Help me understand the impact of a $15 minimum wage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a troll in here who doesn’t believe in minimum wages at all, and likes to use economic jargon to scare people off. But here’s the truth. Employees in low wage jobs typically do not have adequate bargaining power or leverage to find better wages, particularly in paces without a ton of economic activity, and that’s why we’ve had minimum wage laws in every developed economy. Stop arguing with a stupid people. We are keeping those laws and the wage will go up, because it has to over time. It actually has a perverse effect when it is too low—it’s a drag on everyone else making more than the minimum. It’s a drag on the entire economy. So yes, in an ideal randian utopia, everyone will be able to bargain appropriately for their labor. That doesn’t exist. Go away troll.

Trust me, that troll doesn’t support collective bargaining under any circumstance.

No kidding. Probably would be fine with indentured servitude because “freedom of contract”. I mean they’re really committed to the 18th century.

[Anonymous]

What if... there are too many jobs now anyway, because too many people are forced to take low skill jobs that could be automated, in order to survive, because one wage doesn’t cut it. Particularly women who republicans think should be home with their kids anyway. I’m just saying, having some people exit the job market because some jobs were lost, isn’t necessarily a bad thing if poverty decreases at the same time. And apparently CBO just put out information showing that to be true. Job losses don’t ALWAYS equal more poverty if the remaining jobs are better paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if... there are too many jobs now anyway, because too many people are forced to take low skill jobs that could be automated, in order to survive, because one wage doesn’t cut it. Particularly women who republicans think should be home with their kids anyway. I’m just saying, having some people exit the job market because some jobs were lost, isn’t necessarily a bad thing if poverty decreases at the same time. And apparently CBO just put out information showing that to be true. Job losses don’t ALWAYS equal more poverty if the remaining jobs are better paid.

Nice spin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if... there are too many jobs now anyway, because too many people are forced to take low skill jobs that could be automated, in order to survive, because one wage doesn’t cut it. Particularly women who republicans think should be home with their kids anyway. I’m just saying, having some people exit the job market because some jobs were lost, isn’t necessarily a bad thing if poverty decreases at the same time. And apparently CBO just put out information showing that to be true. Job losses don’t ALWAYS equal more poverty if the remaining jobs are better paid.

Nice spin.

$54 billion dollars over 10 years? So $5 billion dollars a year?

By the way the Trump tax cuts cost the U.S. $1 trillion dollars per year-- i.e. 200x the $5 billon a year.

The job losses are something to be considered. But the deficit? Really? This is a drop in the bucket compared to the TCJA deficit, which the CBO correctly predicted ahead of time and the GOP ignored entirely.

[Anonymous]

Capitalism ultimately eats itself. In the drive to increase profit and decrease labor costs, we are now at the point where people making minimum wage no longer have disposable income, which drives the market. But shareholder value, boy - we got that!

[Anonymous]

How many of these job losses are due to people who have multiple jobs just to make ends meet?

If they get paid $15/hour, they can drop the 2nd or 3rd jobs. Which then frees up those positions for other people.

The vast majority of the Americans who make minimum wage are over-scheduled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Capitalism ultimately eats itself. In the drive to increase profit and decrease labor costs, we are now at the point where people making minimum wage no longer have disposable income, which drives the market. But shareholder value, boy - we got that!

Just how much "disposable income" do you think a teenager needs? They make up a large proportion of the 2.1 % of hourly workers who make minimum wage. And, hourly workers make up less than 60% of the workforce--so minimum wage workers are likely closer to 1% of work force. Most people who make minimum wage will get paid more with experience.

I don't know the percentage here in the DMV, but, judging from what my high schooler was paid at the mall a few years ago, very few are making minimum wage. Doubtful that many places around here are only paying minimum wage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capitalism ultimately eats itself. In the drive to increase profit and decrease labor costs, we are now at the point where people making minimum wage no longer have disposable income, which drives the market. But shareholder value, boy - we got that!

Just how much "disposable income" do you think a teenager needs? They make up a large proportion of the 2.1 % of hourly workers who make minimum wage. And, hourly workers make up less than 60% of the workforce--so minimum wage workers are likely closer to 1% of work force. Most people who make minimum wage will get paid more with experience.

I don't know the percentage here in the DMV, but, judging from what my high schooler was paid at the mall a few years ago, very few are making minimum wage. Doubtful that many places around here are only paying minimum wage.

No, they don't. 80% of minimum workers are not teenagers.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/368059-this-isnt-your-grandpas-minimum-wage-earner

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capitalism ultimately eats itself. In the drive to increase profit and decrease labor costs, we are now at the point where people making minimum wage no longer have disposable income, which drives the market. But shareholder value, boy - we got that!

Just how much "disposable income" do you think a teenager needs? They make up a large proportion of the 2.1 % of hourly workers who make minimum wage. And, hourly workers make up less than 60% of the workforce--so minimum wage workers are likely closer to 1% of work force. Most people who make minimum wage will get paid more with experience.

I don't know the percentage here in the DMV, but, judging from what my high schooler was paid at the mall a few years ago, very few are making minimum wage. Doubtful that many places around here are only paying minimum wage.

Then it shouldn't cost much to raise the minimum wage, since so few are affected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Help me understand why you think we should weep for businesses that failed to compete, but we the same compassion shouldn't apply to their workers? Why is it okay to tell a low wage worker to buck up and work to get a better job, but we can expect a business to buck and do better for their employees?

Businesses are a vehicle for someone to build wealth on the backs of other people. If you're going to do that, can't we at least ask them to pay those people enough to eat!?

Very few people are paid minimum wage. Some people are working for extra cash--like teens. Some are working to supplement other income. Few people remain in the same low level job all their lives. Have you listened to Biden talk about his Dad---"a job is not just about a paycheck, Joey, it's about dignity."

Where is the dignity in working 40 hours a week or more, and still being on food stamps? Where is the dignity in hearing people debate your economic worth, utterly refusing to acknowledge your humanity?

One look at Trump and you know, without a doubt, that dignity is earned and not inherited. Where is the humanity in assuming that someone, though healthy and able-bodied, lacks the basic agency to determine his/her own fate, and must rely on the charity of others?

Dp- nice sentiment as long as you support able bodied people banding together to leverage the worth of their labor.

PP here, I would support that, absolutely. I personally would not willingly engage in collective bargaining but I believe people have the freedom to associate with whomever they please and are also free to make choices based on a variety of considerations regardless of whether it is economically efficient. However, I would just point out that the people who typically support collective bargaining are hypocritical in their stance on anti-trust issues. If you believe individual suppliers of a good/service should be able to work together to artificially restrict supply in order to maximize pricing power, then you must also support businesses working together doing the same for their goods/services that they sell to consumers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Help me understand why you think we should weep for businesses that failed to compete, but we the same compassion shouldn't apply to their workers? Why is it okay to tell a low wage worker to buck up and work to get a better job, but we can expect a business to buck and do better for their employees?

Businesses are a vehicle for someone to build wealth on the backs of other people. If you're going to do that, can't we at least ask them to pay those people enough to eat!?

Very few people are paid minimum wage. Some people are working for extra cash--like teens. Some are working to supplement other income. Few people remain in the same low level job all their lives. Have you listened to Biden talk about his Dad---"a job is not just about a paycheck, Joey, it's about dignity."

Where is the dignity in working 40 hours a week or more, and still being on food stamps? Where is the dignity in hearing people debate your economic worth, utterly refusing to acknowledge your humanity?

One look at Trump and you know, without a doubt, that dignity is earned and not inherited. Where is the humanity in assuming that someone, though healthy and able-bodied, lacks the basic agency to determine his/her own fate, and must rely on the charity of others?

Dp- nice sentiment as long as you support able bodied people banding together to leverage the worth of their labor.

PP here, I would support that, absolutely. I personally would not willingly engage in collective bargaining but I believe people have the freedom to associate with whomever they please and are also free to make choices based on a variety of considerations regardless of whether it is economically efficient. However, I would just point out that the people who typically support collective bargaining are hypocritical in their stance on anti-trust issues. If you believe individual suppliers of a good/service should be able to work together to artificially restrict supply in order to maximize pricing power, then you must also support businesses working together doing the same for their goods/services that they sell to consumers.

I think you make a good point. But it's not hypocrisy to support practices that benefit people and not corporations. Unions benefit our citizens. Anti-trust laws benefit our citizens. As they should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if... there are too many jobs now anyway, because too many people are forced to take low skill jobs that could be automated, in order to survive, because one wage doesn’t cut it. Particularly women who republicans think should be home with their kids anyway. I’m just saying, having some people exit the job market because some jobs were lost, isn’t necessarily a bad thing if poverty decreases at the same time. And apparently CBO just put out information showing that to be true. Job losses don’t ALWAYS equal more poverty if the remaining jobs are better paid.

Nice spin.

Except you’re forgetting the part where CBO also said it substantially reduces poverty, and the benefits exceed the costs. Like I said, job losses aren’t always bad.

[Anonymous]

Can't they peg a min wage to local COL? Is that too complicated? $15 in middle of nowhere is a lot different than $15 in SF/NYC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can't they peg a min wage to local COL? Is that too complicated? $15 in middle of nowhere is a lot different than $15 in SF/NYC.

Maybe people making minimum wage in SF/NYC should consider moving somewhere else? It that too complicated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Help me understand why you think we should weep for businesses that failed to compete, but we the same compassion shouldn't apply to their workers? Why is it okay to tell a low wage worker to buck up and work to get a better job, but we can expect a business to buck and do better for their employees?

Businesses are a vehicle for someone to build wealth on the backs of other people. If you're going to do that, can't we at least ask them to pay those people enough to eat!?

Very few people are paid minimum wage. Some people are working for extra cash--like teens. Some are working to supplement other income. Few people remain in the same low level job all their lives. Have you listened to Biden talk about his Dad---"a job is not just about a paycheck, Joey, it's about dignity."

Where is the dignity in working 40 hours a week or more, and still being on food stamps? Where is the dignity in hearing people debate your economic worth, utterly refusing to acknowledge your humanity?

One look at Trump and you know, without a doubt, that dignity is earned and not inherited. Where is the humanity in assuming that someone, though healthy and able-bodied, lacks the basic agency to determine his/her own fate, and must rely on the charity of others?

Dp- nice sentiment as long as you support able bodied people banding together to leverage the worth of their labor.

PP here, I would support that, absolutely. I personally would not willingly engage in collective bargaining but I believe people have the freedom to associate with whomever they please and are also free to make choices based on a variety of considerations regardless of whether it is economically efficient. However, I would just point out that the people who typically support collective bargaining are hypocritical in their stance on anti-trust issues. If you believe individual suppliers of a good/service should be able to work together to artificially restrict supply in order to maximize pricing power, then you must also support businesses working together doing the same for their goods/services that they sell to consumers.

I think you make a good point. But it's not hypocrisy to support practices that benefit people and not corporations. Unions benefit our citizens. Anti-trust laws benefit our citizens. As they should.

For people making this type of argument, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary. Would you mind if two sole proprietor coffee shops in your town struck up an agreement to sell coffee at $2.50 per 16-ounce cup? What about two family businesses operating car repair shops agreeing on $99 for an oil change? What if the repair shops were both franchise members of a regional chain of repair shops? A national one? In each case, the structure of the business is entirely arbitrary and does not at all affect the fundamental nature of price-fixing, which is currently illegal.