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Different cities have different minimum wages so you'd have to look at which cities have the most job growth, best economies, highest employment, highest standard of living and see if that corresponds to higher minimum wages. As we both agreed growth and health aren't necessarily the same thing but you were, at one point arguing that higher minimum wages grow the economy and increase the amount of business - you used the fact that there are more business as proof of such.

Most, if not all, of the cities on Forbes top 10 American cities for job growth in 2014, have a minimum wage of $8 and under. California just raised their minimum wage to $9 so it will be interesting to see how they compete with the other cities on that list.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2014/11/04/the-top-10-cities-and-states-for-job-growth/

 

One of the main drivers of inflation in the United States in from the Federal Reserve printing money to compensate for the debt. It isn't because businesses raised their prices. Business are forced to raise prices to compensate for inflation, they don't cause it.

No, inflation literally means that you can buy less for one dollar. In other words, that means that the prices have gone up. Therefor, inflation literally means that stuff gets more expensive. Hence, businesses do not raise prices to compensate for inflation, the very act of raising prices causes inflation. That said, often if someone starts pumping a lot of extra money into the economy that causes businesses to raise the prices. 

Wow, I said something incredibly stupid. I was talking about dollar devaluation leading to inflation and i meant businesses increasing prices as a response to devaluation.

First of all, for a lot of people minimum wage jobs don't lead to better paying jobs.

For how many people? What percentage of minimum workers remain minimum wage workers?

Just because some people don't move on to better paying jobs doesn't mean we should take away opportunities from those who do.

 Second of all, as I said before, work is part of a trade, I give you some of my time and in turn you compensate me for it. I'm fine with that as long as the trade is fair and as it stands now the trade is simply not fair. The compensation you offer is simply not in proportion to the amount of time and work I put in for you. The trade has to be fair, or there should not be a trade at all. It would be ridiculous if people are required to stick with unfair trades because according to some thats better than no trade. Even the idea that sticking to unfair trades right now may lead to fairer trades in the future is simply not enough. I can't buy food with money I might potentially earn in the future.

Sounds bad, but no - trade does not have to be fair.

Part of the value of a job isn't just time and work, it's skill required. Also, how much your job benefits society, the economy, or your company are all factors.

Again, part of the value of a minimum wage job is the opportunity it provides. Sure, you can't buy food with money you might potentially earn, but you also can't buy food with no money.

You either earn some money, or you earn no money. Even if you're one of these people on government assistance at least you have some of your own money and not just money the government gives you.

First, this raise of minimum wage also happens over the course of several years.

Did not know that. It's actually a four year phase-in plan according to Sander's page on the Senate website (can't insert link) and even they admit it is "significantly above the typical pattern with federal minimum wage increases".

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/2015/7/top-economists-are-backing-sen-bernie-sanders-on-establishing-a-15-an-hour-minimum-wage

We're pretty much at a point where it's a war of "experts". There are economists who support your idea, and others that support mine. We each think they make rational and compelling arguments for their case so we're at kind of an impasse.

An interesting case study would be Los Angeles. According to the LA Times they have a $9 minimum wage and the City Council has approved a Bernie Sanders-like plan ($15/hr by 2020). So it will be important to see how that affects their economy. According to a 2014 study by the UCLA School of Management, Los Angeles job growth is falling behind compared to other cities.

"In fact, the study finds that more people were employed all the way back in 1990 than are now, even though almost half a million more people live here."

From this article (sorry I can't seem to embed links - also can't find the actual study, only a story reporting on it): http://www.scpr.org/blogs/economy/2014/09/11/17281/los-angeles-job-growth-falling-behind-other-cities/

A minimum wage increase went into effect in Oakland on March 1st. It is now $12/hr, it went up from $9. We don't really know the effects of this new increase yet but even before the increase Oakland was suffering from poverty and lack of employment. Did having a $9/hr minimum wage help their economy grow? Or have they lost more jobs as a consequence? And I remind you that $9/hr minimum wage is in line with the highest national minimum wages in the world. At $12/hr they're two to three dollars ahead of all national minimum wages (don't know what the actual take home of that wage is).

Here's an interesting study on the wage increase in Oakland (it is by a fiscally conservative think tank):

https://www.epionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Oakland_MW_Report2.pdf

 

 

 

  Edited August 23, 2015 by MilitantRadical  
adding a bunch of information because I had to go before finishing

[LexusInfernus 908]

lol, initially told myself I wasn't going to respond in detail.

Combined, yes the EU has the world's largest economy, but it isn't a country. There are, as you know, a few EU member states like Greece and Spain who are in a lot of financial trouble (not blaming this on wage levels).

The highest national minimum wage in the EU is $9.24 (Luxembourg). It's around $6 higher than the take home for Americans, but it's still under $10.

Hahah yeah I know the feeling

Its not a country, true, but it does have a single market, including a single labor market. For economic purposes, it pretty much is a country. 

Also, I'm not sure which numbers you are reading there. First of all, the minimum wage in the US is 7 something dollars. That means that if the minimum wage in Luxembourg is 9 dollars its only 2 dollars more than in the US. But, I'm fairly certain that Luxembourg either doesn't have the highest minimum wage in Europe or if it does, its definitely not 9 dollars. 

I suggest you read this. It says the minimum wage in Luxembourg is closer to 12 dollars an hour. Though it does appear most of the bigger countries have around 9-10 dollars an hour. 

I agree, but this destroys your point about the EU. The EU has the world's largest economy because it is large, not because of minimum wage levels.

China doesn't have a national minimum wage. (Just learned that)

Yes, wages have never been higher, but they're still low compared to the countries they're competing with. 

The EU isn't that large. 500 million citizens, thats about 200 million more than in the US. 

There are actually quite a few countries that don't have a minimum wage. Sweden for example also has none, all wages are set sector by sector in collective bargaining agreements. It is also why some countries while despite having a relatively low minimum wage have no issue with their minimum wage, most jobs simply pay well above the set minimum. 

As for Chinas wage levels, they are somewhere in between. We can see that businesses are starting to move out of China again and into cheaper countries. China is cheap compared to the US and EU, but more expensive compared against say Vietnam, Bangladesh or the Philippines. 

But they have to remain competitive in the global market. Nevermind losing 5 out of 10 cashiers, what about losing entire factories and franchises which employ hundreds of people? Just go somewhere where the minimum wage is lower, move to Canada.

The only jobs you can offshore are jobs like manufacturing or simple data processing. Those jobs have already been offshored. Raising the wage will not start them to offshore now. 

And not raising the wage? Well I'm sorry, but why should employees care about the global competitiveness of their company if their wage simply doesn't earn them enough money to pay for basic necessities? Why should they be the ones who take a bullet for corporate? 

The United States is the world's largest economy according to CNN money. If we count the EU then it is the 2nd. (Just a nitpicky correction)

The minimum wage increase to $15 will harm the health of the US economy by driving away jobs and businesses. (imo)

first, second or third, it hardly matters, the differences between the first three are minimal anyways, and moot to this discussion. 

 

Different cities have different minimum wages so you'd have to look at which cities have the most job growth, best economies, highest employment, highest standard of living and see if that corresponds to higher minimum wages.

Its not as simple as that. Especially if you start comparing city to city within the US, because there are other factors at play here as well. For example, the minimum wage in a particular city may be low, but if that city is filled with businesses that pay far above the minimum wage anyways the city can profit from that immensely. 

For how many people? What percentage of minimum workers remain minimum wage workers?

Just because some people don't move on to better paying jobs doesn't mean we should take away opportunities from those who do.

 Well ask yourself, if these low paying jobs will result in people getting into higher paid jobs, then why is the wealth gap increasing at ever faster rates and why are 50 million Americans unable to pay for themselves despite having a job? Surely the wealth gap should increase at a lower rate and less and less people should rely on government assistance if this were the case. 

Higher paid jobs exist, but they aren't for everyone. And the people that get underpaid aren't all in job sectors that are commonly seen as an 'in between' job for people who are about to get a better job. 

Sounds bad, but no - trade does not have to be fair.

Part of the value of a job isn't just time and work, it's skill required. Also, how much your job benefits society, the economy, or your company are all factors.

Again, part of the value of a minimum wage job is the opportunity it provides. Sure, you can't buy food with money you might potentially earn, but you also can't buy food with no money.

You either earn some money, or you earn no money. Even if you're one of these people on government assistance at least you have some of your own money and not just money the government gives you.

If you are making a trade with someone, will you accept the trade if its blatantly unfair for you? If so, you gotta call me because I got some things I want to trade with you

And really, how does working at McDonalds provide you with opportunities? Take a look at this list and tell me how those jobs are all gateways to bigger and better jobs because I don't see it.

And I, as someone seeking employment don't give a damn about how valuable my work is for society or how much skill it needs. If I'm gonna spend 40 hours a week doing it, I want to get paid enough money so I can pay for all my basic living expenses. Really, I'm not expecting I can go on month long holidays with that wage, or buy an awesome sports car. But rent, food and basic living expenses? Yeah, I do want that. If thats not on the table, then what do I gain out of working for you? 

And how ridiculous is that? Sure, I earn some more money than what I just get from the government. Its still nothing. Do you know what that is? Thats the government subsidizing that company I work for, by having the tax payer pay part of what it would normally cost to pay an employee. 

 

 minimum wage increase went into effect in Oakland on March 1st. It is now $12/hr, it went up from $9. We don't really know the effects of this new increase yet but even before the increase Oakland was suffering from poverty and lack of employment. Did having a $9/hr minimum wage help their economy grow? Or have they lost more jobs as a consequence? And I remind you that $9/hr minimum wage is in line with the highest national minimum wages in the world. At $12/hr they're two to three dollars ahead of all national minimum wages (don't know what the actual take home of that wage is).

Here's an interesting study on the wage increase in Oakland (it is by a fiscally conservative think tank):

https://www.epionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Oakland_MW_Report2.pdf

 

 Interesting study, if only for the fact that the study shows that the minimum wage doesn't have a lot of businesses worried about having to let people go. A consistent 60% of the respondents says they aren't planning on cutting back or firing people despite considering the fact that the costs have gone up significantly. 

Strangely enough, the follow up case study's all focus on businesses who are firing people and cutting back hours. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

<snip>

 Interesting study, if only for the fact that the study shows that the minimum wage doesn't have a lot of businesses worried about having to let people go. A consistent 60% of the respondents says they aren't planning on cutting back or firing people despite considering the fact that the costs have gone up significantly. 

Strangely enough, the follow up case study's all focus on businesses who are firing people and cutting back hours. 

It doesn't matter what the minimum wage is.  Corporations will respond by raising prices in the medium run, because they won't allow such things to affect their bottom line (for long).  The result is that whatever the minimum wage becomes it will be insufficient.  The whole argument is inflationary and damages the currency.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It doesn't matter what the minimum wage is.  Corporations will respond by raising prices in the medium run, because they won't allow such things to affect their bottom line (for long).  The result is that whatever the minimum wage becomes it will be insufficient.  The whole argument is inflationary and damages the currency.

Not entirely. If we look at the inflation rate of the US, we see it doesn't correspond at all with the wage increases. Which means that whatever you do with the wages, inflation is going to happen anyways. So saying that we shouldn't raise the wages because inflation will happen is not much of an argument, indeed its sooner an argument in favor of increasing wages. Namely, wages must be increased to at least compensate for inflation and protect consumer purchasing power. 

[AkemiAzula 280]

I aint no economist but it seems to me there should be some kind of absolute currency to compare all currencies and values to and we should try to avoid inflation. Possibly I am thinking of a new gold standard... Platinum?

What matters is relative. If I have expenses of ten dollars per period and earn nine that won't cut it. And if indeed by giving me ten my expenses rise to eleven dollars, the relative problem remains.

How about instead of raising wages we lower living costs (i.e rent primarily)

Taxes are proportionate snd bills easily reduced through efficient living. I really think the problem lies in expenses related to buying or renting a residence. If housing was free or low rent nine dollars an hour would be plenty.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The inflationary spiral is caused by increasing demand for more.  More wages, more luxuries, more real property, etc.  It devalues the currency because the only thing that has any value is production.  If demands continue to increase and production does not, you have inflation.  If increasing production means more automation and less employment of human labour, then you have unemployment caused by the very thing that was demanded.

The labour/production cycle of the past couple of centuries since the industrial revolution of the 19th century has been made obsolete by technological advancement.  We have entered a new "post-industrial" phase and adjusting to it is turning out to be as hard as expected.  The inertia in the labour market makes implementation of both industrial and social change very slow.  Because of the "F. you, Jack, I'm ibboard" attitude of most organized labour, we can expect that this set of old dogs who could learn new tricks simply refuse to act on the obvious.

[Duke87 1,070]

 

Also, your statement is based on the idea that everyone who works minimum wage is on government assistance. That just isn't the case. As wallacet pointed out, over 50% of minimum wage workers are 25 and under, many of them are students or people just entering the workforce. If you reduce the number of minimum wage jobs it affects the whole job market because fewer people can enter and gain experience.

The trouble with this statistic is the definition of "minimum wage worker". Per the citation saying 50% of them are under 25, it is defined as any employee who makes no more than the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour. Being the absolute bottom of the pay scale, this is naturally is going to skew towards younger workers. But when discussing the impact of minimum wage anyone making more than the current minimum but less than the proposed minimum must also be considered. About 4.3% of US workers make $7.25 an hour or less (again, per previous source), but about 26% of US workers making less than $10 an hour. The source provides no analysis on who those 26% are demographically but suffice to say it's a much larger number of people than are making the absolute minimum. Part of this is no doubt because many states have minimums higher than the federal minimum. So, many workers who are making the minimum wage where they work are included in the latter group but not the former. As are a good number of workers who are making above the local minimum but not substantially above it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The Great Wall of Canada?

And this turkey is a candidate for President of the United States?  Has anyone ever briefed him about the amount of trade between us?  What would the north east do without power?  He really wants people to freeze to death in the dark?

Political suicide?  I certainly hope so.