Forum Post: 5 Things You Didn’t Know About the Minimum Wage
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 31, 2012, 8:02 p.m. EST by Galt01
(55)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
5 Things You Didn’t Know About the Minimum Wage For every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, teen employment at small businesses is estimated to decrease by 4.6 to 9.0 percent.1
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, teen unemployment averaged a record high 24.3 percent in 2009.
For every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, estimates show employment may fall as much as 6.6 percent for young black and Hispanic teens ages 16 to 19.2
African American teen unemployment averaged 39.5 percent in 2009, which is more than four times the national unemployment average and 26 percent higher than last year.
According to recent U.S. Census data, only 16.5 percent of minimum wage recipients are raising a family on the minimum wage. The remaining 83.5 percent are teenagers living with working parents, adults living alone, or dual-earner married couples.3
Raising the minimum wage is an ineffective tool to fight poverty. Programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit are far better at helping low-income Americans.4
The average annual family income of those earning the minimum wage in 2009 is over $48,000.2
One study found that only 10.5 percent of the beneficiaries of then-candidate Obama’s proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 would come from poor families.4
Economists at the University of California-Irvine and the Federal Reserve reviewed the economic evidence and found a majority in support of “the view that minimum wages reduce the employment of low-wage workers.”5
27 million Americans lack even the basic skills needed to fill out a job application.6 Minimum wage increases make it more difficult to hire and train less-skilled individuals like this.
Between July 2007 and July 2009, the federal minimum wage increased by 40 percent. A new study from Ball State University found there were 550,000 fewer part-time jobs as a result of this increase.
Federal policy makers allowed the wage hike to go through despite decades of research showing that minimum wage hikes take a sledgehammer to the entry-level job market. As employers are faced with higher labor costs, they hire workers who have more work experience or higher skill levels. This leaves unskilled applicants without a job, and without the invisible curriculum that comes with a first job experience.
"The average annual family income of those earning the minimum wage in 2009 is over $48,000"
The math don't work.
huh? relevance? what's your point?
Accuracy. If you are claiming that the average annual family income of minimum wage earners is $48,000, indicate how the math works.
A two income household at minimum wage is barely over $30,000. A difference of $18,000, which is impossible for even a third wage earner to cover at minimum wage.
That is the relevance. Accuracy.
Your only $20,000 off on that $48,000 number. $7.00 and hour is $14,000 a year for full time. Many min wage earners work 36 hours on average, so even less, then take their 'union' dues and taxes out. Never mind that a 'family' not likely to 'average' 80 hours a week worked between the two bc they can not afford child care, so someone is working full time and someone is working part time. THAT is the 'average' American household.
A lot of unions allow you to opt out of union dues. I work for Hearst Corporation at a local news station and there is a union but i don't pay any union dues.
Also, if you make minimum wage, you probably are not part of a union nor are you paying union dues.
families used to often only have one member working
I think that study the original poster was referring means households with at least one person making minimum wage, not necessarily only people working at at minimum wage.
This is why accuracy in providing information is so important, less than complete information leads to false opinions based on faulty info.
It is always promoted that teen employment drops with increases in minimum wages, yet there are provisions for separate wage scales for the underaged.
We (generic we) make a lot of mistakes when we presume the minimum wage to be the reason fewer of our youth are employed. One merely has to look around to find that more and more adults, often retirees are seeking such work to supplement their income to meet basic living standards.
What's the deal with $48,000/yr for a whole family with multiple wages earners, less than Romney makes in a day and the family's effective tax rate, all taxes included is twice what his is, and this is suppose to say we shouldn't raise minimum wage? How can this possibly be good for our economy?
Consider, a family with multiple wage earners with perhaps one earning minimum wage, assuming the minimum wage earner is a teen child, reduces actual household income to $33,000. A teen child's earnings are not usually considered a permanent portion of a household income, nor are a teen child's earnings included in an joint income tax filing. (Given that aprox $15,000 is annual income for full time work, assuming a minor's earnings to be part time, it changes the scenario to two working teens, working half time)
Factsrfun, I hope you are agreeing with me, I keep pointing out the fallacies in the premise, maybe I just need to be more forceful and not expect common sense to allow some to see the light.
I do see your point, and generally agree with you I was just trying to say even if you grant the $48,000 number it's still not that much money and any increase in that family's income is going to give the econmey the biggest bang for the buck.
LOL, The simple fact that $48,000 was an unworkable number in the original premise was point one, point two was $48,000 in some places is subsistence wages, in others it is a 'get by' wage. The last point is that $48,000 quickly becomes $33,000 (assuming full time) when a working child leaves home.
With so many variables it's impossible to say $XXX.XX is an amount that is supportable for a family.
It isn't the gross we should be concerned about anyway, it's the disposable income.
Disposable income is what people have to spend after the bills are paid. That's where savings accounts are created and 'fed', where the extra pair of shoes are purchased, a dinner out, a trip to the theater, clothing, toys etc...
Our disposable incomes have been eaten away by inflation, rising costs of utilities, transportation, and of course the outsourcing of our manufacturing base, and more recently IT positions.
Nobody said everyone in the household is earning minimum wage. Most minimum wage earners are kids who live in a household with parents who earn more.
Your reading comprehension skills don't work.
Oh, they work fine, I quoted the line in question.
These uneducated and so-called unskilled segments of our population are forced into withholding their talents, cannot allow them to become manifest while working and living in poverty and performing mindless jobs that have been designed by "efficiency experts." They're watching the clock, waiting for the minute they can leave this crappy job, seems like they're there for an inordinately long amount of time -- time that could have been spent learning and creating. The longer a person performs these jobs, these very necessary jobs, the more difficult it becomes for them to make a move. The market's got them cornered.
"forced to with hold their talents" such as?
Ravi Batra says the best way to stimulate the economy is a raise in minimum wage. And points out that it is historically followed by a rise in the GDP.
prove it
I don't understand the meaning of this
(10% wage increase) = 4.6% decrease in jobs for teens
I doubt the relationship is linear
how is the 9% in this?
"Between July 2007 and July 2009, the federal minimum wage increased by 40 percent. A new study from Ball State University found there were 550,000 fewer part-time jobs as a result."
You think just possibly the loss in jobs was due to the recession?
Yeah, there's no direct correlation here. Its not like my local Burger King or McDonalds closed after the minimum wage went up.
Also, consider the crime rate before and after the wage change. I would bet that robberies, petty theft, and drug selling related convictions has gone down as an indirect result of this.
Consumer spending among teens probably went up seeing as they now have some more $ to spend on Hollister shirts.
EBT and Welfare expenditures most likely went down thanks to the wage increase. Ideally we can get the minimum wage to a rate where the EBT and Welfare programs can be discontinued, saving taxpayers a ton of $. I know you conservatives want to abolish the "entitlement" programs anyway, and this is the way that I agree with that would do it.
Its also not all doom-and-gloom for the businesses that are hit by the wage increase. The increased wages are probably improving the turnover rate, which is reducing the expenses that these businesses incur to train new hires. The increased wages may be improving quality-of-life for these employees, which will show at work, creating better customer interactions. McDonalds wants long-term employees that are happy, focused, and can provide a good experience for customers.
what does this have to do with the 14 million 30k plus jobs that have been eliminated? nothing. it was done because the powers that be.. knew this was gonna happen and now 30-50 yr olds are the ones that will be working for minimum wage! and if there were 550000 jobs lost because of this.. why havent there been any mass closing of fast food , wal marts, etc? you should think before you believe this kinda bull malarkey
The problem with this way of thinking is that it justifies inequality. It's the underpayment of labor and the over valuation of goods and services that causes the great disparity in wealth.
Explain why a wealthy person deserves to make a hundred times as much for the same hour of labor?
Why? Mind control. Through advertising he convinces the poor to desire his product and even go into debt to obtain it which is just a form of economic slavery without visible chains.
If you are easily replaceable where is the incentive for the company not to pay less to someone that will take?
There are a lot of people making minimum wage who don't even deserve that based on their skill set and work ethic.
There are a lot of people making 100 times minimum wage who don't even deserve that based on their skill set and work ethic.
The CEO's are just as easily replaceable as the workers, but they never fire themselves when they can find someone to do their job cheaper.
Really? Do you really think that someone managing a Fortune 500 company is just as easily replaceable as the guy picking up trash in the parking lot?
And CEO's do not hire/fire themselves. It is done by the Board of Directors of a company and it does happen. Off the top of my head I know that HP just fired their CEO a couple months ago.
A CEO is just as replaceable based on his salary that is 100 times the workers wages. The CEO's $2 million salary equals100 workers $20,000 wages. If you want to replace all 100 workers to reduce labor costs that is harder to do than to replace one CEO who will work for $1million.
You need to be much more selective in choosing the CEO, that is what makes it difficult. Those $20K workers are a dime a dozen.
A beehive has 100 bees. The worker bees produce a total of 100 ounces of honey a year. The workers can not run the hive. The queen bee runs the hive, but can not produce honey. Each bee requires 1/2 ounce of honey a year to survive, so the hive has a surplus of 50 ounces in a year. How should they divide the surplus? Should the queen receive more honey because she has an ability the others do not, should each bee receive an equal share, or? What is fair in your opinion?
Well it would depend on how much of her time and money she invested in the hive and the various components that make up the hive.
This is not an easy question. So far only one person out of 5 took a chance at answering it. The rest dodged it. It took me a couple days to figure it out.
Each worker works the same number of hours as the queen and consumes the same amount of honey. Their investment is equal as well.
Well it is not a very real world example then. As a small business owner I can tell you that I have invested much, much more into my dental practice than any of my employees. As a result I make more money than they do. None of them have a problem with it.
The beehive example depends on one thing. Who is more selfish. If the worker bees are totally selfish they will give the queen 1/2% of each worker bees honey, just enough for the queen to survive on. They will divide the surplus evenly between the workers only. If the queen was totally selfish, she would give the workers just enough to survive on and keep the entire surplus for herself.
If the queen and the workers are equally selfish, they will reach a compromise, which is similar to our normal business practice. In this compromise, the more selfish bee has the advantage.
In this compromise, the more selfish bee has the advantage.
I think that sums it up. Greed and selfishness are traits that humans evolved long ago when it really was survival of the fittest. Things like that aren't easily broken. It is like trying to stop people from showing aggression or any other emotion.
It seems the heart of your argument is that a human being is not worth much. Should they labor an entire day and only be able to buy a days supply of food? Is there any lower limit on a persons worth?
The heart of my argument is that not all humans have equal worth in an economic sense. And it is not just 1% vs 99%. A nurse has much more value than a floor sweeper and thus they get paid much more.
The value of a persons labor depends on the benefit it provides the business. Like comparing apples and oranges, it is not easy to do. Businesses generally set wages by raising them high enough to attract adequately skilled workers.
If these same workers were convinced that they were worth more, they would not be attracted to jobs that were below this level. The opposite of
But why convince them of something that is false? Value depends not only on the benefit to the business, but also the scarcity, or lack thereof, of the labor needed. It is why an old coin with an error is worth so much more than one without the error, even though they have the exact same amount of silver.
And something like you propose would never work because even if someone is convinced they are worth $10, most people will work for $8 rather than not work at all. Trust me, almost everyone will tell you that they should make more than they do, regardless of their income.
A wealthy person can be convinced that he is worth more. A top CEO in Japan makes a fraction of what an American CEO makes doing an identical job. Are there more CEO's out of work in Japan?
Yes, that is the conservative mantra. They believe that people are not equal. That's why they also hate: gays, latinos, women who want to control their own bodies, blacks (not as much since the 60s, but its still there. Laws that disparage the homeless and extremely poor mainly hurt African Americans. Same with Welfare...predominantly African American.) and especially anyone that isn't a straight-laced, pure-bred Christian. They call Muslims "terrorists," gays "sinners," and have insults for anyone else that isn't exactly like them.
I'm so glad that my parents raised me to consider that just because people made different choices than I did or come from a different background than me that they are "inferior" to me in any way.
Of course not, the guy picking up thrash has scruples.
The CEO?
Not so much, it fact it's detrimental to his career path.
Sure, you can call it whatever you want. The point I was making is that if there are a ton of other people who can do the same job as you for less, where is the incentive for the company to pay you more? Unfortunately, a lot of people on minimum wage or close to it are extremely easy to replace, and as long as that is true, they will never make much more money.
I know, you could head hunt the local loony bin for other psychopaths, and sociopaths!!!!!!
It's become a prerequisite for the job.
Only in the mind of moonbats, do scruples not matter.
concerned with inequality - read Plato's Republic here : http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html
Yeah we should pay people 31 cents an hour and work at places like Foxconn. Full employment at 31 cents an hour!!!
If corporations want to be greedy and pay people nothing, they can take their business to China... oh wait they already do that. It's not working out very well over there for the poor.
Corporate cutback theory = domino effect of poverty.
Teenagers are not the only people that make minimum wage or low incomes.
For every person making a million dollars or more there are people working below them to help them make that wealth at a ridiculously low fraction of that amount.
A better solution is keeping minimum wage and the tax credit for low incomes.
[Removed]
IT would be better to work for free.That would solve are massive unemployment problem.
The Employment Policies Institute (EPI) is one of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a Washington, DC public affairs firm owned by Rick Berman, who lobbies for the fast food (low wage employers) tobacco industries.
EPI's mission is to keep the minimum wage low so Berman's clients can continue to pay their workers as little as possible.
In 1992, Los Angeles Times business columnist Harry Bernstein noted that EPI was using "misleading studies" to help put a positive spin on rising unemployment. "The conservative EPI, financed mostly by low-wage companies such as hotels and restaurants, is issuing reports the titles of which alone could help put a bright face on the miserable job scene," Bernstein wrote. "The latest one is 'The Value of Part-Time Workers to the American Economy.' It hails as a great thing the distressing growth of part-time jobs because they offer 'flexibility' in economic planning for both workers and companies, and say that flexibility is vital 'in the growing and increasingly competitive global economy.' Tell that nonsense to the more than 6.5 million workers forced to take part-time jobs because nothing else is available. That is an increase of more than 1.5 million involuntary part-timers since 1990, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says." EPI has been doing more or less the same thing ever since, sponsoring cooked studies and issuing tendentious sound bytes whenever attempts are made to establish healthcare or better wages for workers.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Employment_Policies_Institute
[Removed]
I know one ting, you never worked for it.
PLEASE just give me the chains, at least I'll have a place to sleep and food to eat.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
learn how do do something of value if you want to shake off the chains.
Like picking cotton?
I guess they would not have to use the government stick, legislation, if the private sector rulers were not so worried about their third boat, second home or fourth wife. Besides, who cares if children can't find jobs when mothers need higher paying jobs to support their kids. I believe the best thing that could come out of this protesting is that the 40 hour work week is reduced to thirty six. This would relieve the unempoloyment rate because employers would hire more people, instead of paying their employees overtime. This worked in the past and I believe is just what is needed to get things back in motion. But of course, you being Gult, you would only be happy if the worker licked his bosses shoe and the government hit the worker in the head for ever thinking he deserved more for his labor.
yes, it would surely improve unemployment rate and that's exactly what France is doing. But the effect will be short term. In the long term either those people will be replaced by machines or the jobs will be 'virtualized' (latest euphemism for 'outsourcing', learnt today during a conversation with a friend from AT Kearney)
I really don't see the virtualization of the work environment that bad of a thing. If I am understanding it correctly, that would mean more jobs would be able to be performed at the home. This perk, might just be enough for people to take a pay cut to have the luxury of working at home. That is if you Wallstreeters can invest in companies here in the states and forgo the fifteen percent return on investment the emerging economies offer and have a little patriotism and settle for a little less. The last sentence was a jab at you. I don't really believe you are not patriotic but the record shows that Wall Street chases the Benjamins, no matter the negative consequences to the American work force. I will also say that if America's standard is dropping because other nations are rising, I am not that disheartened. But globalization has as many blemishes as it has success stories.
Oh no no. 'Virtualization' is basically a more politically correct term for 'outsourcing'. Basically, management consultants are going around suggesting business, quite correctly I must say, that they should concentrate on their core competence and 'virtualize' as much as possible. Of course companies do not have to outsource jobs to other countries to 'virtualize' they can send it over to other domestic firms. America is a mature market for nearly every type of product/service. So growth can either come from companies eating into others' market share (which is tough) or companies expanding abroad. Wall St has a job to do and that is to track the progress of companies on behalf of its shareholders. We do that well.
Ain't that a bitch. I guess i better take your advice and become a teacher. Or keep on protesting to get some regulations on capital investments overseas, lol.
I doubt if a regulation would ever happen. For one, no other developed country does this. For another, we have been asking China to stop this very same thing for quite some time now. And finally and more importantly, it's bad business.
so what do you say to people who have been doing factory work their whole life and don't enjoy doing the jobs that are left. I am not a person who does well in corporate settings. They are dry, stuffy and smug, all characteristics I deplore. Call me old fashion for a thirty year old, but I enjoy the jobs where the people are down to earth, ghetto and keep it real, meaning they don't latch on to the newest thing and are generous with their insults. You just can't find this in any professional setting. What do you tell this person? I guess you could say, "stop being selfish" but than I'd just say that that don't make good business sense.
Dude, you need to adjust to life. There was also a time when our economy was transitioning from agri to industry and I am sure a lot of farmers wouldn't have liked it then too. So what do we do? Remain an agri economy?
Besides, I don't see how people working in offices aren't 'down to earth'. That's simply a wrong notion you have built up.
I thought so, and it was a little theater for you to see why those, me to a small degree, and I believe anyone at some point in their life, who are expected to transition may not be too happy with it. But, In all seriosness the working class deserve a bigger slice of the pie. I would like them, me, the next me, to have a bigger voice in the distribution but I know this is asking too much, considering you guys pay all the bills. But i guess i'll shake my little donation can a little louder in this hour of protest. maybe we'll get a little better this time. Call it the role of the dice.
see thinks can always get better and that what any movement should strive for. Once I was talking to one of my bschool profs on ethics and he said "There has been evil in this world before you came and there will be evil after you go and you cannot expect to remove all evil. Just ensure that you make a positive difference, however small it may be".
OWS is asking the whole world and therefore it's hard to take them seriously. Have a limited and fixed set of demands, then may be people will listen.
So yes, I am sure a lot better is possible. but remember that when there is a top 1% there will also be a bottom 1%, always. We just, as a society, need to ensure that the bottom 1% is constantly getting more well off and not worse off
After rereading what you had written, I need to clarify that I believe, halfheartedly, that money distribution is dependent on who gets all the money and who works for the moneyed interests. When we create a one percent person we relegate a few people to servitude, the number is dependent on the state of the economy. I saw a graph that shows for every rich person there are two poor people, and it got me thinking. But who knows, maybe it is just a coincidence and not a flaw in our system. But i believe your statement was more to what motivates the rich, doing good or being selfish.
I am sorry, you are not 'creating' a 1% guy. You didn't create and bestow the wealth that Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Zuckerberg, Buffet or even Sam Walton. So please don't have those notions for a second. These people, like it or not, rose to their positions by their own work and their smartness. They expanded the pool of wealth in this country (and the world) and did not take it away from someone else.
Sorry dog, the tax schedule creates the one percent.
Looks like you obviously were not paying attention in that Econ 101 class. And yes my history sucks. Never liked it.
I think it's you that needs integrity (apart from a huge bit of common sense and Econ 101 class).
Well i'll see your econ 101, which I took, and raise you a history course, which you are in dire need of. Besides did you not get the memo, economics is junk science. For every right wing view there is a left wing argument, and that sums economics up in a nut shell.
The National Debt went up because of government profligacy, each and every govt has been spending as if there's no tomorrow, whether it's wars or populist schemes.
Come on dude, have a little integrity. Obama may have gave some money to the less fortunate, but that debt started under Bush with a credit card ran war, bailing out the banks which ended up using it to pay bonuses, and subsidies and tax credits we have been giving to the well to do. Blaming it on populist schemes is just not true.Besides, most of the money our government gives, goes to companies like GE, and all the other recipients of supply side economics. Just pay your debt and stop making excuses.
Losers tend to make such statements "Gosh, if only i wasn't taxed, I would be Bill Gates..". Yeah right.
Sam Walton was a good example of a real entrepreneur. The way he revolutionized the supply chain is commendable, even though his grandchildren bought politicians so they would not be taxed for their inheritance. But, really, Zuckerberg that dude stole from his roommates and just recreated the wheel. Can you say Myspace? Also when I speak of the one percent and taxes and earlier when I said your tax bracket pays all the bills, I'll have to recant that statement, considering you guys have been delinquent on your responsibilities. That national debt has your name all over it. Talk about losers.If you want to keep picking the tune, you better start paying the piper. That national debt ain't going to pay itself and because Wall Street and big business gets all the benefits, it is only fitting your taxes go up. Don't worry, I hear it is still rewarding being the top twenty percent.
I'd say for every Oner there are anywhere from three to five negative oners, depending on whether it is a boom or a bust, lol. But it is what it is. right?
of course - work less not more - who wouldn't be for that lol! it's all about avoiding work, avoiding responsibility having fun, torching up another bowl of weed. let someone else pay for me. blah blah blah
you're an idiot, but I'll entertain you idioticacy by saying those who would work thirty six hours and wanted to buy another sack of greens, or provide their kids with Christmas presents, would work seventy two hours through two employers, or spend a little more time with their children and just work one job. But I guess that is what separates a workaholic from a lover of life. Remember you can't take it with you, bozo.
It's not about the money. It's about improving your skill set and the money will follow.
It seems like every time i get a degree the degree is not good enough. For this reason, I feel like the American economy seems like a hamsterwheel and not an affluency ladder. Also, If it is any consolation, I apologize for the vulgar name calling. I just don't have no love for the book you take your screen name from, and the comfort of the internet, not having you eye to eye with me, allows me to act uncivil.
what is your major?
What subjects are your degrees in?
I have a Bachelors in Journalism and Political Science, an associates in media arts, and a GED in being a bad ass, lol.
yea - no one wants to hire someone with a journalsm degree because they are a dime a dozen. Same with Poly Sci & media arts. did you research the growth & earnings prospects of occupations with those degree before you enrolled? I doubt it. Why didnt you enroll in accounting, engineering, architecture, science, math, etc? Because it's hard that's why !!!!
[Removed]
So by your logic, the harder the occupation/skill-set, the more likely you are to get hired and/or paid more. Noted. Let us know when that becomes a reality.
"get hired"...
And get paid in more dollars?
Read this post: http://occupywallst.org/forum/printing-presses/
wake up - it's all ready reality. always has & always will be. That's how it works.
I agree. Anyone can be a journalist. It's simply about "creating a journal" and providing said journal to "other people".
And more people should be journalists, seeking truth, on their own.
Nice.
this is just basic micro economics. take a class online and you will see, check any econ book. its something that OWS supporters tend to forget to do quite often
Most businesses don't hire teens anyhow, especially those under eighteen, since the child-labor laws make having minors work nearly impossible.
regardless - raise the minimum wage = fewer jobs available.
Instead of building widgets, you should have maybe studies economics, which is a sub set of political science. Your arithmetic up top is right wing propaganda and goes against human nature. If companies could not send jobs overseas, they would still hire people at any rate in order to make a profit. I'd buy a more expensive widget if i knew it was giving employees a better living standard, and a capitalist would still sell it to me, even if he/she was forced to do right by his/her employees.
[Removed]
Not true. That has been debunked for years.
debunked by who?
Mainstream economists since 1940.
name one
Take an economics class.
I majored in economics. - Obviously you are at a loss. Backed into a corner like a typical liberal when asked for hard facts. Nothing. Just the usual hyperbole.
You're lying.
There has been NO evidence of unemployment increasing as a result of minimum wages laws. None. It is an old canard.
hahaha - ok !
http://raisetheminimumwage.org/pages/job-loss
http://www.universallivingwage.org/factsmyths.htm
http://www.thestand.org/2012/01/attacks-on-minimum-wage-are-back-in-2012/
http://www.eoionline.org/minimum_wage/reports/WAsMinWageStandard-Dec11.pdf
http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/resources/upload/minimumwagefactbooklet.pdf
so you have your links & I have mine. ok - try it your way & see what happens. No problem for me.
No problem for me, either. Doesn't change my life if you continue to spout unsupported, false, debunked claims. Your stupidity and dishonesty is your problem, not mine.
hahaha! ok. good luck !
Haha.. You are nuts. I would strongly suggest you to try reading this book http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/microeconomics-for-dummies/97642 .from your comments i can infer that even this book would be well beyond your intellectual reach but why not give it a try. May be even you will learn something.
http://raisetheminimumwage.org/pages/job-loss
http://www.universallivingwage.org/factsmyths.htm
http://www.thestand.org/2012/01/attacks-on-minimum-wage-are-back-in-2012/
http://www.eoionline.org/minimum_wage/reports/WAsMinWageStandard-Dec11.pdf
http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/resources/upload/minimumwagefactbooklet.pdf
You mentioned that 'raising min wage causes unemployment' has been debunked by /mainstream economists' and yet almost none of your link take me to any papers from mainstream economist.
and read this http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574402820278669840.html
The Faux News owned Wall Street Journal cannot be considered non- aligned, mainstream, especially in is economic assessments, by any stretch of the imagination.
Student blog? Do you know who Greg Mankiw is? lol... and you talk about economics.. Give it a rest bro.
Yeah. Only you can be a credible source.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.in/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.html
You read your sources (a student blog), I'll stick to mine.
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/pay.htm
http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp150/
http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_min_wage_bp/
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/minimum-wage-myths/
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VDNI0Uy86J8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Myth+and+Measurement&ots=_CxlZkxCnm&sig=-qXzkMvps_X1GUxjQmGme6i1etU#v=onepage&q=Myth%20and%20Measurement&f=false
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Measurement-David-Card/dp/0691048231/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328385554&sr=8-1
Employers have the advantage because they are the purchasers of labor. Employees are the sellers of labor but don't understand they are equally valuable in business. The aasembler is just as essential as the CEO. A wheel is as essential to a car as an engine. Just because the wheel is easy to replace does not change it's importance.
But that wheel is a lot cheaper, because as you said, it is a lot easier to replace.
The wheels (the employees) are cheap because they are told over and over (brainwashed) they are not worth much. It's like the caste system in India. The lower caste believe they are sub human and therefore accept sub human wages.
The vast majority of minimum wage workers are very easily replaced. Therefore, where is the incentive for the employer to pay more when there are lots of others who can step right in?
People accept jobs based on how they perceive their own value. There are many people who don't know their real value. If they all refused to work unless a higher wage was agreed to, there would be no need for a minimum wage.
Ok, so what is the real value of the cart pusher at WalMart making $7.50 an hour?
The test for a higher wage is to strike to see if it can be met. But not just the cart pushers, all minimum wage employees at the same time.
True, I wonder how much participation will be seen in the general strike OLA has called for in May.
I think it is a poorly aimed strike. It is just a show of power for just one day. Instead a prolonged boycott should target corporations that unfairly influence Federal elections.
First of all which employee? The CEO is an employee too, of the shareholders. But the CEO isnt cheap. But as you go down the ladder, employees are more replaceable and more easily available.They are cheap because they are aplenty. It's not like the caste system. People are not born into a certain work position and people can and do rise up if they work even moderately well. Choose a more suitable allegory.
CEO's are often shareholders, as well as majority stockholders. The lower rung workers are cheap because they don't understand their importance. If they all went on strike Monday morning, the country would shut down.
If they as a group demanded higher wages by continuing the strike, they would get them. They need to become more selfish like the 1%.
Our workforce is stratified. Some rise higher, most about the same.
If all the workers went on strike they would lose their livelihood. Besides thats not the point. If all the traders or analyst of all investment banks went on strike, those banks would also have to stop operations. If a majority of the work force, whatever level it may be, goes on strike work will stop, whether they are the lowest level of workers or managers. You aren't really making much of an argument here.
What I am saying is that, given the fact there is a huge pool of low or unskilled work force and given the fact that low wage jobs do not require a lot of skills, the low wage workers are easily replaceable.
And what makes you think the lower level employees are selfless?
And yes sir, our workforce is stratified. Did you notice this today? Even I have a boss and some guys report to me and my boss has a boss. It is the same everywhere. Has to be.
What is your value to the company you work for? Are they underpaying you? You could say you got a better offer with a competing company. Then you would really know what you were worth.
Interesting idea, that a businesses most valuable employee is the one who is most underpaid.
"Interesting idea, that a businesses most valuable employee is the one who is most underpaid." - how exactly? where you get these ideas from?
If a company underpays 1000 employees just $1 an hour, the profit on the underpayment is over $2 million a year.
If an employee produces twice as much as another employee doing the same job, but is paid the same wage, he is underpaid and the company profits from this underpayment.
Walmart is a good example of this. Low wages plus no benefits equals high profits.
How is Walmart an example of this? And what do you mean by 'produces'? Does the guy manning the aisle at Walmart produce anything at all?
The Walmart example actually belongs to the reply above regarding the $2 million payment.
A checker at Walmart provides a service. If he checks out twice as many customers per hour as an average checker, but receives the same pay, he is underpaid.
Technically all labor is a service. No one creates matter, they just add value to it.
which is why back in the 60s even these guys earned slightly more. Sadly, this ain't the 60s.
That's the bulk of the work, eh? I will tell you what, as soon the cashier scans the item it shows up on the list, the sum is automatically calculated and even the change to be given back is automatically calculated. In fact, it shouldn't be all too hard to replace the cashier with a robot
The CEO is not supposed to pick trash. That's not one of the qualification firms see in their CEOs. Stop being ridiculous. In fact, take Microsoft or Apple, the CEO would not know how to make ipads or code for the iOS/Windows and yet they are the CEO and for good reason.
[Removed]
Back in the 60's.when they still had mechanical cash registers, the register would calculate the change too. The newer digital registers are not that much faster unless you have a large quantity of items as at a supermarket.
The digital registers main advantage is in tracking inventory and sales data.
Once again you are wrong.
For one, check outs have been automated to a large extent with IT. So, most of the tasks are done by the computer rather than the checker. The one thing that introduction of technology does is to remove variations, therefore it is nearly impossible to find a checker who do the same process 100% faster than average. Sure 10% or 30% faster is possible, but 100%. Doubt it. And since the checker is not a machine, his/her checkout times will vary and therefore it is unlikely that he/she will always be above the average. Sometimes, he will be a few seconds faster, sometimes a few seconds slower, damping out variation and his/her overall times will be closer to the average. And the checker is not penalized for performing slower than average (unless he/she is sleeping on the job).
Secondly, if checker A does perform 100% higher than average, by definition of the term 'average' there will be another checker B who would perform much lower than the average. Checker B is not penalized for that either.
And this is the reason most low skilled worker don't get performance bonuses because their performance cannot vary much due to all the technology that is in place. The tech ensure they all perform at an optimal rate. An assembly line would be a good example of that. However, even low level sales people get performance bonuses because the job is not standardized and there is huge variety in performance.
And finally, checking out shoppers is a very tiny part of the whole value chain of a retail store. There are more important functions that actually ensure that the right products are the store at the right time of the day/week/year and at the right place and that there are shoppers coming to the store. Those jobs would be more valuable than simply that of the checker. Any fool can perform the duties of the checker.
"Any fool can perform the duties of the checker."
This reminds me of an episode of "undercover boss". The CEO of a multi million dollar company was posing as an entry level worker in his own company.
His task was to pick up trash off the ground Ans place it into a bag. He could not perform this most basic task. He was let go within an hour of starting work.
The last time I shopped at Walmart, the cashier scanned the item, took my money, made change, and places the item in a bag. The cashier did the bulk of the work.
The CEO is not supposed to pick trash. That's not one of the qualification firms see in their CEOs. Stop being ridiculous. In fact, take Microsoft or Apple, the CEO would not know how to make ipads or code for the iOS/Windows and yet they are the CEO and for good reason.
That's the bulk of the work, eh? I will tell you what, as soon the cashier scans the item it shows up on the list, the sum is automatically calculated and even the change to be given back is automatically calculated. In fact, it shouldn't be all too hard to replace the cashier with a robot
People do strike and do not lose their jobs in most cases. If they did unions would not exist. One way for low wage workers to test their value is to strike. Either the market will support it or it won't.
Using the balloon analogy, squeezing the highest paid by increasing their taxes or limiting their income causes the lower and mid level wages to rise. Will the highest paid still have the same incentive to work? If not he will be replaced by someone who does. They are just as replaceable as the lowest paid worker.
No they are not. Which is why a company takes months to decide a CEO but hours to replace someone down the line. If you think they are as replaceable, you obviously do not understand the nature of the job (are you a low level worker? possibly) or you don't want to acknowledge it (the unfounded arrogance that some lower level employees have about their own value. Nothing new or surprising).
So if you increased the taxes of the highest earners, in the short run they will accept it. In the long run they will seek job in other countries where salaries are more competitive and America will be left with second rate managers. You may not have a problem with mediocrity but I do.
What country will the ceo's go? What country pays their CEOs more that the US?
Which country 'pays'? Probably very few. But if the taxes you want are ever imposed, many other countries would have a comparative advantage. And not just for CEOs but for many in senior management or high end professionals. Also it hardly matters what the dollar salary in that country is, as long the difference is high enough.
If we raise the minimum wage at all fast-food places by double, people will not eat out as much and buy more food from grocery stores and prepare their own meals. Grocery stores will need to hire more workers. The people who now have more money due to lower meal costs will spend more on other goods and services, causing more employment in those areas. Economy is like a balloon, squeeze on one side and it bulges out another.
[Removed]
you can work at 16. i guess you never had a summer job or a paper route.
This might all be true if we were to keep the economic system that we have in place which serves the interests of the wealthy and corporations. This is not the way it has to be. We can value labor in a more progressive way and lift all Americans out of poverty and end unemployment.
For you beautiful world:
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/more/utopia-contents.html
Thanks, Galt01. I like it. I also know you're playing with me, but let me ask you this, should we ask for anything less?
The free market system is a natural system, you work and you take the spoils. What is unnatural is the communist system, where you share your spoils with every other guy. People don't care equally about other people beyond their immediate family. Not that we are totally devoid of humanity, but we dont care as much, it's how our mind works. It's in our genes to protect people we share genes with.
Secondly, no opportunity is ever equally accessible to all. As a kid I was not that good in sports so a sports scholarship, though it's open for all, would not be equally accessible to me as it is to the guys in the football team. Similarly, academic scholarships would not be as easily accessible to them as they were to me.
Now take engineers. Opportunities for civil engineers to make it big are probably not as much as there are for software engineers who can come up with a decent startup and make a few millions.
Equality is a myth. And sure the more money we have the more opportunities there are for us. In the soviet or chinese society it's contacts with govt officials instead of money that provides opportunities.
But America is still far better. It rewards merit and hard work, there are no glass ceilings, no discrimination. And almost everybody has the minimum opportunities necessary to do well in life. Sure, if a kid's parents make $150k a year, he can go to really good private schools and even get private tuitors but even a kid whose parents make $50k a year can get a decent education and his/her parents can even save enough to put him to undergrad.
: ( That's a sad face. I understand all of what you are saying and I think I know where you are coming from, smartcapitalist, but I'm not really looking for everyone to be equal. I'm just looking for everyone to have enough. Right now, in our fair land this ain't happening. And, it should be. There is enough wealth to go around so everyone can live decently.
[Removed]
Minimum wage used to be for high schoolers who lived at home and wanted to drive a muscle car. I've never worked for minimum wage. Companies always paid above it even way back then.
[Removed]
Read this post, about "getting paid, in dollars" : http://occupywallst.org/forum/printing-presses/
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
Ather FOX poll,idiot how about we do`nt pay them any thing
[Removed]
[Removed]
You forgot number six.......................(R)epelican't front groups that have been know to take out expensive ads to stick up for ALEC are extremely unlikely to tell the truth about much of anything, let alone what life is like on minimum wage.
I would challenge to the folks that wrote this to take their money away from their mouths and give it a 10 year trail.
Sources, people, they do make a difference.
life is like a high school kid when you are working for minimum wage. If you are not a high school or college kid & you are making minimum wage - ask yourself what YOU did wrong. In fact even when I was in high school I earned more than minimum at a drive thru convenience store. Come on!
Last time I made minimum wage ($4.00), was during the Great Reagan lay offs.
He sure was a bastard.
hahaha ! how old were you those were the glory days for me.