The Minimum Wage Game

DGS49

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2012
16,598
14,714
2,415
Pittsburgh
As each significant national election approaches, Democrats drag out their tired, old campaign to "raise the minimum wage."

It doesn't really matter what the MW is at the time, or what they want to raise it to; the point is that they know, (a) the economically-illiterate Public perpetually thinks it is a good idea, and (b) Republicans will oppose it. And that is sufficient reason to resurrect the campaign.

But this is one of the most cynical campaigns in all of politics. The Democrats who raise the issue know its a stupid idea; they are not so stupid as to fail to see that the overall impact to the Economy and to the American public is a harmful one, but they just don't care. If they can win a few votes with it, so much the better.

The fundamental folly of raising the minimum wage is the ubiquitous belief among Democrats that money can be made to flow into one person's pocket without it having to come out of another person's pocket. They see the MW raise as, "Oh goody, all these millions of people who are currently making MW will get a raise!" (And they will thank the Democrats for it).

They refuse to look at (a) the business owners - most of whom are small businessmen barely making a profit - from whose pockets the money will come, (b) the part timers who will have their hours cut to make up for the added cost of the MW increase, (c) the people who will lose their jobs as thousands of small business owners decide that they can make as much money in a "job," and just close their business' doors, (d) the thousands of people who will lose their jobs as businesses seek to automate services that were previously done by employees, (e) the millions of high school and college kids who will not be able to find summer and holiday part time jobs now because they are too costly. Not to mention (f) EVERYBODY ELSE, who will have to pay a little more at the pump or counter.

It is no coincidence that the developed countries around the world with NO minimum wage are the ones with the lowest unemployment rates. Western Europe (excluding Germany, which is unique) provide sterling examples of the deleterous effect of high minimum wages and virtually guaranteed lifetime employment once you are hired. Their true unemployment rates are permanently over 10% (which, ironically, is much better than our "real" unemployment rate here).

As with all Democrat "do gooder" programs, there is a finite group of people at whom one will be able to point, and say, "These folks really BENEFITTED from the raise in the minimum wage!" No denying it. There will be some "hard working Americans" who are trying to support themselves on a minimum wage job, who will reap a small - but appreciated - benefit from a raise in the minimum wage.

But Public Servants owe it to everyone to make policies that benefit the overall American public, not policies that punish 97% of the public with "unintended consequences" while benefitting only the target 3%.

In a sane world, there would be NO government-mandated minimum wage. The public refuses to believe it, but there are certain economic "laws" that are just as unbreakable as the law of gravity. To wit, when you mandate a price for something that is greater than its economic value, three things will inevitable occur: (a) consumers of it will consume less of it, (b) consumers will seek alternatives (automation, outsourcing), and (c) a black market will arise or expand. This law does not care if the commodity is sugar, oil, or human labor; it will not be avoided.

Besides, if a $10 minimum wage is a Good Thing, then why not $15 or $20? Then we could drive a stake through the heart of "Income Inequality," couldn't we? Everyone would be "Middle Class." These Democrats are pikers if you ask me. If they really think raising the MW is a good idea, then they should have the balls to do it right.
 
Hey, you got any verifiable info showing an increase in unemployment AFTER a minimum wage increase has taken effect? I looked, couldn't find it. Found a lot of OPINION pieces that UE would rise after an increase in MW. But no hard facts to back it up. Wonder why that is?
 
Hey, you got any verifiable info showing an increase in unemployment AFTER a minimum wage increase has taken effect? I looked, couldn't find it. Found a lot of OPINION pieces that UE would rise after an increase in MW. But no hard facts to back it up. Wonder why that is?

Because a business that needs a worker at 8 dollars an hour still needs that worker at 9 dollars an hour.

That's why he has the job in the first place. Because he's needed.
 
Hey, you got any verifiable info showing an increase in unemployment AFTER a minimum wage increase has taken effect? I looked, couldn't find it. Found a lot of OPINION pieces that UE would rise after an increase in MW. But no hard facts to back it up. Wonder why that is?

Because a business that needs a worker at 8 dollars an hour still needs that worker at 9 dollars an hour.

That's why he has the job in the first place. Because he's needed.

Makes sense to me. How come what you say doesn't make sense to the right wing minimum wage opponents on here?
 
Besides, if a $10 minimum wage is a Good Thing, then why not $15 or $20?

If $8/hour is a better minimum wage than 10, why not 6, or 4, or 2, or zero?

Wouldn't we all better off if everyone worked for no money?

You failed economics 101, didn't you?

The point here is that labor is like any other commodity in markets. The price for labor is determined by many factors. Having government step in and set a minimum price for it, distorts other prices and has unintended consequences.

The fact that you try to be clever and in so show how very little you understand about economics is classic for the trolly LOLberals here.

It is best to remain quiet and let others wonder if you're stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
 
Hey, you got any verifiable info showing an increase in unemployment AFTER a minimum wage increase has taken effect? I looked, couldn't find it. Found a lot of OPINION pieces that UE would rise after an increase in MW. But no hard facts to back it up. Wonder why that is?

Because a business that needs a worker at 8 dollars an hour still needs that worker at 9 dollars an hour.

That's why he has the job in the first place. Because he's needed.

8 or 9 bucks an hour still doesn't put a family of four above poverty level.


As a poverty program, raising the minimum wage is like killing flies with a shotgun, not very well targeted. About 60% of the officially poor don’t work, so the only thing raising the minimum wage does for them is to make it harder for them to get a job if they ever decide they want one. Workers must bring at least as much value to the firm as they are paid or the firm will fail and all jobs will be lost (no GM bailouts are available to our 6 million small employers that employ half of our private sector workforce). Raising the minimum wage raises the hurdle a worker must cross to justify being hired.

It is estimated that less than 15% of the total increase in wages resulting from an increase in the minimum will go to people below the poverty line and less than a third of those receiving the minimum wage are families below the poverty line. Most minimum wage workers are from above median income families. So, most of the people benefiting from the minimum wage are not the intended targets of the “anti-poverty” aspect of raising the minimum wage.

As a jobs program, raising the minimum wage is a real loser. Congress raised the minimum wage 10.6% in July, 2009 (know of anyone else getting a raise then?). In the ensuring 6 months, nearly 600,000 teen jobs disappeared, even with nearly 4% growth in the economy, this compared to a loss of 250,000 jobs in the first half of the year as GDP growth declined by 4% Why? When you raise the price of anything, people take less of it, including labor. The unemployment rate for teens remains unacceptably high. Workers of all ages that are relatively unskilled are adversely impacted by this policy.

Source:
 
Hey, you got any verifiable info showing an increase in unemployment AFTER a minimum wage increase has taken effect? I looked, couldn't find it. Found a lot of OPINION pieces that UE would rise after an increase in MW. But no hard facts to back it up. Wonder why that is?

Because a business that needs a worker at 8 dollars an hour still needs that worker at 9 dollars an hour.

That's why he has the job in the first place. Because he's needed.

Why not make the minimum standard $50 an hour then? You know why, adn that's why you always mocve to dictate the price increases by just a little bit. As arbitrary as it is, adn without any reason for the increase, you all know DAMN well that if you were to take your belief in the minimum wage to its ultimate conclusion, it would completely distot markets and lead to a whole host of dire economic consequences. Production shortages, price inflation, lack of initiative to work at all, etc...etc...etc..

THAT is why you avoid answering questions about the amount of the raise. Every single LOLberal here will deflect against the questinoing of raising the MW to a level that would actually create income equality. It's a sham and LOLberals know it. But I'll be damned if it doesn't get retards all fired up in the base.
 
Minimum wage helps keep a reasonable standard of living for the lower classes in this country. This and regulations are two reasons why our poor can afford that tv,smart phone and car. Why do you want to take that away just to compete with China for poorest treatment?
 
Why do you advocate theft so someone else can have a TV, or a smart phone or a car?

Why not raise the minimum wage to a standard that would be meaningful? Say, $50 an hour? Why not?
 
The Left bitches about high pay of those in charge and low wages for the workers.

They should try an experiment: Take a company's payroll, divide it by the number of employees - including management - and pay that amount to all employees, equally.

That should satisfy them until the company found itself out of business and bankrupt.
 
My only problem with the minimum wage argument is that it once again shows that when the left is presented with a problem like income inequality their first inclination is to look at the poorest income segment and try and fix that. Ultimately it is no better than the supply side approach which looks at the other end of the spectrum.

It is about time we get a political party that starts solving problems by looking at the middle first. The rich don't need help and the government already does a lot for the poor. The middle class is generally a group of people we know will put work in and become productive members of society. They are a good investment.
 
Last edited:
Just dumb demagoguery to stir up the base. Kinda like the flag burning thing used to be for conservatives. A pointless little exercise to herd the dummies.
 
Besides, if a $10 minimum wage is a Good Thing, then why not $15 or $20?

If $8/hour is a better minimum wage than 10, why not 6, or 4, or 2, or zero?

Wouldn't we all better off if everyone worked for no money?

You failed economics 101, didn't you?

The point here is that labor is like any other commodity in markets. The price for labor is determined by many factors. Having government step in and set a minimum price for it, distorts other prices and has unintended consequences.

The fact that you try to be clever and in so show how very little you understand about economics is classic for the trolly LOLberals here.

It is best to remain quiet and let others wonder if you're stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

I know more about economics than you'll ever know. That's why the point went over your head.

Your argument is for no labor laws. Unfortunately for you, the People decide what the laws for labor will be.

You want the economy to be run by the corporations; I want the economy to be run by the People.
 
My only problem with the minimum wage argument is that it once again shows that when the left is presented with a problem like income inequality their first inclination is to look at the poorest income segment and try and fix that. Ultimately it is no better than the supply side approach which looks at the other end of the spectrum.

It is about time we get a political party that starts solving problems by looking at the middle first. The rich don't need help and the government already does a lot for the poor. The middle class is generally a group of people we know will put work in and become productive members of society. They are a good investment.


I appreciate that you stand up for the middle. I am in the middle. But I do get a lot of hand outs from the government. I get my mortgage interest deduction, my child deduction, and I get to pencil whip the shit out of my business's. Then I get my kids educated and I get relatively clean air and water. And I get roads and bridges. etc etc.

Now, I don't get as much "help" as the ultra rich. (I don't own a lobbyist or a politician) but I get more than the poor. That's for sure.

I think to help the middle out, we need our very own lobbying organization. How do we do that?
 
My only problem with the minimum wage argument is that it once again shows that when the left is presented with a problem like income inequality their first inclination is to look at the poorest income segment and try and fix that. Ultimately it is no better than the supply side approach which looks at the other end of the spectrum.

It is about time we get a political party that starts solving problems by looking at the middle first. The rich don't need help and the government already does a lot for the poor. The middle class is generally a group of people we know will put work in and become productive members of society. They are a good investment.


I appreciate that you stand up for the middle. I am in the middle. But I do get a lot of hand outs from the government. I get my mortgage interest deduction, my child deduction, and I get to pencil whip the shit out of my business's. ...

Only if you carry mortgage debt, have children, or own a business. Not all of the middle class gets these breaks.

Now, I don't get as much "help" as the ultra rich. (I don't own a lobbyist or a politician) but I get more than the poor. That's for sure.

I think to help the middle out, we need our very own lobbying organization. How do we do that?

Or better yet, how about we step off the special privilege treadmill altogether?
 
Staples, one of the worst offenders of low pay for employees.

Staples CEO pay totaled $8.9 million in 2011 - Boston Business Journal
Staples Inc. (Nasdaq: SPLS) CEO Ronald Sargent saw his total compensation fall by more than 40 percent last year, to $8.86 million. His base salary rose, slightly, but stock awards were less than one third of 2010's total.

In 2011, Staples chairman and CEO Sargent collected $8.86 million in base pay, stock awards and other compensation, about half of the $15.1 million the retail executive brought home in 2010, according to an SEC filing.

The cut in compensation was due to a smaller stock award in 2011. Sargent brought home $2.27 million in stock awards last year, compared with $7.69 million in 2010.

In fact, Sargent’s base salary rose in 2011, to $1.17 million, from $1.14 million in 2010.

Shares of Framingham, Mass.-based Staples were priced at $15.66 at Friday’s close. The retail chain’s 52-week share price range is $11.94 to $21.50.

My heart is bleeding for him. After all he works a gazillion times harder than any of his employees making the current minimum wage. I am absolutely sure Staples will more than make up for that 40% loss. When companies can and do screw their employees, yah, I think the government should step in.
 
Here are the top 20 low-wage employers in the U.S.:

lhttp://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-companies-with-the-most-low-wage-workers-2013-2#ixzz2sH7Uq9bQ
chart_1%20(8).png
 

Forum List

Back
Top