I’m surprised you can’t understand it. Others in the thread have.
To explain it to you: Sometimes things have a sweet spot. A pill that can ease your headache will kill you if you take a thousand of them.
So your $100 an hour was a ineffective attempt to make a point, and suggested you didn’t understand that a small amount of something can do some good, and a large amount can do some bad. Which is all I was trying to illustrate.
You think this passes as a response in Great Debates? Uh, no. What it boils down to is that you have a feeling that these corporations are bad, but you really can’t say why and back it up. But, they are baaaad, bad, bad, well because they somehow hurt the middle class. But you’re just not sure how.
Okaaay…
What is the point you think I was trying to make by using $100 an hour?
That the underlying increase was foolish because $100 an hour is foolish.
Otherwise you have no point at all.
Well, as is completely obvious to everyone except you, that was not the point of that post at all.
Let’s review.
Der Trihs posted this:
And then I posted this:
Der Trihs seems to believe that raising the MW would have no effect on employment because businesses are already employing as few people as possible. So, to confirm this belief of his, I asked him whether he thought that employment would remain the same if the MW were increased to a very large number (the precise amount of which doesn’t matter in the least).
Der Trihs never answered. In later posts, I made my point here, which is that the quantity demanded of an item generally goes down if the price of the item goes up. It’s true of milk in a supermarket, and it’s true of labor as well. But people can’t seem to apply this simple principle to labor–they think that, unlike all other things people buy, people will continue to buy the same amount even if the price increases.
Glad I could clear up your misunderstanding.
:dubious: Where, exactly, and how can the solution be separated from the motherdamnable Protestant work ethic? :mad:
Really? Have you read the whole thread? I think I’ve gone over quite a few aspects about these types of business, and provided multiple cites throughout. I really don’t feel like repeating myself again.
John Mace just doesn’t seem to see it like I do. That’s all that is going on in this exchange.
Yeah, it is a feeling I have. No, I can’t back it up with complete precision. It’s a very complex issue. However, the writing is on the wall. The safety, security, and livelihood of millions (possibly billions) of people are being neglected in favor of profit and progress, most of which is going to a select few. Why are 46 million americans living in poverty but the richest 1% own 40% of all wealth? Does this reflect a danger to the middle class? Even, if not directly imposed, does it not show correlation?
Some people here don’t even give it a second thought. I don’t see any points being conceded from your side. The typical right-winger seems to think everything is just hunky-dory when it comes to these corporations. It smacks of being unreasonable and stifles cooperation. The fact that some people can’t, or either refuse to even recognize the negative aspects here is somewhat frightening.
I’m not the one who was confused. Obviously there is a ceiling. But the amount of jobs appears to have no solid connection to modest increases in minimum wage. Your example is nonsense, because, of course if the cost of labor got insane no one would be able to afford it. But if it goes up ten percent, the vast majority of businesses will still be able to pay that.
If Joe Minimum is paid $50 a day and generates $100 of income for the business, it would be stupid to remove him if his cost went to $55 a day.
It can’t be. Grown-ups work for a living. That’s how you get out of poverty; not thru government handouts.
Regards,
Shodan
Like you, Der Trihs used the qualifier “generally.” He did not imply that 100% of employers would retain 100% of their employees even if wages rose 100%.
Unlike yours, Der Trihs’s comment was generally correct! Some market items have what is called “inelastic demand.” If the price of such goods or services goes up, consumption falls only slightly if at all. Rice, in rice-eating countries, is an excellent example. Minimum-wage labor is another example as some posters in this thread would learn if they … (gasp!) … spent the time posting nonsense at SDMB educating themselves instead. What’s especially sad are adults who can’t learn even when spoon-fed.
Glad I could clear up your misunderstanding.
You keep throwing out statements like this, but when asked to back them up, you can’t. It’s just a feeling you have. Has it dawned on you that you might be wrong about your ideas, or about the assumptions they are based upon? You look at correlations and conflate it with causation. You’re assuming that whatever scheme you have in mind would be of more help to those in need, and would be sustainable. Has your inability to counter John Mace’s concerns and questions with any relevant facts give you pause as to your own ideas?
I find this hilarious coming from you. You’ve laid out a bunch of stuff as if it’s self-evident. John Mace has challenged you on quite a few specifics, but you’ve not been able to answer him in way that actually defends your dictums and rants. Seems like that you might want to take some of your own advice.
Shodan, the very essence of this thread is that there are a lot of grownups out there who are working and not getting out of poverty, because the minimum wage is too low. Also, really wealthy grownups, the ones conservatives admire, don’t work for a living. They don’t have to.
Why yes it has Magellan. See, The Walmartization of America comes full circle. John Mace is in there. Around page 5 or so, I see where he is coming from and admit where I was wrong.
However why didn’t you answer my questions? “Why are 46 million americans (nearly 17%) living in poverty, while 1% own around 40% of the wealth? Does this not reflect a dangerous trend? Even, if not a direct cause, does it not show correlation?” Consider, also that these trends are continuing in the same direction. Also, consider that the parties in question are pretty much the same that we are currently discussing.
My “scheme” is a functional government that works to provide a foundation for society to be built upon. A government that serves to provide food, shelter, healthcare, education, justice, a military, and a whole host of other important social programs. My scheme provides structure, but also implies responsibility on every citizen in the country. My scheme is called Democracy, and it’s what this country is built upon. I have already mentioned this several times. What exactly is your proposal besides eliminating minimum wage?
I have admitted that the main responsibility of a business is to improve their business. I have admitted that the business should not be held soley responsible for problems such as poverty, pollution, and growing inequality. I have admitted that they have done a great deal of good, servicing millions of people, and employing millions. I can recognize that their business has improved technology and efficiency. I have admitted that the real problem here is an incapable government, and most of all, an ignorant voting public.
The most that I have heard from John Mace when questioning about the needs of the poorest of our citizens is that “it’s a responsibility of the government.” No mention is made by him, or you, or anyone else about how these major corporations actively try to dismantle the government, or pay as little in taxes as possible. No mention of responsibility of the harm and danger they pose is mentioned, even though they operate in this country and their employees depend on them with pretty much no investment in return.
So, yeah it is a feeling. I do have a difficult time backing it up, but I’m doing my best. But, all I see from your side is criticism and nitpick with little to no solution of your own besides what is pretty much the status quo.
You are the one who’s confused. You are still confused. You don’t understand the simple point I am making, so you translate it into some nonsense that you can understand and that you think you have a good response for.
What’s really funny (for me, sad for you) is that your response to the argument you imagine me making isn’t all that good. What if, in your example, the person only generates $52 of income? You’d agree that he’d be removed, right? Well, other people don’t agree that he’d be removed–and they’ve posed in this thread.
Look at the second part of Der Trihs’s post, where he doesn’t use “generally.” That’s a blanket statement showing that he doesn’t understand how people respond to price. Also, other posters in this thread have demonstrated their ignorance of this point.
Let’s see your evidence that the demand for minimum wage work is inelastic.
Evidence has been posted plenty of times in this thread; each of the cites showing small changes in unemployment from changes in minimum wage shows this.
Mr. Trihs might have been clearer, but writing a modifier like “generally” in the 1st sentence of a paragraph and expecting it to carry to the 2nd sentence is normal concise diction.
Kudos for finally identifying a key question. I’ve posted links to research on the topic including one in #225. #225 was directed specifically at you, making the same points. … Or you could use Google yourself.
Take a deep breath, pretend you’re in my shoes, reread the highlighted sentence, and connect it to your latest query. Do you see why posters trying to educate you might get frustrated?
Pannacione103
Now that that is said, back to the topic.
Who is to say how much is too much, or how little is too little? Subjective definitions often have the trouble that comes with other relative definitions, in that they change from person to person. Thus, I say “Pannacione is paid too little” where John Mace would say “Pannacione is paid too much”, Pannacione can either be a victim or beneficiary of majority opinion in this case. The crowd decides. Sounds like gladiators in the coliseum, or “witches” in protestant colonial times.
Wal-Mart is a retailer, and as such, should be compared to other retailers of a similar nature. We have established, Wal-mart is on the low end of the pay scale. One interesting fact to note is that Wal Mart is losing market share to Costco, who pays employees 18-20 an hour, and has much lower employee turnover. Costco is committed to targeting a markup on all products at the same low margin despite good times or bad. Costco is known for efficiency in their workforce. That is a good business model, that is paying off as an investment in Human capital. Henry ford did the same thing, paying workers double the going rate at the time. The point is, they are not doing this at gunpoint, which would be something similar to a minimum wage law. They are doing it as strategy to employ and retain people.
Now we can look at walmarts work force. They employ many people of retirement age that are already collecting fixed income payments from SSI and such. Thus, they can afford themselves to be paid less.
An increase in the minimum wage, by default, puts firms that are currently on the margin, out of business, or reduces their workforce. Plain and simple. This is less employment overall. Now, some might say that the overall net income increase is more favorable than the employment decrease. This is tantamount to saying you tacitly accept unemployment. Its similarly unsaid in regards to unions, like the service workers union who stands to “benefit” from this. Its really no different than the Good Ole boys club, if you’re in, you win, but most are left looking in from the outside. That MAY be a bit of hyperbole, but the rationale is the same.
Now, if we are talking about liveable wages, how about the net reduction in payroll taxes from reduced employment? Do you think a marginal increase in the salary of a few offsets the entirety of payroll taxes paid by those who will have lost their job? Take into account that these workers who do not have the living wage are those that are most likely to use these social services. There goes your “good for low income people” argument.
Furthermore, many of these min wage workers are on the stepping stone to something else, such as teenagers or entry level job workers. This gains experience that can then be used to gain other jobs. I am sure many of you who graduated recently know how tough it is to get a job in this economy, and that all jobs want “experience” right? So why make that HARDER?
Another way to look at this is… if low income peoples standard of living was that important, why not achieve these ends through expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit? This doesnt hurt employers, and returns funds to employees, increasing their purchasing power parity.
Its also pretty interesting to look at the immigration bill, which goes against the AFL-CIO and other large supporters of Obama, and see this as throwing them a bone in return. You see, immigration reform is something both parties want to latch on to now for more votes. Obama goes after it first before the primaries and gets brown votes for Blue. This angers the unions, so he throws them a bone with minimum wage increase because MANY UNION CONTRACTS ARE TIED TO A MULTIPLE OF THE MINIMUM WAGE.
Simply put, if you think any of this legislation is altruistic, you are certainly NAIVE.
Enjoy,
Pannacione103
The other advantage to the EITC is that it is not a blunt instrument, like the MW. A 16-year-old kid who is claimed as a dependent on his parent’s tax income isn’t going to get any EITC, whereas that same kid gets a raise every time the MW goes up. The EITC can be better tailored to meet the needs of specific individuals, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Of course, the EITC has overhead costs that the MW does not, but it also lets us know exactly what the costs are and interferes less with the market while accomplishing the same goal-- making sure we have a social safety net for those who truly need it.
I really get tired of folks here who want to use the MW to effectively punish so-called greedy employers. That shouldn’t be the purpose of our economic policy.
Maybe. A minimum wage also puts more money in the economy, which increases demand for goods and services, which increases the demand for jobs. You are aware that several economists have found that increases in employment resulted from increases in minimum wages? Even when they find decreases in employment, those decreases are small.
Yes.
Where does the money from EITC come from? Does it come from taxes? Then it has exactly the same impact on the economy as a minimum wage. Also, as in your Walmart example, it would result in lowered wages; it would in effect be a subsidy from successful businesses to unsuccessful ones.
I think if you use an EITC then you need a MW as well. Otherwise employers would just reduce wages to offset the EITC. I’m not sure that EITC is any less blunt than MW