Disadvantages of Minimum Wage Laws

[PoliticalChic]

without the min wage, corpoations and companies were forcing people to work for poverty wages, having them live in corporate owned tenets, buying corporate goods and food from corporate stores in the tenet compounds.
I say it was very obvious how the common laborer was going to be treated.

The min wage allows a decent living from those that are selling a product for profit.
The min. wage does not hurt industries as it is shown that many corporations and companies operatiing in the US have had a great increase in profit while lowering wages and increasing work demand. In my feild of masonry the hourly pay for layers was 10- 14 dollars an hour in 1983. Today a bricklayer makes 12-14 dollars and hour. Hardly has this wage increased as much as the rest of society but was suppressed by the onslaught of illegals being hired to work for a smaller wage because in housing construction there is no set price for labour, only a bidding system.

"...were forcing people..."

Bulletin!!!


"The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On December 18, Secretary of State William H. Seward proclaimed it to have been adopted. It was the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments adopted after the American Civil War."
Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Moonglow]

Wow, I'm convinced.

A. The best way to end racial discrimination is to pay racial minorities less.

According to economic statistics, racial minorities tend to live in areas, and work the (low-skill) jobs, that would earn minimum-wage or less. Lowering the minimum wage would make their labor more attractive to employers -- more minorities would be hired, for longer hours. Plus, other jobs, now unprofitable, would become possible, at lower wages -- so even more minorities would find (some) job, and work (some) hours. Choking the labor market, by imposing minimum wages, and eliminating jobs & hours, restricts employment, and does not help employ people.

If low-paying jobs really are socially harmful, then perhaps "under-employment compensation" could be offered, i.e. Public assistance. But, private-sector businesses should not be bludgeoned, forced to pay more-than-market-value, for low-skill labor. Businesses cannot literally "make" (print) money -- if you squeeze them for wages, they'll only go broke. If you want to talk about Public assistance, that's a separate issue. But minimum wages only restrict employment, throwing many out of work entirely, and eliminating many (low-paying) jobs entirely. And, the more jobs available, the less Public assistance (ideally zero) they might need.

Imposing on the private sector (minimum wages), for Public policy (welfare), is not appropriate. Public assistance should be considered & debated, on its own. Meanwhile, minimum wages should be abandoned ("it is not McDonald's fault, that their hamburgers only sell for $1, so they can only pay a few dollars per hour for their workers"). Public policies should be clearly implemented, as Public policies; not entangled into the private-sector.

Again this assesment does work in areas that are unaffected by the min wage, but in construction and agriculture these people earn min wage and more. If these markets coul not afford to pay these people 14-15 dollars an hour to skin chickens then the market will pay that is correct, but min. wage is not hurting the industries which already pay more for general labor.
It is incorrect to try and apply your paste and cut theory to include any and all aspects of the circle. I take grevous insult from you people that read these articles and paste them to make people and govt. look bad, while you have no idea what you are posting or understanding that you have no real life experiences in the feild of disagreement,and your way is not the way cause we gave it up 80 years ago..

 

[Katzndogz]

How the minimum wage really works.

I was looking for someone to do clean up work in my shop. I hired a woman part time for minimum wage. She initially accepted the job, then called and declined because she got a job paying minimum wage but full time. That's fair and understandable.

Then Los Angeles instituted its own minimum wage law. The people who employed this woman either didn't want to pay it or couldn't pay it. She was let go. When she was let go, she called me, told me what happened and asked if my offer was still open. Since the minimum wage was raised, I too was unable to pay the increase and the offer was no longer open. This woman was unemployed with no prospects.

I solved my problem by having people come in as casual workers. They come in, do the work, I paid them $20.00 for the day and they went about their business. Sometimes they came back, sometimes they didn't.

 

[Moonglow]

without the min wage, corpoations and companies were forcing people to work for poverty wages, having them live in corporate owned tenets, buying corporate goods and food from corporate stores in the tenet compounds.
I say it was very obvious how the common laborer was going to be treated.

The min wage allows a decent living from those that are selling a product for profit.
The min. wage does not hurt industries as it is shown that many corporations and companies operatiing in the US have had a great increase in profit while lowering wages and increasing work demand. In my feild of masonry the hourly pay for layers was 10- 14 dollars an hour in 1983. Today a bricklayer makes 12-14 dollars and hour. Hardly has this wage increased as much as the rest of society but was suppressed by the onslaught of illegals being hired to work for a smaller wage because in housing construction there is no set price for labour, only a bidding system.

"...were forcing people..."

Bulletin!!!


"The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On December 18, Secretary of State William H. Seward proclaimed it to have been adopted. It was the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments adopted after the American Civil War."
Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

try reading up on American workers in the period of after the Civil War to the New Deal era.

 

[Moonglow]

How the minimum wage really works.

I was looking for someone to do clean up work in my shop. I hired a woman part time for minimum wage. She initially accepted the job, then called and declined because she got a job paying minimum wage but full time. That's fair and understandable.

Then Los Angeles instituted its own minimum wage law. The people who employed this woman either didn't want to pay it or couldn't pay it. She was let go. When she was let go, she called me, told me what happened and asked if my offer was still open. Since the minimum wage was raised, I too was unable to pay the increase and the offer was no longer open. This woman was unemployed with no prospects.

I solved my problem by having people come in as casual workers. They come in, do the work, I paid them $20.00 for the day and they went about their business. Sometimes they came back, sometimes they didn't.

they raised it a bit too much. around here it's 7-10 dollars an hour.

 

[PoliticalChic]

without the min wage, corpoations and companies were forcing people to work for poverty wages, having them live in corporate owned tenets, buying corporate goods and food from corporate stores in the tenet compounds.
I say it was very obvious how the common laborer was going to be treated.

The min wage allows a decent living from those that are selling a product for profit.
The min. wage does not hurt industries as it is shown that many corporations and companies operatiing in the US have had a great increase in profit while lowering wages and increasing work demand. In my feild of masonry the hourly pay for layers was 10- 14 dollars an hour in 1983. Today a bricklayer makes 12-14 dollars and hour. Hardly has this wage increased as much as the rest of society but was suppressed by the onslaught of illegals being hired to work for a smaller wage because in housing construction there is no set price for labour, only a bidding system.

"...were forcing people..."

Bulletin!!!


"The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On December 18, Secretary of State William H. Seward proclaimed it to have been adopted. It was the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments adopted after the American Civil War."
Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

try reading up on American workers in the period of after the Civil War to the New Deal era.

Have you ever noticed that a sure sign of one who doesn't read is the use of the phrase 'reading up....'?

 

[The Rabbi]

without the min wage, corpoations and companies were forcing people to work for poverty wages, having them live in corporate owned tenets, buying corporate goods and food from corporate stores in the tenet compounds.
I say it was very obvious how the common laborer was going to be treated.

The min wage allows a decent living from those that are selling a product for profit.
The min. wage does not hurt industries as it is shown that many corporations and companies operatiing in the US have had a great increase in profit while lowering wages and increasing work demand. In my feild of masonry the hourly pay for layers was 10- 14 dollars an hour in 1983. Today a bricklayer makes 12-14 dollars and hour. Hardly has this wage increased as much as the rest of society but was suppressed by the onslaught of illegals being hired to work for a smaller wage because in housing construction there is no set price for labour, only a bidding system.

"...were forcing people..."

Bulletin!!!


"The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On December 18, Secretary of State William H. Seward proclaimed it to have been adopted. It was the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments adopted after the American Civil War."
Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

try reading up on American workers in the period of after the Civil War to the New Deal era.

Hint: The New Deal ended in 1945.

 

[The Rabbi]

How the minimum wage really works.

I was looking for someone to do clean up work in my shop. I hired a woman part time for minimum wage. She initially accepted the job, then called and declined because she got a job paying minimum wage but full time. That's fair and understandable.

Then Los Angeles instituted its own minimum wage law. The people who employed this woman either didn't want to pay it or couldn't pay it. She was let go. When she was let go, she called me, told me what happened and asked if my offer was still open. Since the minimum wage was raised, I too was unable to pay the increase and the offer was no longer open. This woman was unemployed with no prospects.

I solved my problem by having people come in as casual workers. They come in, do the work, I paid them $20.00 for the day and they went about their business. Sometimes they came back, sometimes they didn't.

they raised it a bit too much. around here it's 7-10 dollars an hour.

How can the MinWage be "7 to 10 dollars an hour"? It's either 7 or 10. There's no sliding scale I'm aware of.

 

[Widdekind]

this assesment does work in areas that are unaffected by the min wage... but min. wage is not hurting the industries which already pay more for general labor

less than 1% of the total US workforce earns minimum wage. If minimum wage affects so few voters, then why did minimum wages become law? Because millions of Americans, who have nothing to do with the lives, of low-skill laborers, "voted their noses" into other people's business. That's not legitimate. You cannot vote, on other people's jobs (low-skill labor), and on other people's money (would-be employers), to which you have no relation. But more than 51% of US voters, have voted on an issue, affecting less than 1%. That's ganging up. If you don't earn minimum wage, why do you care? And, if you really don't care, why are you voting your sentiments, into others' lives?

Live and let live...
mind your own business...
let low-skill labor earn low pay...
if that is truly not enough, for Society; then let Society pay for Public assistance, separately, from their own taxes ("put your money where your mouth is")...
"hey, Walmart should-and-ought to pay them more" is not logically legitimate...
you should-and-ought not vote, on O.P.M., Other People's Time, Labor, etc....​

passing laws on a 1% minority, whose lives they know nothing about, and really don't care all that much about, is not logically legitimate, and is more of a "majority tyranny". Lowering wages opens up more jobs. More jobs cannot be bad. And, if they don't pay enough for Society, then, separately, Society could enact Public assistance programs for poorer people. Private businesses should not, directly, be subjected to the whims, of remote (and honestly dis-interested) voters, who "think they know what minimum wage ought to be like". And, if those voters honestly care, then let them prove their compassion, by voting to pay their own taxes for Public assistance.

i predict, that no "eutopia" will ever be voted into existence, on O.P.M. The closest anybody will ever get, is their own hard work & industry, earnestly laboring, in productive jobs (for which other people will pay)

 

[Widdekind]

How can the MinWage be "7 to 10 dollars an hour"? It's either 7 or 10. There's no sliding scale I'm aware of.

apparently, States also have minimum wages, which vary from zero to $9/hour. (Any State minimum less than the $6/hour Federal minimum is moot)

 

[PoliticalChic]

this assesment does work in areas that are unaffected by the min wage... but min. wage is not hurting the industries which already pay more for general labor

less than 1% of the total US workforce earns minimum wage. If minimum wage affects so few voters, then why did minimum wages become law? Because millions of Americans, who have nothing to do with the lives, of low-skill laborers, "voted their noses" into other people's business. That's not legitimate. You cannot vote, on other people's jobs (low-skill labor), and on other people's money (would-be employers), to which you have no relation. But more than 51% of US voters, have voted on an issue, affecting less than 1%. That's ganging up. If you don't earn minimum wage, why do you care? And, if you really don't care, why are you voting your sentiments, into others' lives?

Live and let live...
mind your own business...
let low-skill labor earn low pay...
if that is truly not enough, for Society; then let Society pay for Public assistance, separately, from their own taxes ("put your money where your mouth is")...
"hey, Walmart should-and-ought to pay them more" is not logically legitimate...
you should-and-ought not vote, on O.P.M., Other People's Time, Labor, etc....​

passing laws on a 1% minority, whose lives they know nothing about, and really don't care all that much about, is not logically legitimate, and is more of a "majority tyranny". Lowering wages opens up more jobs. More jobs cannot be bad. And, if they don't pay enough for Society, then, separately, Society could enact Public assistance programs for poorer people. Private businesses should not, directly, be subjected to the whims, of remote (and honestly dis-interested) voters, who "think they know what minimum wage ought to be like". And, if those voters honestly care, then let them prove their compassion, by voting to pay their own taxes for Public assistance.

i predict, that no "eutopia" will ever be voted into existence, on O.P.M. The closest anybody will ever get, is their own hard work & industry, earnestly laboring, in productive jobs (for which other people will pay)

Hey...are you actually Friedrich von Hayek using a nom de plume???

 

[jillian]

Below is from a 2003 column by Thomas Sowell. Goes to your point rather well. As noted in the news recently and on a few threads around here, the new french president (Francoise Hollande) intends to raise the minimum wage in France. We'll see how it works out; I'm guessing not real well.

snippet:

Most studies of minimum wage laws in countries around the world show that fewer people are employed at artificially higher wage rates. Moreover, unemployment falls disproportionately on lower skilled workers, younger and inexperienced workers, and workers from minority groups.

The new Cato Institute study cites data showing job losses in places where living wage laws have been imposed. This should not be the least bit surprising. Making anything more expensive almost invariably leads to fewer purchases. That includes labor.

While trying to solve a non-problem — supporting families that don't exist, in most cases — the living wage crusade creates a very real problem of low-skilled workers having trouble finding a job at all.

People in minimum wage jobs do not stay at the minimum wage permanently. Their pay increases as they accumulate experience and develop skills. It increases an average of 30 percent in just their first year of employment, according to the Cato Institute study. Other studies show that low-income people become average-income people in a few years and high-income people later in life.

All of this depends on their having a job in the first place, however. But the living wage kills jobs.

Thomas Sowell

"...supporting families that don't exist, in most cases — the living wage crusade creates a very real problem of low-skilled workers having trouble finding a job at all."


Some believe that the poor benefit from minimum wage increases, and thus such increases function as antipoverty measures.

a. Some 80% of all minimum wage workers live in not-poor households. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7527/93doc06b.pdf

b. …with almost 20% of these households earning incomes above $50,000. Robert R. Nathan, “The Impact of Increasing the Minimum Wage o Employment in Retailing,” p. 17

c. More than 50% of minimum wage earners are between 16 and 24-years old. Who Earns Minimum Wage? A Statistical Profile

d. Some 60% work part-time. Mandating Higher Unemployment - Forbes.com

e. “…nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers moved above the minimum wage within one year of working at the minimum wage.” Rising Above The Minimum Wage | EPI Study

f. Only 5% of all working adults are paid minimum wage. Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2009

i appreciate all that. but i wouldn't trust any study done by a rightwing thinktank.

the reality about minimum wage is that
a) there is no middle class without it;
b) there is no doubt that absent minimum wage we'd go back to sweat shops where people were paid pennies to do maximum amounts of work;
c) there is no work incentive to people if working hard does not provide a living wage;
d) no minimum wage would encourage employers to keep replacing senior workstaff with entry level workers

i guess the idea of a dickensian society doesn't particularly appeal to me.

 

[itfitzme]

Jobs went away because manufacturing became much more efficient. Off shoring plays a small role in it. Wages in manufacturing are up. Because there are fewer jobs needed to produce the same amount of goods.

so, higher-paying manufacturing jobs are dwindling "naturally", due to down-sizing, from increasing productivity & efficiency; meanwhile, lower-paying jobs are taken up abroad ?

The total cost of production is wages plus capital. With low enough labor costs, inefficient production can cost less than efficient, capital intensive, production. Often, labor intensive production requires higher skills then capital intensive production. One manufacturing tech/engineer can support a considerable number lower skilled production workers.

see Cobb

Of course, the capital itself can off shored to a region with absolute advantage in wages, due to a lower standard of living. Then total production costs can be lowered even further.

 

[The Rabbi]

Below is from a 2003 column by Thomas Sowell. Goes to your point rather well. As noted in the news recently and on a few threads around here, the new french president (Francoise Hollande) intends to raise the minimum wage in France. We'll see how it works out; I'm guessing not real well.

snippet:

Most studies of minimum wage laws in countries around the world show that fewer people are employed at artificially higher wage rates. Moreover, unemployment falls disproportionately on lower skilled workers, younger and inexperienced workers, and workers from minority groups.

The new Cato Institute study cites data showing job losses in places where living wage laws have been imposed. This should not be the least bit surprising. Making anything more expensive almost invariably leads to fewer purchases. That includes labor.

While trying to solve a non-problem — supporting families that don't exist, in most cases — the living wage crusade creates a very real problem of low-skilled workers having trouble finding a job at all.

People in minimum wage jobs do not stay at the minimum wage permanently. Their pay increases as they accumulate experience and develop skills. It increases an average of 30 percent in just their first year of employment, according to the Cato Institute study. Other studies show that low-income people become average-income people in a few years and high-income people later in life.

All of this depends on their having a job in the first place, however. But the living wage kills jobs.

Thomas Sowell

"...supporting families that don't exist, in most cases — the living wage crusade creates a very real problem of low-skilled workers having trouble finding a job at all."


Some believe that the poor benefit from minimum wage increases, and thus such increases function as antipoverty measures.

a. Some 80% of all minimum wage workers live in not-poor households. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7527/93doc06b.pdf

b. …with almost 20% of these households earning incomes above $50,000. Robert R. Nathan, “The Impact of Increasing the Minimum Wage o Employment in Retailing,” p. 17

c. More than 50% of minimum wage earners are between 16 and 24-years old. Who Earns Minimum Wage? A Statistical Profile

d. Some 60% work part-time. Mandating Higher Unemployment - Forbes.com

e. “…nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers moved above the minimum wage within one year of working at the minimum wage.” Rising Above The Minimum Wage | EPI Study

f. Only 5% of all working adults are paid minimum wage. Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2009

i appreciate all that. but i wouldn't trust any study done by a rightwing thinktank.

the reality about minimum wage is that
a) there is no middle class without it;
b) there is no doubt that absent minimum wage we'd go back to sweat shops where people were paid pennies to do maximum amounts of work;
c) there is no work incentive to people if working hard does not provide a living wage;
d) no minimum wage would encourage employers to keep replacing senior workstaff with entry level workers

i guess the idea of a dickensian society doesn't particularly appeal to me.

Do you have proof of any of this?
Oh, you don't do proof. You just spew.

 

[Widdekind]

The total cost of production is wages plus capital. With low enough labor costs, inefficient [labor intensive] production can cost less than efficient, capital intensive, production. Often, labor intensive production requires higher skills then capital intensive production...

no ?

labor is employed intensively, in low-skill, low-capital, low-pay jobs; capital is employed intensively, with high-skill, high-pay workers, highly trained on the sophisticated equipment ?

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. In 1938 the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) established a federal minimum wage law for all employees engaged in interstate commerce.($7.25 as of 2009) When Social Security and medial benefits are included, the wage must be considered to be over $10/ hour. This governmental intervention in the labor market makes it impossible to argue that there is a free market in this respect.

a. While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.

b. Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.


2. Employers, of course, are free to make adjustments in their use of labor. Often said adjustments are at the expense of the workers who are most disadvantaged in terms of their marketable skills. They will lose their jobs, or not be hired in the first place.

a. The workers who suffer most are the most marginal, usually youths, and racial minorities, disproportionally represented among low-skilled workers.

b. Not only are the above made less employable by minimum wage laws, but they lose the opportunity to upgrade their skills via on-the-job training.


3. The weight of research by academic scholars concludes that unemployment among some segments of the work force is directly related to legal minimum wages, See K.R. Kearl, et al., “What Economists Think,” and Alston, Kearl, and Vaughn, “Is There Global Economic Consensus,” both in the ‘American Economic Review.’



4. Minimum wage laws actually lower the cost of discriminating against the racially less-preferred individuals. To understand, consider this nonracial example on the effects of such ‘price-setting.’

a. Consider filet mignon and chuck steak. For argument’s sake, and in reality, consumers prefer the former.

b. Now ask, then why does chuck steak sell at all? And, in fact, why is it that chuck steak outsells filet mignon?? It is less preferred…yet competes favorably with something more preferred??

c. The answer is in what economists call ‘compensating differences.’ In effect the chuck says to you: “I’m not as tender nor tasty, but not as expensive,either! I sell for $4/pound, and filet mignon sells for $9/pound.”

d. Chuck steak, in effect, offers to ‘pay’ you $5/pound for its ‘inferiority,’ a compensating difference.

e. What if filet mignon sellers wanted to raise their sales against the less-preferred competitor, but couldn’t get a law passed forbidding the sale of chuck, what should they aim to do?

f. Push for a law establishing a minimum steak-price, say, $9/pound for all steak.

g. Now…chuck steak says: I don’t look as nice, I’m not tender or tasty as filet mignon, and I sell for the same price….Buy me!

h. Prior to legislation, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak was $5/pound…Now?



5. Thus, any mandated minimum lowers the cost (encourages) indulging in racial preference, or increases the cost of training unskilled labor.

6. Now, if there are mandated minimums, employers will seek the more highly qualified candidate. Due to a number of socioeconomic reasons, white youths have higher levels of educational attainment and training.

7. It should be pointed out that minimum wage increases gives employers an economic incentive to make other changes: substitute machines for labor; change production techniques; relocate overseas; and eliminate certain jobs altogether.
See "Race & Economics," Walter E. Williams

Wow, I'm convinced.

A. The best way to end racial discrimination is to pay racial minorities less.

B. The less we pay minorities the higher the profits for business and industry.

C. Higher profits will trickle down to racial minorites.

D. Isn't unregulated capitalism grand?

Your inability to read and draw appropriate conclusions marks you as having sub par intelligence. I am sure you were well suited to law enforcement.

Thanks Rabbi, coming from you that means a great deal to me.

 

[The Rabbi]

So that means you're going to quit posting and go back to cocksucking?

 

[zzzz]

There is the federal Min wage and then there are the individual states.

There are 4 states than have a minimum wage set lower than the federal minimum wage. There are 18 states (plus DC) with minimum wage rates set higher than the federal minimum wage. There are 23 of the states that have a minimum wage requirement that is the same as the federal minimum wage requirement. The remaining 5 states do not have an established minimum wage requirement.
The State of Washington has the highest minimum wage at $9.04/hour. The states of Georgia and Wyoming have the lowest minimum wage ($5.15) of the 45 states that have a minimum wage requirement.

About.com: http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

The governmental basement for wages was instituted to combat the sweatshops that existed in this country. Without the min wage, historically, employers would pay a pittance. When people need work they will work for practically nothing. Of course in today's society people steal to make a living more commonly than in the past. Elimination of the minimum wage could create more jobs and would definitively reduce an employers payroll yet the average pay of the workers would probably decline creating a larger burden on governmental resources. Reducing these resources seems to be the general trend also, at least in theory, so on average the lower class of America would have lower wages, less governmental assistance and reduce their buying power. When they spend less the economy falters because they cannot buy products. Crime increases, more people go to prison and taxes go up to pay for more prisons and so on.

Cause and effect is very complex. Unintended consequences always crop up when something is instituted or abolished. From a business perspective, elimination of Minimum wage is desirable because it gives flexibility and a way to employ laborers cheaply, especially in a down economic atmosphere and a way to make more profit.

There are pro's and con's to both side of the arguments however no one knows what the real consequences would be. America is in a declining economy that appears to be stagnant. I have seen in the last year or a so companies getting rid of older workers and hiring temp and younger workers to make a bigger profit.

Actually, the min wage was designed to prevent contractors from bringing in the abundant black workers from the south, when an Alabama contractor successfully won a bid on a government contract to build a Veterans bureau hospital on Long Island.
See House Committee on Labor, 'Hearing on H.R. 7995 and H.R. 9232, 71st Congress, 2d Sess. 17 (1930).

NY Rep. Robert Bacon....well, you know: Bacon-Davis Act.

please link to Hearing on H.R. 7995

From "Race & Economics," by Walter E. Wiliams, p. 33.

Statutory minimum wages were also proposed as a way to control the proliferation of sweat shops in manufacturing industries. The sweat shops employed large numbers of women and young workers, paying them what were considered to be substandard wages. The sweatshop owners were thought to have unfair bargaining power over their workers, and a minimum wage was proposed as a means to make them pay "fairly". Over time, the focus changed to helping people, especially families, become more self sufficient. Today, minimum wage laws affect workers in most low-paid fields of employment

http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262141027chap1.pdf
Neumark, David; William L. Wascher (2008). Minimum Wages. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press

 

[Widdekind]

Hey...are you actually Friedrich von Hayek using a nom de plume???

Je ne sais qua ? Austrians oppose speculation, which they blame on "easy credit" (low interest-rates). i blame speculation, on "easy transactions", on stock-markets that appear to entice speculative money, onto their floors. If every sale of a stock certificate, being the title to some business and all of its machines & factories, incurred a 10% sales tax... like the sales of titles to cars, and houses... then trading volumes, on stock-exchanges, would plummet, all the way down, to those who were "serious" about wanting to own (parts of) businesses. Transaction costs would keep businesses (mega-machines, factories) from being swapped around like baseball cards.



some further thoughts:

Austrian School economists recognize a difference, between "real savings" (existing deposits in banks), and "artificial pseudo savings" (new deposits, loaned into existence by banks, via fractional reserve banking). Banks have balance sheets that look like this:

A | L
--------------
cash | deposits (original)
loans | deposits (from loans)

By FR banking, cash which comes in from the street, can be used to fractionally back new deposits, loaned into existence, from nowhere. The process resembles printing money, except the money represents a debt; the money is borrowed into existence, and spent into circulation; the original borrower still owes the bank; the "new money" is not printed out free and clear. So, "real savings" are the original pre-existing deposits (somebody walked in from the street, and saved their money into the bank). "Artificial savings" are the newly generated deposits (somebody walked in empty-pocketed, and walked out with a big check). Austrians seem to oppose "artificial savings" as inflationary (which they are, they do expand the supply of circulating money); and as "easy credit" (which is up to the bank, and they have no incentive to offer credit cheaply, at low interest).

When businesses borrow, who buys their bonds? Do banks buy corporate bonds? i guess that bonds are bought by private individuals, i.e. from pre-existing deposits. If so, then when businesses fund-raise, they float their bonds towards "real savings" (somebody swaps their pre-existing deposit, in some bank, for the bond; the business takes over the deposit, then spends the money, which is thusly transferred to other pre-existing deposits, etc..).

So i'm not sure if i follow Austrians' criticism of FRB. FRB is playing fast & loose with money. Speculative bubbles are caused by people buying big things (real-estate, businesses) and swapping them around like they were little things (cp. Trading Places movie, but with property, equipment, & plant), with negligible costs. Is that not so? If every sale of stock were taxed, would Fund Managers be able to "juggle" billions of dollars of businesses, factories, turbines, and capital equipment, like they were "play things" ? All that capital being "juggled" represents country GDP, millions of jobs, families' incomes, etc. i don't understand why titles to those businesses (stock certificates) are allowed to be swapped around like trading cards -- nobody is serious, about business, about factories, about mega-machines, about capital ? If more money is poured into speculation, than actual investing; then GDP = C + Sp + G + NX; and we live under "Speculation-ism", not "capital-ism".

i don't blame "easy credit" for speculation, but "easy trading" policies, on trading floors. In my mind, floor traders are "hefting around factories, turbines, mega-machines, & capital"; and they shouldn't be blazee about it.

stock certificates are like titles to cars. Except stocks are sold, far away from the underlying assets, like selling the title to a car, far from the lot -- with the "car" far out of sight, and out of mind. i perceive, that floor traders, and the speculators they represent, forget that connection; and that they treat titles to millions of tons of land, factories, & machines, as mere scraps of paper. Swapping pieces of paper, back and forth, to and fro, dozens of times a day; then saying "tada!"; and having the world give you money; is not legitimate, is not productive, does not arise from any penchant for productive pursuits.

(i'm no expert; please correct my errors)

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is the federal Min wage and then there are the individual states.

About.com: http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

The governmental basement for wages was instituted to combat the sweatshops that existed in this country. Without the min wage, historically, employers would pay a pittance. When people need work they will work for practically nothing. Of course in today's society people steal to make a living more commonly than in the past. Elimination of the minimum wage could create more jobs and would definitively reduce an employers payroll yet the average pay of the workers would probably decline creating a larger burden on governmental resources. Reducing these resources seems to be the general trend also, at least in theory, so on average the lower class of America would have lower wages, less governmental assistance and reduce their buying power. When they spend less the economy falters because they cannot buy products. Crime increases, more people go to prison and taxes go up to pay for more prisons and so on.

Cause and effect is very complex. Unintended consequences always crop up when something is instituted or abolished. From a business perspective, elimination of Minimum wage is desirable because it gives flexibility and a way to employ laborers cheaply, especially in a down economic atmosphere and a way to make more profit.

There are pro's and con's to both side of the arguments however no one knows what the real consequences would be. America is in a declining economy that appears to be stagnant. I have seen in the last year or a so companies getting rid of older workers and hiring temp and younger workers to make a bigger profit.

Actually, the min wage was designed to prevent contractors from bringing in the abundant black workers from the south, when an Alabama contractor successfully won a bid on a government contract to build a Veterans bureau hospital on Long Island.
See House Committee on Labor, 'Hearing on H.R. 7995 and H.R. 9232, 71st Congress, 2d Sess. 17 (1930).

NY Rep. Robert Bacon....well, you know: Bacon-Davis Act.

please link to Hearing on H.R. 7995

From "Race & Economics," by Walter E. Wiliams, p. 33.

Statutory minimum wages were also proposed as a way to control the proliferation of sweat shops in manufacturing industries. The sweat shops employed large numbers of women and young workers, paying them what were considered to be substandard wages. The sweatshop owners were thought to have unfair bargaining power over their workers, and a minimum wage was proposed as a means to make them pay "fairly". Over time, the focus changed to helping people, especially families, become more self sufficient. Today, minimum wage laws affect workers in most low-paid fields of employment

http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262141027chap1.pdf
Neumark, David; William L. Wascher (2008). Minimum Wages. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press

z's, it is not clear what your position is on the question of the efficacy of minimum wage laws....

The conclusion of the authors you provide is that these laws are a detriment to those it is intended to help.

From one review of their book:

"Neumark and Wascher have examined the data and there is little evidence that minimum wages laws deliver their intended results. One of the most interesting findings of this book is that minimum wage laws can adversely affect long run wages and earnings."

So...are you basically agreeing with the OP?