Apparently you do. The value proposition changes when the price of human labor changes. The question is simply will you have more cashiers if the cashiers have to be payed $10/hr or $5/hr? If the answer is $5/hr then supply and demand is working as predicted and the minimum wage has cost people jobs. If the answer is no difference in number of cashiers then explain the mechanism.
If a minimum wage is so great why wait? Why does it need to be in 2021? If it is good why isn’t it good now?
If a few lost jobs is the only downside, who are losing those jobs? The most unskilled among us. The poor tend to be the most unskilled. Shouldn’t we care that the minimum wage is designed in a way that hurts the poorest and most vulnerable the most? Here is what the Urban Institute found about the long term unemployed “Being out of work for six months or more is associated with lower well-being among the long-term unemployed, their families, and their communities. Each week out of work means more lost income. The long-term unemployed also tend to earn less once they find new jobs. They tend to be in poorer health and have children with worse academic performance than similar workers who avoided unemployment.Communities with a higher share of long-term unemployed workers also tend to have higher rates of crime and violence.” However, the connectionbetween happiness and wages is much weaker. People who make more are a little happier, but nothing like the chasm between the unemployed and the employed.
What data are you talking about? Do you really expect us to believe that $10/hr was chosen scientifically as the optimal minimum wage? It was chosen because it is a round number and people like round numbers.
The half million or so who lose their jobs don’t benefit.
And could you please cite that millions of people will no longer receive government handouts if we increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour?
Regards,
Shodan
The minimum wage is something that can be done by legislative fiat. A strong labor movement cannot be created that way, it requires on-the-ground organizing and a lot of it.
No one has denied that. You are simply arguing something for the sake of arguing. The point is that employers in many cases are not so price sensitive as to make automation a better value proposition given increased wages. Some will opt to eat the costs, some will raise prices, others will cut hours, etc. That is the debate.
It depends. More importantly, society doesn’t always benefit from having more people employed at worse jobs, so it’s not just a matter of the number of people doing x as the only relevant part of the calculus.
But your example is largely divorced from reality. We are not going from $5 to $10, and we are not doing overnight. I could just as easily construct an example that going from $5 to $5.05 which would almost certainly not create any aggregate behavioral changes. Yes, the existence of a minimum wage will cost some jobs, and radical, sudden increases in the MW would also likely cost jobs, but neither point really factors in at increasing to around $10/hour from current levels AFAICT. If you have some data from places that contradicts this, feel free to cite it.
Because sudden changes do not give enough time for businesses to adjust. This is a fairly obvious point. Increased CAFE standards are good too, but mandating they be done immediately is not really fair. Even bad things are often phased out gradually (eg. leaded gas). Not really sure what you hoped to gain with such a stupid rhetorical point.
Again, it’s not clear that such a proposal will cost jobs. But to answer your question, no, I don’t think broad economic policy should always be crafted with deference to a particular group. By that logic, we’d have enormous tariffs and few international trade agreements; two things I think most economists generally agree on.
What are YOU talking about? Look at the state minimum wages across the country. They generally aren’t $10, and many are not nice, round numbers. I was not looking for data on $10 to the exclusion of any other number. I’d just love some data demonstrating the parades of horribles one side assumes will come when the MW is increased AT ALL. As I said, the data seems to be mixed. Yes, we can all obviously acknowledge that a one cent increase will yield almost no changes, and a $20 increase would cost jobs, but what happens when we have relatively modest, gradual increases like much of what is being proposed? I am not sure anyone can say with any confidence.
[quote=“Shodan, post:122, topic:753021”]
The half million or so who lose their jobs don’t benefit.
[QUOTE]
What makes you think we’d lose 500k jobs?
Clearly that was a hypothetical. I think that was clear when I said:
“If $10/hour only means a few lost jobs that were crappy anyway, and it provides millions of people with a better life where they don’t have to rely on charity and government handouts, then we all benefit.”
But I would be more than happy to provide you with fictional cite to back my hypothetical example.
I would like to say that you cannot simply look at the labor component of some end industry, because labor also goes into the products that are used.
Is a cashier job with an artificer price floor really a better job than a cashier job at the market rate? Wouldn’t it be better to develop more advanced industries and promote education?
That’s what CBO says. They may be wrong; some have been critical of their methodology.
Most MW earners are not living in poverty. Most people living in poverty either do not work or work only a little. I certainly wasn’t relying " on charity or government handouts" while I was acquiring valuable work experience.
How many of the people you’re trying to help actually need it, and how many who need it are you actually helping?
How long ago were you “acquiring valuable work experience”?
As I pointed out upthread, when I was doing that, 35+ years ago, minimum wage was a living wage (outside of maybe New York City) and I didn’t need to rely on assistance, either. These days…inflation has risen more rapidly in those years than the minimum wage.
I also have to ask for a cite that “Most people living in poverty either do not work or work only a little.” I’ve frequently heard the opposite.
A minimum wage earner could work 30 hours a week and still be in poverty.
~10 years ago.
This is a garbage cite because they don’t cite their sources (probably USCB), but it’ll do in a pinch. Here you have ~60% not working. Now most of those “can’t”. And they don’t break down the full- vs part-time workers with actual numbers, but you can see that even for those who “can” work, full-timers are in the minority.
And they could not be; most MW earners are not.
That means 60% of those in poverty aren’t minimum wage earners, because they don’t work.
Very good. You can read charts.
If that was not the conclusion you were making from that cite, please explain.
The cite was to back up my statement that “Most people living in poverty either do not work or work only a little”
Which is part of my general point that MW earners and the poor are two distinct populations with some overlap. Most of one group is not in the other group. Which is why I asked another poster, “How many of the people you’re trying to help actually need it, and how many who need it are you actually helping?”
You missed my point. I wasn’t talking about burger flippers, I was talking about the skilled trades. You may want to read up on that until Teacher gives you a gold star for knowing the difference.
How is “full time” defined?
Are the statistics people defining full time as 40 hours or more? Because these days most employers are calling 30-39 hours a week full time. For example, at my employer the policy is that a full time employee is a minimum of 32 hours per week.
30 hours a week at Federal minimum wage is right at the Federal poverty line for an individual. If that person is supporting more than themselves (a child, disabled relative, etc.) then the household is definitely below poverty.
You have to work 39-40 hours a week at Federal minimum wage before a two person household squeaks over the the two-person poverty level. So, if you have a “full time” job (according to the employer) of 35 hours per week and two people who have to live on that you’ll be officially poor, but will you be captured by the people doing the stats?
Children and the disabled shouldn’t be counted in a discussion like this. How many able-bodied adult poor are working? That’s real question. And how many of those people are also supporting one or more other people who can’t work?
A large majority of MW earners do not live in poor households (cite), and most MW earners are not supporting themselves or anyone else (cite).
Regards,
Shodan
It would. But there is ample evidence those jobs and higher paying ones are being destroyed quicker than they are being replaced, or at the very least, quicker than those displaced people can be retrained.
I do question it given the fairly broad consensus among economists that the impact would be smaller if there were any impact at all.
Generally speaking, I tend to value estimates based on real world data than models.
Good thing this debate isn’t just about you. My point was that there may in fact be a trade off. Even if you want to trust the CBO as gospel, they say the following:
[QUOTE=CBO]
According to CBO, increasing the minimum wage would have two chief effects on low-wage workers: First, about 16.5 million workers would receive higher pay that would increase their family’s income, and about 900,000 of those families could earn a big enough increase to eclipse the federal poverty threshold.
[/QUOTE]
There are only about 1.3 million people making exactly minimum wage. We can expect a healthy percentage of those people to be the ones who would be lifted out of poverty via an increased minimum wage.
No we can’t - most of those earning MW are not in poverty.
Regards,
Shodan