$15 an hour minimum wage.

[brett636]

We're fools. Unless votes are rigged at a massive clip, we have the same power as 1%'ers when it comes to voting. We need to demand it, because they aren't going to put nothing too damn attractive on the ballots. But even reading this, you can see how little guy is arguing what another little guy shouldn't or shouldn't make. +/- 10K a year, as if the whole thing comes down giving a bit extra. How bout it gets better because we'd have more money to spend?

Perhaps in the short term you would be right that people would have more money to spend. The problem comes in when the rules of economic inflation kick in where you have more people with more money the cost of everything rises accordingly. A $15/hr. minimum wage puts more money into people's pockets, atleast to those who remain employed, but it doesn't increase the scarcity of resources in the economy. So with more people having more money means that for supply and demand to remain in balance prices rise so that the correct level of goods and services continue to be available to those who want and need them. This is why a minimum wage is unnecessary due to the economic forces that dictate what minimum wage is required to attract workers to those low level jobs. I am not even beginning to touch the issue of employers having their wage expenses rise needing to compensate for that increase by either increasing prices or reducing staffing. Again a major issue with minimum wage laws. It sure does make those politicians look benevolent by telling your evil employer that you are now worth more and you must be paid more all the while ignoring the consequences of such demands.

 

[bleedinbrown58]

How are you disadvantaged if they don't?

I wonder if thinking like this inhibits change at times because everyone will be wondering what's in it for them, outside of the knowledge that everyone can feel good making a wage they can live off of. Which you can, at your current rate.

First of all, no I can't live off it, I still work 2 jobs. Secondly, I make what I make because I've busted my ass for 8 years..and I should smile at some 18 year old new hire making a few bucks less than me an hour? Yeah, I'll get right on that.

 

[PT Car Washer]

First of all, no I can't live off it, I still work 2 jobs. Secondly, I make what I make because I've busted my ass for 8 years..and I should smile at some 18 year old new hire making a few bucks less than me an hour? Yeah, I'll get right on that.

There was a time when FT and PT wages were similar and a new hire hit top rate in 90 days.

 

[bleedinbrown58]

There was a time when FT and PT wages were similar and a new hire hit top rate in 90 days.

Sounds good to me...32 an hour to load trucks...where do I sign up?

 

[1BROWNWRENCH]

There's plenty of PC mechanic positions around here.

 

[oldngray]

There's plenty of PC mechanic positions around here.

And as a bonus you get to spend a lot of time on your back!

 

[1BROWNWRENCH]

Being a vampire is a plus for the position.

 

[1BROWNWRENCH]

15 years ago I was making 14 an hour as a skilled worker.

 

[TUT]

Perhaps in the short term you would be right that people would have more money to spend. The problem comes in when the rules of economic inflation kick in where you have more people with more money the cost of everything rises accordingly. A $15/hr. minimum wage puts more money into people's pockets, atleast to those who remain employed, but it doesn't increase the scarcity of resources in the economy. So with more people having more money means that for supply and demand to remain in balance prices rise so that the correct level of goods and services continue to be available to those who want and need them. This is why a minimum wage is unnecessary due to the economic forces that dictate what minimum wage is required to attract workers to those low level jobs. I am not even beginning to touch the issue of employers having their wage expenses rise needing to compensate for that increase by either increasing prices or reducing staffing. Again a major issue with minimum wage laws. It sure does make those politicians look benevolent by telling your evil employer that you are now worth more and you must be paid more all the while ignoring the consequences of such demands.

It's not like they get $10 and nothing else, they get a bunch of tax breaks, gov't kickbacks via low income programs, which all have a price, which could be argued already has affected inflation. I just don't understand the point of a job if you were to work 40 hours and can't support yourself with the basic minimums. That is a trap, not a job. It would raise direct pricing of goods to compensate, does it go beyond that, it shouldn't. I would rather prices go up accordingly and know my fellow American is making a living wage behind that.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

And as a bonus you get to spend a lot of time on your back!

Prostitute?

 

[bleedinbrown58]

Prostitute?

Shhhh.....it's a "secret" second job....lol

 

['Lord Brown's bidding']

Perhaps in the short term you would be right that people would have more money to spend. The problem comes in when the rules of economic inflation kick in where you have more people with more money the cost of everything rises accordingly. A $15/hr. minimum wage puts more money into people's pockets, atleast to those who remain employed, but it doesn't increase the scarcity of resources in the economy.

Prices do not go up due to an abundance; if there isn't a scarcity of resources, prices will drop.

So with more people having more money means that for supply and demand to remain in balance prices rise so that the correct level of goods and services continue to be available to those who want and need them.

Prices could rise.....OR...companies can increase production/buying, to take advantage of the new monies coming into the market. Runaway Inflation is not good for business, and there is more than enough slack in the amount of revenue/profits companies take in vs what they spend on labor to help keep it in check. There will be inflation-which is good - but not the dire scenarios people project. In addition, we have the power to negotiate wages that match inflation, thus our spending power will not decrease. Having the minimum wage rise with inflation or the CPI will ensure those at the bottom will not suffer as well.

This is why a minimum wage is unnecessary due to the economic forces that dictate what minimum wage is required to attract workers to those low level jobs.

People are not "attracted" to minimum wages. There is nothing else for them to do. The wages are kept artificially low by companies who have the leverage knowing this. This is neither fair nor even a free market (in a true free market, people would be compensated fairly for the resources expended to bring a product to market. It isn't just about having all the knowledge available, unencumbered by government, because companies unfairly compensating people for less than what their labor is worth is just as detrimental to the market as the government artificially raising the minimum wage is made out to be).

I am not even beginning to touch the issue of employers having their wage expenses rise needing to compensate for that increase by either increasing prices or reducing staffing. Again a major issue with minimum wage laws.

You assume that companies would need to raise prices in order to offset the increase in their labor costs. Again, given the amount of revenue companies take in - especially large employers like McDonald's and Walmart-vs what they actually spend on labor, while there may be a reduction in the work force, prices should not increase that much at all. I remember reading one example where someone said the price of a big mac at McDonald's might increase . $16 if all their employees started making $15/hr. The situation would be similar with any large business, so long as they are currently stable.

On the reduction in jobs, this isn't as big a deal as made out to be. How many people are currently working two or three jobs making minimum wage? I recently read that in a recent jobs report it was noted the number of men working two or more jobs increased last year. This was noted because it meant they were taking away jobs other people could probably have used. What happens when a person can make at one job what they formerly had to work two jobs to earn? Might they quit one of their former jobs? Might a formerly two income family perhaps be able to "get by" on one? And thinking on that last point, that could bode well for communities most affected by the low minimum wage.

The point is, much of the reduction in the work force could come naturally, as not as many jobs would be needed to support households, sort of how often when companies announce they'll reduce their workforce by "five thousand!!!", often most of that is done through attrition and retirement.

 

[working up a sweat]

Two questions....how do you only work 50 hours a month at ups...we're guaranteed 68? Also, don't PTers need to work at least 750 hours a year to have that year count towards their pension? How can you do that working 50 hrs a month?

 

[working up a sweat]

In answer to my 50 hour a month UPS job. I work in an air hub. We have no 17.5 hours gauranteed work in our contract(pre-load does though). We work until the sort is over and sent home. Tonight I worked 1 hour 24 minutes. Yesterday I worked 1 hour 8 minutes. We are gauranteed 17.5 hours toward health and pension though.

 

[brett636]

Prices do not go up due to an abundance; if there isn't a scarcity of resources, prices will drop.

This is the basic laws of economics in practice. I don't know why you even bothered saying this as I had already stated it. To better define what this means you need to understand that resources are finite. There are only so many cows being grown for beef, so many acres of farmland being grown into edible corn, there can only be so much iron mined from the ground, etc. This is scarcity of resources as the value of these resources rises and falls based upon both the available supply of said resources as well as the market demand. My point was that if more people have money to buy beef then the price will rise because the supply remains constant. This is true across all of lifes necessities and desires. If more people have more money they buy more stuff, and that stuff becomes more expensive as a result because there is only so much stuff to go around.

Prices could rise.....OR...companies can increase production/buying, to take advantage of the new monies coming into the market. Runaway Inflation is not good for business, and there is more than enough slack in the amount of revenue/profits companies take in vs what they spend on labor to help keep it in check. There will be inflation-which is good - but not the dire scenarios people project. In addition, we have the power to negotiate wages that match inflation, thus our spending power will not decrease. Having the minimum wage rise with inflation or the CPI will ensure those at the bottom will not suffer as well.

This is a classic misunderstanding of how businesses work and why they are in business. A business's main objective is not to employ people, but to increase the wealth of the owners of said business. The basic equation is this: Inflow of cash - outflow of cash = profit. That profit is not a number for you, me, or any politician to decide. Its based upon the market forces that dictate that business and industry. If you increase the outflow of cash then you need an increase in the inflow of cash in order to keep things in balance. This would mean a price increase. I know your basic argument is that with a higher minimum wage there will be a higher inflow of cash, but that isn't guaranteed. To say they can simply increase production/buying is saying they need to take a double whammy on their cash outflow both in higher labor costs, and increase production in hopes to keep prices in check, but prices will ultimately have to rise in order to accommodate this higher outflow of money.

People are not "attracted" to minimum wages. There is nothing else for them to do. The wages are kept artificially low by companies who have the leverage knowing this. This is neither fair nor even a free market (in a true free market, people would be compensated fairly for the resources expended to bring a product to market. It isn't just about having all the knowledge available, unencumbered by government, because companies unfairly compensating people for less than what their labor is worth is just as detrimental to the market as the government artificially raising the minimum wage is made out to be).

You are right that people aren't attracted to minimum wage jobs, but they take them anyway because if they want to eat they better work. The argument for the minimum wage was eviscerated years ago when the minimum wage stayed the same for over 10 years yet finding jobs that paid only minimum wage became more and more difficult as businesses saw that fewer and fewer people were willing to work them even at low skill levels. My argument is the minimum wage is unnecessary and if eliminated today nothing would change for the vast majority of this country's workforce.

You assume that companies would need to raise prices in order to offset the increase in their labor costs. Again, given the amount of revenue companies take in - especially large employers like McDonald's and Walmart-vs what they actually spend on labor, while there may be a reduction in the work force, prices should not increase that much at all. I remember reading one example where someone said the price of a big mac at McDonald's might increase . $16 if all their employees started making $15/hr. The situation would be similar with any large business, so long as they are currently stable.

Again, you flaunt your ignorance on the basic rules of business. Labor is among the largest expenses for a business including large companies like Mcdonalds and walmart. I'm not sure where you got your $.16 price increase from(or maybe you meant $16?), but it isn't from the realm of reality I can tell you that. You increase the labor expense a business has two options, reduce employment, or increase prices, and there is a good chance both will occur.

On the reduction in jobs, this isn't as big a deal as made out to be. How many people are currently working two or three jobs making minimum wage? I recently read that in a recent jobs report it was noted the number of men working two or more jobs increased last year. This was noted because it meant they were taking away jobs other people could probably have used. What happens when a person can make at one job what they formerly had to work two jobs to earn? Might they quit one of their former jobs? Might a formerly two income family perhaps be able to "get by" on one? And thinking on that last point, that could bode well for communities most affected by the low minimum wage.

The point is, much of the reduction in the work force could come naturally, as not as many jobs would be needed to support households, sort of how often when companies announce they'll reduce their workforce by "five thousand!!!", often most of that is done through attrition and retirement.

The reduction in employment will come in a reduction of the total number of jobs available at places like McDonalds. If the average pay for your basic McDonald's worker increases to $15 an hour you will see cashiers replaced by touchscreens where you input the order yourself. You may even see burger flippers and fry fillers replaced with automated machines that can do the same work for less and be more consistent. I don't know where you get the audacity to say how many jobs a person should work, but if that person doesn't want to work multiple jobs why aren't we advocating change careers or increasing skillsets? Wait, I know why, because that's how a healthy job market works and having a healthy job market isn't the goal here.

 

['Lord Brown's bidding']

This is the basic laws of economics in practice. I don't know why you even bothered saying this as I had already stated it. To better define what this means you need to understand that resources are finite.

I know this is a basic economic principle. I know you know it is as well, hence I couldn't help but poke fun when you wrote this: "A $15/hr. minimum wage puts more money into people's pockets, atleast to those who remain employed, but it doesn't increase the scarcity of resources in the economy"

Read more: http://www.browncafe.com/community/threads/15-an-hour-minimum-wage.356322/page-12#ixzz32Pn5sfbJ

I think you meant decrease the scarcity of resources, which means there is more scarcity of resources, meaning prices will rise. Just silliness on my part, is all.

There are only so many cows being grown for beef, so many acres of farmland being grown into edible corn, there can only be so much iron mined from the ground, etc. This is scarcity of resources as the value of these resources rises and falls based upon both the available supply of said resources as well as the market demand. My point was that if more people have money to buy beef then the price will rise because the supply remains constant. This is true across all of lifes necessities and desires. If more people have more money they buy more stuff, and that stuff becomes more expensive as a result because there is only so much stuff to go around.

And all this means is there will be inflation. I acknowledged that there will be inflation. There is supposed to be inflation in a good, healthy economy. The virtual lack of it in the current economy is one sign things aren't back to where they need to be.

Where you and I disagree is on the level of inflation that will come from people on the lower classes incomes rising by a third; inflation levels won't rise accordingly that high. Both the government and private business will-nevermind on private business. They pushed the bubbles before; they'd do it again. However; inflation would not be allowed to go but so high. In addition, so long as those on the bottom have their wages set to increase meaningfully automatically, like tying them in with inflation or the CPI (Consumer Price Index, for those who don't know), and as long as the rest of us, either through the leverage acquired with our skillset or through our unions can negotiate for higher wages, the rise in prices can be offset. So, why would rising prices be bad for us?

This is a classic misunderstanding of how businesses work and why they are in business. A business's main objective is not to employ people, but to increase the wealth of the owners of said business. The basic equation is this: Inflow of cash - outflow of cash = profit. That profit is not a number for you, me, or any politician to decide. Its based upon the market forces that dictate that business and industry.

I am well aware of how businesses work and why they are in business. Rather, the failure is in yourself and others who only see "businesses"-i.e. companies and corporations-when talking about business and the market. Labor is just as much as part of "business" as the companies you peak of. They also have an inflow/outflow, or rather reversed: they put out their time, they expect to be compensated fairly in return. "The market" is not balanced in this regard, for "the market" is really set by big business, and what are their interests. That is not a fair or free market. And outside of those who are either highly skilled or in a union, there is no means of putting balance into that equation. The millions of people in poverty, or those who cannot find work, or a job that could allow them to have a place to live in the city they live in, cannot all be summed up succinctly with, "They do not aspire to greater things." At one time, to desire to work was enough; owners of businesses were not about increasing their quarterly dividend or stock price. A fair days work for a fair days pay. It's ironic that those who champion the idea of a "free market" like to call upon Adam Smith as the forebear of their ideas, and yet his idea for the free market did not exclude the costs that labor must bear in that market.

If you increase the outflow of cash then you need an increase in the inflow of cash in order to keep things in balance. This would mean a price increase.

A price increase is one way to increase cash flow. A more sustainable way-and one that would help counter high inflation, which companies and corporations do not want-is to expand capacity and raise production to meet the new monies coming into market. Aga9in, the goal is not to avoid inflation, but to keep it in check so costs do not grow too fast to handle, and the consumers be driven away. I see this often when gas prices go higher and higher. At a certain point I always see a newspaper article reporting on the plight of the gas station owner, who is being squeezed because the refining company is raising their prices, but if he/she tries to pass the full cost to the consumer, they won't buy gas from them, so they eat some of the increase. McDonald's, Walmart, Target, the GAP; these places don't have to pass the full increase of their labor costs onto the consumers. If they try, people will not buy from them. (This happened to the airlines when fuel prices rose quickly a few years back; they tried to pass it on, an it along with the recession quickly dried out the market. They had to relent some.) If they do not, people will take their new-found money and either spend it on their products-and more people will be able to do so, so yeah, their cash flow would increase (what will stop people from doing so), or some people will take that money and invest it in the markets, increasing their value and profits that way.

I know your basic argument is that with a higher minimum wage there will be a higher inflow of cash, but that isn't guaranteed. To say they can simply increase production/buying is saying they need to take a double whammy on their cash outflow both in higher labor costs, and increase production in hopes to keep prices in check, but prices will ultimately have to rise in order to accommodate this higher outflow of money.

I know it isn't guaranteed, but then what is? However, it is highly likely that people with more money-especially those who aren't saavy on spending, investing, and other financially literate subjects like that, are going to spend it on more consumables, which will in turn feed the need for more to be produced, and more labor (although not a directly correlating percentage) to help produce it. This has a better change of stimulating the economy, rather than an "economic stimulus" or even a tax cut, because more money will be going in the hands of those who'd spend it, rather than those looking to pay down debt, or put it into savings, or the like. What can be guaranteed is what has been going on, isn't working, and ain't gonna work.

You are right that people aren't attracted to minimum wage jobs, but they take them anyway because if they want to eat they better work. The argument for the minimum wage was eviscerated years ago when the minimum wage stayed the same for over 10 years yet finding jobs that paid only minimum wage became more and more difficult as businesses saw that fewer and fewer people were willing to work them even at low skill levels. My argument is the minimum wage is unnecessary and if eliminated today nothing would change for the vast majority of this country's workforce.

Yes, they take them because they can't all go out and rob stores to eat. You type as if there is an alternative to working for next to nothing for most people, other than not working at all, and thus not even having a little to eat or to wear. And eliminating the minimum wage wouldn't change anything, at least nothing positive; it'd just get worse. Now, if everyone joined a union or the minimum wage was increased, yeah, that would change something.


I want to type more, but my wife is getting mad with me. I gotta go. To be continued.....

 

[redrooster]

I like turtles.

 

[brett636]

I know this is a basic economic principle. I know you know it is as well, hence I couldn't help but poke fun when you wrote this: "A $15/hr. minimum wage puts more money into people's pockets, atleast to those who remain employed, but it doesn't increase the scarcity of resources in the economy"

Read more: http://www.browncafe.com/community/threads/15-an-hour-minimum-wage.356322/page-12#ixzz32Pn5sfbJ

I think you meant decrease the scarcity of resources, which means there is more scarcity of resources, meaning prices will rise. Just silliness on my part, is all.





And all this means is there will be inflation. I acknowledged that there will be inflation. There is supposed to be inflation in a good, healthy economy. The virtual lack of it in the current economy is one sign things aren't back to where they need to be.

Where you and I disagree is on the level of inflation that will come from people on the lower classes incomes rising by a third; inflation levels won't rise accordingly that high. Both the government and private business will-nevermind on private business. They pushed the bubbles before; they'd do it again. However; inflation would not be allowed to go but so high. In addition, so long as those on the bottom have their wages set to increase meaningfully automatically, like tying them in with inflation or the CPI (Consumer Price Index, for those who don't know), and as long as the rest of us, either through the leverage acquired with our skillset or through our unions can negotiate for higher wages, the rise in prices can be offset. So, why would rising prices be bad for us?






I am well aware of how businesses work and why they are in business. Rather, the failure is in yourself and others who only see "businesses"-i.e. companies and corporations-when talking about business and the market. Labor is just as much as part of "business" as the companies you peak of. They also have an inflow/outflow, or rather reversed: they put out their time, they expect to be compensated fairly in return. "The market" is not balanced in this regard, for "the market" is really set by big business, and what are their interests. That is not a fair or free market. And outside of those who are either highly skilled or in a union, there is no means of putting balance into that equation. The millions of people in poverty, or those who cannot find work, or a job that could allow them to have a place to live in the city they live in, cannot all be summed up succinctly with, "They do not aspire to greater things." At one time, to desire to work was enough; owners of businesses were not about increasing their quarterly dividend or stock price. A fair days work for a fair days pay. It's ironic that those who champion the idea of a "free market" like to call upon Adam Smith as the forebear of their ideas, and yet his idea for the free market did not exclude the costs that labor must bear in that market.





A price increase is one way to increase cash flow. A more sustainable way-and one that would help counter high inflation, which companies and corporations do not want-is to expand capacity and raise production to meet the new monies coming into market. Aga9in, the goal is not to avoid inflation, but to keep it in check so costs do not grow too fast to handle, and the consumers be driven away. I see this often when gas prices go higher and higher. At a certain point I always see a newspaper article reporting on the plight of the gas station owner, who is being squeezed because the refining company is raising their prices, but if he/she tries to pass the full cost to the consumer, they won't buy gas from them, so they eat some of the increase. McDonald's, Walmart, Target, the GAP; these places don't have to pass the full increase of their labor costs onto the consumers. If they try, people will not buy from them. (This happened to the airlines when fuel prices rose quickly a few years back; they tried to pass it on, an it along with the recession quickly dried out the market. They had to relent some.) If they do not, people will take their new-found money and either spend it on their products-and more people will be able to do so, so yeah, their cash flow would increase (what will stop people from doing so), or some people will take that money and invest it in the markets, increasing their value and profits that way.



I know it isn't guaranteed, but then what is? However, it is highly likely that people with more money-especially those who aren't saavy on spending, investing, and other financially literate subjects like that, are going to spend it on more consumables, which will in turn feed the need for more to be produced, and more labor (although not a directly correlating percentage) to help produce it. This has a better change of stimulating the economy, rather than an "economic stimulus" or even a tax cut, because more money will be going in the hands of those who'd spend it, rather than those looking to pay down debt, or put it into savings, or the like. What can be guaranteed is what has been going on, isn't working, and ain't gonna work.







Yes, they take them because they can't all go out and rob stores to eat. You type as if there is an alternative to working for next to nothing for most people, other than not working at all, and thus not even having a little to eat or to wear. And eliminating the minimum wage wouldn't change anything, at least nothing positive; it'd just get worse. Now, if everyone joined a union or the minimum wage was increased, yeah, that would change something.


I want to type more, but my wife is getting mad with me. I gotta go. To be continued.....

Considering UPS consumes most of my time through the week I am not going to go line by line and respond to all of this. The basic philosphical difference between you and I is you believe the world is unfair regardless of intent or input, I believe the world rewards those who have a good intent and inputs their skills/work accordingly. I acknowledge that the market isn't always fair, but nothing in life is. Lets just look at some hard numbers so I can put this to rest. A McDonald's restaurant that earns $1.2 million in gross revenue per year will end up with about $60k in profit when that is all said and done. That's about a 5% profit margin. If all of a sudden all of that restaurant's employees were making $15/hr. instead of their current $9-$10/hr.(which is higher than the current minimum wage BTW, I wonder how that could happen?) it would wipe out that profit margin several times over. It doesn't matter if the revenue goes higher because employee costs in this market are variable meaning they go up with increased sales. Your argument is the restaurant owner needs to now not only pay his workers beyond his margin of profit, but he also needs to spend more to increase productivity, but you fail to acknowledge that he will have find a way back to profitability and quickly or he won't be in business. A sudden price increase will be necessary in the short term, and productivity investments will come longterm in the form of more automation, and less people employed at that business. If the government just backs off and lets the market do what it does best you will find the minimum wage is nothing but a false promise made by politicians to make themselves seem more "For the people" when they are really anything but.

BTW, when I mentioned "increased scarcity" that means to be "more scarce" or "more rare" meaning prices rise to account for it. My original statement was correct, and your attempt to be cute has failed miserably.

 

[working up a sweat]

Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell have written have written many essays on how minimum wage works. I suggest reading their books. I have.