Forum Post: .0001% unemployment overnight
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 26, 2011, 12:07 p.m. EST by classicliberal
(312)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Would you rather make $7.00 an hour or nothing at all?
Get rid of the minimum wage.
The practical problem I see with such a measure is that you'd replace a $7 per hour job that might receive applications both from lawful U.S. residents and illegal immigrants, with a $3 per hour job that would receive applications only from the illegal immigrants. The net effect might actually be to increase unemployment among lawful U.S. residents. Conversely, I think that effective local enforcement of minimum wage laws might prove a more legally sustainable way for states to tackle concerns about illegal immigration than some existing efforts that are running afoul of the courts.
That is another thing people fail to see. We could even retain the minimum wage, but allow the states to enforce it, because the cost of living fluctuates from state to state. This still does not make economic sense, but it would be more rational than the system we have now.
Can I hire you for $3.00?
No, not until it is legal.
Here's some basic macroeconomics.
When the cost of production increases, the producer would like to raise the price of the goods and make the same profits. However, the producer, in a competitive market, does not have the ability to raise the price to cover the increase in costs. In reality, the increase in cost is split between the producer and consumer. So the price of the good to consumers goes up, but the profit for the producer goes down. This is the basic rule.
Let's say that wages paid to labor increase. The laborers receive the benefit of the full increase in wages. However, consumers must pay more for the product -- a percentage of the wage increase. A percentage of a wage increase is less than a full wage increase. In other words, the ability to purchase the goods at a higher price is more than offset by the increase in wages. Therefore, consumers and wage earners do better with higher wages, and companies earn less profit.
This concept has been so universally tested for a hundred years in economics that is taught at the most basic level. Then, the student of economics looks at "elasticity of demand" to determine just how much benefit consumers receive, and just how much company profits drop.
The person who posted this has it backward.
When the cost of inputs decline through lower wages, the producer immediately receives the difference in additional profits. Laborers take an immediate cut in buying power. Eventually, the reduced buying power cuts demand for the product. This may, depending on many factors, inspire the producer to lower the price. If so, the producer lowers the price a percentage of the wage drop. Workers have already taken the entire wage drop. Therefore, in all cases, producers do better, consumers do worse.
Finally, no jobs are created when demand drops. In fact, the opposite happens. Gluts of unsold merchandise lead to layoffs.
Consumers bear 100% of the costs. I run a small business, if I had to pay more for labor, I would have to increase prices for my products. Profit is a cost, not some arbitrary amount the business owner siphons off the top (as long as the market is open to competition). That profit is the cost associated with providing start-up capital and management. If I have to pay more for the labor that produces my goods, that does not affect the market-accepted profit margin I can make on my products(much, if at all). I would simply charge more for my goods.
Dude you are crazy! Don't believe the rhetoric from the right. Or maybe you are posting this to get attention. How much is 40 x 7 ? Pay rent, food and bills with that. Impossible.
He's saying people should work 100 hours a week for 2 dollars an hour. Or something. I don't know. Is this guy suggesting we make the poor even poorer and somehow that will make companies pay more? I don't get this guys suggestion of paying people less money than bullshit wages..
I'm not saying people "should" do anything. People can do whatever they want with their bodies as long as they don't hurt anyone else. But I have a right to sell my labor for any price I want, providing someone will buy it. There are opportunities on communes as well, I know plenty of people who take that option.
cool dude. If you think you're a piece of shit go ahead and sell your labor for 4 dollars. We have minimum wage to keep people out of dangerous living conditions and extreme poverty... and essentially slavery. At 4 dollars an hour a person has to pretty much work all day and every day just to live a shitty lifestyle.
Please take a course on macroeconomics. A century ago, before the minimum wage, you could live fine on $4/an hour. The cost of living would drop with wages, people wouldn't be paying the same amount to live. And I can't sell my labor for $4 as you suggest, because of people like you advocating that it be illegal.
Don't forget about inflation. $4.00 an hour was substantially more money 100 years ago, and goods were relatively cheaper. Gold for instance in 1911 was just under $19 per ounce, its now well over $1200 oz.
So 100 years ago a person making that wage could buy over an oz a day, but a person today making $4/hr would have to work over 300 hours!
Aside from that, people didn't need XBoxes and Expensive sports cars to feel good about themselves or stay entertained. :p
No... the guys on top would just pocket the excess money. It's pretty standard practice. Like when the CEO's gave themselves bonuses during the bailouts and laid off a ton of people.
The guys at the top cannot pocket the excess if there is a competitive market, because the cost of executing (bankrolling, managing) the business will not be higher. With the bailouts there was not competition, the government just decided to pick the winners and losers in the market. Of course the execs stole the money, it was free to them by the government, they didn't earn it.
Profit is a cost, the cost of returning investment capital. It's not some arbitrary figure skimmed off the top by the business owner. Any business that takes too much profit will fail, just as any business that devotes too much money to marketing, product development or sales will fail. I run a small business, and I can tell you this is exactly how it is.
You're not talking about making 4 dollars an hour in your comment here. You're talking about giving the banks bailouts and somehow justifying that a free market will pay people more all the while getting rid of minimum wage. If that's how it will work out, why even worry about minimum wage? Your argument isn't making sense to me.
Okay, I'm not sure what you read into that post or which one exactly you are referring to, but to be clear I am absolutely 100% against the bailouts and corporate welfare of any kind. Corporations do not have the right to steal money from the taxpayers. They were given that money partly in exchange for well-placed monetary election gifts to the politicians who gave them the bailouts. Of course they will split our stolen money with their politician friends next election cycle.
Back to the minimum wage. I didn't say businesses will pay people more if the minimum wage were removed, I said that money would be worth a whole lot more. Think back to the early 1900s, people made just a few dollars a day. But they could buy a whole lot more stuff with those few dollars. People wouldn't sell their labor for less than going rate. All of the lowest wage jobs would be taken by teenagers living with their parents, with low living costs. They would be getting paid to learn on-the-job vocational skills after school, and soon their labor would be worth a whole lot more due to the skills they had acquired.
This is nonsense. Even if you were partially right, which you aren't, there are more necessary living expenses than just simply purchasing products. Can you explain how the cost of rent or healthcare or insurance or education would go down?
You bet I can. The people who work on the car of the superintendent of the apartment building, the people who sweep the floors in the lobby, the people who clean the office, the carpenters who build the additions to the apartment buildings for less allowing more investment in a larger building for less money, the loggers who cut the trees to build the addition... ... ... ... ... ... that's about 1/1000th of the jobs that would be affected, in the example of rent alone. I can provide as many for any of the other sectors you listed, but you get the picture. All costs, including profit, would go down. The principal of the market is "If it can be done for less, it will be" Just because workers are making less does not mean the business owners will pocket the money, that is absurd. Because the business owners costs will go down as well, so the market will not allow them to make as much. Capitalism is not a conspiracy, unless there is the purchasing of power we have now.
Why would you say that I'm talking nonsense, and then ask me to expound more? It sounds to me like you are unconvinced that I'm wrong.
You are basically describing a system where all the wealthy elites of the world will just decide together that they no longer want to exploit anybody ever again. Where nobody will ever try to dominate anybody. This is more far fetched than a system that would actually force them to submit to the will of the majority. This is completely contradictory to any observations of human nature or any historical perspectives I have ever had so I believe that it is nonsense. Even if I am completely wrong and this is at all possible at any point in the future the last thing we would want to do is lower the poorest people's wages. I would rather sell narcotics than work for $2 an hour and so would everybody else that would want to feed their family. I asked you to explain more because I wanted to see if you actually believe this stuff.
Ah, yes. I drank the educational cool-aid. It must be sad to see from the perspective of a closed minded person such as yourself. Not only is that not what I am describing, what is far-fetched is a system in which the wealthy elites are kept in check by an altruistic oversight body. There is a reason the people who have spent their entire lives buying politicians are pushing for more federal control, they want more power. Forcing individuals to submit to the will of the majority leads to all sorts of despicable actions, from banning homosexuality, interracial marriage and lynching. What's needed are universal ground rules for human rights. Inherent in them is the right to sell your labor for as much or as little as you want. I would rather work for $6.99 per hour than go without a job, so it is my right to do so without the interference from the state.
Well you are welcome to it. If you choose to work at a restaurant waiting tables they might even pay you less than $6.99. Just don't let them know if your tips didn't break minimum wage because then they would be legally obligated to pay out the difference.
Ah, yes. You realize I am correct and fighting for worker's rights so you merely vote down my post without responding. Cheers
I am not welcome to it, that is the point of the post. It is illegal. I also have the right to decide where to work, providing the employer is willing to let me work there. Not to mention restaurant jobs are not particularly promising. I happen to have a job I like at the moment, but should I lose it tomorrow, and there was not minimum wage, I could pick up a temporary job in a few hours until I found something better. Labor service is a consensual agreement between two individuals, just like a variety of other private decisions that the majority has no right to interfere with, such as whom I sleep with and whether or not I get a tattoo or protest with OWS.
We don't live in the 1900's anymore. Paying the people that work for minimum wage less money won't make money more valuable. It will just mean a lot of people will get paid less because a company could choose to pay them less. Most people make more than minimum wage. So how will paying the few people that make minimum wage less money do anything but make poor people more poor?
You said
"They would be getting paid to learn on-the-job vocational skills after school, and soon their labor would be worth a whole lot more due to the skills they had acquired." I'm pretty sure burger king just wants them to make burgers.
I have worked for minimum wage. I observe my environment, even if you are flipping burgers, if you are an observant person,.you are gaining knowledge of psychology, business management, and other useful knowledge. Because I pay attention, I now run a small business and do quite well. Your claim that business owners would pocket the money is flat wrong, as long as there is a competitive market. I advise you to pay some attention to economics.
We don't live in the 1900's anymore. Paying the people that work for minimum wage less money won't make money more valuable, which you claimed it would in a comment above. Explain that, because if anyone needs to pay more attention to economics, it's you. Lowering minimum wage will just mean a lot of people will get paid less because a company could choose to pay them less. Most people and most jobs pay more than minimum wage and will not be affected by getting rid of minimum wage.. So how will paying the few people that make minimum wage less money do anything but make poor people more poor?
I, and several other people, have already explained it. http://occupywallst.org/forum/0001-unemployment-overnight/#comment-433566
http://occupywallst.org/forum/0001-unemployment-overnight/#comment-433566
http://occupywallst.org/forum/0001-unemployment-overnight/#comment-444423
The less that we get paid - the less that things cost.
Believe it or not - the minimum wage does far more harm than any good it ever could do.
Its basic economics.
People making minimum wage qualify for food stamps. The real way to make it where people can work for less money is for the government to take control of landlines, electric companies, gas companies, open seed banks and get farms good strains of non engendered seed that grows well without fertilizer and pesticides (Mexico has some) at reasonable prices, do all this and don't make a profit, operate at cost and people could work for a lot less money. Privatization and deregulation is the cause of higher wages, you gotta get at the root of problem. You do this, people can work for less and buy their own food! Stop being silly.
or if your opec you just raise the price of oil to whatever you want
samuelson stolper my friends, samuelson stolper.
Most here don't and won't understand the negative effects of a price floor. Most won't understand what a price floor has to do with a post about the minimum wage. (Minimum wage is an example of a price floor.)
I know exactly what you mean and there is a bit of deadweight loss associated with imposing a price floor; I would, however, argue that the amount of deadweight loss you're imposing is very small compared to the social cost of people trying to survive on $3 per hour. As long as you have inflation, even as little as 2-3% per year, people working at minimum wage are barely getting by and people working far enough below minimum wage to make a difference would have to work 20-24 hours per day to provide a basic living for themselves. What we need to be looking to do right now is shifting the demand curve outward so that the market price level for most jobs falls well above the $7-$8 per hour mark, and I don't see how cutting out the floor will do that.
The problem here is your premise that someone who had a job at $3 would have that job and now will be paid $7. That isn't what happens - likely the job just goes away. Imagine a $20 dollar minimum wage. Now imagine the effect that would have on the price of McDonalds goods. Would there be any McDonalds with 6 dollar cheeseburgers?
The minimum wage is more harmful the higher it is above the current market price for entry labor and less harmful the closer it is to the current market price for entry labor and has no effect if it is lower than the current market price for entry labor.
Thus the best it can do is have no effect.
Here's the thing; if this were just a problem on the AP Micro or AP Macro exam then you'd be right, but it's not that simple. Wages aren't cycling down during downturns and then back up during boom times; a lot of wages are simply never bouncing back and so the hits people are taking are cumulative. When wages fall too far without corresponding falls in price the circular flow model breaks down unless someone else (usually the government) steps in and picks up the slack, and right now that's not what's happening. If all we do is drop the minimum wage then we will wind up with us performing a lot of services that they cannot afford to use, and that's bad news for us in the long term.
Ahh yes. This is getting closer to a fundamental problem we have. If we talk about prices - what do we have the continually causes price inflation - and literally plans it?
I find wages are not increasing much because of the increase competition from outside. As the rest of the world gets closer to us in terms of lifestyle and education they can compete with us in those areas while still taking a lower wage because of COL in their areas.
Honestly dropping the minimum wage would do almost nothing because it is so close to the market price for entry labor. It would create a few jobs in rural areas where the minimum wage is significantly higher than the market price. Still, better than doing nothing.
Believe it or not, the cost of labor fluctuates in response to supply and demand, the same as any other commodity. But basic economics doesn't seem to be your strong suit...
If a quick fix would address every economical & social problem we face, I would gladly accept your offer. But in my humble opinion, minimum wage, only takes into account the unemployment issue as it relates to a free market case, and leaves much to be desired on the social case. income inequality. declining education. aging infrastructure. foreign energy reliance. campaign reform. lobbying reform. poverty statistics. health costs. gay marriage. I could go on and on. How will getting rid of the minimum wage address all of the issues we face?
Um, what? I never said it would fix everything, but it would help get the economy out of the dumper. Gay marriage...? What?
the minimum wage must be the minimum amount of money one needs to support a family.
But that cost varies from state to state (see below) making Federal enforcement unreasonable. Besides, if you paid less per hour than it cost to live, no one would work for you and you'd starve too.
min wage is based off the cost of living, it is there for that reason
The cost of living varies from state to state. I can live like a king in rural Alabama on what I would quickly starve on in New York city. So first of all, states should be able to set the minimum wage based on the cost of living in their state, or not at all. Humans naturally have their own minimum wage, it's called "If anyone will do the same work for less hire them instead." What if the government artificially imposed an amount you had to pay someone to, say, wash your deck? You have a right to hire the contractor who gives you the lowest price. It is freedom. I run a small business, it is no different. If I need to hire someone to stock the shelves in my store, I have a right to hire the person who will do the job for the lowest price.
it is set based on State, each State has their own minimum wage,some may be the same but they are all set by state. If the state doesn't have their own minimum wage then it is the federal minimum wage that is used
Minimum wage is not really a problem. Why do you want to get rid of it?
Because the magical invisible hand fairy will fix everything, overnight! All we have to do is give the 1% everything they want. Then it will be rainbows and lollipops forever! Yippee!
lol... thank you for that.
I am sooo looking forward to the invisible hand fairy taking us back to 1935 where raw industrial waste spewed into rivers and people worked 7 days a week without benefits. Those sure were the days.
Minimum wage keeps a good portion of you lazy 99% with money and some food on the table.
"When someone works for less pay than she can live on ... she has made a great sacrifice for you .... The "working poor" ... are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone. (p. 221)"
Barbara Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America
Oh, so that's why the poor neglect their children so rampantly? I long suspected they were out caring for the children of others. Don't believe those losers who claim that cable TV has anything to do with it.
What makes you say it's not really a problem? I run a small business (see above). If I need to hire someone to stock my shelves but only have enough capital to pay them $7.00 an hour, and I have someone willing to do the work for that amount, why should the government step in and stop us from being free? It is basically comparable to any other personal or mutually agreed upon private decision, such as how much to eat or whether or not to be a homosexual. It is none of the government's business. So since I do not have the capital to hire the guy, he will go without a job instead of producing something mutually beneficial to both of us. No one seems to be pointing out that the minimum wage was recently raised before the economy tanked. As I said in the OP, virtually everyone would have a job overnight if the MW was abolished.
Free? You think people feel free when they have to work for less then they need to pay their bills? Sounds like the free market fairy tail again. The only ones free are the ones who have all the money. The rest are slaves to the system.
The reason there are less and less jobs is because of technological unemployment. It has nothing to do with minimum wage.
People will not work for less than they need to live. People can do simple math.
Since there are a lot more people looking for a job then there are jobs, people are desperate. They don't have the luxury to do simple math.
Minimum wage is currently less than people need to live. There are millions of people working for minimum wage as we speak. Your argument is null and void.
My argument is lol... You realize you just contradicted yourself? You said "There are millions of people working for minimum wage as we speak." If minimum wage is less than the amount of money required to live, these millions of people would be dead. Your mother is null and void.
You are correct, I should have said Minimum wage is currently less than people need to live on their own without further financial support from others and the government.
Without government assisted food stamps, housing and other welfare programs, or financial support from parents/relatives/spouses your below minimum wage work force would be dead, or looting your store pretty quickly.
I shall try to remember to be more specific and literal when replying to you and your threads.
I will not resort to childish yet amusing insults towards you in future replies. But you are assuming that the cost of living will stay the same if the minimum wage were abolished. It will go down. Take the person making minimum wage now. Every time they go to a grocery store, they buy a gallon of milk. That milk takes, say, 10 minutes of minimum wage labor to produce, from the workers mining the oil in the plastic resin in the jug, to the workers on the farm, to the folks at the bottling plant, the stocker at the grocery store, the guy who mopped the floor, etc, etc. At the current minimum wage, the cost of buying that labor is $1.25. But if the minimum wage were abolished, and the labor rates were determined based on free and fair trade, the cost of that labor would go down as well. The cost of the gallon of milk our minimum wage-earner is paying would go down with his wages. As would every product.
You seem to be only able to look at this issue from a very microeconomic point of view. Let's take this to an extreme to make a point. If we reduce the income of all the millions of low end workers to the point where all they can afford is the most minimal subsistence, you know, like slavery. Just enough calories to survive, a shack to live in and some rags to clothe them. No expendable income. Who is left to buy your products? You may sell a few sacks of potatoes and some rice, but the rest of the products on the store shelf will just set there. Try opening a supermarket in Bangladesh. Put 99.9 percent of the people into poverty, and just cater to the rich .1 percent. See how that works out.
In theory that is the argument. But there is little incentive to decrease over all product costs in that scenario.
A reduced labor cost could go one of two ways. The difference could be used to reduce the cost of products and services, or the difference could be used to increase overall profit. Based upon the behavior and spending habits of many companies and executives after receiving government bail outs and tax cuts very recently, I'd venture to guess the cost of goods and services wouldn't go down much at all.
Again it's just a theory and it could go either way were the minimum wage abolished..
But I personally don't believe the answer to reducing unemployment numbers is to create millions of very low paying jobs. Let's say that you are right and it would reduce the cost of products proportionate to the reduction of wages. This wouldn't increase the standard of living for those now making less money.
Also, because not all products and services are a result of minimum wage labor. Those products and services (health care for instance) would still cost a great deal of money. Those making even less money than a minimum wage still wouldn't be able to afford healthcare.
So while your idea would maybe reduce the cost of goods, and no doubt create more jobs, it would do little to increase the standard of living and only serve to make those who are all ready poor even more so.
furthermore, are you going to be the one who tells the brain surgeon that you know his paycheck is now $50,000 less than he made last year, but it's okay because minimum wage has been eliminated and everything is cheaper now? I hope you're not the person he needs to operate on right after hearing that news.
good explanation... you would thinks that when the govt bailed out the banks that the banks would turn round and use that money to bail out homeowners like they were supposed to... instead you have banks either making record profits or else taking crazy risks with the extra money and going down anyway. So the corps took advantage of the extra money without helping many people at all keep their house. If people were allowed to work for any wage then the price of milk and bread wouldn't go down... the milk and bread producers would make more money because of reduced cost of labor.
indeed, that's the other side of the coin that people who oppose minimum wage don't generally want to talk about.
It's important to point out that Classicalliberal is completely right in theory. On paper it makes perfect sense, but reality never quite matches the economic theories of laissez-faire capitalism.
That is an unfair charge, because laissez-faire capitalism has virtually never been implemented in its pure form.
Same could be said for Communism, Socialism, and Anarchism... Do you suggest we should try those and hope for the best as well?
Gilded. Age. Close enough.
"Also, because not all products and services are a result of minimum wage labor. Those products and services (health care for instance) would still cost a great deal of money. Those making even less money than a minimum wage still wouldn't be able to afford healthcare."
Yes health care would still cost a lot, but there would be overall deflation of costs. There are plenty of minimum wage jobs across the board that contribute to every dollar spent the health industry.
"A reduced labor cost could go one of two ways. The difference could be used to reduce the cost of products and services, or the difference could be used to increase overall profit. Based upon the behavior and spending habits of many companies and executives after receiving government bail outs and tax cuts very recently, I'd venture to guess the cost of goods and services wouldn't go down much at all."
If competition is allowed, of course costs will go down. Or else the people running the businesses won't make any money. Profit will not necessarily increase, and will likely go down along with wages. I run a small business. My (small) profit is my payment in exchange for providing investment capital to start the business. If my workers were making less, it would not increase the amount of money I would need to invest, nor would it increase my cost of living. So I would have to make less, or else I would quickly be put out of business by someone else.
Yes you think like this and this may (or may not be) a reason that you have a SMALL business. Small business owners are LESS LIKELY to be insanely greedy. How do you think the superrich got to be super rich? Do you think it was because when they got more they shared with others or kept it to themselves? What is more likely?
caps for emphasis nor shouting sorry
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
The poor aren't dead because of food stamps, welfare, and shelters that feed the poor. All these things have to exist because of a fucked up system that creates massive levels of poverty. The not dead-yet poor are forced to live in shitty housing conditions in dangerous neighborhoods because the property values are so low. Some live in the streets.
Did you know 1 in 5 American children go to bed hungry at night?
Yeah they're doing just fine. Get over yourself.
Really? That was the most idiotic thing you've ever heard? I guess you didn't read what you just wrote lol.
Yes! Let's raise the minimum wage to 100$ an hour! We'll all be rich! This will work! Repeat after me, "Yes We Can!" Don't listen to anyone who knows anything about economics because they will spoil our fun!
I never said "100$ an hour"
You're being ridiculous.
LOL yes I am! If your logic was carried to its logical conclusion, that minimum wage laws redistribute wealth from business owners to workers, than why wouldn't $100/hr work? Why wouldn't we all be rich?
Because it spreads the poverty, not the wealth.
You're still being ridiculous. And you're evading what was said in my previous comments.
Good. I guess I shielded myself from your economic incompetence. When you disagree with someone, remember to always start attacking them! They will know who the real progressive is! Yes We Can!
As someone who has worked for less than $7 an hour let me tell you, that wage is anything but "mutually beneficial." A wage that small does not allow the worker to pay for the necessities of life in America.
A wage that low may be just fine for the teenager whom still lives at home and still gets financial support from their parents, but for any adult attempting to support themselves (let alone a family,) that wage does not even allow you to pay for food, clothing, rent, insurance, and transportation. I know this from personal experience and current circumstance.
You are correct in the assumption that everyone would have a job if employers could pay workers as little as they wanted. But what you fail to understand is that by doing that you would more than likely find your workers sleeping in their cars (in your parking lot) and stealing food from your store (because they need to eat.)
Yes they would have a job, but their life wouldn't be any better because it.
I agree with you in part but the whole point of minimum wage is to allow people to live on a minimum income based on the lowest standard of living. I don't always agree with what the government calls the lowest standard of living but that to me seems to be the reason. Sorry if I got that wrong as a 16 year old I haven't looked into why I get paid as much as I do.
[Removed]
Uhh, have you ever heard of the 'black market economy?' You're talking about all the 'cash under the table' that changes hands for odd jobs that amounts to 'no minimum wage' jobs.
Yes, we could get rid of the minimum wage but it will only encourage an increase in costs to society in the form of public and private subsidy dependent adults who will need the resources from either public or private sources to make up the difference for wages that in today's economy would be about 1/4 to 1/3 of the MINIMUM local cost of living.
If you don't believe me, gather data on the lowest cost 1 bedroom, 1 bath apartment with all utilities calculated into the monthly cost and the structure must pass city inspection and not have any infestation of vermin, roaches or other insects such as bed bugs, the cost per week to feed 1 adult fresh produce, whole foods such as eggs, meat, poultry, whole grain bread, cheese/milk or almond milk, the cost per month for toiletries, laundry washing once per week, the cost per week to insure, maintain and drive a vehicle to the minimum pay job and you get the picture!
Now, if companies want to eliminate minimum wage and provide company subsidized housing/baracks with 3 hots and a cot, clothing, toiletries, medical, dental and vision care to prevent the burden upon public and private subsidy programs then maybe we can talk about getting rid of minimum wage-people need to live, not desperately exist and that's what most are objecting to when people say 'Get rid of the minimum wage!'
But the cost of all of those things would go down along with wages. If you're working for $5.50 an hour, the people producing the goods you use day-to-day would be also. So you cannot compare artificially inflated prices to theoretically lower wages, you have to devalue the cost of living as well.
[Removed]
I find it fascinating that people continually claim that minimum wage is not a problem. The common proposed option among 'Occupiers' is to increase the federal minimum wage. It is as if they do not realize the overall affect this would have on cost of living. Employers are not going to take the hit, it will be the employees and the families relying on every dollar that they earn.
When you increase the minimum wage, every stage of production has increased costs associated with them. This results in a drastically inflated cost of the end product. Ironically, unemployment would decrease, as well as the cost of living, if we reduced or removed minimum wage laws.
[Removed]
Thank you for being sane. I don't see much of it here anymore... You know too much about economics to hang here. Cheers.
Ridiculous, I speak Spanish fluently and hold a bachelor degree. I currently have two children and a wife.
Back when she was expecting our second child we fell on hard times. I applied for an average of 25 jobs a day. Not a day went by where I applied for less than 10 new jobs.
The problem was that I was not hearing back from any of them within the time frame one would expect. I took out my 401k and maxed out my credit cards in attempt to provide for my family and keep up on bills. Finally I broke down and took a job that paid 7 dollars an hour.
I can honestly say I would rather work shoveling human feces at 3 dollars an hour than nothing at all. I would do anything if it would bring even the most simple meal to my childrens mouths.
I ended up going out and worked as a beekeeper and ultimately as a pest control person dealing with rodents, oppossum, racoons, and even an alligator removal.
I did not exactly know what I was doing but would read about the effective things other people did on the internet and would then give it a try. I did this long enough until I finally picked up a job.
I gained employment with a subsidiary of a company that y'all hate quite a bit. I then learned three months later that lay-offs would be coming in a month and a half. I panicked. I just barely got on health insurance and now would be loosing it just before the birth of my second child.
I turned my focus on finding a new job but took a very uncommon approach. I went to extreme measures to realize a small fairly new company that was not hiring had a basic need that I saw as a golden ticket. I did not have any experience in the industry and did not even really know how to do the job that this company needed.
This did not stop me from making my pitch. I drove down to Houston from Dallas and met with one of the companies managers. I was unsuccessful at getting him on board, but he did listen.
I then decided I had to prove myself as being more dependant than the concerns he had. I quit my job and moved my family down to Houston and provided my services to the company free of charge and without them asking for it.
They quickly realized a major benefit and hired me on giving me a salary nearly double that of the national average for someone with a graduate degree.
These companies you all hate make major risks everyday in hopes of turning a profit from investments. It is through their profits that they can open the doors to employment.
[Removed]
I read your whole post, find myself mostly agreeing with you, and I still fail to see what you are saying. You never said why it's ridiculous...
Nothing at all. It's too bad that pay sends a false signal of how much worth your job is to society. Otherwise, people would fill up all sorts of jobs and it wouldn't really matter.