There’s nothing wrong with setting a minimum rate for labor. It will apply across the board so every business must pay the same minimum rate. Companies that would go out of business as a result of the increase in pay would be marginally sustainable anyway. The businesses which reduce the rate of employment growth as a result are also in the same postion. Inflation has caused great increases to most costs for all businesses and this is just another inflationary cost that can be absorbed by healthy companies.
I’ve not made any claims, other than that I have no objection to indexing the MW to inflation.
But if you think asking for you you to quantify your claims is a "sneer’, then you don’t know how debate. You claimed that if we don’t raise the MW, we will have to spend “massively” on welfare. I’d like to see the numbers. That is:
Raising the WM will cost X.
Not raising the WW will cost Y. (According to you).
Convince us that Y > X.
For the statement that a minimum wage family with two kids is below the poverty line, does that mean a single parent or two parents? Presumably it means 1 working parent, or they would definitely be above the poverity line. Census Bureau poverity levels are based on income before tax, although at minimum wage the family would not owe any income tax, just Social Security and Medicare taxes. Below I am using $14,500 as minimum wage, the 2013 poverity levels for 2 kids, and have added the 2013 earned income credit of $5372, which lifts millions of families above the poverty line each year.
For a single parent, income not including taxes: $14500+$5372=$19872 which is above the single parent + 2 child poverty level of $19530.
For two parents (1 working) the same income as above is below the 2 parent + 2 child poverty level of $23550, but raising minimum wage to $9 would not put them above the poverty level either.
So either the original claim is false, or the proposed solution is not a solution.
No. I pointed out that if wages didn’t keep up with inflation, either we’d have to feed people via welfare or we’d have mobs of starving people. And that was in response to your own demand as to why wages should keep up with inflation.
You’ve yet to explain by what magic people are supposed to stay alive if inflation continues to outpace wages.
Here is what you said:
I just want to know how “massive” the welfare program needs to be in order to prevent “starving hordes”.
Again, raising the MW will cost X.
To avoid “starving hordes” we will need “massive welfare programs” that will cost Y.
Convince us that Y > X.
If it is, then raising the MW is probably a good idea, since it’s costs less than the alternative.
I’m sure you’ve done the analysis, so no need to be modest about showing us your work. Who knows, there might be a Nobel Prize in Economics out there with your name on it.
Will the minimum wage be age-related? That’s how it is in the Netherlands.
Will this mean that servers and waiters will earn minimum wage and become less reliant on tips?
Geeze, they give multi million dollar bonuses to senior execs who drive their companies and indeed the whole US economy over the cliff, so there is DEFINITELY some free lunch floating around. Lots of it!
I agree with this! Adult HoH should be earning a living wage, teens who live with Mommy and Daddy can get by on $5.75/hr.
In the US there is a different (and lower) minimum wage for tipped workers.
The minimum wage is the same for tipped workers. The “minimum cash wage” is not the minimum wage.
Not just that, but teens should be encouraged to stay in school. Lower teen wages encourage teens and their employers to try each other out for short jobs in vacations and weekends, which gives employers a stopgap workforce and teens the opportunity to get work experience.
Point taken. But the tips received by tipped workers go towards making up their minimum wage. The introduction or increase of the minimum wage doesn’t mean that diners can think “oh, there’s no need (or less need) to tip now”, which I think is what Maastricht was gettng at.
The studies linked to in the article from the OP.
I know a lot of teens whose wages contribute toward household expenses–and I don’t mean they pay for their own car and insurance, I mean they hand over half their paycheck to their mom to pay the rent, and use the other half at the grocery store. Why should their labor be worth less because of their age? And being “encouraged to stay in school” sounds like condescending bullshit when your mom’s too sick to work, your sister’s pregnant, and there are two kids younger than you. It’s especially condescending when you already ARE staying in school and fitting your full-time job in on nights and weekends. You want to tell that kid that he doesn’t need or deserve the full minimum wage?
I see the right wing reflexes are in good shape.
Some flaws with this logic:
- the notion that the labor portion of the corporate budget is absolutely fixed and cannot be altered for any reason. This is nonsense. Materials, energy, rents, all are not constant. There is no reason that the labor budget must be forever unchanging.
- If this company could have gotten by with 9 people instead of 10, they already would have.
- There is a free lunch, but it’s not being eaten by the minimum wage workers. It’s being eaten by the CEOs and their eight figure salaries.
It’s about power. The minimum wage worker has none. They are forced to accept whatever they can get, they have no bargaining chip. Without a raise in minimum wage, they will fall farther and farther behind.
If the minimum wage is raised, 100% of that money is going to go right back into the economy. These workers don’t save their money, they have to spend every nickel. More money being spent translates into more jobs for everyone. Who loses? Maybe the CEOs have to get by with a slightly smaller raise next year. Maybe the price of a burger goes up by a nickel. Maybe the corporate shareholders get slightly less dividend.
It’s about fairness. It’s the right thing to do.
The labor a worker does has value to the employer. If the mandated minimum wage exceeds that value, the employer will cut staff. If the minimum wage is less than the value to the employer a raise in minimum wage (still less than the value) won’t affect employement.
If you force somone to pay more than something is worth, but leave the actual purchase decision up to them, you stop purchasing.
I’m skeptical of any bumper-sticker-like summary of the impact of this issue.
Should every job should pay enough to support a family with two kids? (And why two, exactly?)
If they could cut staff, they already would have. Do you suppose that companies have more people on the payroll than they need out of the goodness of their hearts?
Yes, if having multiple people at a lower wage is better than having fewer people at a higher wage to avoid paying benefits. But no two the “goodness of their hearts”.
Just as a note, per the State Department:
-
Fully 99 percent of all independent enterprises in the country employ fewer than 500 people.
-
These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
This isn’t a big-evil-corporation vs. the little guy issue.