Minimum wage

[Supposn]

I have no intention to discuss sudden and/or radical changes of the minimum rate’s amount. If such sudden or radical modifications were ever induced by the U.S. dollar’s modified purchasing power, the minimum wage’s rate would be among the least economic concerns of our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

I am not talking about increasing the nominal minimum wage, but the real minimum wage. Tell me what would happen if Congress decided to raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour (not just nominally, but real wages as well). Assume the dollar's purchasing power is constant, so the real minimum wage rate will be higher. This can be done gradually over time or quickly. That is not the question. The question is what will this change bring. I see this question as central to the minimum wage debate, and your refusal to answer it, in my eyes, reveals the weakness of your position.

Shackled Nation, for the same reason that I choose not discuss how atomic destruction of all USA’s major cities would affect the stock market, I similarly have stated my refusal to discuss radical increase of the federal minimum wage’s rate’s probable affect upon our economy. My declaration of perceiving no net economic benefit due to such an act should be sufficient.

The answer to what is or is not a radical modification is subjective. We do not want a modification that brings the updated minimum rate within too close a proximity of the median rate and/or would radically modify the median rate. We want to grant consideration to the lowest income earners while leaving sufficient differentiation between the minimum and the median rates so as to encourage a competitive labor market among all types of tasks.

What precisely do you mean by the nominal minimum rates? I suppose by real minimum rates you’re discussing amounts adjusted to reflecting equal U.S. dollars of equal purchasing power (in order to facilitate comparisons)?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[ShackledNation]

I am not talking about increasing the nominal minimum wage, but the real minimum wage. Tell me what would happen if Congress decided to raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour (not just nominally, but real wages as well). Assume the dollar's purchasing power is constant, so the real minimum wage rate will be higher. This can be done gradually over time or quickly. That is not the question. The question is what will this change bring. I see this question as central to the minimum wage debate, and your refusal to answer it, in my eyes, reveals the weakness of your position.

Shackled Nation, for the same reason that I choose not discuss how atomic destruction of all USA’s major cities would affect the stock market, I similarly have stated my refusal to discuss radical increase of the federal minimum wage’s rate’s probable affect upon our economy. My declaration of perceiving no net economic benefit due to such an act should be sufficient.

The answer to what is or is not a radical modification is subjective. We do not want a modification that brings the updated minimum rate within too close a proximity of the median rate and/or would radically modify the median rate. We want to grant consideration to the lowest income earners while leaving sufficient differentiation between the minimum and the median rates so as to encourage a competitive labor market among all types of tasks.

What precisely do you mean by the nominal minimum rates? I suppose by real minimum rates you’re discussing amounts adjusted to reflecting equal U.S. dollars of equal purchasing power (in order to facilitate comparisons)?

Respectfully, Supposn

No. You declaring something as true does not make it true. Period.

Now it is clear that destruction of all US cities would have a terribly negative affect on the US stock market. Since you compared that to a high increase in minimum wage, do you believe such an increase would have an equally destructive affect? If so, what is that affect? By the way, when something is subjective, that means there are varying opinions which must be explained. Therefore, you must explain your subjective opinion of what constitutes a radical change, and why such a radical change is not beneficial. Your argument is fully of empty assertions. Answer the question, or give up. You cannot possibly have a consistent or well thought out position if you cannot answer the question of what will happen with a higher minimum wage. You seem to believe a lower minimum wage will cause economic problems. What does a higher minimum wage cause? Why?

Your argument is crumbling before your very eyes, and you know it.

 

[Brutus]

What does a higher minimum wage cause? Why?

a wage is a price; in this case the price of labor. When price goes up you buy less. With 9.2% unemployment its a typical liberal idea.

 

[Supposn]

No. You declaring something as true does not make it true. Period.

Now it is clear that destruction of all US cities would have a terribly negative affect on the US stock market. Since you compared that to a high increase in minimum wage, do you believe such an increase would have an equally destructive affect? If so, what is that affect? By the way, when something is subjective, that means there are varying opinions which must be explained. Therefore, you must explain your subjective opinion of what constitutes a radical change, and why such a radical change is not beneficial. Your argument is fully of empty assertions. Answer the question, or give up. You cannot possibly have a consistent or well thought out position if you cannot answer the question of what will happen with a higher minimum wage. You seem to believe a lower minimum wage will cause economic problems. What does a higher minimum wage cause? Why?

Your argument is crumbling before your very eyes, and you know it.

Shackled Nation, I’m unconcerned with the affects of US major cities’ destructions affecting the stock markets I’m unconcerned because in such a case the stock markets will (correctly be) a lesser concern to our nation.

The only logical reason to radically modify the federal minimum rate would be due to a radical change of the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power. I’m unconcerned with a radical modification of the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power’s affect upon the minimum wage rate. In such a case our minimum wage rate will (correctly be) a lesser concern to our nation.

Other than refusing to further discuss both of these scenarios and I never made any comparisons between them.

did give you a reason why radically more is detrimental when I wrote,
“We do not want a (minimum rate) modification that brings the updated minimum rate within too close a proximity of the median rate and/or would radically modify the median rate.
We want to grant consideration to the lowest income earners while leaving sufficient differentiation between the minimum and the median rates so as to encourage a competitive labor market among all types of tasks”.

You’re incorrectly arguing more of anything beneficial is always necessarily more beneficial; that ain’t necessarily so.

Respectfully Supposn

 

[editec]

Let us remember that both the States (in some cases) and the FEDs have minimum wage laws.

The FED minimum wage law only applies to businesses doing interstate business.

Apparently many states ALSO believe that having a minimum wage base is a good idea.

Do those of you who object to the FED MIN Wge law, also object to the states' minimum wage laws, too?

 

[expat_panama]

...those of you who object to the FED MIN Wge law, also object to the states' minimum wage laws, too?

Personally yes, but to often personalities are what distracts the mindless away from reality. Reality is that the only thing a minimum wage law does is prohibit hiring less productive workers because it can't make companies pay them more than their worth. If we say that jobs are good then those laws are bad.

 

[Supposn]

................ I am not talking about increasing the nominal minimum wage, but the real minimum wage. .........

Shackled Nation, What precisely did you mean by “nominal” minimum rates? I suppose you used the term “real” minimum rates to discussing amounts adjusted to reflect U.S. dollars of equal purchasing power (in order to facilitate comparisons)?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

................. If we say that jobs are good then those laws are bad.

Expan_Pat, that’s a major point of disagreement among us.

I’m among those that believe if there were no federal minimum wage, USA’s median wages purchasing power would be significantly decreased, there’d be much greater numbers of people in need of public assistance, and the nations increased poverty would reduce our proportion of middle income and vastly increase our proportion of the working poor.

Minimum wage rate proponents contend some additional people on public assistance are preferable to a vast increase of national poverty.

You and I both wish all who are minimum wage rate proponents would declare this is our belief and confront the political heat.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[expat_panama]

...If we say that jobs are good then those laws are bad.

...that’s a major point of disagreement among us.

I’m among those that believe if there were no federal minimum wage, USA’s median wages purchasing power would be significantly decreased, there’d be much greater numbers of people in need of public assistance, and the nations increased poverty would reduce our proportion of middle income and vastly increase our proportion of the working poor...

We may not have an agreement but if it's a choice between clarity and agreement then clarity is better.

What I'm hearing is that you prefer less productive workers not be allowed to work in hopes that total average wages would rise. We shouldnt' want that goal not only because market distortions waste everyone's money, but also because less skilled people who want to work have an inalienable right to do so. The end result is lower total income and more poverty.

We can see this better if we set aside preconceived belief systems and focus on what is. There are many ways we can see first hand the direct affects of minimum wage laws if we're willing to choose fact or faction.

 

[ShackledNation]

Shackled Nation, I’m unconcerned with the affects of US major cities’ destructions affecting the stock markets I’m unconcerned because in such a case the stock markets will (correctly be) a lesser concern to our nation.

The only logical reason to radically modify the federal minimum rate would be due to a radical change of the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power. I’m unconcerned with a radical modification of the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power’s affect upon the minimum wage rate. In such a case our minimum wage rate will (correctly be) a lesser concern to our nation.

Other than refusing to further discuss both of these scenarios and I never made any comparisons between them.

did give you a reason why radically more is detrimental when I wrote,
“We do not want a (minimum rate) modification that brings the updated minimum rate within too close a proximity of the median rate and/or would radically modify the median rate.
We want to grant consideration to the lowest income earners while leaving sufficient differentiation between the minimum and the median rates so as to encourage a competitive labor market among all types of tasks”.

You’re incorrectly arguing more of anything beneficial is always necessarily more beneficial; that ain’t necessarily so.

Respectfully Supposn

For the final time, I am talking about raising minimum wage when there is no change in the cost of living. That is why I keep repeating the common economic term real wage. Why would the only logical reason to alter minimum wage to a higher amount be if the dollar's purchasing power decreased? Who is to say the current relation of the wage to purchasing power is correct? How is it that you know $100 an hour in our current economy is not the correct rate?

No, I am not arguing that high minimum wage is good, I am arguing a higher minimum wage will be even worse, consistent with my position that any minimum wage is harmful. Your explanation was bogus, to put it flatly. What is sufficient differentiation between the minimum and the median rates? How does having such a differential make the labor market more competitive? Now are arguing that having a smaller differences in prices will increase competition. That is the exactly opposite of how the market works. Prices that are closer to being the same are not more competitive, they are less competitive. You also admit certain jobs will not exist because of minimum wage. How is that increasing competition? It prevents unskilled workers from being competitive by offering lower wages to employers. That is the one key competitive quality they have, and they are prevented from using it.

I want to know specific affects of what you think would happen if the rate were higher in real terms, not nominal terms. Here is my proposition. There would be lower productivity and high unemployment. Because employers do not have infinite supplies of money to pay workers, they would have to hire less workers. They would only hire the most skilled workers. Unskilled workers and even semiskilled workers would find no work. Productivity would decline because there are idle resources made idle because of government intervention. Without minimum wage, they would not be idle. The type of unemployment it would create, then, is an unfavorable unemployment.

That is my analysis of what would happen. Do you agree? If not, provide your analysis. Your previous answer did not answer the question well at all. Again you made blanket statements with no reasoning behind them. You did not say what would happen, you simply said we had to maintain the correct "differential" between wage rates (which is a completely unsupported claim that makes no logical sense). The fact you have such difficulty with this question is quite amusing. It reveals for all to see the absurdity of the minimum wage.

Finally, you keep bringing up that median wages will be reduced if there are more lower paid jobs because no minimum wage exists. But you fail to exist there will be more jobs, thus an increase in purchasing power. You cannot get your head out of the insane idea of looking only at aggregates. Here is an example to demonstrate why median wage means absolutely nothing in this conversation.

You have two economies. In one economy, there are 1 million people working. The economy is at virtually full employment. Everyone in the economy is paid $10 an hour. Thus, the median wage is $10 an hour. In the second economy, there are only 100 people working. There is a 50% unemployment rate. Each person makes $15 an hour. In this economy, the median wage is $15 an hour. According to your analysis, the second economy would be more favorable because it has a higher median wage. But looking soley at the aggregate ignores 1)how many people are actually working 2) the quality of work, and 3) how many people are prevented from or not working.

It is an utterly useless statistic. Let us look at a more complex example. In an economy there are 3 jobs that pay $8 an hour (the minimum wage) 5 jobs that pay $10 an hour, and 5 jobs that pay $20 an hour. The median wage in this case is $10 an hour. The average wage is $13.38 an hour. In this economy there is 10% unemployment. Now say that minimum wage is abolished, and 8 new jobs are added. these jobs only pay $5 an hour, below the previous minimum wage. The median wage in this case is now $8 an hour. The average wage rate is $10.19. But the economy is not worse off. Now unemployment is only 3%. More people are employed. Your analysis of wage rates would only matter if the number of jobs remained the same. The number of jobs will not remain the same, but increase. Wages do not rise and fall together. They are individual prices for the services of individual people. The fact that the median rate is lowered does not mean that all wages will fall. It only means that lower paying jobs now exist, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Brutus]

there’d be much greater numbers of people in need of public assistance,

of course thats crazy! A company might hire no one at $10/hour but could hire 1000's at 5/hour. At say a 20/hour minimum the need is for more expensive machines( to take the place of labor) and expensive people to make them pushing the dollars up the food chain.

At $5 you are pushing the labor money down the food chain precisely toward those who need public assistance.

 

[Supposn]

...If we say that jobs are good then those laws are bad.

...that’s a major point of disagreement among us.

........................ What I'm hearing is that you prefer less productive workers not be allowed to work in hopes that total average wages would rise. We shouldnt' want that goal not only because market distortions waste everyone's money, but also because less skilled people who want to work have an inalienable right to do so. The end result is lower total income and more poverty.

We can see this better if we set aside preconceived belief systems and focus on what is. There are many ways we can see first hand the direct affects of minimum wage laws if we're willing to choose fact or faction.

Expat_Panama, no one is denied the right to work but employers are denied the right to pay sub-minimal wages.
I agree elimination the federal minimum wage rate would create more jobs. They’ll be filled in order of employers’ predicted preferences:
First the currently employed working poor; second the unemployed working poor; third the students with little or no work experience; and the last considered will be those whose labors are not now expected justify current federal minimum wage rates.

[Public assistance payments are now granted to some of the working poor because our present minimum wage rates are insufficient. Federal and state governments' resources are limited, and public assistance is granted grudgingly. Public assistance amounts and their availability to the working poor are currently insufficient for the needs that currently exist.]

Elimination of the minimum wage rate will to some extent reduce the purchasing power of all wage earnings but those of the working poor will be most severely reduced. The purchasing powers will be reduced for current public assistance recipients who would gain employment due to the elimination of the minimum rate.

The most severe loss of purchasing power will be experienced by the working poor who had not previously been recipients of public assistance. Very significant loss of purchasing powers would be experienced by the middle income earners. Many middle income earners will be demoted to join the working poor.

This is not a scenario of an improved economy. I understand that what I describe as logical conclusions, you describe as illogical speculation.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Wiseacre]

A 5 dollar job gets you a foot in the door. It's an entry point to create an employment record, so you have the opportunity to prove your worth more. It's like a good credit rating, you show up on time and do a good job and in the process learn something about the business or at least about doing business. It's not supposed to be the wage level for your whole life, but merely the beginning.

 

[dblack]

A 5 dollar job gets you a foot in the door. It's an entry point to create an employment record, so you have the opportunity to prove your worth more. It's like a good credit rating, you show up on time and do a good job and in the process learn something about the business or at least about doing business. It's not supposed to be the wage level for your whole life, but merely the beginning.

No. You cannot work for less than what someone else thinks is the 'minimum'.

 

[expat_panama]

...elimination the federal minimum wage rate would create more jobs. They’ll be filled in order of employers’ predicted preferences:
First the currently employed working poor; second the unemployed working poor; third the students with little or no work experience; and the last considered will be those whose labors are not now expected justify current federal minimum wage rates...

That ordering probably matches a political belief system and ignores real life. You and I don't hire that way and we never have. You and I pay whatever it takes to get the work done or it doesn't get done. Sure we'd prefer lower payroll costs but we know better than to let that preference interfere with getting the work done.

Words are easier to come up with than money and they're cheap and boring too. Reality is neat, and even though you've never shown an interest I'll post some facts. We got - Minimum Wage By State | Minimum-Wage.org, US Unemployment Map by State, and Per Capita Personal Income by State; Infoplease.com, and here's how the numbers plot:

 

[Wiseacre]

A 5 dollar job gets you a foot in the door. It's an entry point to create an employment record, so you have the opportunity to prove your worth more. It's like a good credit rating, you show up on time and do a good job and in the process learn something about the business or at least about doing business. It's not supposed to be the wage level for your whole life, but merely the beginning.

No. You cannot work for less than what someone else thinks is the 'minimum'.

Was that sarcasm, I can never tell. Sure you can, some people work for nothing just to get experience in a particular industry. I think society is better off with more young people working at a low wage and thinking about what they need to do to get ahead than not working and thinking about something else, like how much trouble they can cause.

 

[ShackledNation]

...that’s a major point of disagreement among us.

........................ What I'm hearing is that you prefer less productive workers not be allowed to work in hopes that total average wages would rise. We shouldnt' want that goal not only because market distortions waste everyone's money, but also because less skilled people who want to work have an inalienable right to do so. The end result is lower total income and more poverty.

We can see this better if we set aside preconceived belief systems and focus on what is. There are many ways we can see first hand the direct affects of minimum wage laws if we're willing to choose fact or faction.

Expat_Panama, no one is denied the right to work but employers are denied the right to pay sub-minimal wages.

That is just another way of saying people are denied to work for what you call "sub-minimal wages." I want to get a job that pays $5 an hour. I would accept a wage simply because I know I am not very skilled. As a college student, there are view jobs available to me, and other skilled workers are getting lower paying jobs. I would prefer to have a job that pays less than no job at all. Hell, most college students get internships that pay nothing so they can gain experience. If they were allowed to pay below minimum wage, those internships might actually make me some money. You don't understand how the market works. You don't get a job and keep that job for ever. You start low and work your way up. The more you work, the more skilled you become, and the more value you have to employers. You will be more competitive for higher paying jobs.

Yes, I am a worker, and I am willing to accept a below minimum wage job. I cannot because it is illegal. That is an infringement of my rights as a worker. Period.