# Minimum wage **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 29, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503 "2013-08-29T15:44:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/61 "2013-08-30T06:55:07Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > . > > I’m a Liberal, and I think people should earn enough money to live on. OTOH, is $15/hour too much? > > The minimum wage in the State of Washington is $9.19/hour. That’s pretty good. I _think_ I could get by on $10/hour full-time. But I don’t live in Seattle. Full time? How many McDonalds workers are getting full time? ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/62 "2013-08-30T11:37:30Z")
Not to add too much complexity to the thread, but with Washington State specifically there’s the issue that $10/hr or even $15/hr may be a competitive living wage in the Puget Sound region, but there’s that whole other part of the state east of the Cascades. With that handy-dandy living wage calculator **shimmery** posted, it looks like a living wage in most of the cities I plugged in in eastern Washington are in the $7-8/hr range. People in eastern Washington living comfortably on an overly generous minimum wage (while undoubtedly grumbling about those damn liberals across the Cascade Curtain) certainly wouldn’t be the end of the world, but I could see that actually hurting the local economies in places there, especially outside of the “big” cities. One other issue along those lines is the “migrant” farmworkers in eastern Washington. There is what is supposed to be a very limited exception to the minimum wage law in Washington for migrant or seasonal farm workers, but there are quite a lot of people who have lived in the region for generations who are nevertheless classified as migrant workers even though in any meaningful way they are employees who should be subject to the minimum wage law. My concern there is that ratcheting up the minimum wage even more would create even more of those quasai-legal arrangements or outright under-the-table working. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/63 "2013-08-30T12:27:33Z")
> [@yellowjacketcoder](#): > > I think you are misreading him. The regulations were removed and things got bad. Why aren’t you blaming congress for removing the regulation? His response was so far off that I just assumed he responded to the wrong post. ---
**Author:** ![Macca26](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/13edae/32.png) [@Macca26](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Macca26)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/64 "2013-08-30T15:32:58Z")
I just don’t think I can agree with you, **yellowjacketcoder**. You think some people are not worth paying enough money to live. These lower-class people aren’t all horrible rapists and murderers or something, so I can’t fathom how you could believe that they’re not worth it. I’m not saying we give them free money - we’re talking about people with jobs, who are working for pay. I don’t see how certain jobs are so “worthless” as to be paid less than a living wage. Without food service workers nobody could go out to eat, so they uphold a pretty important part of people’s daily lives. They run around on their feet all day and deal with nasty (and nice) customers under strenuous time constraints. I don’t see what’s so “easy” about these jobs. My desk job is easier AND pays more, frankly. Seems a bit mixed up. Why do we treat them only as transient jobs? They are pretty sucky, but people work them many years, maybe their whole lives. Not everybody can move up the ladder simply because there’s not enough positions to move up to. There aren’t as many managers in the world as there are floor workers - every floor worker cannot eventually become a manager because there are not enough spots. Inevitably there will be people stuck on the bottom their whole lives because of this fact. Someone has to be these workers on the bottom or the whole system falls apart. Why are we letting them be treated to a substandard quality of life when we can do better? What exactly have they done to deserve it? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/65 "2013-08-30T16:00:46Z")
The proper answer is to avoid the need for minimum wage hikes by providing government support: negative income tax, subsidized housing (Friedmanists support these two IIRC), food stamps and public-financed health care. Minimum wage hikes are a poor choice forced by necessity: the political climate doesn’t allow expensive government spending on health or housing. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/66 "2013-08-30T16:10:59Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The proper answer is to avoid the need for minimum wage hikes by providing government support: negative income tax, subsidized housing (Friedmanists support these two IIRC), food stamps and public-financed health care. Which amounts to a subsidy to corporations who employ low wage workers, incentivizing others to drop wages in the knowledge that the federal government will support their employees who are unable to support themselves on the wages they are paid. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/67 "2013-08-30T16:14:16Z")
Wait, why would that incent other companies to drop their wages? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/68 "2013-08-30T16:21:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s true, and it’s why I support minimum wage laws. But the poster’s point still stands. Wages are merely a price. Labor is not special, it’s just another thing people sell. It gets special treatment politically because nearly everyone sells labor. but that doesn’t mean that labor has different economics from other goods and services. The varying laws governing labor are an attempt to protect labor from those market forces, often unsuccessfully. I’m guessing you support minimum wage laws (and unemployment insurance) for another reason. If the demand for a car model falls so much that the manufacturer cannot make a profit, they can either cut costs or stop making it. In either case there are some bad side effects, but the economy as a whole is stronger because resources get directed into products that people want. If people were robots, they could just be turned off when there was a lack of demand. Being people they need to eat, and, as we’ve seen, support a family. When there is no demand we have the government do it. But if there is enough demand for their services to be employed, it is not too much to ask the employer to have a floor on pay. If the employer is so inefficient that they can’t make money after paying their salaries, then they cut staff - but I’d suspect that without an investment in automation their output would decrease and the inefficient employer would be in trouble. What we don’t want is for the government to subsidize inefficient employers by paying salary or benefits the employer should be paying. In the current case, with productivity and profits increasing (at least until just now) the argument that employers can’t afford the floor salary is weaker. After that, the market does take over, which is why pay above minimum wage won’t increase in lockstep with it. The CEO is not going to demand another $5 an hour after all. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/69 "2013-08-30T16:26:22Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Wait, why would that incent other companies to drop their wages? Because the pool of workers able to take those jobs will be bigger, and because why pay yourself when you can get the government pay? That’s for negative income tax, not UHC which would level the playing field because all companies and people would be taxed to support it. If a company can make a profit paying minimum wage but makes a bigger profit with government subsidies, why should you and I support their higher profit with our taxes? If the company can’t support minimum wage without government subsidies, why should our taxes prop up an inefficient company? Let it fail and let someone who can do a better job take over. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/70 "2013-08-30T16:49:49Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Because the pool of workers able to take those jobs will be bigger, and because why pay yourself when you can get the government pay? Because that’s what the market will support? The whole argument in favor of minimum wage (which I’m not opposed to) is that people aren’t being paid enough to support themselves. In other words, companies don’t care if they pay a living wage. So, why are you under the impression that what the governemnt does or doesn’t do has any bearing on companies’ salary decisions? Most people pay more than minimum wage becasue they want a higher caliber of employee. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/71 "2013-08-30T17:16:29Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Which amounts to a subsidy to corporations who employ low wage workers, incentivizing others to drop wages in the knowledge that the federal government will support their employees who are unable to support themselves on the wages they are paid. Unclear. Some low-wage workers make very little after transportation costs, loss of leisure, etc. are subtracted out, but are forced to work by dire necessity. With basic needs met elsewhere, they could afford to be more selective in their employment. What I propose should be endorsed by left and right alike! Wages determined by free market. Minimum human needs met by society. My comment is hypothetical, of course, since present U.S. politics are directed at weakening rather than strengthening the social safety net. Given present political reality, I support increasing minimum wage. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/72 "2013-08-30T17:19:38Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > There are protests in downtown Seattle today, where people are demanding an increase in the minimum wage to $15/hour. I believe there are other protests across the country. > > I’m a Liberal, and I think people should earn enough money to live on. OTOH, is $15/hour too much? > > The minimum wage in the State of Washington is $9.19/hour. That’s pretty good. I _think_ I could get by on $10/hour full-time. But I don’t live in Seattle. > > There are some people who say that minimum wage jobs are not meant to allow people to live. They’re for teenagers, who can live at home; or for students, who are busy going to school and don’t need a career. In fact, only 16% of fast-food jobs go to teenagers. There are people who ‘did the right thing’ and went to school and entered into a well-paying career, only to have the rug pulled out from under them. (I can imagine someone telling these people, ‘Well, you should have _known_ 30 years ago that real estate was going to crash or that programming would be done remotely in other countries! You eediot!’) These people _do_ need a living wage – not only for themselves, but for their families. > > I would like to see the minimum wage (at least in this state) to go to $10/hour. Fifteen dollars per hour? That seems a little generous. Rent is high in Seattle, but Seattle has a good public transportation system. My mortgage is less than half of what my apartment in L.A. is renting for today, but I have a long drive to the office and fuel is expensive. Fortunately, I’m allowed to telecommute three days out of five and my car gets 46-47 mpg. My situation is not typical (and I’m very grateful for it!). Ten dollars an hour might not let someone guy Desirable Consumer Items, but I think it’s enough to live on until a better job can be found. Of course, I think that every job should provide health coverage; or better yet, there should be a single-payer system. (A single-payer system would allow better job mobility, which would be good for the economy.) > > The other thing the protesters want is the ability to form unions. I think people have a right to organise. As I said, I think $15/hour is a little generous. A union might push (too hard) for that wage, which might not be a good thing. (More money in people’s pockets though, would be spent. That’s a good thing.) I have never worked in fast-food, but I’ve heard here and other places of how people who do are ill-used by their employers. I think a union would help to reduce these abuses. I believe something like 5% of fast food workers earn the minimum wage, and half of those are teenagers. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/73 "2013-08-30T17:28:16Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > I really don’t get why this is even a debate. This isn’t the first time ever that the minimum wage might be raised. What happened last time? And the time before that? And the time before that? We’ve got years and years and multiple minimum wage raises to look at, so why are we arguing theory when we can look at what happens in reality? > > I don’t know what happened, mind you. But someone does. It’s a simple question of correlation, to start. Then if there is one, we can argue about causation until the cows come home… Because the results have actually be mostly inconclusive. The studies I’ve read on minimum wage have not shown much negatives but also not shown much positive outcomes either. Essentially previous hikes actually had a minimal effect, undermining the argument of both those who warn of gloom and doom due to a wage hike and those who think it will somehow fix any real problems experienced by the lowest wage earners. A raise to $15 from $7.50 would, I believe, be a much larger % increase than ever seen before though–so whatever effects minimum wage hikes have we’d see a much more robust example from such a hike than previous hikes that would go from like $5.15–\>$7.50 or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![JFLuvly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@JFLuvly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JFLuvly)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/74 "2013-08-30T17:41:40Z")
Things change, and maybe that’s what is happening here. I remember when I was a young teen in the early eighties and my mother telling me to stay in school and get an education because “You don’t want to spend your life digging ditches”. She was referring to having a job working with our town. What was once a low paying job, digging ditches or working on a garbage truck, is now a pretty safe career choice with wages starting in the low twenty dollar an hour range with a pension plan, health benefits and three weeks vacation. The skills required to do these jobs has not changed in the last thirty years but the security and benefits certainly have. One of the downsides to a high minimum wage, which I have not seen mentioned yet, is to the small mom and pop operations. A good friend of mine recently had to close his music store. This was not because of a higher minimum wage but because of other overhead expenses increasing exponentially ie; rent, power, etc. There is no way he would be able to absorb a 100% increase in minimum wage. You are only going to sell so many guitars per year and I think this would hold true for many of these types of operations. On the other hand I now, at a later stage in my life, understand how hard it is to raise a family on a minimal amount of money. I can’t speak for Americans here on the board, but here in Canada, the cost of living is rising way faster than the increase in wages. In my neck of the woods we have some of the highest power rates in the country despite the fact that I am a five minute ride from one power plant and forty minutes away from another. We pay, with the conversion from litres to gallons, about $5.20 a gallon for gas, a little over $7.00 a gallon for milk, $3.90 for a gallon of heating oil. Our housing costs are generally lower that the rest of the country, but you get what you pay for. A new three bedroom single story home, 60 X 100 foot lot is in the $200,000.00, but you can get older, thirty to forty years, decent two story homes around the $100,000.00 range. The problem is that this is out of range for our minimum wage, which was increased to $10.30 an hour this year. To top it off we have no real industry anymore, most of the work around here are minimum wage jobs, so with that I understand the desire to want a livable wage. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/75 "2013-08-30T20:01:28Z")
My view is if you’re not running the business then the wages are between the employer and employee. If employees weren’t willing to work for that wage then the businesses would be empty. ---
**Author:** ![Crumbled\_Bumble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@Crumbled\_Bumble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crumbled_Bumble)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/76 "2013-08-30T20:40:31Z")
> [@Penny](#): > > Fair enough. I was being lazy because its a pain to read, cut and paste on my iPod. I will happily hunt you down some studies when I return to my desk. If you are really chomping at the bit, you can Google it :). But I will happily put up. You mentioned studies. Seems like a natural reaction to ask for them. I mean you did say studies. You should have done the work. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/77 "2013-08-30T21:05:53Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Because that’s what the market will support? The whole argument in favor of minimum wage (which I’m not opposed to) is that people aren’t being paid enough to support themselves. In other words, companies don’t care if they pay a living wage. So, why are you under the impression that what the governemnt does or doesn’t do has any bearing on companies’ salary decisions? > > Most people pay more than minimum wage becasue they want a higher caliber of employee. It is trivially true that the government has an effect on salary - see minimum wage. Do you doubt that government subsidies of salaries wouldn’t cause employers to lower their pay, at least somewhat? Caliber of employees, and thus pay, depend on the business model of the company - see WalMart versus Costco for example. And if companies need skilled and rare employees, they pay more than minimum wage, a lot more, because they can’t get anyone. No one in demand need worry about this. And I certainly agree that companies for the most part don’t care about a living wage. If you can give your employees less while everyone else gives theirs more, so that you still have customers, you win. When everyone cuts and your customers go away because they can no longer afford you, you and everyone else loses. It is just another example of the tragedy of the commons. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/78 "2013-08-30T21:17:14Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Unclear. Some low-wage workers make very little after transportation costs, loss of leisure, etc. are subtracted out, but are forced to work by dire necessity. With basic needs met elsewhere, they could afford to be more selective in their employment. What I propose should be endorsed by left and right alike! Wages determined by free market. Minimum human needs met by society. > > My comment is hypothetical, of course, since present U.S. politics are directed at weakening rather than strengthening the social safety net. Given present political reality, I support increasing minimum wage. I guess it depends on how well minimum needs are met. Very well, and I agree there would be people inclined to not work except for a good job. If it amounts to a subsidy, wouldn’t the market quickly determine which combination of government and private pay is enough to get employees? I suspect the private pay component would be less than no government at all. And there would have to be jobs to be selective about. But it is moot, because I agree with your assessment of the political situation. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/79 "2013-08-30T21:46:48Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Because the results have actually be mostly inconclusive. The studies I’ve read on minimum wage have not shown much negatives but also not shown much positive outcomes either. Essentially previous hikes actually had a minimal effect, undermining the argument of both those who warn of gloom and doom due to a wage hike and those who think it will somehow fix any real problems experienced by the lowest wage earners. A raise to $15 from $7.50 would, I believe, be a much larger % increase than ever seen before though–so whatever effects minimum wage hikes have we’d see a much more robust example from such a hike than previous hikes that would go from like $5.15–\>$7.50 or whatever. This is exactly why we can’t say with any degree of confidence what raising the minimum wage to $15 would do. We’ve never had that kind of increase before, so any studies we have are of questionable validity. I hope it is generally agreed that if we raised the minimum wage to $100/hour, it would have some kind of serious impact. Probably some serious inflation and/or unemployment and market failure. Either $100 becomes worth not much pretty quickly, or McDonalds goes out of business. I think it’s also pretty obvious that raising the minimum wage by 1% wouldn’t really have much of a measurable effect at all. Somewhere between those two, there’s an increase that’s large enough to have serious effects. How large that increase is is an open question, but it’s completely incorrect to claim that we could double the minimum wage and it would have no effect on employment or inflation. We simply don’t know, since no one has ever tried it before. ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2013, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503/80 "2013-08-30T23:30:01Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > At walmart every extra $4000 a year in extra wages and benefits would drive up prices by 1%, so if workers got an extra $8000 a year in wages and benefits a $2 loaf of bread would cost $2.04. Cite? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minimum-wage/667503.md?page=5)