Eliminate Minimum Wage

[Supposn]

The benefits derived from the federal minimum wage’s rate is proportional to and inversely related to the differences between the federal minimum and the jobs’ rates purchasing powers. The jobs’ rates’ benefits derived from the FMW decrease as their differences to the FMW’s rate increases. The benefits exist but are much less perceivable as job’s wages approach the median wage.

If there’s a shortage of labor required for any task, that task’s wages derives no benefits from the FMW.

No, I cannot prove it and you cannot disprove it. You search your reading, experiences and imagination. If you conceive what you consider to be a more likely and more rational explanation of the FMW’s affect upon wages, I’ll read and consider it.

I wouldn’t be impressed by individuals’ or organizations’ testimonials without logically rational explanations. Rabbi’s suggestion of semi-proof s for concepts that cannot be captured by any really objective method such as “Studies say", or "I saw on the internet." Or "Scientists agree." are (and I suspect the Rabbi would agree) simply shopping for testimonials.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Interpol]

Do you care to prove that or is it opinion? If you are already making more than minimum wage then ans increase will not affect you.

Just because you believe it does not make it true. I gave you stats from the Bureau of Labor.

Median and minimum are apples and oranges.

So more opinion and no facts.

You have yet to even demonstrate how raising MW will increase 20% of the population's pay.

If you can't support your contention it is meaningless.

Skull Pilot, excluding jobs with tasks that require labor qualifications in short supply, all USA employees’ earnings,(regardless of their amounts) were affected by the federal minimum wage rate.

Proof? When i was making minimum wage and it went up from 2.65 to 2.90 I got a raise in pay and in the subsequent years when it went up i got a raise in pay as I was still a teenager and working a low skill job.

The mangers of that business did not see their pay increase. other hourly workers already making more than MW did not see their pay increase. Those two facts alone disprove your hypothesis that a raise in MW will affe3ct ALL jobs. It won't.

We Have not (thus far) disagreed upon any historic statistics. The statistics are inconsequential if we cannot agree upon which are the causes and their effects.

We agree that the words “median” and “minimum” have different meanings but what’s your point for mentioning it?

You're the one who brought up median income not me. It has nothing to do with minimum wage.

The numbers of USA employees earning any specific amounts of annual incomes generally increase as lesser income amounts are specified. Half of USA’s employees earn no more than the FMW.

So you are saying that 50% of all people working only earn the FMW of 7.25 an hour?

Minimum wage workers account for 4.7 percent of hourly paid workers in 2012 : The Editor’s Desk : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Minimum wage workers account for 4.7 percent of hourly paid workers in 2012

Gee 4.7% is a lot closer to my quoted 3% than your 50% (and I just noticed the 3% was from several years ago)

You spout this stuff and you just want people to believe you?

Anybody who knows anything about working knows that on the ground, the number is a lot higher than 4.7%.

For instance, tipped labor does not count in that number. According to the numbers, there are roughly 2.5 million Americans who work as servers and bartenders, and those are just the people who are on the books.

For those workers, they do not get the minimum wage. They get to work for less than half that much, on average. About $3 an hour. Many bartenders and servers are not even on the books, in fact, at many clubs, they are not paid an hourly wage, they have to show up, they pay 20-40 bucks for the privilege of working there, and they walk with their tips.

That is particularly true in places where there are lots of tourists. I'm from that industry, and there have been clubs where you give the house $40 (you tip them out up front and it goes to the house, kitchen, food runners, bussers and breakage) and you walk with what you walk with, hopefully a grand or so over that Friday and Saturday night.

And then there are people doing migrant work.

And then there are a whole host of other minimum wage jobs where corporations lie about just how many people they have on the books, for tax purposes.

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes that only 4.7% of workers out there are minimum wage ones is deluding themselves.

 

[regent]

It's wages and all that kind of stuff that has destroyed this nation. At one time people worked for the sheer enjoyment of working, then some started tipping these workers and soon they began to expect money at the end of the day and now at the end of the week. It was the beginning of entitlement, and now it's hard to find the old-time Americans that worked just for work's sake. Then came the forty hour week, overtime, all kinds of job perks and socialism was upon is, big time. At least the Republicans now want to eliminate that overtime stuff and lots of the perks, so maybe American can go back to working for the sheer enjoyment, I can almost hear them singing now, doo dah, doo dah. God bless America.

 

[Doubletap]

What is agreed to between employee & employer is their business.
The gov. needs to stay the fk out.

 

[Supposn]

Oh bull. 'Facts' have no bearing on the debate. It's a matter of opinion and ideology. The question is whether we believe government should be used to dictate personal economic decisions or not.

Refer to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/232006-consequences-of-repealing-minimum-wage-rates.html

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[dblack]

Oh bull. 'Facts' have no bearing on the debate. It's a matter of opinion and ideology. The question is whether we believe government should be used to dictate personal economic decisions or not.

Refer to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/232006-consequences-of-repealing-minimum-wage-rates.html

Respectfully, Supposn

So what?

 

[freedombecki]

Ever since the liberals invented minimum wage laws the welfare leeches that couldn't get a free ride from the tax payers have depended on minimum wage laws. This makes the government force employers to overpay the lazy workers who would be sitting at home if they could. Instead of more of Obama's socialism by raising the minimum wage we should eliminate the minimum wage all together. This would bring prices down and let higher wage earners be able to afford a better lifestyle. It would raise profits and best of all it would motivate the lazy welfare leeches to go find better jobs that pay more if they want to survive. The liberals will boo hoo and cry for the poor but that is because most of them are the bums that are to lazy to go find a decent job and want to live off the hard working conservatives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/b...income-distribution.html?partner=yahoofinance

This certainly helps the argument that the cons want to get rid of the middle class, where they've made great strides, so far.

That's just stupid. Republicans are business people. There is more prosperity with a strong middle class. Our goal is to help everyone who wants to achieve prosperity to be provided with an opportunity. We expand the middle class, and never reduce it. It's good business to have a strong middle class. From where do you get your talking point misrepresentations, pray tell?

 

[AmazonTania]

Amazon Tania, Samoa? Please explain.
Respectfully, Supposn

You never heard about what happened with the American Samoa economy, and how the United States practically destroyed it by forcing Samoa to abide by American Minimum Wage Laws? The laws mandated that wages were to be increased by 61%. Inflation went from as low as 1.86% in 2005, to as high as 11% in 2007. Unemployment went just as high, if not higher.

Two of Samoa's biggest employers -- Starkist and Chicken of the Sea -- were also hit the hardest. Starkist announced that it was having a 60% reduction in it's workforce in 2011, before the company closed down it's Samoan branch in 2012. The same thing happened to Chicken of the Sea before they were forced to shut down.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I agree.


I don't know what the big deal is about MW.

That's because there is no 'big deal.'

It's all partisan, it violates conservative fiscal dogma, dogma completely devoid of facts.

Oh bull. 'Facts' have no bearing on the debate. It's a matter of opinion and ideology. The question is whether we believe government should be used to dictate personal economic decisions or not.

Yes, by all means, let’s ignore facts and reality and predicate fiscal policy on ideology and subjective opinion.

And no one’s advocating government ‘dictate’ anything; the inane notion that government is some sort of ‘impediment’ to prosperity is a tedious reactionary fallacy.

 

[dblack]

That's because there is no 'big deal.'

It's all partisan, it violates conservative fiscal dogma, dogma completely devoid of facts.

Oh bull. 'Facts' have no bearing on the debate. It's a matter of opinion and ideology. The question is whether we believe government should be used to dictate personal economic decisions or not.

Yes, by all means, let’s ignore facts and reality and predicate fiscal policy on ideology and subjective opinion.

What else would you predicate it on? Ideology and subjective opinion are how we decide what we should aim for. Until we can. agree on values and goals 'facts' are irrelevant..

the inane notion that government is some sort of ‘impediment’ to prosperity is a tedious reactionary fallacy.

That's not my view. All too often it's the opposite claim - that government can and should dictate our behavior in the name of prosperity - that drives the statist agenda.
Political power and economic power should be kept separate, for most of the same reasons we separate religion from government.

 

[regent]

As soon as the ink was dry on the constitution and the new government installed, the government passed laws regarding industry and banking, helping both and it has been so involved ever since. But the sad thing about our politics is that is in the best interests of the party out of power for the economy to fail and they work to that end.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Amazon Tania, Samoa? Please explain.
Respectfully, Supposn

You never heard about what happened with the American Samoa economy, and how the United States practically destroyed it by forcing Samoa to abide by American Minimum Wage Laws? The laws mandated that wages were to be increased by 61%. Inflation went from as low as 1.86% in 2005, to as high as 11% in 2007. Unemployment went just as high, if not higher.

Two of Samoa's biggest employers -- Starkist and Chicken of the Sea -- were also hit the hardest. Starkist announced that it was having a 60% reduction in it's workforce in 2011, before the company closed down it's Samoan branch in 2012. The same thing happened to Chicken of the Sea before they were forced to shut down.

And it’s your position that the American Samoan economy is representative of the American economy overall? American Samoan workers are representative of American workers?

Your post is an example of the pitfalls present when ‘formulating’ fiscal policy absent the facts.

 

[AmazonTania]

And it’s your position that the American Samoan economy is representative of the American economy overall? American Samoan workers are representative of American workers?

The position is that the laws of economics doesn't stop at the water's edge, and doesn't change simply because you have a good feeling about your misguided well-intentions.

Your post is an example of the pitfalls present when ‘formulating’ fiscal policy absent the facts.

There are no pitfalls. There are those who understand economics and those who do not. The problem is, many of us don't bother learning it when 'formulating' fiscal policy.

 

[Supposn]

That's just stupid. Republicans are business people. There is more prosperity with a strong middle class. Our goal is to help everyone who wants to achieve prosperity to be provided with an opportunity. We expand the middle class, and never reduce it. It's good business to have a strong middle class. From where do you get your talking point misrepresentations, pray tell?

 
Freedom Becki, you’re alluding to enterprises and their industry’s self-discipline and self-regulation?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Updated draft of first message within the discussion thread of
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/206718-the-argument-against-self-regulation.html

The argument against self-regulation.

Refer to
Glass-Steagall Act: The Senators And Economists Who Got It Right

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 defined the differences and prohibited the practice of commercial banks participating in enterprises that were the functions of investment banking, (not to be confused with the 1932 act of a similar name and a different purpose).

I do not pretend to understand the conflicts of interests and opportunities of fraud that’s possible when single entities have their feet within the doors of less risky forms of banking and the more risky investment and brokerage houses.
It is enough for me to appreciate that having just experienced the 1929 Wall street crash and the significant deconstruction of much world’s economies, governments in 1933 were inclined to be more financially prudent and Wall Street “experts” were subject to diligent cross examination.

Within this same 1933 act, the federal deposit insurance corporation, (FDIC) was created. Due to the FDIC, confidence in USA banks recovered (and the reputation of the banking industry began being restored). The 1933 act’s purpose of limiting the acceptable risks for non-investment banks also decreased the risks of the FDIC to a similar extent. (Within my lifetime I witnessed the fiasco when our government forgot FDIC's purpose).

Generally within any field, those regulated to some extent object to their regulators and the regulators’ mandates. The banking industry never ceased objecting to the intervention of “inexperienced” or “impractical” government bureaucrats. The regulated (in all fields) generally believe they can do it, (regardless of whatever “it” is), at lesser expense or time or in a superior manner.

Prior to the 2007 ‘credit crunch” Alan Greenspan, ex-chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board wrote of his confidence in self regulation because CEO’s know what’s to their enterprise’s best interests. They were greatly mistaken regarding the world's, and their nation's best interests. They weren't correct but many of them didn't suffer to the extent that they deserved regarding their mistaken evaluation of their enterprises and their own self interests. We taxpayers, our children, and to some extent our grandchildren will pay for their bail-out.

Mr. Greenspan is obviously both honorable and intelligent because he has since modified his opinion and embraced my belief in this matter.

CEO’s probably are to some degree more intelligent than most of us, but that’s only differences of degrees. We can all rationalize that what we believe is in our own best interests is also in our employer’s and our nation’s best interests. Having reached OUR rational conclusion, that’s what we advocate.

I greatly appreciate the Ying and Yang relationship of separation of powers and cross examinations within any human endeavors where subjective determinations are of critical importance.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

The minimum wage punishes the poor and the young entering the working force. Now we have young kids hanging out outside on drugs, playing videogames all day or they are studding for an expensive useless collage degree instead of entering the working force and getting some experience and real knowledge of production for couple box/hour helping out trade workers and the service industry.

Bronko, refer to “Fact Sheet #32: Youth Minimum Wage - Fair Labor Standards Act”,
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs32.pdf

I wasn’t aware that since September 1997, there’s been a sub-minimal wage of $4.25/Hr. for youth
An enterprise is permitted to pay a youth at a regular rate no less than $4.25/Hr. for 90 commencing the first day the youth begins working for the enterprise or a related enterprise or the employee attains the age of 20 years, or the employment is contrary to the state’s laws or the hiring is cause for displacing another employee.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what about the median wage?

Using the median income to support raise in the minimum wage is meaningless because no matter what the MW is half of all people will earn less than the median income.

Skull pilot, what did you mean by “Using the median income to support raise in the minimum wage”?

Respectfully, Supposn

You keep repeating that half of earners make less than the median income. I can only assume that you somehow think that is related to your support of raising minimum wage.

 

[dblack]

Your post is an example of the pitfalls present when ‘formulating’ fiscal policy absent the facts.

At the risk of repeating myself...

For the most part facts are irrelevant in these kinds discussions - for both sides. You could provide all the evidence in the world that letting government control our personal economic decisions would make us more prosperous, but libertarians and many conservatives would still be opposed to the idea because they don't think that's how government should work. Likewise, we could provide evidence showing the opposite, that such interference is bad for the economy, and for liberals it wouldn't matter. For them, or most of them I'd assume, the point is social justice, not overall economic performance.

Each side is trying to persuade the other on false pretense and it's mostly pointless. If we can't agree on what goals government should pursue, the details of how to best to achieve them are moot.

 

[regent]

Ever since the liberals invented minimum wage laws the welfare leeches that couldn't get a free ride from the tax payers have depended on minimum wage laws. This makes the government force employers to overpay the lazy workers who would be sitting at home if they could. Instead of more of Obama's socialism by raising the minimum wage we should eliminate the minimum wage all together. This would bring prices down and let higher wage earners be able to afford a better lifestyle. It would raise profits and best of all it would motivate the lazy welfare leeches to go find better jobs that pay more if they want to survive. The liberals will boo hoo and cry for the poor but that is because most of them are the bums that are to lazy to go find a decent job and want to live off the hard working conservatives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/b...income-distribution.html?partner=yahoofinance

This certainly helps the argument that the cons want to get rid of the middle class, where they've made great strides, so far.

That's just stupid. Republicans are business people. There is more prosperity with a strong middle class. Our goal is to help everyone who wants to achieve prosperity to be provided with an opportunity. We expand the middle class, and never reduce it. It's good business to have a strong middle class. From where do you get your talking point misrepresentations, pray tell?

One would think that a middle class and prosperity would be wanted by all Americans, but maybe it ain't true. At one time there was a philosophy called Utility of Poverty that called for poor economic times and pointed out how business and rich people increased their wealth and standard of living when poverty was upon the land.
If one thinks about it poor economic times can be quite good for some people with wealth, and even people with a small steady income can benefit.

 

[AmazonTania]

 
Freedom Becki, you’re alluding to enterprises and their industry’s self-discipline and self-regulation?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Updated draft of first message within the discussion thread of
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/206718-the-argument-against-self-regulation.html

The argument against self-regulation.

Refer to
Glass-Steagall Act: The Senators And Economists Who Got It Right

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 defined the differences and prohibited the practice of commercial banks participating in enterprises that were the functions of investment banking, (not to be confused with the 1932 act of a similar name and a different purpose).

I do not pretend to understand the conflicts of interests and opportunities of fraud that’s possible when single entities have their feet within the doors of less risky forms of banking and the more risky investment and brokerage houses.
It is enough for me to appreciate that having just experienced the 1929 Wall street crash and the significant deconstruction of much world’s economies, governments in 1933 were inclined to be more financially prudent and Wall Street “experts” were subject to diligent cross examination.

Within this same 1933 act, the federal deposit insurance corporation, (FDIC) was created. Due to the FDIC, confidence in USA banks recovered (and the reputation of the banking industry began being restored). The 1933 act’s purpose of limiting the acceptable risks for non-investment banks also decreased the risks of the FDIC to a similar extent. (Within my lifetime I witnessed the fiasco when our government forgot FDIC's purpose).

Generally within any field, those regulated to some extent object to their regulators and the regulators’ mandates. The banking industry never ceased objecting to the intervention of “inexperienced” or “impractical” government bureaucrats. The regulated (in all fields) generally believe they can do it, (regardless of whatever “it” is), at lesser expense or time or in a superior manner.

Prior to the 2007 ‘credit crunch” Alan Greenspan, ex-chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board wrote of his confidence in self regulation because CEO’s know what’s to their enterprise’s best interests. They were greatly mistaken regarding the world's, and their nation's best interests. They weren't correct but many of them didn't suffer to the extent that they deserved regarding their mistaken evaluation of their enterprises and their own self interests. We taxpayers, our children, and to some extent our grandchildren will pay for their bail-out.

Mr. Greenspan is obviously both honorable and intelligent because he has since modified his opinion and embraced my belief in this matter.

CEO’s probably are to some degree more intelligent than most of us, but that’s only differences of degrees. We can all rationalize that what we believe is in our own best interests is also in our employer’s and our nation’s best interests. Having reached OUR rational conclusion, that’s what we advocate.

I greatly appreciate the Ying and Yang relationship of separation of powers and cross examinations within any human endeavors where subjective determinations are of critical importance.

Respectfully, Supposn

I've said this before, and I'm probably going to have to say it again because there are plenty of inept individuals who use this internet forum:

Glass-Steagall is totally unrelated and had absolutely zero to do with the financial crisis. All it is is drummed up by individuals who are not well avast in economics to actually know better. But then again, what would I expect from individuals who actually believe Economics isn't a science.

 

[editec]

Money begats still more money. That is the nature of capitalism/

That is also why the "ZERO SUM GAIN" concept when applied to MACROeconomics is largely bullshit.