Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally posted by Suppposn: “… If there were no federal minimum rate, state's would find it extremely less to feasible to enforce a rate that would effectively offer some financial protection to their wage dependent families. ...”.
TaxPhd, what may be legally attempted, may not necessarily be financially feasible. You do understand the difference?
Yes, I understand the difference. But stop being cryptic - the contention is yours, so tell us precisely how it would not be financially feasible.
Quote:
Originally posted by Suppposn: “…The federal minimum wage rate (to some extent) prevents lower wage states from undermining the labor markets of other states in the USA. ...”.
TaxPhd, you believe the products and services provided by enterprises paying “decent wages” can compete with enterprises located in states where cheaper child labor, or prison labor, or any other extremely lower paid workers are commonly employed? Respectfully, Supposn
Production should naturally occur in locations where it is most cost effective. There is no reason for one state to set an above market clearing price minimum wage in order to make manufacturing in other more expensive states a more viable alternative. That would be like saying that Alabama needs to increase its wage rate in order to not attract business away from high cost, unionized states.
TaxPhd, I'm unfamiliar with the term. Now (after an internet search), I know I've witnessed general “natural market clearing wage rates” occurring in the USA for a duration of less than 4 years during my lifetime thus far; I'm an old man. I doubt if it ever generally occurred in the USA prior to my lifetime.
It appears that you still don’t understand the concept of a market clearing wage rate.
Labor in every market always has a naturally occurring market clearing wage rate. And labor will be exchanged at that rate, in the absence of government intervention. Furthermore, that market clearing rate may be above or below any artificially created minimum wage. This has been the case during the entirety of your life - not just four years.
Quote:
If you believe that economic condition is generally germane to most, rather than some specific categories of jobs, and thus germane to our discussion of minimum wage rates, make your argument.
It is germane across the entirety of markets, jobs, and products.
Quote:
TaxPhd, minimum wage rates are real factors critically affecting all other lower wage rates, and higher rates less substantially. If you believe otherwise, make your argument. Respectfully, Supposn
That said that referring to minimum wage rates as artificial was nonsensical. You’re wrong. They are absolutely artificial. They are created magically by government fiat.
TaxPhd, A market's minimum wage rate's an indefinite, (if there's no definite), effectively enforced minimum rate. A government's definite minimum rate is applicable to almost all employers and jobs in the USA. That minimum's applicable to even the least inconvenient or challenging tasks or jobs, performed by even the least desirable or capable employee.
Simply repeating what you’ve previously written does nothing to bolster your argument.
Quote:
There are factors determining jobs' wage rates and no less than other factors, government's definite minimum rate is among those factors. Jobs wage rates are affected by the minimum rate and are not “artificial” rates.
Lots of factors affect wage rates. And there is a huge difference between the naturally occurring factors that serve to create an equilibrium price/quantity for labor, and a government mandated minimum wage. A government mandated minimum wage is absolutely “artificial” compared to a naturally occurring wage that comes about simply by the interplay between supply and demand.
Quote:
Increases of prices both contribute and are due to the U.S. dollar's reduced purchasing power.
Few if any credible economists are advocating enterprises be prohibited from increasing prices. Why should U.S. governments not annually adjust their minimum wage rates to be reconciled with the dollar's purchasing power?
There shouldn’t be an annual adjustment in the minimum wage for the simple reason that there should be no minimum wage.
Understand this - minimum wage laws destroy societal value. Do you understand that? Society is worse off, not better, due to minimum wages. This point is foundational to the discussion, and I suspect that you don’t understand that. Please, before coming back to this point again, I urge you to study up on the concept of “minimum wage and deadweight loss.” It will facilitate meaningful discussions of this topic going forward. Here’s a starting point:
TaxPhd it's a logical opinion. If you believe the minimum wage rate's somehow detrimental to our nation's employees or to their dependents, make your case. Respectfully, Supposn
Please see the previous short discussion of deadweight loss.
How about those in "section 8" housing, and/or those collecting food stamps. or those whose children are being given 2 meals a day, while at school???
Think that those programs aren't subsidies??
Oh, I know who’s being subsidized. I was addressing this point by RogueMom:
Quote:
We can call on companies with leadership making salaries in the millions, and often, billions, to pay these lower level workers better wages and benefits, or we will just continue to subsidize themselves with our taxes through social service benefits, like we are doing now.
The writing is a bit unclear, but it seems she is making the common, and erroneous claim, that when companies pay low wages, taxpayers are subsidizing the company due to the need to pay some welfare benefits to these low paid employees. (RogueMom, if that wasn’t what you were saying, I apologize)
The only subsidy is to the individuals that are receiving the welfare benefits.
Many years ago, Minneapolis raised the min wage within the city. It ended up having the opposite effect than intended. Small biz owners suddenly had a different pool of labor, since the jobs now paid more. Waitressing was given as an example, owner of a diner stated it perfectly, previously, his labor pool was inner-city single women with kids. Post-wage-hike, now he had single, childless college women apply for the jobs. Guess who he was more willing to hire?
So the minimum wage thus becomes a barrier to gainful employment. We already have enough barriers to employment in this country.
Many years ago, Minneapolis raised the min wage within the city. It ended up having the opposite effect than intended. Small biz owners suddenly had a different pool of labor, since the jobs now paid more. Waitressing was given as an example, owner of a diner stated it perfectly, previously, his labor pool was inner-city single women with kids. Post-wage-hike, now he had single, childless college women apply for the jobs. Guess who he was more willing to hire?
So the minimum wage thus becomes a barrier to gainful employment. We already have enough barriers to employment in this country.
You've concluded all this based on one example?
I would say that a minimum wage above market wages is a barrier to employment.
The federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is no barrier. Nor, would be it be if were raised to $10 an hour.
What it would stop are the worst cases of exploitation by the most predatory people in the country.
I would say that a minimum wage above market wages is a barrier to employment.
The federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is no barrier. Nor, would be it be if were raised to $10 an hour.
What it would stop are the worst cases of exploitation by the most predatory people in the country.
Just no. Those minimum wages will absolutely result in unemployment of those who are not worth those wage rates to employers. Employing someone at $5/hour is in no way predatory. It is simply paying those no-skill workers what they are worth in the marketplace. You, on the other hand, would rather see them unemployed.
Just no. Those minimum wages will absolutely result in unemployment of those who are not worth those wage rates to employers. Employing someone at $5/hour is in no way predatory. It is simply paying those no-skill workers what they are worth in the marketplace. You, on the other hand, would rather see them unemployed.
This is pretty basic, and well established.
I think most people would see it as predatory. If you don't it tells me more about you than you probably would like. Where is this "basic and well established"?
Monguldreamer, what's a “natural market-clearing wage”?
That isn't a serious question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was addressing this point by RogueMom:
Those minimum wages will absolutely result in unemployment of those who are not worth those wage rates to employers. Employing someone at $5/hour is in no way predatory. It is simply paying those no-skill workers what they are worth in the marketplace. You, on the other hand, would rather see them unemployed.