MW advocates - what are the downsides of minimum wage?

[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

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.
.

Translation:
“As the underclass manifested by Democrats continues to grow...you better start selling your ass to wetbacks and pandering to the filth of America.”
dblack

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

No we don't think unemployment would disappear and we also know they wouldn't pay people $1 buck an hour .


You let the market decide .


.

 

[danielpalos]

the market can decide, within the GoalPosts fixed by Government.

 

[dblack]

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.
.

Translation:
“As the underclass manifested by Democrats continues to grow...you better start selling your ass to wetbacks and pandering to the filth of America.”
dblack

You forgot trannies in toilets. And deep state.

 

[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

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.
.

Translation:
“As the underclass manifested by Democrats continues to grow...you better start selling your ass to wetbacks and pandering to the filth of America.”
dblack

You forgot trannies in toilets. And deep state.

Nah, the Tranny freak thing is too small to really put a whole lot of time in to. The illegal beaner crisis though...there’s no bigger problem in America.

 

[danielpalos]

...structural unemployment for cheap labor jobs.

 

[dblack]

...structural unemployment for cheap labor jobs.

... official Poverty for at-will stupidity. We have a Clause!

 

[danielpalos]

...structural unemployment for cheap labor jobs.

... official Poverty for at-will stupidity. We have a Clause!

landlords and the homeless, understand the concept.

only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[sartre play]

Not sure about that, think big business is always on the look out to increase profit, and to cut cost.

 

[danielpalos]

Not sure about that, think big business is always on the look out to increase profit, and to cut cost.

Grow our economy, we must.

we can increase tax revenue by merely increasing the minimum wage.

the law of large numbers should work for us not against us.

 

[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.

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.

Correct. There is no downside to raising the MW to something people can live in accordance to the standards this nation can afford. If you want to jack it to $100 and hour then be my guest. Personally I think youre stupid for wanting to do that because $100/hour is not needed to cover basic necessities.

 

[task0778]

From the link below:

In 2014, the City Council there passed an ordinance that raised the minimum wage in stages from $9.47 to $15.45 for large employers this year and $16 in 2019. Last year, research commissioned by the Seattle City Council itself was released. It examined the effects of the increases from $9.47 to as much as $11 in 2015 and to as much as $13 in 2016. This 2017 study, conducted by economists from the University of Washington found:

…the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016. [This was later revised to $74]

In other words, the price of labor went up and the quantity of labor demanded fell. It turns out that labor demand curves do slope downwards after all.
.
.
Research continues into the Seattle experience. University of Washington economists have now released a follow-up paper which some are touting as vindication for the “Fight for $15.” CNN tweeted: “New evidence shows that Seattle's fast-rising minimum wage has boosted incomes for low-wage workers, with little negative effect on overall employment.”

Not so fast, CNN. When you actually dig into the results, a rather different picture emerges.

The findings for inexperienced workers show that when the price of their labor went up, the quantity of it demanded fell.

This new study is not an “update” of the previous work, as CNN claims. The 2017 paper looked at Seattle’s aggregate low-wage payroll; this new one looks at workers already employed when the minimum wage rose. It splits them into two categories— experienced and inexperienced workers—and examines the effect on each. It finds that, on average, experienced workers earned $84 a month more. Inexperienced workers, on the other hand, got no real earnings boost—they just worked fewer hours.

When we look more closely at the results for experienced workers, however, we find that about a quarter of their increase in pay came from taking additional work outside Seattle to make up for lost hours. And, quite plainly, the findings for inexperienced workers show that when the price of their labor went up, the quantity of it demanded fell, exactly as economic theory predicts. Instead of more money, which is supposed to be the whole point of the “Fight for $15,” they got more free time.
.
.
And then there are the workers who, as a result of this ordinance, don’t get to enter the labor force in the first place. The study finds a notable decline of about 5 percent in the number of people entering Seattle’s low-wage workforce in each quarter. As the study shows, Seattle used to track the rest of Washington State quite closely on this measure but has slipped below it since the minimum wage hikes began. If Seattle had continued to match the rest of the state, there would have been an additional 500 workers joining the low-wage labor force each quarter.
.
.
Simply put, this study finds that the minimum wage ordinance boosted wages a bit for more skilled workers, did nothing for less skilled workers, and actively blocked those with minimal or no skills from the labor market. As the study authors note, “Seattle’s minimum wage ordinance appears to have delivered higher pay to experienced workers at the cost of reduced opportunity for the inexperienced.”
.
.
This is in line with what the balance of empirical research suggests. In 2008, economists David Neumark and William L. Wascher surveyed two decades of research into the effects of minimum wage laws. They found:

Minimum wages reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers … (that) a higher minimum wage tends to reduce rather than to increase the earnings of the lowest-skilled individuals … (that) minimum wages do not, on net, reduce poverty … (and that) minimum wages appear to have adverse longer-run effects on wages and earnings.

In 2014, along with economist J.M. Ian Salas, they examined the subsequent literature and concluded:

that the evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff of higher wages for some against job losses for others, and that policymakers need to bear this tradeoff in mind when making decisions about increasing the minimum wage.

What CNN Gets Wrong in Its Coverage of Seattle's New Minimum Wage Law | John Phelan

Me: bottom line is, if Seattle and any other city or state want to raise their M-Wage, I'm okay with that. But not on the national level, this exactly the kind of intervention from the federal gov't that not only isn't needed but also is undesireable in many places. State and local gov'ts can run their areas as they fit, but Uncle Sam needs to stay out of it.

 

[dblack]

Correct. There is no downside to raising the MW...

Riiiiight. This sort of thing makes it hard to take you seriously at all.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

No we don't think unemployment would disappear and we also know they wouldn't pay people $1 buck an hour .


You let the market decide .


.

"The market" are the businesses. If it was up to them they wouldnt pay you shit. You would be working for free. Their whole thing is to increase their profit not your pay.

 

[Asclepias]

Correct. There is no downside to raising the MW...

Riiiiight. This sort of thing makes it hard to take you seriously at all.

Why ask if you dont want to take me seriously? Why dont you just admit you didnt really want an answer?

 

[dblack]

From the link below:

In 2014, the City Council there passed an ordinance that raised the minimum wage in stages from $9.47 to $15.45 for large employers this year and $16 in 2019. Last year, research commissioned by the Seattle City Council itself was released. It examined the effects of the increases from $9.47 to as much as $11 in 2015 and to as much as $13 in 2016. This 2017 study, conducted by economists from the University of Washington found:

…the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016. [This was later revised to $74]

In other words, the price of labor went up and the quantity of labor demanded fell. It turns out that labor demand curves do slope downwards after all.
.
.
Research continues into the Seattle experience. University of Washington economists have now released a follow-up paper which some are touting as vindication for the “Fight for $15.” CNN tweeted: “New evidence shows that Seattle's fast-rising minimum wage has boosted incomes for low-wage workers, with little negative effect on overall employment.”

Not so fast, CNN. When you actually dig into the results, a rather different picture emerges.

The findings for inexperienced workers show that when the price of their labor went up, the quantity of it demanded fell.

This new study is not an “update” of the previous work, as CNN claims. The 2017 paper looked at Seattle’s aggregate low-wage payroll; this new one looks at workers already employed when the minimum wage rose. It splits them into two categories— experienced and inexperienced workers—and examines the effect on each. It finds that, on average, experienced workers earned $84 a month more. Inexperienced workers, on the other hand, got no real earnings boost—they just worked fewer hours.

When we look more closely at the results for experienced workers, however, we find that about a quarter of their increase in pay came from taking additional work outside Seattle to make up for lost hours. And, quite plainly, the findings for inexperienced workers show that when the price of their labor went up, the quantity of it demanded fell, exactly as economic theory predicts. Instead of more money, which is supposed to be the whole point of the “Fight for $15,” they got more free time.
.
.
And then there are the workers who, as a result of this ordinance, don’t get to enter the labor force in the first place. The study finds a notable decline of about 5 percent in the number of people entering Seattle’s low-wage workforce in each quarter. As the study shows, Seattle used to track the rest of Washington State quite closely on this measure but has slipped below it since the minimum wage hikes began. If Seattle had continued to match the rest of the state, there would have been an additional 500 workers joining the low-wage labor force each quarter.
.
.
Simply put, this study finds that the minimum wage ordinance boosted wages a bit for more skilled workers, did nothing for less skilled workers, and actively blocked those with minimal or no skills from the labor market. As the study authors note, “Seattle’s minimum wage ordinance appears to have delivered higher pay to experienced workers at the cost of reduced opportunity for the inexperienced.”
.
.
This is in line with what the balance of empirical research suggests. In 2008, economists David Neumark and William L. Wascher surveyed two decades of research into the effects of minimum wage laws. They found:

Minimum wages reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers … (that) a higher minimum wage tends to reduce rather than to increase the earnings of the lowest-skilled individuals … (that) minimum wages do not, on net, reduce poverty … (and that) minimum wages appear to have adverse longer-run effects on wages and earnings.

In 2014, along with economist J.M. Ian Salas, they examined the subsequent literature and concluded:

that the evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff of higher wages for some against job losses for others, and that policymakers need to bear this tradeoff in mind when making decisions about increasing the minimum wage.

What CNN Gets Wrong in Its Coverage of Seattle's New Minimum Wage Law | John Phelan

Me: bottom line is, if Seattle and any other city or state want to raise their M-Wage, I'm okay with that. But not on the national level, this exactly the kind of intervention from the federal gov't that not only isn't needed but also is undesireable in many places. State and local gov'ts can run their areas as they fit, but Uncle Sam needs to stay out of it.

I haven't taken the data from Seattle too seriously because it relies on many outside factors. They're basically outlawing low-wage workers in their city. Many of them will simply leave town, which makes the whole thing just another kind of gentrification.

 

[dblack]

Correct. There is no downside to raising the MW...

Riiiiight. This sort of thing makes it hard to take you seriously at all.

Why ask if you dont want to take me seriously? Why dont you just admit you didnt really want an answer?

Uh... beats me. I did git a couple of decent answers here, from honest supporters of MW. Yours were throwaways.

 

[Asclepias]

Correct. There is no downside to raising the MW...

Riiiiight. This sort of thing makes it hard to take you seriously at all.

Why ask if you dont want to take me seriously? Why dont you just admit you didnt really want an answer?

Uh... beats me. I did git a couple of decent answers here, from honest supporters of MW. Yours were throwaways.

So basically you threw out the ones that didnt confirm your bias. I gotcha.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

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.

Correct. There is no downside to raising the MW to something people can live in accordance to the standards this nation can afford. If you want to jack it to $100 and hour then be my guest. Personally I think youre stupid for wanting to do that because $100/hour is not needed to cover basic necessities.

You still can't not comprehend it is still zero no matter how much minimum wage is Rasied?

Seriously ..this is that mind boggling to you?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Correct. There is no downside to raising the MW to something people can live in accordance to the standards this nation can afford. If you want to jack it to $100 and hour then be my guest. Personally I think youre stupid for wanting to do that because $100/hour is not needed to cover basic necessities.

You still can't not comprehend it is still zero no matter how much minimum wage is Rasied?

Seriously ..this is that mind boggling to you?

What is still zero? This is the first I have heard you mention this.