# Green New Deal: "Economic security for those unwilling to work"
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189
**Category:** Politics & Elections
**Created:** [February 8, 2019, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189 "2019-02-08T17:53:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 9
### Author:  [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2019, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/161 "2019-02-15T09:47:40Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> When farming was mechanized, tens of millions of people were displaced. […] But they all wound up in other jobs.
_Did_ they? Or did this mechanisation process maybe contribute a _leeetle_ bit to the high unemployment levels during the Great Depression?
---
### Author:  [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2019, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/162 "2019-02-15T10:44:22Z")
Farm mechanization started back in the late 19th Century and the displacement of people took place over decades. It accelerated with better internal combustion engines which supplanted the earlier steam-driven farm equipment, but, again, that mostly occurred in the 'teens- '20’s.
Not saying there was no effect, but it certainly wasn’t a major one for the Great Depression.
---
### Author:  [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2019, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/163 "2019-02-15T11:30:45Z")
> [@Broomstick](#):
>
> Farm mechanization started back in the late 19th Century and the displacement of people took place over decades. It accelerated with better internal combustion engines which supplanted the earlier steam-driven farm equipment, but, again, that mostly occurred in the 'teens- '20’s.
Overall, yes, but there was a definite upswing related to farm mechanisation as part of the overall [productivity shock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression#Productivity_or_technology_shock) [trend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment#20th_century) between 1925 and 1930. Probably it was because some regions mechanised later than others, and contributed to the overall urban joblessness in the Depression. I’m thinking particularly of the Mississippi Delta and migration to Chicago, Cleveland etc.
---
### Author:  [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2019, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/164 "2019-02-15T13:44:24Z")
True, but that migration was also stimulated in no small part by increasing job opportunities in factories up north. In Detroit, for example, the growing auto industry attracted people from all over to the new jobs there.
There were a lot of factors at work.
---
### Author:  [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2019, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/165 "2019-02-15T22:54:03Z")
> [@MrDibble](#):
>
> _Did_ they? Or did this mechanisation process maybe contribute a _leeetle_ bit to the high unemployment levels during the Great Depression?
Maybe indirectly if the mechanization led to over farming (combined with drought) that led to the dust bowl in the 30s.
---
### Author:  [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2019, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/166 "2019-02-15T23:06:01Z")
> [@octopus](#):
>
> Wrong. If anything minimum wage workers are overpaid.
>
> Concerning the OP, that green platforms thing was a bit nutty. I thought the cow fart detail was humorous.
If minimum wage workers are overpaid, then why the fuck does McDonalds pay them? As a charity?
As right-wingers are fond of pointing out, we could raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour. We wouldn’t see McDonalds suddenly paying their burger-flippers $100 an hour, what would happen is that all the burger flippers would lose their jobs.
So what would happen if the minimum wage were $2 an hour, and we raised the rate to the socialistic sum of $7.25? You think the burger flippers who used to make $2 an hour would suddenly get a raise? No, they’d be fired, because a business model that depended on $2/hr wages couldn’t survive at $7.25/hr.
If a business chooses to pay some guy $7.25 an hour, then who the fuck are you to say that the magic of the marketplace is wrong, and that guy is only worth $5/hr? If he were only worth $5/hr, then McDonalds would have fired his ass.
---
### Author:  [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2019, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/167 "2019-02-15T23:39:18Z")
> [@Lemur866](#):
>
> If minimum wage workers are overpaid, then why the fuck does McDonalds pay them? As a charity?
>
> As right-wingers are fond of pointing out, we could raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour. We wouldn’t see McDonalds suddenly paying their burger-flippers $100 an hour, what would happen is that all the burger flippers would lose their jobs.
>
> So what would happen if the minimum wage were $2 an hour, and we raised the rate to the socialistic sum of $7.25? You think the burger flippers who used to make $2 an hour would suddenly get a raise? No, they’d be fired, because a business model that depended on $2/hr wages couldn’t survive at $7.25/hr.
>
> If a business chooses to pay some guy $7.25 an hour, then who the fuck are you to say that the magic of the marketplace is wrong, and that guy is only worth 50c/hr? If he were only worth $5/hr, then McDonalds would have fired his ass.
What actually happens is that jobs that are worth \>0 but less than $7.25 simply don’t get done. Or, the workers that make minimum wage above their productivity level have their benefits cut, or are forced to multi-task or work harder, whatever.
The real minimum wage is $0. The natural minimum wage is the wage that anyone is willing to work for at all. In a rich country, no one works for 50 cents per hour. If the minimum wage were set at that, no one would do it and the real minimum would still be much higher.
To the extent that minimum wage increases actually affect real-world wages, the evidence is that some people who were working under the old minimum get raises, at the expense of others who are laid off. The other effect of high minimum wages is to shrink certain industries (restaurants, fast food, etc), reduce service (bigger lines at grocery stores) and accelerate investment into labor reducing automation. McDonald’s, for example, has responded to the increasing costs of their labor force by accelerating the rollout of automated ordering kiosks.
Another bad thing about minimum wages, which applies to any attempt to fix prices, is that it destroys information. If the minimum wage is $15/hr, you lose all the information about the demand for jobs that could pay $10/hr. Without a market-set, fluctuating wage system, you induce inefficiency by masking the value available in jobs that would pay somewhat less.
It would be much better to eliminate minimum wages entirely. You still won’t see people working for 50c/hr, because I don’t think anyone WILL work for 50c/hr.
Question: What’s the prevailing wage for migrant workers? Illegal labor is not subject to minimum wages, or any other regulations for that matter. So do the migrants who get picked up at Wal-Mart for day labor work for 50c/hr? If they are paid more, that should tell you that other forces than minimum wage laws are at play in setting salaries.
---
### Author:  [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2019, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/168 "2019-02-16T08:38:50Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> To the extent that minimum wage increases actually affect real-world wages, the evidence is that some people who were working under the old minimum get raises, at the expense of others who are laid off. The other effect of high minimum wages is to shrink certain industries (restaurants, fast food, etc), reduce service (bigger lines at grocery stores) and accelerate investment into labor reducing automation. McDonald’s, for example, has responded to the increasing costs of their labor force by accelerating the rollout of automated ordering kiosks.
Could I get a cite for this?
This is not what happened when Seattle went to $15/hr minimum wage. In Seattle, increasing the minimum wage increased employment, increased the number of hours worked and had “near zero” impact on restaurant employment. One reason given for the increases, which might be non-intuitive, is that people used their increased wages to put back into those industries.
> [@](#):
>
> When Seattle started down the road to the $15 minimum wage, the city hired a University of Washington team of economists to analyze the wage’s effects on the city. In the years since, the Seattle Minimum Wage Study Team’s findings have been largely positive. In 2016, they found that wages in Seattle are up, low-wage employment increased in the city, and the number of hours worked increased. They reported earlier this year that the wage increase had “near zero” impact on restaurant employment. And this week, in their final study for the city, the Seattle Minimum Wage Study Team released a report proving prices at restaurants and grocery stores haven’t increased because of the minimum wage.
[International Policy Digest](https://intpolicydigest.org/2018/01/14/seattle-s-15-minimum-wage-experiment-is-working/)
To be fair, studies in other places showed different things, and studies in Seattle have contradicted this one. But people questioned some of the assumptions in that study that contradicted this one. I think the studies need to be closely looked at for their assumptions, duration and methodology.
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> Another bad thing about minimum wages, which applies to any attempt to fix prices, is that it destroys information. If the minimum wage is $15/hr, you lose all the information about the demand for jobs that could pay $10/hr. Without a market-set, fluctuating wage system, you induce inefficiency by masking the value available in jobs that would pay somewhat less.
What’s the benefit in maintaining this information that tells you how many workers could be paid less?
At some level, the workers who are paid less will be relying on government assistance to get by because there are not enough hours in the day to string together enough $5/hr jobs to survive. Knowing how many of these people exist doesn’t give much useful information that I can see.
---
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2019, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/169 "2019-02-16T18:46:45Z")
> [@bump](#):
>
> A bit of follow up thinking…
>
> I suppose category 1 is really more “People who choose not to work for whatever reason, not necessarily low income”) That way, we cover the people who choose not to work because of family caregiver committments, stay-at-home moms, lazy stoners, etc… without getting into a category for each specific situation.
As long as we are not means testing, nor “worthiness” testing, then sure, everyone should get the same, so that’s not an issue. Categorizing them is only for our own purposes of identifying the different types of groups that would be collecting UBI, not for parceling it out, so the “grouping” is arbitrary.
> [@](#):
>
> My intuition tells me that the final category would be the biggest surprise for people- I’m not seeing how we’d pay for a UBI for every person without having to tax the bejeezus out of everyone with a well paying job. I mean, at a UBI of 15k, a family of four would receive 60k in UBI. That’s right at the median household income. So right there, you’d have to come up with more cash to pay that UBI than half of all families MAKE, much less pay out in taxes. Even assuming that median income 4 person family pays roughly 25% of their income in taxes that they would essentially receive back, it would still mean that the government would have to produce 45k for that family. For a family making 100k, who let’s say pays 35% in taxes, we’re still looking at having to cough up 25k for that family in UBI. I don’t know where that break-even is, but it seems to be very high.
>
> The other thing I haven’t figured out yet is what it would mean in terms of the remaining social safety net. Proponents often claim that it would take the place of a lot of things, but we’d still need all the stuff we currently have and then some- a low 15k UBI wouldn’t obviate the need for health insurance or universal health care. We’d still need a lot of social service type stuff for flat out dumb people who spend their UBI unwisely, or get into a lot of debt, or whatever. I can completely see situations where people basically sign their UBI payments over to monthly payments and are still stuck without enough cash to feed their kids, etc… and would need public assistance. Assuming that we don’t suddenly take a callous tack and throw them to the wolves, because, hey UBI!, then we’d still need programs to help the unfortunate and the stupid.
>
> It sounds great in theory, but it also sounds like something we can’t pay for. I’d be more in favor of a negative income tax scheme whereby people get boosted to the poverty line (or whatever arbitrary threshold), but where say… a family of four making that median 61k doesn’t get any assistance, nor would the family making 100k.
We can’t pay for it under the assumptions that you have made, and under the economic model that we currently operate under for delivery of necessities.
However, with some adjustments to your assumptions, and a change in the economic model that is used to deliver necessities, we may be able to.
Personally, rather than a monthly or weekly check, I see a UBI as acting more as a voucher system, with maybe a bit of cash tossed in for flexibility in spending, but the bulk of it would come in the form of direct services.
I don’t think that someone on UBI needs much. They need food, clothing and shelter, access to healthcare, and I do believe, for the usefulness and the low, low cost of it, they also need access to communication and entertainment (the internet). That’s really about it, that’s about all that I would be willing to provide with my taxpayer dollar to someone who is not willing to work, but I also see that as the floor, the minimum that I find acceptable to provide for those who are not able to work. Since willing and able are sometimes hard to differentiate, I see that position as a fairly convenient compromise. With some economies of scale, I can see the actual cost of a UBI being significantly less than your projected 15k.
Useful thing about vouchers rather than cash, is that everyone will get them, but not everyone will use them. They would be good for the basic goods and services deemed essential to existing in this world, so if you had the means to get better, then you would likely not bother.
Whether it is actually building government owned and operated apartment complexes, or contracting that out to the private market and paying them, it should not cost that much to hook everyone up with a studio apartment who wants one. Doesn’t have to be big, just enough to stretch and put your stuff. Food doesn’t need to be great, it just needs to be palatable and nutritious. I am personally a big fan of cricket flour based foods, as they would have very low cost and environmental impact, as well as being healthier than traditional foods.
I’d also like to see better educational materials out there. Right now, YouTube is a plethora of instructional videos. I’ve learned to fix my AC in my house, my radiator in my car, as well as any number of little fixes and things. Downside, is that I have also seen some “instructional” videos that left me scratching my head, and wondering if I missed something, or if the video was just wrong. Having a higher standard to be met for videos to be considered educational, and providing them for free to the masses, should allow people to spend time acquiring skills on their own.
As far as entertainment, hooking them all up to the internet, while enforcing IP rights a bit better than is currently done, means that they will have access to all the educational and entertaining media that is out there for free, as well as an incentive to earn a bit in order to see the new release of that special movie that is coming out. Older movies and shows in syndication would be available, but for new releases and current shows, you’d have to pay something.
As far as entertainment goes, I think that a useful job of those “on the dole” would be to watch TV and movies, and then rate and recommend them. How long do you spend looking for something to entertain you? I know that there are times, when presented with the incredible amount of stuff that I could consume, I spend more time trying to find what is worth my time, than I spend actually watching it. Having millions of people curating stuff and helping the best to rise to the top, with “the best” also taking into account _your_ preferences, makes you more productive, as you are not frustratedly “flipping through channels” looking for something to provide you with entertainment. It would be like the netflix recommendations, except instead of a computer algorithm, it is using people, so may be less stupid. Sitting around and watching TV could act as a useful production booster.
Games are also more important than I think that anyone has really touched on. More and more of our life is becoming virtual. I know people who pretty much live in another world. Some of these people even make money from playing the games. I do see a virtual economy of virtual goods and services growing and becoming in many ways, as important or even more important than the real world economy, if they aren’t just linked with a straight exchange rate.
People talk about the guy that just wants to sit around and play games all day, well, what if sitting around and playing games all day makes you a millionaire? (or at least pays the bills)
Speaking of “games”, there are games with real world uses. Right now there are a few things like folding @ home, and the mini game in Eve Online that plots the positions of stars in the milky way, that people can devote their free time to to advance our knowledge. Adding these thing as mini games to more games, as well as advancing the uses and utility of them would start working towards creating a distributed problem solving network, made up of both computers and humans, that could be diverted towards finding solutions to many problems. For instance, directing traffic patterns, weeding fields or hydroponics, or any logistical task that requires human input.
But yeah, UBI should be the basics, not even really comfortable, and certainly not luxurious, delivered at the lowest cost that we can manage, and, while not means tested, still “self means tested” as people with greater means would not necessarily want to use the vouchers, as they can purchase better than they offer. But, it should provide the elements necessary for survival, as well as the tools to improve yourself so that you can, should you so choose, enter into the workforce as a productive member.
As far as kids go, that’s a whole different thing, but I am also a believer that school should be open 24/7, along with sleeping arrangements. Parents who cannot afford to take care of their children can still be a large part of their lives, but they would no longer be considered to be the primary care giver. Kids can visit their parents, they can hang out with their parents, but they have a place to go that is safe and with people whose job and skills is actually to raise children.
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> What actually happens is that jobs that are worth \>0 but less than $7.25 simply don’t get done. Or, the workers that make minimum wage above their productivity level have their benefits cut, or are forced to multi-task or work harder, whatever.
Not really. People do not make produce the same value every moment of the day. I have employees who, at one moment, are producing a hundred dollars an hour in value, and at the next, are sweeping up the floor. The pay that they get is based on an average of those values.
You have equity items, and what it is worth to pay for them. I like to have a clean store, so I spend quite a bit of labor in keeping it clean. I used to do it all myself, but now that I have employees, I pay them to do so. There is a value to having it that way, and that value is what justifies those wages.
> [@](#):
>
> The real minimum wage is $0. The natural minimum wage is the wage that anyone is willing to work for at all. In a rich country, no one works for 50 cents per hour. If the minimum wage were set at that, no one would do it and the real minimum would still be much higher.
No, the real minimum wage is negative. There are plenty of examples in history of land owners or companies charging workers more to live than they pay, putting the worker more and more into debt.
One of the ways to become a rich country is to pay everyone a living wage. A good way to stop being a rich country is to allow workers to compete to see who will take the lowest wage.
---
### Author:  [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)
#### Post date: [February 18, 2019, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/170 "2019-02-18T02:26:31Z")
> [@Irishman](#):
>
> He probably read it in the summary [FAQ](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf):
>
> Or [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191119/https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq):
> These are AOC released documents, though they have been pulled. But it’s not a total ass-pull by **Sam Stone**.
I appreciate you looking into **Sam Stone’s** statement for him, since apparently he couldn’t be bothered. But those bullet points are all under the heading “National Infrastructure,” implying this applies only to domestic flights. Sam Stone actually said “My favorite is the plan to replace all air travel with high speed rail.” Notice that there’s no “Domestic” or “National” disclaimer in his sentence, which means\*\* Sam Stone\*\* intended us to believe that under the Green New Deal rail travel was expected to replace international flights. Which \*would \*deserve a failing grade if it were true.
Since **Sam Stone** is giving out grades, I wonder what grade he would give someone who didn’t understand the difference between domestic and international infrastructure? Or perhaps the question should be: What grade would he give someone who did understand the difference but deliberately misrepresented the facts in order to score a political point?
---
### Author:  [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)
#### Post date: [February 18, 2019, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/171 "2019-02-18T02:40:04Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> To the extent that minimum wage increases actually affect real-world wages, the evidence is that some people who were working under the old minimum get raises, at the expense of others who are laid off. The other effect of high minimum wages is to shrink certain industries (restaurants, fast food, etc), reduce service (bigger lines at grocery stores) and accelerate investment into labor reducing automation. McDonald’s, for example, has responded to the increasing costs of their labor force by accelerating the rollout of automated ordering kiosks.
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#):
>
> Could I get a cite for this?
>
> This is not what happened when Seattle went to $15/hr minimum wage. In Seattle, increasing the minimum wage increased employment, increased the number of hours worked and had “near zero” impact on restaurant employment. One reason given for the increases, which might be non-intuitive, is that people used their increased wages to put back into those industries.
Yeah, there’s a enormous quantity of literature showing that minimum wage increases haven’t increased unemployment by any measurable amount. You’d have to do some pretty selective reading to miss it.
[Here’s](https://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/12/would-small-minimum-wage-increases-raise-or-have-no-effect-on-employment.html) Brad DeLong’s summary, of which the most relevant bit is: “The majority of economists believe that raising the minimum wage from its current level would significantly boost the incomes of the working poor and have little adverse effect on employment. A large minority of economists believe that raising the minimum wage would actually increase employment…There’s no debate on whether minimum wages at their current level are discouraging employment. They don’t.”
As a general rule of thumb, anyone who makes claims about the negative effects of minimum wages on employment, without even mentioning the fact that the majority of economists disagree with that claim, probably isn’t worth listening to. They’re selling a political fantasy, not a scientific belief.
---
### Author:  [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)
#### Post date: [February 18, 2019, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/172 "2019-02-18T04:45:38Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#):
>
> Yeah, there’s a enormous quantity of literature showing that minimum wage increases haven’t increased unemployment by any measurable amount. You’d have to do some pretty selective reading to miss it.
>
> [Here’s](https://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/12/would-small-minimum-wage-increases-raise-or-have-no-effect-on-employment.html) Brad DeLong’s summary, of which the most relevant bit is: “The majority of economists believe that raising the minimum wage from its current level would significantly boost the incomes of the working poor and have little adverse effect on employment. A large minority of economists believe that raising the minimum wage would actually increase employment…There’s no debate on whether minimum wages at their current level are discouraging employment. They don’t.”
>
> As a general rule of thumb, anyone who makes claims about the negative effects of minimum wages on employment, without even mentioning the fact that the majority of economists disagree with that claim, probably isn’t worth listening to. They’re selling a political fantasy, not a scientific belief.
Some random dude’s blog isn’t strong evidence. What is strong evidence is the shift in location of manufacturing. You think the rust belt is a good thing? You honestly think a person filling a cup with coffee for $15 is not inflationary for the municipality. What is the purchasing power change?
Furthermore, the only place minimum wage boosts tend to have small effects is when, due to supply and demand in the labor market the lowest wage is already high. Make that $15/hr or $20/hr wage nationally and watch China ascend even faster.
---
### Author:  [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)
#### Post date: [February 18, 2019, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/173 "2019-02-18T05:07:19Z")
> [@octopus](#):
>
> Some random dude’s blog isn’t strong evidence. What is strong evidence is the shift in location of manufacturing. You think the rust belt is a good thing? You honestly think a person filling a cup with coffee for $15 is not inflationary for the municipality. What is the purchasing power change?
>
> Furthermore, the only place minimum wage boosts tend to have small effects is when, due to supply and demand in the labor market the lowest wage is already high. Make that $15/hr or $20/hr wage nationally and watch China ascend even faster.
Brad DeLong isn’t “some random dude.”
Also, we’re probably not going to travel to China to buy our morning coffee.
And if you’re worried about the impact on our economy if American workers start making more than Chinese workers, I think you’ll be shocked to learn that you’ve woken up in 2019, and things have changed.
---
### Author:  [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)
#### Post date: [February 18, 2019, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/174 "2019-02-18T05:19:19Z")
> [@octopus](#):
>
> Furthermore, the only place minimum wage boosts tend to have small effects is when, due to supply and demand in the labor market the lowest wage is already high.
[Here’s](https://illinoisepi.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/pmcr-ilepi-chicago-minimum-wage-study-final.pdf)a paper studying the impact of increasing the minimum wage by more than 50% (from 8.25 to 13). Conclusion: "After the minimum wage hikes, incomes were boosted most for more than 330,000 total workers in low-paying occupations and industries…Overall, the higher minimum wage has been associated with an increase in worker incomes but little to no impact on employment or the number of private business establishments. "
---
### Author:  [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)
#### Post date: [February 18, 2019, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/175 "2019-02-18T05:25:59Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#):
>
> [Here’s](https://illinoisepi.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/pmcr-ilepi-chicago-minimum-wage-study-final.pdf)a paper studying the impact of increasing the minimum wage by more than 50% (from 8.25 to 13). Conclusion: "After the minimum wage hikes, incomes were boosted most for more than 330,000 total workers in low-paying occupations and industries…Overall, the higher minimum wage has been associated with an increase in worker incomes but little to no impact on employment or the number of private business establishments. "
Missed the edit window.
The higher minimum wage may have boosted the morale of low-wage employees, improving productivity. Because the higher pay increased the relative cost to workers if they lose their jobs, the higher minimum wage may have induced greater work effort from employees. On the employer side, managers may have responded to a higher minimum wage by raising performance standards such as requiring better attendance records or requiring employees to take on additional job tasks. The higher wage floor may also have made it easier for employers to recruit and retain employees, allowing employers to be more diligent in their hiring practices. Reduced costs for recruiting and retaining “absorb about 15 percent of the increased payroll costs”
So the increased minimum wage results in more productive employees and lower hiring costs and reduced turnover costs. Almost as though the businesses are benefiting from the wage increases. Weird. Right-wing economics 101 failed to predict this.
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [February 18, 2019, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/176 "2019-02-18T06:39:56Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#):
>
> Yeah, there’s a enormous quantity of literature showing that minimum wage increases haven’t increased unemployment by any measurable amount. You’d have to do some pretty selective reading to miss it.
>
> [Here’s](https://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/12/would-small-minimum-wage-increases-raise-or-have-no-effect-on-employment.html) Brad DeLong’s summary, of which the most relevant bit is: “The majority of economists believe that raising the minimum wage from its current level would significantly boost the incomes of the working poor and have little adverse effect on employment. A large minority of economists believe that raising the minimum wage would actually increase employment…There’s no debate on whether minimum wages at their current level are discouraging employment. They don’t.”
>
> As a general rule of thumb, anyone who makes claims about the negative effects of minimum wages on employment, without even mentioning the fact that the majority of economists disagree with that claim, probably isn’t worth listening to. They’re selling a political fantasy, not a scientific belief.
In other words: libertarians. The same folks who’ll argue that public schooling is a bad thing.
---
### Author:  [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)
#### Post date: [February 18, 2019, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/177 "2019-02-18T07:07:58Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> In other words: libertarians. The same folks who’ll argue that public schooling is a bad thing.
A study in a decent market which is growing and exempts teens from even the state minimum wage sees no or very little ill effect from a very modest minimum wage increase is not the same thing as a national minimum wage increase. Yeah, giving San Francisco workers an extra $0.25/hr will probably not be counterproductive.
A nationwide $15/hr? I’d like to see what happens.
---
### Author:  [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)
#### Post date: [February 18, 2019, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/178 "2019-02-18T07:13:21Z")
> [@octopus](#):
>
> A study in a decent market which is growing and exempts teens from even the state minimum wage…
If you’re talking about the Chicago study, it only allowed paying teens $0.50 below the minimum wage. That’s not an “exemption”. And I don’t know what the word “even” is doing in that sentence.
---
### Author:  [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)
#### Post date: [February 18, 2019, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/179 "2019-02-18T08:24:41Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#):
>
> Brad DeLong isn’t “some random dude.”
In case anyone else, like me, didn’t know who Brad DeLong is, here’s some snippets from his wiki.
> [@](#):
>
> James Bradford “Brad” DeLong (born June 24, 1960) is an economic historian who is professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley. DeLong served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration under Lawrence Summers.
> . . .
> He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University in 1982, followed by an M.A. and PhD in economics in 1985 and 1987, respectively, also from Harvard.[3]
>
> After earning his PhD, he taught economics at universities in the Boston area, including MIT, Boston University, and Harvard University,
> . . .
> DeLong considers himself a free trade liberal. He has cited Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei Shleifer, Milton Friedman, and Lawrence Summers (with whom he has co-authored numerous papers) as the economists who have had the greatest influence on his views.
[J. Bradford DeLong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bradford_DeLong)
---
### Author:  [@Pithily\_Effusive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pithily_Effusive)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2019, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189/180 "2019-02-20T00:57:01Z")
> [@Velocity](#):
>
> There needs to be a strong social net for those who are unable to work or temporarily out of work, no doubt. But for those who are \*\*unwilling \*\*to work, this opens up a huge can of worms. Many workers in America - perhaps even the majority - do not enjoy their jobs and work their jobs only because they have to make financial ends meet.
People like to work. The percentage of people who “don’t like to work” averages about 8%. It’s the same percent the police keep seeing over and over who do 80% of the crime. Where your comment disturbs me deeply, and don’t feel like the Lone Ranger 'cause you aren’t in this, is conflating \*work \*with _job_. Jobs are accessways to this current organization of economics - capitalism. People generally don’t like their jobs. Anyone who has a job they like is considered to be _lucky_. These \*jobs \*are what capitalists create when they invest their capital. This process has literally consumed any alternatives and locked economics into a vice. Land being held by multi-nationals, agri-business driving the family farm out of existence has forced people to go to capitalists for these jobs as there is no other way to obtain the means of exchange - the money.
People speak of these jobs as though they are as natural as the noonday sun. People expect others to hold these jobs and wish to work these jobs, or they’re judged as bad citizens. People who raise this as an issue are automatically labeled _communist_ because the capitalists have so effectively taken over the language of economics. NO school of economics is about investigating alternatives to capitalism. They’re all engaged in learning how to milk it for what it can.
For people to conflate \*jobs \*with \*work \*is to succumb to the propaganda. People wish to see something come of their lives, and gladly put effort into things that can make that come about. People hate their jobs. It makes perfect sense, and it should be a red flag of alarm going up. Instead, it’s a criticism - Do your job whether you like it or not, or you’re a bad citizen.
The most embarrassing thing I’ve heard about my country in my lifetime is, “Immigrants will do the jobs Americans refuse to do.” Being surrounded by people who can’t understand why is beyond annoying. :smack:
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189.md?page=8)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/green-new-deal-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work/829189.md?page=10)