Minimum Wage and McBudgets

That didn't answer the question. Again, where's the proof that when federal minimum was raised in the past, that it led to significant unemployment?

If your assertion is correct -- that adjusting today's rate would cause economic harm or unemployment -- there ought to be some data showing that's happened before. Since it's been raised several times over the years, to adjust for inflation and COL, without causing major problems. What's the basis for your opinion that it would be different this time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

....
But just because a problem isn't massive doesn't mean it doesn't cause significant harm to the people who ARE impacted by it.

---

Okay, so which "people" do you think would be harmfully impacted....if FMW was adjusted for inflation and COL? You do know that FMW hasn't kept pace with that over time, right?

The US economy is ~ 60% consumer-driven. Businesses need consumers spending money. If you expect supply-and-demand economics to work, why wouldn't you want working people on the consumption/demand side? :confused:

I would want people working which is why I wouldn't want to see people made unemployed. You'd prefer a European situation with 25%+ of young people being unemployed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I would want people working which is why I wouldn't want to see people made unemployed. You'd prefer a European situation with 25%+ of young people being unemployed?

---

Apples to Oranges. We're not comparing adult to youth employment. If you want to see more people working....then employers need greater consumer demand, and employed people with money to spend.

Minimum wage jobs are more common with the young hence it is very relevant. More like apples to apple trees.

Your claim is nonsense circular logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Minimum wage jobs are more common with the young hence it is very relevant. More like apples to apple trees. Your claim is nonsense circular logic.

---

No -- today's minimum wage workers are predominantly adults (average age 37), and something like 60% are heads of households. You're using outdated data if you think FMW jobs are mostly teenagers looking for pocket money. Yes, we also have high youth unemployment, and long-term unemployment. ie, not enough jobs.

Post-recession job growth was mostly in low wage service sectors, or highly skilled professions...with a gaping hole in the middle. Statistically, even if every open job position was filled, we'd still have ~3 million looking for work (that was from either from Federal Reserve, CBO or Labor Dept, I can't recall which). Maybe the numbers are different in the UK.

Quote:

---

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 21 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over.

---

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm

:bulb:

If you're making up your own facts its hard to continue rational discussion.

1 Data are for wage and salary workers age 16 and over and refer to earnings on a person's sole or principal job. Hourly earnings for hourly paid workers do not include overtime pay, commissions, or tips received. All self-employed persons are excluded whether or not their businesses are incorporated.
2 The presence of a sizable number of workers with wages below the federal minimum does not necessarily indicate violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as there are exemptions to the minimum wage provisions of the law. The estimates of the numbers of minimum and subminimum wage workers presented in the accompanying tables pertain to workers paid at hourly rates; salaried and other non-hourly workers are excluded. As such, the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing federal minimum is undoubtedly understated. Research has shown that a relatively small number and share of salaried workers and others not paid by the hour have earnings that, when translated into hourly rates, are at or below the minimum wage. However, BLS does not routinely estimate hourly earnings for non-hourly workers because of data concerns that arise in producing these estimates.



Some BLS studies are only tracking Fair Labor Standard compliances, or certain "characteristics" within a wage demographic. There are also differences between "household" and "employer" surveys. I'm not aware of any one study (or survey) that paints a complete picture of the economy.....since it's got so many moving parts.

Today's federal minimum wage is stuck at 1970's purchasing power. That's why millions of people working full-time can't make ends meet, and still need subsidies for food, shelter, healthcare, education.

And which part of that supports your ridiculous assertions in the previous post? You might as well cite random parts of the Bible.

I, and millions of other Americans funded your public education, Loki. It's rather ironic that you're using that education, and your post-graduate degree....to cite one agency study as if it's end-all/be-all in a complex economy. Tsk, you know better than that. :donkey:

Let's try this another way. Do you think $50K is an "adequate" salary for a PhD teaching political science or international relations, as an educator? Does it matter if it's in Mississippi, Illinois, or California? Does it matter if it's at HS or university level, public or private?

Yeah, how dare I cite a fact that is inconvenient for your argument. Cue your usual xenophobia. Have you considered providing a source that actually supports your argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Yeah, how dare I cite a fact that is inconvenient for your argument. Cue your usual xenophobia. Have you considered providing a source that actually supports your argument?

---

Xenophobia? :rolleyes: I've posted sources before....met by your same criticisms -- just one source, not comprehensive, not contextual, flaws within the studies, political interpretations, etc.

Please answer this question, as an educator within an academic field: Is $50K an "adequate" salary? Does it reflect your professional expertise? Does it matter if you're living in Illinois or New York or California?

Please provide a source for your minimum wage numbers.

And I wonder if you realize that 2/3 of "professors" are adjuncts, who make an average of $20-25k a year...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Please provide a source for your minimum wage numbers.

And I wonder if you realize that 2/3 of "professors" are adjuncts, who make an average of $20-25k a year...

---

Whose very educations are heavily subsidized by tax payers in the first place. Not to mention the "benefits" of free/low cost campus health clinics, nominal housing fees, cheap public transportation, etc.

Edit: I've already linked to multiple sources comparing minimum wage to COL, our changing labor environment, and the hollowing out of the middle-income/middle-class quintiles. I have no incentive to keep proving that -- to an audience that refuses to acknowledge reality. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And which part of that supports your ridiculous assertions in the previous post? You might as well cite random parts of the Bible.

---

Well, it's a proven concept in politics to do that*, so why not? :p

​*As is ignoring data that doesn't suit you

GGT, do you think everyone but you is an idiot? You made a specific claim about the average age of people who earn the minimum wage. Either you provide a source that supports that number or admit that you made it up. No one is going to talk to you if you insist on lying and pretending nothing happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

If you're making up your own facts its hard to continue rational discussion.

---

Facts don't matter, it's all about how one perceives and feels, regardless of whether those actually have roots in reality or not.

When "facts" like 60% of minimum wage earners are head of households and the average age is 37 are said without sources when youth is brought up (and the true facts are the opposite) I find it very relevant. May as well argue that most teachers are actually hamsters so should be paid in muesli.

You can have a discussion based on feelings and perceptions on "facts ... Not rooted in reality" but that is not a rational discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

When "facts" like 60% of minimum wage earners are head of households and the average age is 37 are said without sources when youth is brought up (and the true facts are the opposite) I find it very relevant. May as well argue that most teachers are actually hamsters so should be paid in muesli.

You can have a discussion based on feelings and perceptions on "facts ... Not rooted in reality" but that is not a rational discussion.

---

Not defending those exact figures, but I did see this the other day.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...re-overwhelmi/

"workers older than 24 make up 45 percent to 49 percent of federal minimum wage workers. Teenagers are less than one-third of the overall low-wage group."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

When "facts" like 60% of minimum wage earners are head of households and the average age is 37 are said without sources when youth is brought up (and the true facts are the opposite) I find it very relevant. May as well argue that most teachers are actually hamsters so should be paid in muesli.

You can have a discussion based on feelings and perceptions on "facts ... Not rooted in reality" but that is not a rational discussion.

---

I'm pretty sure Fuzzy's tongue was firmly in his cheek.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Not defending those exact figures, but I did see this the other day.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...re-overwhelmi/

"workers older than 24 make up 45 percent to 49 percent of federal minimum wage workers. Teenagers are less than one-third of the overall low-wage group."

---

And this is different to saying that about half the workers who receive the minimum age are under 25 how? :noob: Or the fact that teens are far, far more likely to be receiving the minimum wage than any other age group?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Not defending those exact figures, but I did see this the other day.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...re-overwhelmi/

"workers older than 24 make up 45 percent to 49 percent of federal minimum wage workers. Teenagers are less than one-third of the overall low-wage group."

---

So the (slim) majority of minimum wage earners are Under 24 whereas obviously the vast, vast majority of the workforce are over 24. The proportion of age groups earning minimum wage then is clearly such that the young are far more affected by the minimum wage. As was said.

Hence the comparison to youth unemployment which is a proxy for the affects of things like a higher minimum wage. In nations with a high minimum wage there is high youth unemployment. It is also higher overall for all adults; the over 24's that could have been on minimum wage are also made unemployed but are swallowed up in the overall picture. It stands out clear though for the youth figures.

There is a clear cause and effect that higher minimum wages leads to higher unemployment for those that are affected by it. You displace income from those who could have been earning but are now without a job, to those that have kept their job at a now-higher rate.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...inimum-wage#p1

Four pages with hyperlinks. There are articles at economist.com, too. One is titled Unemployment in America, another is under Labour (but they changed their cookie policy and I'm not wasting time on that).

http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-...rkers-benefit/



Also, the bottom 10% of elementary teacher salaries earn ~ $32,000/year (ed.gov, payscale.com) That's twice the FMW hourly rate, but it's still poverty level for head-of-household with dependent children in most states. Probably why some 20-25% of teachers qualify for programs like WIC, SNAP, and TANF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...inimum-wage#p1

Four pages with hyperlinks. There are articles at economist.com, too. One is titled Unemployment in America, another is under Labour (but they changed their cookie policy and I'm not wasting time on that).

http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-...rkers-benefit/



Also, the bottom 10% of elementary teacher salaries earn ~ $32,000/year (ed.gov) That's twice the FMW hourly rate, but it's still poverty level for head-of-household with dependent children in most states. Probably why some 20-25% of teachers qualify for programs like WIC, SNAP, and TANF.

---

You understand then that what is being discussed is the number of people who would benefit from a boost to a minimum wage of $10.10, not people who are currently earning the minimum wage, right? What you are arguing is akin to me saying that 100% of people are earning minimum wage because if it were raised to $100,000.00/hour nearly everyone would would be included in the bracket of individuals who would see an increase in wages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

You understand then that what is being discussed is the number of people who would benefit from a boost to a minimum wage of $10.10, not people who are currently earning the minimum wage, right? What you are arguing is akin to me saying that 100% of people are earning minimum wage because if it were raised to $100,000,000.00/hour nearly everyone would would be included in the bracket of individuals who would see an increase in wages, right?

---

I'm incorporating multiple things with a larger perspective: the current labor market, skills gaps, "job lock", demographic changes, economic immobility, structural economic problems, credit/debt, COL and QOL.....post-recession and financial crisis. We lost millions of jobs, with middle-income groups hit hardest. Job growth during the 'recovery' came via low-wage/minimum wage service sectors, the middle income quintile has not recovered. ie, millions of jobs vanished and won't have equivalent replacements. That's the result of global economics, higher productivity, technology, trade policy, all sorts of reasons -- but the plain truth is that millions of good-paying jobs vanished, and won't have equivalent replacements any time soon.

I understand the disagreements made around FMW and supply/demand economics, and debates about principle and politics. BUT, adjusted for inflation and COL, FMW would be more like $12/hour....even in low cost states. Therefore, it makes no sense to keep the current rate at 1970's purchasing power. It makes even less sense considering most min. wage workers don't have employer-subsidized health insurance.


edit to add another 'illogical' concept -- using tax codes that translate to "corporate welfare".

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/14/15-now-seatac/

Interesting experiment, although some of the examples seem fishy and I'm not sure how economic recovery for example may have influenced the outcome (not necessarily a criticism). Have there been any other such experiments in the US recently?

(no doubt many businesses have found a sneaky loophole)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/14/15-now-seatac/

Interesting experiment, although some of the examples seem fishy and I'm not sure how economic recovery for example may have influenced the outcome (not necessarily a criticism). Have there been any other such experiments in the US recently?

---

Well, Seatac enjoys an expansion and sprawl from Seattle, during a time when Seattle has become unaffordable to many people and created "bedroom communities" as exurbs. It's not very different from east coast growth in the 20th century.....excepting huge policy changes around justice and fairness for workers.

Seatac (and Washington state) are positioned to grow as Pacific Rim economies grow. But the US workers can't be expected to live on the same wages as their Asian competitors do. It's disturbing that China is buying huge chunks of real estate, and entire companies (like Smithfield) but the US is reluctant to regulate these transactions.

It's even more disturbing that US companies can find profits in off-shore transactions, or tax inversions, in other nations....and shareholders think that's dandy (even though it leads to bad GDP numbers). History tends to repeat itself....my hope is that it won't take another hundred years before the corrupted "Ruling Class" sees jail time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/14/15-now-seatac/

Interesting experiment, although some of the examples seem fishy and I'm not sure how economic recovery for example may have influenced the outcome (not necessarily a criticism). Have there been any other such experiments in the US recently?

---

I suspect the loophole is shorter shifts, fewer benefits, etc.

It's only been nine months in a small town that comprises little more than an airport, a prison, a park and a few houses. It's also not clear how many people in that town were actually employed at the minimum wage.

The law itself exempts airport workers, federal prison workers and union workers. So, as far as I can tell, the entire town is exempted besides a handful of workers at a few hotels and coffee shops. I've read anecdotally that this small slice of workers simply saw their benefits cut with the wage increase.

But I don't think there's any way to really measure an impact here, at least not in nine months.