Minimum wage

[Supposn]

Shackled Nation, in response to my writing “The proportional extent of minimum rate’s affect is inversely related to the wages’ amounts” you responded my statement “makes no sense whatsoever”.
You contend that a $150,000 executive’s salary is not to some extent less affected by the minimum wage as a $60,000 per year technician’s salary, or that technician’s salary is not to some extent less affected than that of a $35,000 wage of a hotel clerk, and that clerk’s wages are not less affected than that of a $10/Hr. truck helper and that helper’s income is not affected by the federal minimum wage?
Your contention cannot be valid unless the federal minimum wage rate has absolutely no indirect affect upon the incomes of any of those who do not earn precisely the minimum rate.
That’s an illogical contention.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Shackled Nation, ..........................

......................... How does providing jobs for once unemployed people result in losses for people who are already employed? As I said, 94% of jobs pay above minimum wage. Wages will not fall if minimum wage is abolished. What change will occur is new jobs that are lower paying will be added.


It is up to employers and workers to determine via the price system if their tasks justify the wages. If a worker offers a wage that nobody will take, he will either have to raise the wage or not offer the job. Banning such low wage jobs prevents people willing to accept these jobs from getting them. These additional jobs, as you say, do not exist. Without minimum wage, they will exist, and people will take them rather than be unemployed and have no income at all.
............................... The lower income jobs don't currently exist, so there is no purchasing power at all. You are wrongly assuming that wages across the board will fall. That is simply false.
.............................You fail to explain how increasing the number of jobs in an economy will cause widespread poverty. Current workers now have to pay for the welfare of those made unemployed because of minimum wage. You have a class of unskilled workers that cannot find employment, have no jobs, and cannot get their foot in the door.

I believe I have explitly answered your questions within message #59. Your inability to take the truth is not my fault.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[ShackledNation]

Shackled Nation, in response to my writing “The proportional extent of minimum rate’s affect is inversely related to the wages’ amounts” you responded my statement “makes no sense whatsoever”.
You contend that a $150,000 executive’s salary is not to some extent less affected by the minimum wage as a $60,000 per year technician’s salary, or that technician’s salary is not to some extent less affected than that of a $35,000 wage of a hotel clerk, and that clerk’s wages are not less affected than that of a $10/Hr. truck helper and that helper’s income is not affected by the federal minimum wage?
Your contention cannot be valid unless the federal minimum wage rate has absolutely no indirect affect upon the incomes of any of those who do not earn precisely the minimum rate.
That’s an illogical contention.

Respectfully, Supposn

I think I was unclear. By not making sense, I didn't mean I disagreed, I mean I literally was not sure what that statement was saying. The phrase "proportional extent of minimum rate's affect" makes no sense to me. I also don't know what you define as the affect.

 

[ShackledNation]

Shackled Nation, ..........................

......................... How does providing jobs for once unemployed people result in losses for people who are already employed? As I said, 94% of jobs pay above minimum wage. Wages will not fall if minimum wage is abolished. What change will occur is new jobs that are lower paying will be added.


It is up to employers and workers to determine via the price system if their tasks justify the wages. If a worker offers a wage that nobody will take, he will either have to raise the wage or not offer the job. Banning such low wage jobs prevents people willing to accept these jobs from getting them. These additional jobs, as you say, do not exist. Without minimum wage, they will exist, and people will take them rather than be unemployed and have no income at all.
............................... The lower income jobs don't currently exist, so there is no purchasing power at all. You are wrongly assuming that wages across the board will fall. That is simply false.
.............................You fail to explain how increasing the number of jobs in an economy will cause widespread poverty. Current workers now have to pay for the welfare of those made unemployed because of minimum wage. You have a class of unskilled workers that cannot find employment, have no jobs, and cannot get their foot in the door.

I believe I have explitly answered your questions within message #59. Your inability to take the truth is not my fault.

Respectfully, Supposn

I don't believe you have, to be honest. I was trying to explain why what you consider truth is in fact economic fallacy. But maybe we are being to general. Let us start with two simple questions.

1. If we need minimum wage, why is it that 94% of jobs pay higher than minimum wage already without any government compulsion to?

2. What would happen if minimum wage were raised to $30 an hour? Why not raise minimum wage to $30, $50, or $100 an hour?

These questions are not simply hypothetical. I request real answers.

 

[editec]

Here's an example, editec...

I own a painting company. We paint high end homes that people pay DAMN GOOD money to make look beautiful the way they want it. Painting is not an easy task. Anyone can slap some paint onto a surface with a brush or roller, but only someone SKILLED can make it look RIGHT, with crisp straight lines, uniform finish with no missed spots or flashing, etc.

Right now I'm in need of a guy, and have gone through several over the last couple months because none of them are good enough to meet the requirements of our product. I am WILLING to pay a higher wage to someone who's good enough to fit in our crew.

Conversely, if I owned a store and needed someone to work a cash register and ring up purchases all day, I wouldn't have to offer a higher wage for better skills because just about ANYONE can run a register.

Yeah, I have no problem with anything above that you just penned, Paulie.

Why do you imagine I would?

I'm not sure why you think your response is germane to the issue of setting a floor on wages, though.

The power of capital is so vast that, sans some regs, the cost of all labor would go down much as we're discovering now that so many Americans are competing against third world wages.

And not to make too much of it but that decline in that kind of jobs is also eroding the salaries of skilled workers in this nation, too.

But of course skilled labor can still demand more dough, nobody's denying that fact, amigo.

 

[ShackledNation]

Here's an example, editec...

I own a painting company. We paint high end homes that people pay DAMN GOOD money to make look beautiful the way they want it. Painting is not an easy task. Anyone can slap some paint onto a surface with a brush or roller, but only someone SKILLED can make it look RIGHT, with crisp straight lines, uniform finish with no missed spots or flashing, etc.

Right now I'm in need of a guy, and have gone through several over the last couple months because none of them are good enough to meet the requirements of our product. I am WILLING to pay a higher wage to someone who's good enough to fit in our crew.

Conversely, if I owned a store and needed someone to work a cash register and ring up purchases all day, I wouldn't have to offer a higher wage for better skills because just about ANYONE can run a register.

Yeah, I have no problem with anything above that you just penned, Paulie.

Why do you imagine I would?

I'm not sure why you think your response is germane to the issue of setting a floor on wages, though.

The power of capital is so vast that, sans some regs, the cost of all labor would go down much as we're discovering now that so many Americans are competing against third world wages.

And not to make too much of it but that decline in that kind of jobs is also eroding the salaries of skilled workers in this nation, too.

But of course skilled labor can still demand more dough, nobody's denying that fact, amigo.

We dont outsource cashiers. Small businesses cannot outsource jobs. They form the backbone of this country, and struggle because of minimum wage.

You cant eliminate poverty by making it illegal to have certain jobs. Resources are scarce. Raising minimum wage will not give employers more resources; it will only make the existing resources more expensive. Higher prices decrease the use of the resources and thus create unemployment.

Another way of looking at it is through supply and demand. Supply remaining the same, the increase in price will lower the demand for labor. As a result, demand and supply will fail to balance each other. Price floors always result in a surplus because they prevent prices from lowering to clear the market. The surplus caused by minimum wage is unemployment. Unskilled workers do not get pay raises--they get fired.

 

[Supposn]

What would happen if minimum wage were raised to $30 an hour? Why not raise minimum wage to $30, $50, or $100 an hour?

Shackled Nation, I suppose it’s feasible an excessive minimum wage rate would be detrimental to a nation’s economy; but I’m unaware of that ever occurring in any nation at any time.
I certainly don’t desire that such a historic precedent be set within our nation.

Similar to the enactment of many government regulations the federal minimum wage is ALWAYS gradually rather than radically modified and it’s never modified suddenly. All enterprises must adjust change. Radical changes require more adjustment time. Many enterprises have contracts with their clients for durations of 1 or 2 years. Those contracts were based upon expectations that enterprises’ expenses would not suddenly and radically be increased.

I expect in the future more contracts of all kinds will be pegged to the dollars’ purchasing power.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[ShackledNation]

What would happen if minimum wage were raised to $30 an hour? Why not raise minimum wage to $30, $50, or $100 an hour?

Shackled Nation, I suppose it’s feasible an excessive minimum wage rate would be detrimental to a nation’s economy; but I’m unaware of that ever occurring in any nation at any time.
I certainly don’t desire that such a historic precedent be set within our nation.

Similar to the enactment of many government regulations the federal minimum wage is ALWAYS gradually rather than radically modified and it’s never modified suddenly. All enterprises must adjust change. Radical changes require more adjustment time. Many enterprises have contracts with their clients for durations of 1 or 2 years. Those contracts were based upon expectations that enterprises’ expenses would not suddenly and radically be increased.

I expect in the future more contracts of all kinds will be pegged to the dollars’ purchasing power.

Respectfully, Supposn

Respectfully, that did not answer the question at all. Furthermore, what is a "radical" modification and what is not? How is such a determination made? These are questions you cannot dodge if you are to maintain your defense of minimum wage.

 

[Supposn]

If we need minimum wage, why is it that 94% of jobs pay higher than minimum wage already without any government compulsion to?[/QUOTE]

Shackled Nation, there’d be no net benefit for government setting individual minimums for each job or task.

The federal minimum wage rate provides economic and a social net benefits to our nation. Most people and most economists would agree the extension of wage regulations as you suggest would be contra-productive.

Our federal minimum wage rate does provide economic and a social net benefits to our nation but it would provide greater benefits if it were annually cost of living adjusted.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Respectfully, that did not answer the question at all. Furthermore, what is a "radical" modification and what is not? How is such a determination made? These are questions you cannot dodge if you are to maintain your defense of minimum wage.

Shackled Nation, again your asking for an opinion rather than an empirical fact.

Congress with advice and opinions from many sources including the CBO and subject to all political pressures now determines the amount and the timing of federal minimum wage rate’s updates.

I’m a proponent they setting it just one more time and thereafter the minimum should be annually cost of living adjusted in the same manner as Social Security retirement benefits.

With such adjustments, the question of what is or is not a radical modification has never come up; it is what it is.
There’s no guarantees, but if this were done, it’s unlikely that the U.S. Congress would ever again revisit the minimum wage rate issue.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[ShackledNation]

If we need minimum wage, why is it that 94% of jobs pay higher than minimum wage already without any government compulsion to?

Shackled Nation, there’d be no net benefit for government setting individual minimums for each job or task.

And there is for setting minimums for everything? Nearly all jobs (not types of jobs, literally all jobs in the entire economy, 94%) pay above minimum wage. If minimum wage is needed so wages do not fall, you must explain why it is the vast majority of all people employed are paid above minimum wage.

The federal minimum wage rate provides economic and a social net benefits to our nation. Most people and most economists would agree the extension of wage regulations as you suggest would be contra-productive.

I don't care what most economists say. I want to know why.

 

[ShackledNation]

Respectfully, that did not answer the question at all. Furthermore, what is a "radical" modification and what is not? How is such a determination made? These are questions you cannot dodge if you are to maintain your defense of minimum wage.

Shackled Nation, again your asking for an opinion rather than an empirical fact.

Yes I am! Facts do not speak for themselves. Analysis is necessary because correlation does not equal causation. If you can't answer my questions, minimum wage has no logical support. Empiricle evidence does not support minimum wage anyway, but even if it did, without a logical foundation to explain why it could be assumed another factor was the cause.

Congress with advice and opinions from many sources including the CBO and subject to all political pressures now determines the amount and the timing of federal minimum wage rate’s updates.

And you are trusting an institution that can't even pay its bills to somehow know what a proper minimum wage is? How does the CBO know? How does it determine the timing? If you can't answer these questions, you are supporting minimum wage out of blind faith.

I’m a proponent they setting it just one more time and thereafter the minimum should be annually cost of living adjusted in the same manner as Social Security retirement benefits.

With such adjustments, the question of what is or is not a radical modification has never come up; it is what it is.
There’s no guarantees, but if this were done, it’s unlikely that the U.S. Congress would ever again revisit the minimum wage rate issue.

Respectfully, Supposn

Again, you did not answer the question. Let me ask my questions again. This time, with all due respect, I request that you answer them. They are not trick questions. They are no different than asking someone why an economic policy will grow the economy. If minimum wage is good for the economy, then without further explanation it is assumed that incredibly high minimum wages would be incredibly good for the economy. You say everyone says no. That is what you need to explain.

1. If we need minimum wage to keep wages from being paid too low, why is it that 94% of all employed people are paid above minimum wage anyway? That is the empirical data. My answer is because minimum wage does not cause people to have higher wages, it only causes people whose skills or worth less to be unemployed. Those with higher skills receive higher wages regardless of what the minimum wage is.

2. Why not raise minimum wage to $1000 an hour? Or, less radical, $50? So far you have said that is a radical change too soon and too fast. Why? You are begging the question.

If you will not answer these questions, please do not bother replying. These questions are fundamental to the minimum wage debate.

 

[Supposn]

Respectfully, that did not answer the question at all. Furthermore, what is a "radical" modification and what is not? How is such a determination made? These are questions you cannot dodge if you are to maintain your defense of minimum wage.

Shackled Nation, again your asking for an opinion rather than an empirical fact.

Yes I am! Facts do not speak for themselves. Analysis is necessary because correlation does not equal causation. If you can't answer my questions, minimum wage has no logical support. Empiricle evidence does not support minimum wage anyway, but even if it did, without a logical foundation to explain why it could be assumed another factor was the cause.

Congress with advice and opinions from many sources including the CBO and subject to all political pressures now determines the amount and the timing of federal minimum wage rate’s updates.

And you are trusting an institution that can't even pay its bills to somehow know what a proper minimum wage is? How does the CBO know? How does it determine the timing? If you can't answer these questions, you are supporting minimum wage out of blind faith.

I’m a proponent they setting it just one more time and thereafter the minimum should be annually cost of living adjusted in the same manner as Social Security retirement benefits.

With such adjustments, the question of what is or is not a radical modification has never come up; it is what it is.
There’s no guarantees, but if this were done, it’s unlikely that the U.S. Congress would ever again revisit the minimum wage rate issue.

Respectfully, Supposn

Again, you did not answer the question. Let me ask my questions again. This time, with all due respect, I request that you answer them. They are not trick questions. They are no different than asking someone why an economic policy will grow the economy. If minimum wage is good for the economy, then without further explanation it is assumed that incredibly high minimum wages would be incredibly good for the economy. You say everyone says no. That is what you need to explain.

1. If we need minimum wage to keep wages from being paid too low, why is it that 94% of all employed people are paid above minimum wage anyway? That is the empirical data. My answer is because minimum wage does not cause people to have higher wages, it only causes people whose skills or worth less to be unemployed. Those with higher skills receive higher wages regardless of what the minimum wage is.

2. Why not raise minimum wage to $1000 an hour? Or, less radical, $50? So far you have said that is a radical change too soon and too fast. Why? You are begging the question.

If you will not answer these questions, please do not bother replying. These questions are fundamental to the minimum wage debate.

Shackled Nation, I offered a description, (not an opinion) of our current method for determining the federal minimum wage rate. You’re attempting to read my mind?

There are poisons within many medications. The drugs contain sufficient amounts of such ingredients to remedy but not excessive amounts that will injure or kill the patients and many such drugs are introduced into the patients gradually. You ignore these concepts which I mentioned in prior messages and hold to your own opinion that anything good must be better in greater quantities.

When did I ever state “everyone” says anything?
When did I ever state “we need minimum wage to keep wages from being paid too low”?
I did state the minimum wage affects all labor compensation.

I never explicitly stated but believe we need the minimum wage regulations to prevent the lowest wage rates “racing to the bottom”; (i.e. we need minimum wage regulations to keep the minimum wage being paid from plunging and staying for long durations at the extremely lowest levels).

I did state that reduction of the federal minimum wage rate would to some extent reduce the purchasing powers of USA’s aggregate wages and the minimum’s proportional affect is inversely related to the amount of a job’s wage. (Actually to be more explicit, the minimum rate’s affect is inversely related to the difference between the minimum and the job’s rate of compensation).

I believe every question you’re now asking was explicitly answered within this thread’s previous messages. Many of them were answered more than once. Your rejection of those answers is not my problem.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives oppose the minimum wage because it eliminating it or weakening it helps increase the gap between rich and poor,

which is the cornerstone of conservative economy policy.

 

[dblack]

Conservatives oppose the minimum wage because it eliminating it or weakening it helps increase the gap between rich and poor,

which is the cornerstone of conservative economy policy.

???

 

[ShackledNation]

Shackled Nation, again your asking for an opinion rather than an empirical fact.

Yes I am! Facts do not speak for themselves. Analysis is necessary because correlation does not equal causation. If you can't answer my questions, minimum wage has no logical support. Empiricle evidence does not support minimum wage anyway, but even if it did, without a logical foundation to explain why it could be assumed another factor was the cause.


And you are trusting an institution that can't even pay its bills to somehow know what a proper minimum wage is? How does the CBO know? How does it determine the timing? If you can't answer these questions, you are supporting minimum wage out of blind faith.

I’m a proponent they setting it just one more time and thereafter the minimum should be annually cost of living adjusted in the same manner as Social Security retirement benefits.

With such adjustments, the question of what is or is not a radical modification has never come up; it is what it is.
There’s no guarantees, but if this were done, it’s unlikely that the U.S. Congress would ever again revisit the minimum wage rate issue.

Respectfully, Supposn

Again, you did not answer the question. Let me ask my questions again. This time, with all due respect, I request that you answer them. They are not trick questions. They are no different than asking someone why an economic policy will grow the economy. If minimum wage is good for the economy, then without further explanation it is assumed that incredibly high minimum wages would be incredibly good for the economy. You say everyone says no. That is what you need to explain.

1. If we need minimum wage to keep wages from being paid too low, why is it that 94% of all employed people are paid above minimum wage anyway? That is the empirical data. My answer is because minimum wage does not cause people to have higher wages, it only causes people whose skills or worth less to be unemployed. Those with higher skills receive higher wages regardless of what the minimum wage is.

2. Why not raise minimum wage to $1000 an hour? Or, less radical, $50? So far you have said that is a radical change too soon and too fast. Why? You are begging the question.

If you will not answer these questions, please do not bother replying. These questions are fundamental to the minimum wage debate.

Shackled Nation, I offered a description, (not an opinion) of our current method for determining the federal minimum wage rate. You’re attempting to read my mind?

That was not the question! You are saying you answered a question I did not ask! I am asking you what would happen if minimum wage was $100.

There are poisons within many medications. The drugs contain sufficient amounts of such ingredients to remedy but not excessive amounts that will injure or kill the patients and many such drugs are introduced into the patients gradually. You ignore these concepts which I mentioned in prior messages and hold to your own opinion that anything good must be better in greater quantities.

When did I ever state “everyone” says anything?

When did I ever state “we need minimum wage to keep wages from being paid too low”?

Isn't that the entire purpose of minimum wage? So people don't get paid lower wages? What do you say the purpose of minimum wage is then?

I never explicitly stated but believe we need the minimum wage regulations to prevent the lowest wage rates “racing to the bottom”; (i.e. we need minimum wage regulations to keep the minimum wage being paid from plunging and staying for long durations at the extremely lowest levels).

The above just basically said we need minimum wage to keep the wages from being paid too low, which you claim you did not say.

I did state that reduction of the federal minimum wage rate would to some extent reduce the purchasing powers of USA’s aggregate wages and the minimum’s proportional affect is inversely related to the amount of a job’s wage. (Actually to be more explicit, the minimum rate’s affect is inversely related to the difference between the minimum and the job’s rate of compensation).

The bolded portion makes no grammatical sense in the English language. By "minimum's" do you mean "minimum wage's?" What does "proportional affect" mean? What is that affect? You need to completely restate that because it is not coherent. I am not trying to use ad hominem, I am serious. It literally and truthfully is not a comprehensible statement.

I believe every question you’re now asking was explicitly answered within this thread’s previous messages. Many of them were answered more than once. Your rejection of those answers is not my problem.

Respectfully, Supposn

I cannot reject answers that do not exist. You simply have not answered the questions. You dodge them and then call the dodge an answer.

 

[Patrick2]

Minimum wage, forcing employers to pay some unskilled people more than their labor is worth, is just a means of off-loading some of the government's welfare responsibilities onto the backs of businesses, usually small businesses. What it undoubtedly usually causes is for some of those employees to be layed off, and either replaced by automation, or having the remaining employeees work harder to pick up the slack.

 

[Supposn]

..................I did state that reduction of the federal minimum wage rate would to some extent reduce the purchasing powers of USA’s aggregate wages and the minimum’s proportional affect is inversely related to the amount of a job’s wage. (Actually to be more explicit, the minimum rate’s affect is inversely related to the difference between the minimum and the job’s rate of compensation).

The bolded portion makes no grammatical sense in the English language. By "minimum's" do you mean "minimum wage's?" What does "proportional affect" mean? What is that affect? You need to completely restate that because it is not coherent. I am not trying to use ad hominem, I am serious. It literally and truthfully is not a comprehensible statement.

Shackled Nation, if there were no minimum wage many additional lower wage jobs would be created.
The vast majority of jobs induced by eliminating the federal minimum wage rate will be sub-minimal wage paying jobs that do not now justify the current $7.25/Hr. federal minimum wage rate.

It’s not inconceivable that the market price for such “sub-minimum” tasks may be as low as a half dollar per hour. How much can we pay for someone to straighten salvaged carpenter nails for reuse? We could reduce the price of transportation by replacing many NY City cabs and drivers with young men operating rickshaws.
[U.S. railroads have been in disrepair for over a quarter of a century. Our trains run at 50MPH but in Asia and Europe they’re running trains at 200 to 300 MPH. They have much fewer automobiles and consume less petroleum per capita but their public transportation is generally more wide spread and effective. Do you think enabling rickshaws to be financially viable by eliminating minimum wage regulations would significantly decrease our transportation, energy and pollution problems?]

There are many job tasks that do not justify the minimum rate but they now exist because their performance is necessary to our public or private enterprises. Those jobs will continue to exist but their wage levels will plunge down to join those tasks and jobs we classified as “sub-minimum”.

Sub-minimum jobs will be the vast majority of additional jobs created and (because many of those qualified to perform sub-minimum tasks were previously not qualified for employment at minimum wage rates), we’ll have a pool of eligible labor that will far exceed the number of those additional jobs.

The affect of those extremely poor paying jobs will ripple throughout our entire labor market. All labor compensation will be somewhat affected but the general extent of the effect upon a task’s wage rate will be inversely related to the difference between the purchasing power of the eliminated minimum wage rate and the job’s rate; (i.e. the more you’re earning, the less you’re hurting. That’s the meaning of minimum wage rate’s inverse affect upon all jobs’ rates).

Lower wage earners will all then be paid in wages of extremely poor purchasing power. Prior to the elimination of the minimum wage rate, many of those now earning the lesser purchasing powered wages will have been unemployed or not worked steadily but they will be joined by those who already had been the working poor and some who were previously getting by slightly better. There’ll be net increased needs for public assistance and our states can’t now handle the present needs.
That’s a scenario of increased national poverty.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[expat_panama]

...forcing employers to pay some unskilled people more than their labor is worth...

--is impossible and not what's happening here.

Companies are not and can not be forced to be run at a loss. Workers have to be paid no more and no less than what they're worth and employers hire people that earn their pay and profit the company. Anyone trying to break these laws are subject to immediate financial loss, bankruptcy, and banishment from the marketplace.

The only thing a minimum wage law can do is outlaw hiring poorly skilled workers.

 

[ShackledNation]

..................I did state that reduction of the federal minimum wage rate would to some extent reduce the purchasing powers of USA’s aggregate wages and the minimum’s proportional affect is inversely related to the amount of a job’s wage. (Actually to be more explicit, the minimum rate’s affect is inversely related to the difference between the minimum and the job’s rate of compensation).

The bolded portion makes no grammatical sense in the English language. By "minimum's" do you mean "minimum wage's?" What does "proportional affect" mean? What is that affect? You need to completely restate that because it is not coherent. I am not trying to use ad hominem, I am serious. It literally and truthfully is not a comprehensible statement.

Shackled Nation, if there were no minimum wage many additional lower wage jobs would be created.

Yes. Exactly. With minimum wage those jobs do not exist and people are unemployed and living on welfare. A low paying job is better than no job at all. And ultimately people will rise up and get higher paying jobs when they gain sufficient experience.

The vast majority of jobs induced by eliminating the federal minimum wage rate will be sub-minimal wage paying jobs that do not now justify the current $7.25/Hr. federal minimum wage rate.

That is the point. Minimum wage makes certain people unemployable, and certain jobs illegal.

It’s not inconceivable that the market price for such “sub-minimum” tasks may be as low as a half dollar per hour. How much can we pay for someone to straighten salvaged carpenter nails for reuse?

It is pretty inconceivable that any worker would accept a $.50 an hour wage ever, nor would it make sense that an employer would bother offering such a wage. Employers to not arbitrarily set wage rates. If people refuse to labor at $.50 an hour, nobody will force them to, and nobody will take the job, forcing the employer to raise the wage to a level somebody will accept. If somebody accepts the lower wage, it means they value working at the wage more than whatever they would have being doing without work. They are improving their condition, thus they take the job. Preventing people from choosing what they see as an improvement of their condition is unjust. Minimum wage is not only economically wrong, it is morally wrong.

We could reduce the price of transportation by replacing many NY City cabs and drivers with young men operating rickshaws.
[U.S. railroads have been in disrepair for over a quarter of a century. Our trains run at 50MPH but in Asia and Europe they’re running trains at 200 to 300 MPH. They have much fewer automobiles and consume less petroleum per capita but their public transportation is generally more wide spread and effective. Do you think enabling rickshaws to be financially viable by eliminating minimum wage regulations would significantly decrease our transportation, energy and pollution problems?]

That is laughable. If people would like to use rickshaws, they have every right to. But the idea that abolishing minimum wage will lead to mass use of rickshaws is absurd. Not only that, but I doubt rickshaws would be very cheap at all. I doubt anyone would prefer to use a rickshaw over a bus that could cost them a few dollars, move them faster than the rickshaw, and be more comfortable than the rickshaw. Minimum wage did not end the rickshaw. The free market did when people decided it was not a favorable means of transportation. Is this really the best argument you can make? Rickshaws?

There are many job tasks that do not justify the minimum rate but they now exist because their performance is necessary to our public or private enterprises. Those jobs will continue to exist but their wage levels will plunge down to join those tasks and jobs we classified as “sub-minimum”.

Many? Again, only 6% of all jobs pay minimum wage. 94% pay higher than minimum wage. I posed the question regarding this number earlier. Apparently you have decided to ignore it and construct arguments around the assumption that many jobs currently pay minimum wage. This assumption is false. Out of that 6%, it is not reasonable to assume they would all have lower wages once minimum wage was abolished. If a job is worth less than minimum wage, it is not offered. You say these jobs, although worth less than minimum wage, are necessary to private enterprise. A job that is fundamentally necessary to private enterprise will likely be valued above minimum wage if it really is so necessary--if not high above minimum wage. Lower paying jobs are less valueable to private enterprise, which is why they are lower paying in the first place.

You now seem to be operating under the idea that jobs necessary to private enterprise will be paid the lowest wages. This makes no logical sense. These minimum wage jobs exist because minimum wage is a justifiable price for their services. What is more likely is that they really are not that vital at all, hence their low pay.

Sub-minimum jobs will be the vast majority of additional jobs created and (because many of those qualified to perform sub-minimum tasks were previously not qualified for employment at minimum wage rates), we’ll have a pool of eligible labor that will far exceed the number of those additional jobs.

And with minimum wage, we have the same pool of labor and zero additional jobs. You are arguing that if minimum wage is abolished, there will be more jobs, but not enough to employ everyone. Currently, there are no jobs, and even less people can be employed. Not everyone will be employed if minimum wage is abolished, so we must keep minimum wage so even fewer people are employed? And your premise that there will not be enough jobs itself is also questionable.

The affect of those extremely poor paying jobs will ripple throughout our entire labor market. All labor compensation will be somewhat affected but the general extent of the effect upon a task’s wage rate will be inversely related to the difference between the purchasing power of the eliminated minimum wage rate and the job’s rate; (i.e. the more you’re earning, the less you’re hurting. That’s the meaning of minimum wage rate’s inverse affect upon all jobs’ rates).

Prior to being paid these low wages these people are paid nothing, or worse, welfare that further reduces the real wages of actual workers! Abolishing minimum wage will create more jobs and give people previously with no income some type of income, and you are trying to sell that as a negative affect rippling throughout the economy. Giving people jobs when they previously had nothing is not a bad thing. You say the more you're earning, the less you're hurting. Current. And because of minimum wage, an entire class of workers is earning nothing.

Lower wage earners will all then be paid in wages of extremely poor purchasing power.

Previously they had zero purchasing power because they were unemployed.

Prior to the elimination of the minimum wage rate, many of those now earning the lesser purchasing powered wages will have been unemployed or not worked steadily but they will be joined by those who already had been the working poor and some who were previously getting by slightly better. There’ll be net increased needs for public assistance and our states can’t now handle the present needs.
That’s a scenario of increased national poverty.

Respectfully, Supposn

There will be more jobs and more people will be employed so therefore there will be more poverty and need for government assistance?

You have it backwards. Minimum wage increases poverty by preventing people from finding work. These unemployed people are then put on welfare. You have admitted that jobs will be created if minimum wage is abolished, and then you say more people will be on welfare. You cannot make both claims. Your argument is logically incoherent. And the empirical evidence supports opponents of minimum wage.