I doubt it. Besides, even if that were true, there are other ways to fight poverty than the MW.
Still, you didn’t answer my question. Are you afraid of the answer?
I don’t believe there would be at first, but as more and more businesses start to shave off wages, it will increase the disparity between rich and poor to the point that is not good for a consumer economy.
And even worse, it would almost certainly, lead to a nation-wide price and wage depression. Which wouldn’t necessarily be bad since that doesn’t tell us much about what their relative worth. But it’d wreak havoc on our Debt to GDP ratio.
Such as? What would you propose?
No, I’m afraid of the outcome. If the MW is abolished, more jobs will be offered on the market – at wages at which no worker can support him/herself, let alone a family; and higher-paying menial jobs would disappear, because anyone who continued to offer them would be driven out of business by less-generous competitors. That’s all in the relatively short term. In the long term, all those less-generous employers might find their business dropping off because fewer people can afford, any more, to buy their goods and services; and then even those lower-paying jobs might start to disappear.
I suspect that one’s feelings about that will be directly related to how much one makes per hour, with people closest to the minimum wage advocating a rise, and people farthest from it, the least interested in raising it. Congress, interestingly enough, is peopled almost entirely by millionaires.
Welfare.
Why should every job in the economy be one that allows the worker to support himself? What if one spouse just wants to earn extra money?
Let me address this more fully.
You are making the (erroneous) assumption that the MW is the only way to put money in the hands of the poor. Actually, it only takes care of the working poor, and it generates no wealth-- it just redistributes it. But, if we create more jobs, that does create more wealth.
But frankly, this race to the bottom argument is easily debunked. If it were true, then all unskilled jobs would be at the minimum wage now. That’s demonstrably false.
Eliminating the MW will create jobs only if there are jobs that are not being offered because of wage floors. Are there really un-realized jobs in the economy? I’m not sold on that idea, but if there’s some evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it. Otherwise, the only effect will be to make the wages for current jobs lower.
BrainGlutton’s cite that raising the minimum wage does not reduce the number of jobs certainly seems to indicate that there aren’t un-realized jobs. Rather, there are jobs that are currently being done for wages less than the market will bear (as the jobs continue to exist even at higher wages).
Sure - but your proposed welfare plan for combating the resultant poverty replaces the MW as the wealth redistribution mechanism.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Welfare.
snip…QUOTE]
They aren’t only not raising the MW, they are cutting welfare.
Any other bright ideas?
That’s what illegal immigrants are for. And the nice thing is, they can’t complain about low salaries or poor working conditions, because you can then threaten to turn them over to Immigration Services.
Whenever George W. Bush talks about “jobs Americans won’t do,” he’s leaving out the caveat “…for slave wages.”
Cite? I’ll be the first person to say that I’m not a Republican, but statements like that border upon ludicrosity. The idea of generalizing the socio-economic status of an entire political party is riddiculous. I, for one, know many low(er) income Republicans. In fact, in my experience the majority of Republicans were not particularly priviledged.
I could have let a statment like that go if you had said “In my experience…” but you went and passed it off as if it were the result of endless research.
As long as nonsense like this keeps being sent back and forth there will never be any real political progress.
The thing about the minimum wage I don’t get is what is it supposed to accomplish? The OP mentions something about narrowing the gap between the haves and the have nots, but if that were the policy aim a MW is a very bad tool to do it. Why? It does not target the haves and it does not target the have nots. It is applied to all people, single mothers as well as teenagers simply trying to get some spending money. And on the business side, many small businesses operate on the slimmest of margins.
What about the social goal that folks should be able to earn a living wage? Unfortunately the flip side of that coin is that someone is required to provide a living wage. But why should businees owners be required to foot the bill for asocietal need? Because they can afoford it? After all, income taxation principles are generally progressive on an ability-to-pay basis (I realize this point may not be true in practice, but it is a guiding principle, I believe). The thing about MW is that it is not based on an ability-to-pay, all business owners are required to pay, whether they are struggling to keep the doors open or hghly prosperous. Meanwhile, the worker may have no need to earn a living wage.
No, his cite does not do that. It claims to say that it didn’t prevent new jobs from being created, but even that claim is specious. We don’t know what would have happened if “X” hadn’t been done once “X” has been done. Ever notice how full-serve gas stations hardly exist anymore? Ever notice how automated tellers and check-out clerks are replacing people? No one who understands economics can deny that the existence of the minimum wage suppresses job creation.
Yes, it does. But then we know exaclty how much we’re paying in welfare, and we do create more jobs. The economy as a whole is better off, and it’s also better able to support welfare. MW = welfare; it’s just invisible.
Call me skeptical, but I have a hard time believing that the Republican Party leadership has the interests of the common man in mind when they consider the Mariana Islands – complete with 70-hour work weeks, indentured servitude, underaged prostitution, and forced abortions – to be “a perfect Petri dish of capitalism.”
You may be right, but I don’t think your examples are particularly illuminating. I’m not sure about gas station attendants, but neither bank tellers nor supermarket checkout clerks are minimum wage jobs, and thus I don’t see how decreasing the minimum wage would bring those jobs back.
Just wanted to add that even service station attendants are paid more than minimum wage.
My impression is that most minimum wage jobs are ones that can’t be eliminated or easily automated (food service, janitorial, etc) and hence, unless there is a dearth of McDonald’s employees, lowering the minimum wage will serve more to lower the wages of existing jobs than increase the number of jobs.
In general, if we create a small number of new jobs (and with an unemployment rate of 5.5%, there isn’t the labor supply to support that many more), but decrease the wages of existing jobs, it’s not clear that we have a win on our hands. Especially because the chances of expanding the welfare system are slim to none.
If you want to debate the Republican Party leadership, then invite them in here. Otherewise, you’re just posting strawman arguements.
I don’t like the idea of my taxes going to pay for welfare so that someone can get rich off of paying their employees peanuts.
The minimum wage should be abolished.
Go on.
[crickets chirp]
Umm . . . You see, what you wrote there, it’s what we call a “position” or an “opinion.” Which is just fine if you’re posting to a poll in IMHO.
But it is not the same thing as an argument. What we mostly use in GD.
The latter being, you know, generally more complicated and challenging, and backed up with cites or facts or chains of reasoning or something like that . . .
But you don’t mind paying more for your products so that someone can get rich off of paying their employees the MW. What’s the difference?