A higher minimum wage will hurt some workers

[Jason76]

Fast food jobs cannot be shipped out to other nations, and the cleaning of restaurant floors is expensive to automate. In that case, fast food jobs survive despite the higher wage.

On the other hand, making the wage higher causes huge problems in some industries. So do you all think raising the minimum wage is a good idea?


http://www.economist.com/news/unite...egret-it-maximin?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/maximin

 

[dogtowner]

Min wage is a bad idea.
They already use robots to make pizza and burgers.
The reason congress wants it raised us for union contracts indexed to it. Union raise without negotiation.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Min wage is a bad idea.
They already use robots to make pizza and burgers.
The reason congress wants it raised us for union contracts indexed to it. Union raise without negotiation.

Name a Repugnant one that wants to raise the minimum wage?

Also, since the 1% have seen their "wages" increase by some 300+ % do you not think the ones that actually create that wealth, the worker bee, should share in it? Or are you going to gain a conscience, and agree to pay to take care of those who get nothing, and yet see their living expenses increase?

 

[Senter]

Fast food jobs cannot be shipped out to other nations, and the cleaning of restaurant floors is expensive to automate. In that case, fast food jobs survive despite the higher wage.

On the other hand, making the wage higher causes huge problems in some industries. So do you all think raising the minimum wage is a good idea?


http://www.economist.com/news/unite...egret-it-maximin?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/maximin

Workers' wages, left to the capitalists, would never keep up with inflation. They should be kept up with inflation via the minimum wage. If a capitalist cannot afford to make a profit AND pay his workers a living wage, he should either find another business that will work, or give up.

We are nearing the end of capitalism. It has run its course. As it degrades itself it is producing more problems defying solution. So we need to start thinking of alternatives.

 

[Lagboltz]

Fast food jobs cannot be shipped out to other nations, and the cleaning of restaurant floors is expensive to automate. In that case, fast food jobs survive despite the higher wage.

On the other hand, making the wage higher causes huge problems in some industries. So do you all think raising the minimum wage is a good idea?

Many people on minimum wage still can't make ends meet and are on welfare. Most welfare recipients that can work actually do work, but at low subsistence level wages.

What that means is through welfare the government is essentially subsidizing McDonalds, Walmart, etc so they can pay lower wages. Is that what we want to do?

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Many people on minimum wage still can't make ends meet and are on welfare. Most welfare recipients that can work actually do work, but at low subsistence level wages.

What that means is through welfare the government is essentially subsidizing McDonalds, Walmart, etc so they can pay lower wages. Is that what we want to do?

It is what Republicans want to do, and always have. How else can you keep their masters happy?

 

[Lagboltz]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/07/15/2300321/mcdonalds-buget-low-wage/

McDonalds Tells Workers To Budget By Getting A Second Job And Turning Off Their Heat

Not only does the budget leave a spot open for “second job,” it also gives wholly unreasonable estimates for employees’ costs: $20 a month for health care, $0 for heating, and $600 a month for rent. It does not include any budgeted money for food or clothing.​

McDonalds and Visa co-sponsored this "budget" but after the widespread mockery they received, they took it down. However the budget still lives on in many sites.

 

[Reddie]

Everyone's pay should go up with inflation. That of course will also create more problems because once the minimum wage is raised, employers to make the same profits they did will charge more for whatever it is they sell. Or some workers will have to get fired.

I'm sure there are many who'd prefer earning $8 or so an hour rather than be out of work.

 

[Lagboltz]

Everyone's pay should go up with inflation. That of course will also create more problems because once the minimum wage is raised, employers to make the same profits they did will charge more for whatever it is they sell. Or some workers will have to get fired.

I'm sure there are many who'd prefer earning $8 or so an hour rather than be out of work.

Keeping wages down will cause hardships. But you are right. Raising the minimum wage will result in higher prices. That will not help the buying power of workers. That is almost a definition of inflation. Savings will suffer if the interest rate does not go up.

Automation will continue to take away what few jobs are left. There does not seem to be a solution that will work.

Any ideas?

 

[BigRob]

Many people on minimum wage still can't make ends meet and are on welfare. Most welfare recipients that can work actually do work, but at low subsistence level wages.

What that means is through welfare the government is essentially subsidizing McDonalds, Walmart, etc so they can pay lower wages. Is that what we want to do?

Good article from Forbes about this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...low-wages-by-1-2-billion-a-year/#614fd4bd4f7e

Here is a highlight:
"Think about this in very harsh terms, just as a logical exercise. There is no welfare system at all: if you’re unemployed then you get nothing. Well, you’ll go to work for pretty much whatever wage, won’t you? In order just to be able to eat you’ll work for near any wage at all. Now add in a welfare system of any size or type that you like. You’ve now got some income even while unemployed. Thus the wages that need to be offered to bring you back into employment need to be higher, don’t they? In the jargon welfare increases the reservation wage. Employers must offer higher wages in the presence of a welfare system than they would have to in the absence of one.

Think it through again as well. If you really do think this is a subsidy to the employers then you’d be just fine with our not making any in work welfare payments at all: for, obviously, the employers would then pick up the weight of that subsidy they’re no longer getting. So, does anyone believe that wages would rise if in work welfare was abolished? No? Then that in work welfare isn’t a subsidy to the companies then, is it?"

I am curious to know the exact number of people working FULL TIME at minimum wage that also collect welfare. I would wager that number is actually fairly small - likely because there are not that many people that work for minimum wage to begin with.

 

[Jason76]

It's very difficult to get on SSI, which is welfare for the disabled. Therefore, we can assume most of the poor are working in low wage jobs like McDonalds or Wal-Mart. Of course, some might argue they should seek more education. Nonetheless, the situation is probably more complex than conservatives claim it is.

What other welfare exists in the US besides SSI? Well, there is some help for low income mothers. You can't really consider social security welfare, as people have paid into the system.

 

[BigRob]

It's very difficult to get on SSI, which is welfare for the disabled. Therefore, we can assume most of the poor are working in low wage jobs like McDonalds or Wal-Mart. Of course, some might argue they should seek more education. Nonetheless, the situation is probably more complex than conservatives claim it is.

What other welfare exists in the US besides SSI? Well, there is some help for low income mothers. You can't really consider social security welfare, as people have paid into the system.

Data exists on the number of minimum wage workers in the United States and the number of them that receive welfare. The BLM should have the data. There is no need to assume anything....

 

[Lagboltz]

Think it through again as well. If you really do think this is a subsidy to the employers then you’d be just fine with our not making any in work welfare payments at all: for, obviously, the employers would then pick up the weight of that subsidy they’re no longer getting. So, does anyone believe that wages would rise if in work welfare was abolished? No? Then that in work welfare isn’t a subsidy to the companies then, is it?"

I don't see what you are getting at. It's not obvious that employers would pick up the weight of that subsidy.

Of course welfare to low wage earners is not technically a subsidy, but it is equivalent to taxpayers making up for wages that the low-wage companies don't pay. It is similar to the act of an actual subsidy.

I am curious to know the exact number of people working FULL TIME at minimum wage that also collect welfare. I would wager that number is actually fairly small - likely because there are not that many people that work for minimum wage to begin with.

I didn't see any statistics for full time. Many Walmart jobs, for example, don't exist as full time.

According to the DOL (http://www.dol.gov/minwage/) 28 million workers are at minimum wage. The labor force (May 2014) is 156 million. The result is about 18% (28/156) of the work force is at minimum wage. I suppose 18% could be considered small, but it's not trivial.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...rect_government_assistance_is_that_true_.html"About 49 percent of Americans live in households that receive some form of government benefits"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...its-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts
“Three-quarters of entitlement benefits written into law in the United States go toward the elderly or disabled. That's according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And a big chunk of the rest goes to working households. Only about 9 percent of all entitlement benefits go toward non-elderly, non-disabled households without jobs (and much of that involves health care and unemployment insurance)”

My conclusion from the above is that low pay is a very serious problem for many Americans. And the perception of welfare queens is grossly unfounded.

 

[Senter]

Everyone's pay should go up with inflation. That of course will also create more problems because once the minimum wage is raised, employers to make the same profits they did will charge more for whatever it is they sell. Or some workers will have to get fired.

I'm sure there are many who'd prefer earning $8 or so an hour rather than be out of work.

It's not really that simple. Wages are subject to several forces including wage law (minimum wage). Prices are subject to one main force: the decision of the business owner(s) regarding what the market will bear. If a pill costing $35 is critical in saving lives of patients, the market may bear an increase in the cost of the pill from $35 to $5,000 overnight. Sound familiar?

At this stage of the evolution of our capitalist system, industry is able to manufacture more of most products than can be sold. Productivity is way up. The vast majority of the value that productivity increase produced went to the top 1%. The workers received almost nothing of it even though they are the ones who produced it. Yet with all that abundance of products that would flood the market due to that increase in productivity, the favorite mantra of the right, --that an increase in goods forces the price down, --didn't materialize: inflation continued. Meanwhile the producers (capitalists) cut back on the number of employees, yet the shrinkage of the labor pool did not create an increase in wages.

So here's the bottom line: the cost of labor is dependent upon what the capitalist can squeeze out of the worker, and the price of what the worker produces is determined by what the market will bear. Most big corporations today are unable to raise prices because the market won't bear an increase like you're talking about (to cover the higher cost of labor), and most big corporations make enough profit that they can afford to keep prices where they are, pay more to workers, and accept a smaller but very reasonable profit. So there is little connection between the fluctuations in the cost of labor and the price being charged for the goods produced. That is, little connection except in the idealism of the text books read by idealistic minds who take theory for reality.

 

[dogtowner]

It's not really that simple. Wages are subject to several forces including wage law (minimum wage). Prices are subject to one main force: the decision of the business owner(s) regarding what the market will bear. If a pill costing $35 is critical in saving lives of patients, the market may bear an increase in the cost of the pill from $35 to $5,000 overnight. Sound familiar?

At this stage of the evolution of our capitalist system, industry is able to manufacture more of most products than can be sold. Productivity is way up. The vast majority of the value that productivity increase produced went to the top 1%. The workers received almost nothing of it even though they are the ones who produced it. Yet with all that abundance of products that would flood the market due to that increase in productivity, the favorite mantra of the right, --that an increase in goods forces the price down, --didn't materialize: inflation continued. Meanwhile the producers (capitalists) cut back on the number of employees, yet the shrinkage of the labor pool did not create an increase in wages.

So here's the bottom line: the cost of labor is dependent upon what the capitalist can squeeze out of the worker, and the price of what the worker produces is determined by what the market will bear. Most big corporations today are unable to raise prices because the market won't bear an increase like you're talking about (to cover the higher cost of labor), and most big corporations make enough profit that they can afford to keep prices where they are, pay more to workers, and accept a smaller but very reasonable profit. So there is little connection between the fluctuations in the cost of labor and the price being charged for the goods produced. That is, little connection except in the idealism of the text books read by idealistic minds who take theory for reality.

Some flaws...
While productivity is generally up, that does not mean we are making more of the same things than we were (consumabLes excepted). So supply and demand don't apply as you suggest.
No increase in wages when the labor pool shrinks. Why would it ? Efficiencies were found does not = labor became more valuable.
Labor trades it's time/effort for money, a salary. The owner traded his money/time/effort for a possible gain. If it works out then he recoup his investment and eventually makes money. All the while labor was getting their salary.
The notion that salary must change if a business is successful makes no sense.