Serious question about raising the minimum wage.

I actually appreciate the responses on this interesting point, so i googled the question.

As with just about every issue on earth, there are competing views. But I did find reference to what i was thinking of initially. Just this year a group of 75 noted economists including 7 Nobel winners wrote a letter advocating for a higher min wage on economic grounds. Although there may be some adverse consequences, the good outweigh the bad.

another canuck wrote:

I actually appreciate the responses on this interesting point, so i googled the question.

As with just about every issue on earth, there are competing views. But I did find reference to what i was thinking of initially. Just this year a group of 75 noted economists including 7 Nobel winners wrote a letter advocating for a higher min wage on economic grounds. Although there may be some adverse consequences, the good outweigh the bad.

Appealing to authority, huh? Lame.

As to your completely pull-it-out-of-your-ass conclusion, well, about as worthwhile as everything that comes out the same orifice.

You can say good bye to your dollar bill if this happens. About 3 years after milk would be $5.99, McDonald's dollar menu would be a $3 menu, gas would be unbearable, top notch running shoes would be at least $250. As a part of the younger generation I hope this never happens.

yeah, I bow to your analysis you moron. The guys that win Nobel prizes couldnt possibly be right.

Great, fact-free post.

Please feel free to chime in with any well done, meaningful study that "confirms that raising the min wage will not adversely affect employment." I am going to enjoy laughing at what passes for a well done meaningful study in your mind.

another canuck wrote:

A: As I initially stated, the majority of studies confirm that raising the min wage will not adversely affect employment.That is not my uninformed opinion, it is simply stating a fact.

B: [If] employers were free to pay 2 bucks an hour then there would be no more unemployment.

C: the evidence is overwhelming that the income gap is growing beyond any reasonable level.

D: And finally, try to remove the racist , elitist sarcasm from a comment. Not everyone is going to be able to use min wage jobs as a springboard.

A: Cite your sources of this simple fact, because all econ (ex Soviet) *I* know states otherwise.

B: Yes, but I infer that you are suggesting that all employers would offer just $2/hour, proven false by starting wages in, e.g., boomtowns in ND of $14 at Mickel Dee's and $17 at Wally Mart.

C: What is "any reasonable level" and who decides? While it is true that under capitalism we are unequally wealthy, under communism we are all equally poor. Get over it. Zuckerberg's wealth does not affect my life.

D:It's... RACIST to assume that not everyone can use minwage as a springoard. Do you even REALIZE (and I am NOT kidding) the disgusting racist sentiment embedded in that "observation." You should reflect and be ashamed (and, no, I am NOT kidding).

another canuck wrote:

yeah, I bow to your analysis you moron. The guys that win Nobel prizes couldnt possibly be right.

Obama has a Nobel.

So does former Enron consultant Paul Krugman.

Just sayin'

[Very funny--and appropriate--video on Obama's Nobel:

]

This is a chat forum, not a phd defence. Google it yourself. Use some reading comprehension. My conclusion, paraphrasing the recent studies was that although there will be some adverse consequences, the good outweighs the bad.

Not accurate; what you SAID was:

another canuck wrote:

As I initially stated, the majority of studies CONFIRM that raising the min wage will not adversely affect employment.

Which is entirely different.

Gotta go, so don't take my silence for acquiescence. Econ ain't no science, but it's better'n feel-good policy.

A. I already stated my sources as recent studies.The sources are easily found.

B.Fair point. I was really just making fun of bachman. But dont think there arent employers who wouldnt roll back wages if they could get away with it.

C.This could be debatable but it is not. Google this issue too.

D.You couldnt be more wrong on all fronts. Again, check the facts.

Just gonna say, the US minimum wage was at its highest in 1968 (roughly $10 per hour in real terms). Coincidentally, that was when the US was at the most equal it has ever been.

It was then frozen from 19801 and look what happened to the the GINI coefficient.

By the way, economic growth in 1968 was 9.8%

le veritable wrote:

Just gonna say, the US minimum wage was at its highest in 1968 (roughly $10 per hour in real terms). Coincidentally, that was when the US was at the most equal it has ever been.

It was then frozen from 19801 and look what happened to the the GINI coefficient.

http://tommytoy.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f3a4072c970b0153918ab6a1970b-popup

By the way, economic growth in 1968 was 9.8%

The problem with your stats as posted above is that they can't be analyzed in a vacuum. There has been extraordinary globalization since the late 1960s. If workers in the US were competing only with themselves, it would be one thing, but now they're competing with low wage workers from around the world. Transportation costs are so low that manufacturing can easily be done anywhere.

Trick question.

The federal government has no business regulating what a private employer pays its employees.

Furthermore, the federal government has the responsibility to ensure that the money they've taken from me is spent in an efficient way. Therefore, they should not pay 'above market' wages.

Bottom line, you should get paid what you're worth. Not some inflated amount set by bureaucrats in DC.

If you're paid less than you're worth, leave and get a better paying job.

Sally V wrote:

Everything you say could not be more wrong. But just think about it very simply like this. If the minimum wage goes up to $15 - the McDonald's employee/recipient of the huge wage increase will of course have much more money. But almost everywhere he or she goes he or she will have to pay much more money - because all the former $7 an hour employees at Taco Bell, Starbucks, Cineplex, Exxon gas station have now had their salaries DOUBLED - and each of those stores will have to raise their prices considerably to pay for the huge wage increases.

This assumes that salaries are a major percentage of their costs. For many businesses, salaries make up a relatively small percentage of their costs.

Yes, but that low skill, low wage manufacturing is already gone. Countries like Germany have succesful manufacturing these days on the basis of highly skilled, highly paid workers, and strong unions that have board representation.

Surely that is a better model than a race to the bottom for poverty wages?

another canuck wrote:

As I initially stated, the majority of studies CONFIRM that raising the min wage will not adversely affect employment.

A: Sayin' it don't make it so, no matter how many times. Let's see whether we find that a MAJORITY of studies CONFIRM no ill effects:

"Until the mid-1990s, a general CONSENSUS existed among economists, both CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL, that the minimum wage REDUCED employment, especially among YOUNGER and LOW-SKILL workers. In addition to the basic supply-demand intuition, there were a number of empirical studies that supported this view [several cited]"

In 1992, [LABOR ECONOMISTS] Card and Krueger compared NJ's increased min wage (+20%) to eastern PA's. Authors concluded that NJ employment slightly INCREASED, with peers positing "minimum wage [may be] set close to the equilibrium point for low and unskilled workers. Thus in the absence of the minimum wage law unskilled workers would be paid approximately the same amount and an increase above this equilibrium point could likely bring about increased unemployment for the low and unskilled workers."

Subsequent research by [LABOR ECONOMISTS] Neumark and Wascher attempting to verify Card and Krueger's work "found that the minimum wage increases were followed by decreases in employment."

A 2011 review "econciled the difference between Card and Krueger's survey data and Neumark and Wascher's payroll-based data. The paper shows that both datasets evidence conditional employment effects that are POSITIVE for SMALL restaurants, but are NEGATIVE for LARGE fast-food restaurants."

A 2011 study by Baskaya and Rubinstein of Brown University found that at the federal level, "a rise in minimum wage has an instantaneous impact on wage rates and a corresponding negative impact on employment", stating, "Minimum wage increases boost teenage wage rates and reduce teenage employment."

Another 2011 study by Sen, Rybczynski, and Van De Waal found that "a 10% increase in the minimum wage is significantly correlated with a 3−5% drop in teen employment."

A 2012 study by Sabia, Hansen, and Burkhauser found that "minimum wage increases can have substantial adverse labor demand effects for low-skilled individuals", with the largest effects on those aged 16 to 24. Same for a 2013 study by Meer and West. Same for a 2013 study by Suzana Laporšek of the University of Primorska, on youth unemployment in Europe.

Same in China: A 2013 study by labor economists Tony Fang and Carl Lin which studied minimum wages and employment in China, found that "minimum wage changes have significant adverse effects on employment in the Eastern and Central regions of China, and result in disemployment for females, young adults, and low-skilled workers"

another canuck wrote:

This is a chat forum, not a phd defence. Google it yourself. Use some reading comprehension. My conclusion, paraphrasing the recent studies was that although there will be some adverse consequences, the good outweighs the bad.

No offense but you totally came through when it counted! Good for a laugh if nothing else.

No chance that these 'studies' are politically motivated, mathematically ill-formed, nearly 100% subjective in their conclusions and in summary not really worth the paper they were written on, huh?

Go ahead, make my day, just one VALID study is all I ask for.

biz man wrote:

Trick question.

The federal government has no business regulating what a private employer pays its employees.

Furthermore, the federal government has the responsibility to ensure that the money they've taken from me is spent in an efficient way. Therefore, they should not pay 'above market' wages.

Bottom line, you should get paid what you're worth. Not some inflated amount set by bureaucrats in DC.

If you're paid less than you're worth, leave and get a better paying job.

This ^

Well said.