Yeah full employment with a wage of $0.01/hr would be better than current. Being employed has far more value than just the paycheck. You develop skills and talents that enable your economic worth to increase. I’m supposing UBI is some form of guaranteed basic income? If so that would be a decent start in a more rational national economic policy.
[QUOTE=Hershele Ostropoler]
Also, I am skeptical that a company is going to hire fewer people than it needs because there’s a minimum wage, or, conversely, hire more people than it needs because there isn’t one.
[/QUOTE]
Are you equally skeptical that they can and will build automated systems that would require fewer workers?
So…all we need to do is just give people a ton of jobs and this will create even more jobs until we have full employment AND great wages? Well, hell, why don’t we just do that?? Sounds like a perpetual jobs machine, and those are always great ideas!
The problem, of course, is that Chipotle can buy their tortilla presses (which probably aren’t steel :p) on the global market, so building a bunch of US steel mills isn’t really going to start the perpetual jobs machine cycle. If US steel companies could compete globally then we’d be doing that. Instead, we basically outsource steel by and large because we can’t compete in that market at our high labor costs (as well as environmental costs), so we have to do other things.
Welfare and assisted living programs. Were you unaware that such exists? My family was on them fairly extensively when I was a kid.
Anyone who hasn’t checked that link should, because it discusses not just minimum-wage workers (most of whom are not living in poverty), but also workers making under $10.55 and $9.72/hour, something that’s often lacking from discussion of lower wage earners. Unfortunately, some of the links in it are broken, but there are data to be had here: http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/
I have some problems with EPI’s methodology now and then, but I don’t think anything that’s come up so far in this thread is anything I’ve noticed as being shoddy.
Any aid program will benefit people who don’t need it. I don’t feel it’s the best argument against an aid program. But it’s worth looking into as part of the cost benefit analysis wrt to other programs. Given that the vast majority of minimum wage earners are not living in poverty, and most EITC earners are, I would certainly lean toward an expanded EITC. But the two are not exclusive, as has pointed out. I think they address different issues.
It hasn’t. IIRC the peak was in 1968 at a little under $11/hour. A lot of discussion about increasing the minimum wage surrounds its unknown effects. But we’ve already tried ~$11/hour, and it wasn’t a disaster AFAIK. I doubt a bit higher would be a disaster either. I don’t know what the ideal minimum wage is, and I don’t even know if we should have one. But if we’re going to have one, I think we should index it to inflation. If nothing else to avoid the fight over increasing it every few years.
A government handout, or lack-thereof, to a low-wage employee working for me does not affect my profitability, so I am not subsidized.
Many of whom will be getting raises thanks to a reasonable increase in the minimum wage. But I take your point - we should not just be talking about minimum wage workers, but those below a proposed higher wage.
I was responding to Cheesesteak’s implication that the existence of some non-needy people who would benefit is in some way an argument against raising the minimum wage.
A society where a person working full time does live in poverty is a terrible society indeed. My understanding of a living wage is not just one which takes you out of poverty, but which lets you not worry about money all the time - and consume.
As I said,my problem with EITC is that it (like welfare for WalMart workers) lets employers reduce wages at the expense of society as a whole. While it is easier for employers to cut costs on the backs of the workers, it is better for society if they improve productivity so that they can afford the higher wage and still make a profit. If companies which can not do that go out of business - that’s capitalism. I’m not a total bleeding heart.
Totally agree.
Not directly. But if some workers can afford to work for you at a lower salary thanks to EITC wouldn’t without it (including better ones) you are benefiting.
So, you like unpaid internships then. Which may or may not lead to a job. I’m betting any job which pays a penny an hour is not going to teach anyone much of anything useful. And you can learn just as well when making $20 an hour. Better - you might not be going hungry.
I am also not sure what is ideal. In my mind more granular than nation-wide and not so granular as to become too complicated to implement. An actual serious answer would require study and recommendations by those more versed on it than I am but as an off-the-cuff guess I would think that practicality would have levels in each state for set for its rural regions, for within each city’s borders, and for each city’s major suburban districts (divided into from 1 to no more than 5 economic sectors). It presumes efforts to encourage affordable housing availability in wealthier suburbs but conversely also motivates it as its absence would raise local minimum wage.
In the good old days an excuse for not paying women as much as men was that their husbands made the money so they didn’t really need it. Is that what you are advocating? Pay needs to be based on productivity, not your bank balance.
Those with reasonable money will work for other reasons - they’ll volunteer various places. Their reward is not monetary. And they tend not to work at a job which is going to make money for someone not them. I bet you don’t see many rich retirees volunteering for call centers, do you?
I’m going to volunteer myself next year. I don’t have $5 million saved, but I’m doing okay. And if my work (which I enjoy) wants me back they are going to pay a hefty hourly wage.
Assuming the Home Depot crew is making the minimum wage, and are not undocumented and working for peanuts, it is better for society as a whole that they do it.
Someone with no skills is going to be priced out of a $10 hour job as well as a $15 one. 20 hours a week? That has nothing to do with the wage. It would be great if jobs had that flexibility. It is more likely today that she’d get 20 hours no matter what she wants, and they will be scheduled at the last minute which is not great for taking care of sick babies. That’s another problem. Though it looks like some retailers who do this have been shamed into stopping it.
Yeah, who is going to give that politician more money - business owners who will save a bundle with a lower wage or minimum wage workers just floating in money?
And there have been plenty of studies showing that raising the wage does not cause all the catastrophes the right predicts. Not to mention that the wage has been higher (inflation adjusted) without wrecking the economy. So I wouldn’t go throwing around accusations of economic ignorance if I were you.
I am positive that such is in progress and will continue to be in progress and is currently most impacting more of the significantly higher than minimum wage job market. Automation is part of hollowing out the middle and there is no fighting it. The hope (with some historic precedence but unclear if history is a guide this time around) is that increased automation will increase productivity and thus jobs, wages, and wealth all around … rather than lead to greater wealth concentration and fewer jobs. But that is also a separate debate that we have had here before. I am on the scared side of that discussion myself.
It is not for no reason that the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts the greatest job growth in the areas of personal care aides, home health aides, and suchlike … they are harder to automate and don’t pay to. It’s the more somewhat skilled jobs (and higher paid previously solid working and middle class jobs) that it pays more to automate … from factory workers to bank tellers and moving into more skilled higher paid segments including radiology and pathology.
A living wage does not address that part of the increasing income and wealth inequality issue and it does not worsen it. The issue is multifactorial.
Good luck getting that $20/hr job when borders are not enforced and shipping is cheap if you have no economic worth.
You need to reread things because you are typing nonsense at this point. If you don’t understand globalization and what that does to wages do some research. The solution to increasing standards of living for people with no talent isn’t a price floor. It’s allowing supply and demand to work for labor like any other commodity and if someone is still in genuine need providing a supplement via a social safety net.
Not paying some fantastical “living wage” that has no bearing on any particular individual’s needs and in many cases is more than they need to “live” and in many cases less.
And your assumption about Home Depot day laborers NOT being illegal and working under the table is exactly the myopic view I’m talking about. Turning a wrench or picking a pumpkin can be bought for less than $2/hr and the results shipped here on giant container ships fueled by cheap oil. That’s economic reality. Pricing our least skilled, least educated people out of the global economy to buy a few votes is worse than unproductive. It’s actually destructive.
As automation improves and as the infrastructure of Asia increases and makes it cheaper to move goods from factories in Asia to the ports competition is going to get even fiercer.
Several "19th-century was Paradise"a arch-capitalists of the dog-eat-dog ilk rush to hijack your thread. … And I’m sure in another thread they’re complaining about what a left-leaning board the SDMB is! LOL. 
I’ll just comment that there is a danger in tying minimum wage directly to local cost-of-living. It may lead to a rush of immigration to urban centers. I think policy makers need to first decide what internal migrations are to be encouraged, and plan location-based minimum wages accordingly.
LOL.
I think this falls back on the geographical granularity that DSeid and I were discussing. Keep the areas big enough, and you’ll have the same cost of living calculated in both Arlington and Anacostia. Neither of is sure, given the hypothetical in the OP, what the ideal size is.
Maybe a good starting point is to check where else official costs of living are considered. I’m pretty sure the federal pay scale considers it. Anyone know about whether any aid programs currently consider it as well?
Understand, I favor a two pronged approach, a reasonable minimum wage, somewhat higher than what we have today, but not high enough to be considered a ‘living wage’, and a robust public assistance program for those who would still be in need.
Why do I want the public assistance side? First, the government will do a better job of providing additional funds to those who actually need it, without providing funds (in large quantities) to those who don’t. Minimum wage is a very blunt instrument.
Second, the government program can serve to transfer wealth from the most wealthy to the least wealthy. Minimum wage is paid for by everyone, rich and poor alike, in the form of slightly higher prices on goods and services. That’s fine in small doses, but when the majority of the higher wage is going to people without a desperate need for more money, we’re not only overfunding that program, but we’re getting much of that money from people who are at or near poverty levels to begin with.
I think the idea is to prevent people from leaving, which is what’s going on now. Although your point is well taken, we actually have a number of cities that have their own, higher, MW levels now, so we should be able to see what the effect is.
For example, the MW in SF is > $2/hr higher than the CA MW, and has been higher for at least 3 years. I have not heard of anyone complaining that too many MW workers are moving SF.
I would be more concerned with inflation. Everyone suddenly has more money, so why wouldn’t landlords raise rents accordingly?
Abolish minimum wage completely and let the market determine the fair price for entry level labor. Minimum wage laws don’t “fix” anything. Quite the opposite, actually.
Just to be clear, my concern gets raised when I hear the term “living wage”, as that usually entails a significant increase in the MW. I think we’ve seen that small increases have either negligible or unmeasurable effects.
“Just in time” scheduling makes that impossible. Even for simple cashier jobs, employers expect 24-hour availability from their employees. On short notice. If you’re out of town on your “day off” and they call, wanting you to work in half an hour, when you get there an hour later you won’t have a job.
For some reason, employers will work around high school or college schedules, but not other jobs. For the minimum wage jobs my friends have, it is simply not possible to keep more than one. The first employer will fire you as soon as they think you’re even looking for another job.
So the idea of “full time minimum wage workers” making a livable wage is laughable. There are no full time minimum wage workers. Not enough to worry about, at least. If you raise the minimum wage, workers will start getting scheduled 15 hours a week instead of 25, and in neither case will they be able to get another job to supplement their hours. It won’t make anything better.
What is the advantage of having a minimum wage at all if there is sufficient public assistance? If the government will do a better job of providing funds to those who actually need it, I see no reason an inefficient system should be preserved in lieu of one that is more efficient.
I think it’s about half. But BLS counts 35 hours as full time. I haven’t seen numbers yet for 40 or more.
Probably correct, for both positive and negative effects.
Regards,
Shodan