bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 9, 2021 12:10:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 9, 2021 12:21:58 GMT -5
$54 billion over 10 years. A pittance. Less than five new aircraft carriers. Or 1/22nd the cost of the 2017 tax cut.
It would also lift nearly a million people out of poverty and boost wages for 27 million others. Seems like a great idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2021 12:27:53 GMT -5
Unless you believe in trickle up economics, which I happen to.
Tell me how a whole section of America who cannot afford to buy the products they make helps employment. I'm listening.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 9, 2021 12:29:50 GMT -5
If we aren't going to provide for the basic needs of our entire society, we should at least make sure everyone can earn a living wage.
Also, Fight for 15 has been going on so long it should probably be more like Fight for 25 now.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 9, 2021 12:34:37 GMT -5
no economist could believe that increasing the minimum wage wouldn't cause an increase in unemployment. That is how supply and demand works - cannot change it. Your statement is patently untrue. There are many economists who do not believe increasing the minimum wage costs jobs. The question, of course, is to what extent boosting the minimum wage raises the overall economic activity. Take for example the old line about Henry Ford, who opposed minimum wage laws but supposedly wanted to pay his factory workers enough that they could afford to buy one of the cars that they made. The concept there is that if people have more money they will buy more things, which will boost businesses more than it costs them to pay the employees. Like the Laffer Curve and cutting taxes to increase tax revenues, it requires the economy to be in a particular position. The Laffer curve requires that you are already taxing the economy so heavily that it is being throttled by the taxes. In that case, it is possible that lowering the tax rate can boost the economy enough to increase revenues. (We don't live in that case, however, so in our real world, lowering taxes increases the deficit.) For minimum wage, if the problem is that too many working people don't make enough money to be customers of their own work, then the lack of wages is throttling the economy. Your analysis of "supply and demand" is laughably over-simplified. It assumes all else is fixed, particularly the amount of revenues that employers have available to spend on salaries. But if more people buy, then not only do revenues increase but also the need for employees increases. Where I work, almost no one is making anything near minimum wage anyway. So it's not a big impact if the minimum wage goes from, say $7 to $15. But if more people have more money to travel with, that's good for our business. On the other hand, if you run a company that sells things people don't buy discretionally (say, toilet paper), and you rely heavily on minimum wage employees, then you would be forced to raise your prices in order to cover your payroll costs. (Good thing for you, though, is that your buyers will now have more money, so they can afford the higher prices.) There are a ton of feedback loops involved that your analysis is completely ignoring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2021 12:34:43 GMT -5
A living wage and health insurance would make a huge difference.
Fact is, America still runs on slave labor. Always has, always will I fear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2021 12:36:33 GMT -5
no economist could believe that increasing the minimum wage wouldn't cause an increase in unemployment. That is how supply and demand works - cannot change it. Your statement is patently untrue. There are many economists who do not believe increasing the minimum wage costs jobs. The question, of course, is to what extent boosting the minimum wage raises the overall economic activity. Take for example the old line about Henry Ford, who opposed minimum wage laws but supposedly wanted to pay his factory workers enough that they could afford to buy one of the cars that they made. The concept there is that if people have more money they will buy more things, which will boost businesses more than it costs them to pay the employees. Like the Laffer Curve and cutting taxes to increase tax revenues, it requires the economy to be in a particular position. The Laffer curve requires that you are already taxing the economy so heavily that it is being throttled by the taxes. In that case, it is possible that lowering the tax rate can boost the economy enough to increase revenues. (We don't live in that case, however, so in our real world, lowering taxes increases the deficit.) For minimum wage, if the problem is that too many working people don't make enough money to be customers of their own work, then the lack of wages is throttling the economy. Your analysis of "supply and demand" is laughably over-simplified. It assumes all else is fixed, particularly the amount of revenues that employers have available to spend on salaries. But if more people buy, then not only do revenues increase but also the need for employees increases. Where I work, almost no one is making anything near minimum wage anyway. So it's not a big impact if the minimum wage goes from, say $7 to $15. But if more people have more money to travel with, that's good for our business. On the other hand, if you run a company that sells things people don't buy discretionally (say, toilet paper), and you rely heavily on minimum wage employees, then you would be forced to raise your prices in order to cover your payroll costs. (Good thing for you, though, is that your buyers will now have more money, so they can afford the higher prices.) There are a ton of feedback loops involved that your analysis is completely ignoring. My answer had more pith.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 9, 2021 12:39:33 GMT -5
A living wage and health insurance nationalized health care would make a huge difference. Fixed it for you!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2021 13:23:25 GMT -5
However it gets done makes no matter to me. Affordable health care.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2021 13:43:42 GMT -5
One reality they forget is that $15/hour in San Francisco is not the same as $15/hour in Mackinaw, Illinois. I can make a month's rent in Mackinaw with about 30 hours of work at $15/hr. In San Fran, I'm needing what three weeks to make a rent payment at $15/hour.
They should aim to do an increase taking location into account.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 9, 2021 13:47:29 GMT -5
They should aim to do an increase taking location into account. Nothing prevents a local jurisdiction from setting a higher minimum wage. The Federal level is only the floor. Current minimum wage in Seattle is $16.69/hr.
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Feb 9, 2021 13:50:07 GMT -5
One reality they forget is that $15/hour in San Francisco is not the same as $15/hour in Mackinaw, Illinois. I can make a month's rent in Mackinaw with about 30 hours of work at $15/hr. In San Fran, I'm needing what three weeks to make a rent payment at $15/hour. They should aim to do an increase taking location into account. Many states and municipalities already have a minimum wage higher than the national minimum wage. $15/hour needs to be the national wage floor (and indexed to inflation thereafter). Then, the more expensive states and localities can establish a higher minimum wage.
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Feb 9, 2021 13:51:33 GMT -5
So, I assume that you would favor completely eliminating the minimum wage? Just think of how many more jobs would be created if employers could pay $1/hour.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 9, 2021 14:36:16 GMT -5
Supply and demand dictates wages. If we artificially put in a minimum - then the quantity of labor demanded at the new rate will be more than the quantity supplied. This will lead to underemployment. Similar to price restrictions implemented in the 1970's - it created shortages as the quantity supplied at the fixed price was much less than the quantity demanded.
Depending on the job and location - the existing Federal minimum wage is below the market min so it really has no impact. It is only for jobs and locations where we put in a minimum wage above the market rate will we see more unemployment. Whether we believe that less people working, but with higher wages is worth it - is a different conversation.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 9, 2021 14:56:39 GMT -5
Where I work (just looked) - we have a couple people making $15 per hour. Most are making over $20. This is for manufacturing jobs in a location that has to be among the lowest places in terms of cost of living. I could see if the minimum wage went up to $20 - that would be a problem for our company. Probably would have to start cutting % of health benefits paid by company and 401K match. It would change the tradeoffs between labor and automation. Raising our prices wouldn't be much of an option.
Curious how this works for say a waiter who gets a high % of their salary in terms of tips? An area of unintended consequences is for positions like swimming pool lifeguard. Kids love the job even with much lower wages. Most people would rather be a lifeguard for $15 than washing dishes. As such - usually the wage for lifeguards are pretty low. Also people looking for internships - minimum wage laws can be rough for them.
|
|