MW advocates - what are the downsides of minimum wage?

[Timmy]

Funny . Conservatives HATE minimum wage hikes , yet are fine with tariffs .

Why? Cause poor people benefit from min wage hikes . Cons hate that.

 

[dblack]

Your just stating an opinion, not justifying it in any way. Why is it a problem for people to start out rich? Is it a moral thing? Or is there some practical reason you think there should be rich and poor?

You didnt ask for a justification nor does it need to be justified. No one starts out rich unless they inherit it.

I asked for a reason. You're just saying "Because I think it should be that way". It's not exactly persuasive or meaningful. In any case, it's still the same old run around. Still playing dodge 'em.

I dont waste time trying to persuade people unless they specifically ask me to. I give my facts or opinions without any belief that most people are smart enough to agree with them. If you want me to persuade you then you would have to listen and not argue.

I'm just trying to understand. It seems you think it would cause problems for society if minimum wage were raised too high, but apparently you don't want to discuss it.

Lets put it this way. Life is like climbing a ladder with people throwing bricks at you from the top. You got to take your lumps if youre going to reach the top. The people starting out need the most protection from those bricks until they have developed their own protection. Now imagine someone just starting out being placed 3 or 4 steps from the top. They would get pounded because they dont have their defenses developed.

Ok, thanks for answering. So the downside of just making everyone well off would be that people wouldn't have the opportunity to learn from the school of 'hard knocks'? But if everyone is wealthy, why is it important for them to develop 'defenses'. It sounds like you're making a moral argument - ie making a call on whether they 'deserve' it or not. Is that right?

 

[hadit]

Funny . Conservatives HATE minimum wage hikes , yet are fine with tariffs .

Why? Cause poor people benefit from min wage hikes . Cons hate that.

Stupid people believe that.

 

[Asclepias]

There are no downsides to a minimum wage law. What you perceive as a downside is ...

What I perceive as a downside is that it causes unemployment and inflation, and is a violation of basic economic liberty. But my objections aren't the point of the thread.

.. a knowledge that you must start somewhere and typically thats at the bottom. People that start at the bottom should expect a bottom salary that pays the basic bills. It shouldnt pay for your new Bentley. Hence you shouldnt be making $200 per hour.

Ok, so is this your reason for not raising it more? I'm still not clear. If it wouldn't cause any problems, why would you want everyone to be rich?

Well you assumed there was a downside that advocates of MW laws had and youre right your objections werent the point since you specifically asked about what downsides I saw.

I cant put it to you any clearer. Obviously you have the assumption that MW advocates believe everyone should be rich. No one with a brain thinks or assumes that.

So you would arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to be rich even though there's an easy way to make them rich with no downside?

How would I arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to be rich? Everyone has the opportunity to be rich.

 

[Asclepias]

You didnt ask for a justification nor does it need to be justified. No one starts out rich unless they inherit it.

I asked for a reason. You're just saying "Because I think it should be that way". It's not exactly persuasive or meaningful. In any case, it's still the same old run around. Still playing dodge 'em.

I dont waste time trying to persuade people unless they specifically ask me to. I give my facts or opinions without any belief that most people are smart enough to agree with them. If you want me to persuade you then you would have to listen and not argue.

I'm just trying to understand. It seems you think it would cause problems for society if minimum wage were raised too high, but apparently you don't want to discuss it.

Lets put it this way. Life is like climbing a ladder with people throwing bricks at you from the top. You got to take your lumps if youre going to reach the top. The people starting out need the most protection from those bricks until they have developed their own protection. Now imagine someone just starting out being placed 3 or 4 steps from the top. They would get pounded because they dont have their defenses developed.

Ok, thanks for answering. So the downside of just making everyone well off would be that people wouldn't have the opportunity to learn from the school of 'hard knocks'? But if everyone is wealthy, why is it important for them to develop 'defenses'. It sounds like you're making a moral argument - ie making a call on whether they 'deserve' it or not. Is that right?

If you want everyone to be well off thats a whole nother thing. Thats totally different from giving people on minimum wage $20/hour. If we want everyone to have the same economic level then we would need to do away with capitalism. You dont deserve to be rich. You deserve to live to a certain standard based on the wealth your country has.

 

[Andylusion]

Funny . Conservatives HATE minimum wage hikes , yet are fine with tariffs .

Why? Cause poor people benefit from min wage hikes . Cons hate that.

I'm not fine with tariffs.

Economists from the University of Washington presented a paper on the effects of the minimum wage in Seattle, which is headed toward $15 for all employers by 2021.

That paper, publicly released earlier this year, found that on average the minimum wage increases have caused employers to reduce hours, with a net effect of reducing low-wage employees' earnings by $125 a month. Wonkblog noted earlier this year that the paper's conclusions “contradict years of research on the minimum wage” and have left many researchers scratching their heads.

“It’s really important to emphasize it’s a work in progress,” one of the authors said at the time.
​

So in order to accommodate higher wages, they reduced hours, causing a net loss of income by about $125 a month on average.

So based on your post, can I accurately state:

Left-wingers love the minimum wage, because it harms poor people!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Now I get you, your spinning it to get the same effect, you don't want jobs leaving to other states


.

Same question why do you want a national minimum wage?


.

I've already explained this 3 times.

No you didn't, your claim is if we didn't have minimum wage laws employers would pay a dollar an hour and I proved to you, your full of shit.


.

No my claim was that I didnt want back woods states setting the MW at $1 per hour. I dont trust them.

Because you don't know jack or refuse to acknowledge that even McDonalds in a low minimum wage state is paying like $10 bucks an hour way over $7.25


.

McDonald's in our relatively low cost of living state now advertises $12.00 an hour starting pay! I wish I could have made almost $5.00 over minimum wage!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No. I think it should be a national one.

But if you believe the minimum wage should be raised to a level to cover basic needs, and the cost of basic needs varies from state to state, it makes no sense to set a national minimum wage rather than allow the states to each set their own.

It only makes no sense if you have a simple minded view of how the MW should be set for each state. I didnt say MW should be equal across the board. I said the MW for each state should be set at a national level.

Again, it makes no sense to think that some beaurocrat in DC has a better idea what it costs to live in Miss. than the people who live there. In addition, a state minimum wage law would effect every job in that state, but a national minimum wage law would only effect jobs in companies that engage in interstate commerce. Since minimum wage laws only effect the lowest skilled worker, a national minimum wage law would not apply to most of the lowest paid workers.

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that if there was a national law that all business in state X had to pay X amount per hour then businesses that dont engage in interstate commerce wouldnt have to obey that law?

Yes, the federal government has no jurisdiction over companies that don't engage in interstate commerce, but a state law would apply to all companies.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. Where did you get that silly idea?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Funny . Conservatives HATE minimum wage hikes , yet are fine with tariffs .

Why? Cause poor people benefit from min wage hikes . Cons hate that.

Tariffs are a liberal platform you moron the only reason your against it is because of Trump

And minimum wage hikes don't help the poor.


.

 

[candycorn]

There are no downsides to a minimum wage law. What you perceive as a downside is ...

What I perceive as a downside is that it causes unemployment and inflation, and is a violation of basic economic liberty. But my objections aren't the point of the thread.

.. a knowledge that you must start somewhere and typically thats at the bottom. People that start at the bottom should expect a bottom salary that pays the basic bills. It shouldnt pay for your new Bentley. Hence you shouldnt be making $200 per hour.

Ok, so is this your reason for not raising it more? I'm still not clear. If it wouldn't cause any problems, why would you want everyone to be rich?

Well you assumed there was a downside that advocates of MW laws had and youre right your objections werent the point since you specifically asked about what downsides I saw.

I cant put it to you any clearer. Obviously you have the assumption that MW advocates believe everyone should be rich. No one with a brain thinks or assumes that.

 

[hadit]

There are no downsides to a minimum wage law. What you perceive as a downside is ...

What I perceive as a downside is that it causes unemployment and inflation, and is a violation of basic economic liberty. But my objections aren't the point of the thread.

.. a knowledge that you must start somewhere and typically thats at the bottom. People that start at the bottom should expect a bottom salary that pays the basic bills. It shouldnt pay for your new Bentley. Hence you shouldnt be making $200 per hour.

Ok, so is this your reason for not raising it more? I'm still not clear. If it wouldn't cause any problems, why would you want everyone to be rich?

Well you assumed there was a downside that advocates of MW laws had and youre right your objections werent the point since you specifically asked about what downsides I saw.

I cant put it to you any clearer. Obviously you have the assumption that MW advocates believe everyone should be rich. No one with a brain thinks or assumes that.

So you would arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to be rich even though there's an easy way to make them rich with no downside?

How would I arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to be rich? Everyone has the opportunity to be rich.

You say there's no downside to raising the MW, so we should be able to just jack it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether. Yet you say you don't think everyone should be rich.

 

[Mac1958]

Hopefully, someone will step up here, and clear the air.

Since the question is being posed on a political message board, you're going to get the standard partisan intellectual dishonesty. Wingers are afraid to give an inch and admit that their ideas aren't perfect (none are, obviously), so you'll get a lot of bullshit, spin and deflection. And probably some insults. We've already seen it claimed that there are "no" downsides. Holy crap. There ya go.

There are obvious downsides to a minimum wage, and the top three are almost certainly (1) increased cost pressure on employers, (2) decreased ability of employers to hire more people as a result, and (c) an artificial increase in the perceived value of labor. There's already more than enough people who think they're worth far more than they are, and this only exacerbates that fantasy.

I agree that, in a perfect world, there would be no need for a minimum wage. I'm not at all fond of the three downsides listed above. But in reality, some people are simply better equipped to function effectively in a free market/capitalist system than others. And those who are less equipped, vote. So we might try to consider a stronger safety net (and this would be included) as social insurance against electoral revolution. (I stole that line, by the way, from another poster)

That's just reality. It's a price that we pay for living in such a prosperous country, and it's far better than massive electoral victories for those who have no understanding of, or appreciation for, the dynamic value of capitalism. Give some, get some.
.

 

[candycorn]

Something I always wondered about the minimum wage opponents is this;

Lets say you got rid of the minimum wage; do they think that unemployment will be drastically reduced or even disappear?

Because if you think high wages cause unemployment, it stands to reason that you would think low wages would cause more employment.

Lets say the answer is yes...wouldn't that drastically damage the tax base for States hurting everything from income taxes to sales taxes to discretionary spending?

Just wondering.

 

[dblack]

Hopefully, someone will step up here, and clear the air.

Since the question is being posed on a political message board, you're going to get the standard partisan intellectual dishonesty. Wingers are afraid to give an inch and admit that their ideas aren't perfect (none are, obviously), so you'll get a lot of bullshit, spin and deflection. And probably some insults. We've already seen it claimed that there are "no" downsides. Holy crap. There ya go.

There are obvious downsides to a minimum wage, and the top three are almost certainly (1) increased cost pressure on employers, (2) decreased ability of employers to hire more people as a result, and (c) an artificial increase in the perceived value of labor. There's already more than enough people who think they're worth far more than they are, and this only exacerbates that fantasy.

I agree that, in a perfect world, there would be no need for a minimum wage. I'm not at all fond of the three downsides listed above. But in reality, some people are simply better equipped to function effectively in a free market/capitalist system than others. And those who are less equipped, vote. So we might try to consider a stronger safety net (and this would be included) as social insurance against electoral revolution. (I stole that line, by the way, from another poster)

That's just reality. It's a price that we pay for living in such a prosperous country, and it's far better than massive electoral victories for those who have no understanding of, or appreciation for, the dynamic value of capitalism. Give some, get some.
.

Thanks, Mac. Getting a straight answer is like pulling teeth with some of these people.

 

[Mac1958]

Hopefully, someone will step up here, and clear the air.

Since the question is being posed on a political message board, you're going to get the standard partisan intellectual dishonesty. Wingers are afraid to give an inch and admit that their ideas aren't perfect (none are, obviously), so you'll get a lot of bullshit, spin and deflection. And probably some insults. We've already seen it claimed that there are "no" downsides. Holy crap. There ya go.

There are obvious downsides to a minimum wage, and the top three are almost certainly (1) increased cost pressure on employers, (2) decreased ability of employers to hire more people as a result, and (c) an artificial increase in the perceived value of labor. There's already more than enough people who think they're worth far more than they are, and this only exacerbates that fantasy.

I agree that, in a perfect world, there would be no need for a minimum wage. I'm not at all fond of the three downsides listed above. But in reality, some people are simply better equipped to function effectively in a free market/capitalist system than others. And those who are less equipped, vote. So we might try to consider a stronger safety net (and this would be included) as social insurance against electoral revolution. (I stole that line, by the way, from another poster)

That's just reality. It's a price that we pay for living in such a prosperous country, and it's far better than massive electoral victories for those who have no understanding of, or appreciation for, the dynamic value of capitalism. Give some, get some.
.

Thanks, Mac. Getting a straight answer is like pulling teeth with some of these people.

Yeah. We are one funny species.
.

 

[danielpalos]

Something I always wondered about the minimum wage opponents is this;

Lets say you got rid of the minimum wage; do they think that unemployment will be drastically reduced or even disappear?

Because if you think high wages cause unemployment, it stands to reason that you would think low wages would cause more employment.

Lets say the answer is yes...wouldn't that drastically damage the tax base for States hurting everything from income taxes to sales taxes to discretionary spending?

Just wondering.

propaganda and rhetoric is all the right wing knows, not economics.

they prefer to subsidize the Rich because they are Worth it, under Capitalism.

 

[dblack]

Since the question is being posed on a political message board, you're going to get the standard partisan intellectual dishonesty. Wingers are afraid to give an inch and admit that their ideas aren't perfect (none are, obviously), so you'll get a lot of bullshit, spin and deflection. And probably some insults. We've already seen it claimed that there are "no" downsides. Holy crap. There ya go.

Yeah. Exactly. It seems that somewhere in the rulebook of partisan rhetoric there's a strict prohibition against honestly discussing the tradeoffs involved with any given policy. It's seen as 'giving an inch', when in reality it's the first step in finding some sane consensus. Which, I suppose, is why we have so little sane consensus.

There are obvious downsides to a minimum wage, and the top three are almost certainly (1) increased cost pressure on employers, (2) decreased ability of employers to hire more people as a result, and (c) an artificial increase in the perceived value of labor. There's already more than enough people who think they're worth far more than they are, and this only exacerbates that fantasy.

So how do we measure these things? If we're going to talk about what the tradeoffs, we need to have a clear understanding of what's going on.

Full disclosure: as a libertarian I'm opposed to any and all attempts by government to influence our economic decisions. I think it's wrong from a moral standpoint, and pragmatically dangerous because it gives government far too much power over markets and society. I've made that argument in other threads, and will continue to do so. But for the purposes of this thread I'm stowing that perspective and putting on my technocrat's hat. I'm taking for granted that government has been tasked with improving the lot of low-income workers and interested in discussing how that might be accomplished.

I agree that, in a perfect world, there would be no need for a minimum wage. I'm not at all fond of the three downsides listed above. But in reality, some people are simply better equipped to function effectively in a free market/capitalist system than others. And those who are less equipped, vote. So we might try to consider a stronger safety net (and this would be included) as social insurance against electoral revolution. (I stole that line, by the way, from another poster)

Is it a safety net though? I wonder if that's a fair characterization. The common perception of minimum wage laws is that they force employers to pay their employees more. But I think that's incorrect in an important, and usually ignored, way. If we're going to raise an employer's labor costs, something has to give. Any significant hike in wages poses the risk that employer will lay people off, and require the remaining employees to work harder for their new higher wages to make up for the loss of manpower. The point being that, in reality, the law doesn't force an employer to pay a given employee more. They can always choose to pay them nothing (lay them off).

That's just reality. It's a price that we pay for living in such a prosperous country, and it's far better than massive electoral victories for those who have no understanding of, or appreciation for, the dynamic value of capitalism. Give some, get some.

It's the political reality, no doubt. But political reality has a way of straying from actual reality. We cater to delusions when we shouldn't. If we look carefully at policies like minimum wage and see that they aren't actually accomplishing their goals, it's worth confronting those delusions. Often, the best leaders are those who will tell us that what we think we want doesn't make any sense.

So, do minimum wage laws actually make life better for low-wage employees? And how do we make that determination if some of those low-wage employees have to "take one for the team" and go on welfare rather than work for a wage below the minimum? How do we account for people who work for reasons beyond "making a living" (retirees, volunteers, teens still supported by their parents, etc...)?

 

[Mac1958]

Since the question is being posed on a political message board, you're going to get the standard partisan intellectual dishonesty. Wingers are afraid to give an inch and admit that their ideas aren't perfect (none are, obviously), so you'll get a lot of bullshit, spin and deflection. And probably some insults. We've already seen it claimed that there are "no" downsides. Holy crap. There ya go.

Yeah. Exactly. It seems that somewhere in the rulebook of partisan rhetoric there's a strict prohibition against honestly discussing the tradeoffs involved with any given policy. It's seen as 'giving an inch', when in reality it's the first step in finding some sane consensus. Which, I suppose, is why we have so little sane consensus.

There are obvious downsides to a minimum wage, and the top three are almost certainly (1) increased cost pressure on employers, (2) decreased ability of employers to hire more people as a result, and (c) an artificial increase in the perceived value of labor. There's already more than enough people who think they're worth far more than they are, and this only exacerbates that fantasy.

So how do we measure these things? If we're going to talk about what the tradeoffs, we need to have a clear understanding of what's going on.

Full disclosure: as a libertarian I'm opposed to any and all attempts by government to influence our economic decisions. I think it's wrong from a moral standpoint, and pragmatically dangerous because it gives government far too much power over markets and society. I've made that argument in other threads, and will continue to do so. But for the purposes of this thread I'm stowing that perspective and putting on my technocrat's hat. I'm taking for granted that government has been tasked with improving the lot of low-income workers and interested in discussing how that might be accomplished.

I agree that, in a perfect world, there would be no need for a minimum wage. I'm not at all fond of the three downsides listed above. But in reality, some people are simply better equipped to function effectively in a free market/capitalist system than others. And those who are less equipped, vote. So we might try to consider a stronger safety net (and this would be included) as social insurance against electoral revolution. (I stole that line, by the way, from another poster)

Is it a safety net though? I wonder if that's a fair characterization. The common perception of minimum wage laws is that they force employers to pay their employees more. But I think that incorrect in an important, and usually ignored, way. If we're going to raise an employer's labor costs, something has to give. Any significant hike in wages poses the risk that employer will lay people off, and require the remaining employees to work harder for their new higher wages to make up for the loss of manpower.

That's just reality. It's a price that we pay for living in such a prosperous country, and it's far better than massive electoral victories for those who have no understanding of, or appreciation for, the dynamic value of capitalism. Give some, get some.

It's the political reality, no doubt. But political reality has a way of straying from actual reality. We cater to delusions when we shouldn't. If we look carefully at policies like minimum wage and see that they aren't actually accomplishing their goals, it's worth confronting those delusions. Often, the best leaders are those who will tell us that what we think we want doesn't make any sense.

So, do minimum wage laws actually make life better for low-wage employees? And how do we make that determination if some of those low-wage employees have to "take one for the team" and go on welfare rather than work for a wage below the minimum? How do we account for people who work for reasons beyond "making a living" (retirees, volunteers, teens still supporter by their parents, etc...)?

Certainly, there are no easy answers. And there are no individual answers, either, both ends of this debate have to make some admissions.

The Right would have to recognize what I said above, that those who fall behind in our particular system will always be there, and an every-man-for-himself approach is political suicide, like it or not. Not to mention not terribly decent in the most prosperous nation on the planet.

The Left would have to be willing to toss some of its "you're the victim" snowflake routine and start holding people to higher individual standards for a change. Otherwise those who did have the capacity to improve themselves never would, which is your legitimate concern.

No, it's not really a safety net in come cases, that's just a catch-all phrase. And the only way to measure it would be statistically, across the income strata.

Holy crap, that's a heavy lift. I don't really expect it. What's more likely is that we just continue this slow grind down and apart.
.

 

[BrokeLoser]

This thread is addressed to supporters of minimum wage laws. Detractors claim that minimum wage causes unemployment and/or inflation. But most supporters will vigorously deny this. Yet they seem to set their sights pretty low when it comes to setting the level of minimum wage. I assume this is because they believe there is some downside to minimum wage, some reason to not raise it to $200/hr, but it seems they never want to talk about what that reason might be. Hopefully, someone will step up here, and clear the air.

This is simple shit for third graders. Minimum wage jobs should always be reserved for children seeking work experience...16 year old children should never make a wage which allows them to make rent on a condo, cover a car payment, groceries, utilities...etc.
Begging, piece of shit lowlifes want a higher minimum wage to serve as a sneaky way to funnel more taxpayer / consumer cash to our filthy wetbacks and massive underclass.
Legit, stand up, ambitious REAL Americans are firmly against making life easier here for wetbacks.
What else can I teach you?
Mac1958

 

[Mac1958]

This thread is addressed to supporters of minimum wage laws. Detractors claim that minimum wage causes unemployment and/or inflation. But most supporters will vigorously deny this. Yet they seem to set their sights pretty low when it comes to setting the level of minimum wage. I assume this is because they believe there is some downside to minimum wage, some reason to not raise it to $200/hr, but it seems they never want to talk about what that reason might be. Hopefully, someone will step up here, and clear the air.

This is simple shit for third graders. Minimum wage jobs should always be reserved for children seeking work experience...16 year old children should never make a wage which allows them to make rent on a condo, cover a car payment, groceries, utilities...etc.
Begging, piece of shit lowlifes want a higher minimum wage to serve as a sneaky way to funnel more taxpayer / consumer cash to our filthy wetbacks and massive underclass.
Legit, stand up, ambitious REAL Americans are firmly against making life easier here for wetbacks.
What else can I teach you?
Mac1958

There ya go, dblack. This is what you'll have to deal with.

People like this could end up being a bigger problem for you than the Democrats.
.